Well said. It is easy to judge history and the actors within it by our modern definitions without realizing that the definitions have changed with the passage of time.

Did Jefferson have "slaves"? As they were technically called, yes. But how were they treated? The reason slavery is looked on in today's world with such derision is due to such literary works as "Roots", which paint a picture of the justifiably reprehensible slave trade. Slavery is nothing more than indebtedness or bondage to another, is it not, yet no one in today's society bats an eyelash about running up a huge credit card debt!

In Biblical times "slavery" was a common practice, but hardly the type of slavery we think of nowadays. Indentured servant is a far more accurate title. Jacob (patriarch of the House of Israel) put himself into "slavery" so he could marry - serving for 14 years! I would posit that one really must obtain an accurate view before criticizing the Founding Fathers or other historical figures too much.

And I will disagree about your last comment. It wasn't Galt's actions that caused the social chaos illustrated in the book "Atlas Shrugged". To paint him as responsible is wholly unwarranted.

Yes, Monroe not Mason. Wine with dinner affects my old brain.

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe lived with a half-hour's drive by today's standards, with Jefferson and Monroe only a couple of miles away.

I understand Lincoln's overreach as well. As I have said many times in the Gulch, governing is a lot harder than it looks. There can be no contradictions. A = A.

They were very close as was Mason after he became an ally instead of a rival of Madison's.

I understand Lincoln's overreach. I know they couldn't make repatriation to Liberia or in the west work. Still, the Declaration was right and the founders did not live up to their ideal. For this and our failure to rectify it, we have doomed the best chance mankind has ever had to form a moral society. A republican format had been tried many times, only to fail but we almost had one where no faction could reach a majority and become tyrannical. We had the moral position that placed every man and his ideas equal in the eyes of the law with a voice of his own. We had a means of keeping the Constitution up to date but with all the factions, a difficult process to modify to the advantage of the majority over the minority. The hypocrisy of slavery blew it.

It is doubtful that Jefferson would have been an Objectivist. I suspect he would have enjoyed sitting and debating over beer or wine though. Do not condemn the people of his time for owning slaves. Truth be told slavery was an economic factor of that day.It was ignored by the Framers simply to get the Constitution ratified.

Can anyone even imagine a discussion between Jefferson and Rand?

Such a Sunday must have been one that Madison visited Jefferson, which he did with such frequency that one of the rooms in Monticello is called Madison's room.

Liberia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Not entirely true about Lincoln. Prior to his election he declared he wouldn't do a thing to alter the institution of slavery. Once HE decided to attack the South (he had no just cause, I can explain) and the North was losing battle after battle Northerners recruitment fell off and Lincoln needed a rallying cause: Slavery, a firebrand topic with historic contention.

Lincoln is quite possibly the biggest usurper of States rights and the expansion of the federal government ever,

Overall I agree with your assessment. Lincoln did deal with the mess over the issue that they could not address, but to do so he went outside his constitutional authority on multiple occasions. As much as I despise slavery, I would be a lot better off if America had split into two countries.

I was there on a beautiful October day and while standing out on the veranda overlooking the little road below someone remarked how strange it was that on a given Sunday, three present or former Presidents could be seen discussing affairs of state outside a little church on that road. The population of free men in a 50 mile radius was probably less than 100. Today, in a city of millions there are probably not three men that could intelligently converse with that trio.

Jefferson declared the Union. Washington won it presided over its infancy. Madison redefined it and made it work. Lincoln dealt with the mess over the issue that they could not address. Others have made contributions and some starting with Teddy, Woodrow, Franklin, Lynden, Billy, Bush 43 and Obama have just about negated it.

The slaves that were freed were no longer Africans and could not have survived in Africa. By law, they were illiterate. They may have resented it but they existed by doing what they were told. Their northern liberators did nothing to bring them up to speed and they rejoiced in putting them in control of things that they had no way of understanding because it punished the southerners. Many flocked to the northern cities where they were employed in menial jobs for little pay. They were segregated in inferior schools, mocked in plays, minstrels and finally movies. Then to get their votes they were re-enslaved by the welfare state. This was not a solution but an exploitation and we are still trying to slowly get out of it. Of course they have huckster leaders but they aren't the real villains. Roosevelt, Johnson and their ilk have done far worse. Today, drugs have sapped the potential from the youth and it will take extreme measures to break the hold. If the brightest kid in the neighborhood sees that he can bust his ass in school, go to college, accumulate debt and maybe get a job as an intern vs. quitting school, selling drugs, driving an Escalade and having a string of hos, an immature person might understandably make the wrong choice. This is especially true if due to government incentives his father may be conveniently absent.

I'll just quibble with the editorial about the slavery thing. The problem in today's society doesn't stem from any holdovers from slavery and racial animus from the whites nearly as much as from the blacks themselves. Race hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (among a whole host of liberals) continue to play the race card all the time while arguing for policies that decidedly disadvantage blacks. Some of those include:

Public housing
Public education and preventing busing
the ACORN-based housing boom
Affirmative Action in college entrance
Planned Parenthood (whose founder made no bones about the fact she was in favor of eugenocide of blacks)
Minimum wage laws (look at who gets put out of work the most - black teens)

If you want to do away with racial differences, stop giving handouts! Stop making excuses which provide incentive for people to debase themselves.

Jefferson, like his fellow Virginia plantation owning founders Washington, Madison and Mason owned slaves but struggled with the practice and their concept of "all men are created equal......". There was discussion but no resolution at the signing of the Declaration, at the adoption of the Articles of Confederation and at the Constitutional Convention, of ending slavery but it was not possible to establish, defend and preserve the Union with such a resolution. Jefferson drafted and argued for a resolution to end slavery more than once but was not willing to sacrifice the Union for it. In a recent biography by Jon Meacham, he quoted documents whereby Jefferson had introduced anti slavery measures in the Virginia legislature, Virginia courts had a paragraph edited out by his peers from his draft of the Declaration of Independence. The conclusion that all presidents reached, ultimately including Lincoln, is that a war between the states was the only way to end slavery. Even then, no one knew how to absorb the slaves into the general population and we suffer the results of their lack of a workable plan yet today.
Jefferson was a brilliant man but he was also a redhead that had to be edited by his friends, mostly Madison so it is possible to find Jefferson quotes that are widely divergent but mostly I believe his philosophy would be compatible with Objectivism. He was very strong on individual rights and minimal Federal government. He knew he overreached on the Louisiana Purchase but was seduced by the incredible deal. He truly believed that a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to ratify the treaty to purchase the territory but time was of the essence. He knew he was setting a precedent of usurping power to the Executive branch that he was very much against but he bent to the expediency.

As harsh as it may appear I was with regard to Jefferson, I would still rank him somewhere between fifth and seventh - and significantly higher than I would have ranked Lincoln.

Most of his contradictions were the result of an inability to live up to his ideals. That is true for many people unfortunately. I seriously urge everyone to take the Monticello tour. There is quite a bit there on this topic. I knew much about Jefferson before going, but I learned more in a day at Monticello than I do in many weeks.

Jefferson actually didn't lose a whole lot of his fortune during the Revolutionary War. Jefferson's personal debt was mostly a result of buying too much more than anything else.

That is a great quote. I have heard it before, but it bears repeating.

Contradictions, or perhaps willing to change his views as he acquired more information?
I can be opinionated about many things, but I am can "adjust" my beliefs and grow.

I've always loved this quote from John Adams about the issue:

“You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” John Quincy Adams

Hiraghm: Sorry, but you misread my comment. I used the word speciation, not speculation. But your explanation is very true. I like your "temporal bigotry". I totally agree with you on how the founders you list would feel about our 'modern' society.