Look for ‘Dark Side’ of our leaders

Jim Davidson, the News-Topic’s April 10 columnist, regaled readers with a scholarly timeline titled, “Our nation’s third president,” about many legendary achievements of Thomas Jefferson and how we shouldn’t be “doomed to repeat our mistakes.”

“There is little question that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most brilliant and capable men to ever serve in our nation’s highest office,” the bold type screams. True, all true—but truly deceptive.

I’m not a scholar, but I am a voracious reader, and I’ve read many biographies by acknowledged scholars who wrote directly from original letters and other documents. I’ve read 8-10 biographies of Jefferson, 5-6 of George Washington and more of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, et al.



Mr. Davidson fails to put Mr. Jefferson into realistic perspective. A common theme in all these political biographies is that “brilliant and capable men” like our Founders have a “dark side,” falling well short of ethics we would expect. The Kennedys? FDR? Eisenhower? The same.

I once worked for a Fortune 500 vice president who had a rule-of-thumb on ethics. He insisted we should live and work daily in a way that we wouldn’t mind telling our children everything we’d done. Further, we shouldn’t mind our deeds described on the paper’s front page.

I’ve known few people able to meet that standard—including those “brilliant and capable men” running for office all around us.

Jefferson, with a lot of help, wrote the Declaration of Independence (which most Americans haven’t even read). His next greatest achievement, as president, was to double the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase. But he ignored the unconstitutionality of such a move; he did it anyway. Forgiveness is easier to get than permission.

Like most politicians, Jefferson, Washington, et al. had a “dark side,” including their vile efforts to undercut each other. The Virginia power elite traded their influence to support the new constitution—even without a Bill of Rights—in exchange for Hamilton, Adams, Aaron Burr and others agreeing to locate the new capital along the Potomac.

That trade-off assured land values in northern Virginia would rise dramatically, and that Virginia’s noble “planter class,” by proximity to the capital, would dominate American politics for years to come.

Further, Jefferson’s “self-evident truths” didn’t convince him to denounce slavery or even to free his own. Some think he even fathered children by a slave, though I’m convinced the father was a younger brother who often visited Monticello. DNA was inconclusive.

A good steward of the nation’s resources, Jefferson died horribly in debt. He wanted to leave Monticello a legacy to children and grandchildren—but the mansion, land, 200 slaves and other possessions were sold two weeks after his death to settle debts from decades of lavish living.

Washington, with his squeaky clean reputation, was no better. He died cash-strapped and avoided calling attention to himself over slavery by nobly insisting he wouldn’t break up families by selling them individually. He’d decided, too, that slavery was not as efficient as a “free white work force.” So, he could have freed his 200-plus slaves and unloaded a major cost of business.

My point is, revered historical figures left much evidence of their ethical challenges—along with their “public good.”

Why would we think modern office seekers any better? Even down to our county commissioners, we’re likely to find a “dark side” if we look for it. For instance, why would successful business owners want to be commissioners? What are their possible conflicts of interest? It’s such a thankless, all-consuming job that, frankly, I question why any sane person would want it. Ask Rob Bratcher.

Unlike Mr. Davidson, before we vote, we should examine our candidates very carefully.

Dennis A. Benfield
Hudson