Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for owning slaves.

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a "hypocrite" can be defined as, "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion." When Jefferson penned and signed the Declaration of Independence, establishing a basic tenant of human freedom, he put himself in immediate danger. The British penalty for such actions was death. It is therefore unlikely that Jefferson would risk his very life for a "false appearance of virtue." The question, thus, is whether Jefferson's phrase "that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator of certain inalienable rights..." was meant to apply only to Whites, thus making Jefferson's term "all" an example of his hypocrisy. Again, I disagree. In is critical to relate a few facts about Jefferson's slave "ownership." First, Jefferson never bought, sold, or traded slave in any way. His slaves came only from inheritance-- some from his own family; most from his wife's. It is also important to remember that Virginia State laws limited, and many times, forbid the freeing of slaves. Finally, Jefferson's personal debt (much of it acquired from deceased relatives, as well as his lost income in service of his newly formed country) kept Jefferson from freeing his slaves. As slaves were considered property, the banks to which Jefferson owed money also held title to his assets--- including his slaves. Unless Jefferson had the money to buy his own slaves from his creditors, he could not legally free them. Although, this stipulation did not prevent Jefferson from freeing a few of his slaves, as well as placing a condition of freedom in his will for others. Although it may be easy to point to Jefferson's slaves as proof of his compliance with the injustice of Slavery, his words and deeds prove otherwise. The first unedited version of the Declaration included a passage chastising the British government's "cruel war against nature itself" and its determination "to keep open a market where Men should be bought and sold,... suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce." (http://teachingamericanhistory.org... ) Those were not just words. One of the first orders of the newly formed government was to end the slave trade and to prohibit the expansion of Slavery in the Northwest Territories. Both measures were fully supported by Jefferson. Throughout his life, Jefferson worked for a "gradual emancipation" and to lessen the more insidious treatment of slaves. (http://www.monticello.org...). It is easy to criticize Jefferson's ownership of slaves, but given the societal, and yes, political limitations of the time, it is clear that Jefferson continually forwarded his cause for human freedom to all. Nowhere will you see where Jefferson supported the continuation of slavery. In his own words, "we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go." (http://www.monticello.org...). From Pro: " He says all men are created equal but felt entitled to dominate and subordinate others" It is impossible to know what Jefferson "felt." We can only infer his feelings based on his words and/or actions. Although the singular action of owning slaves may, in your opinion, expose Jefferson as a hypocritical fraud, I, however, would balance that singular action with the many actions I have presented that forwarded emancipation. But to really understand Jefferson's true feelings, it is important to understand the Jeffersonian concept of "freedom" and "inalienable rights." Jefferson believed that our freedoms are inherent. They are given to us as a condition of human nature, and cannot be taken away by others; they are "inalienable." This causes a confusion for many people. Certainly, the "right to life," as it is commonly perceived today, can be taken away. One needs only to open a newspaper to read stories of murder and wars of all nature. Did Jefferson lie? If these "rights" were truly inalienable, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to take away someone's "right to life," and obviously, that is not the case. Clearly, what Jefferson termed as an "inalienable right" is not what people think it means today. To Jefferson, the "right to life" is better described today as the "right to try to live." No matter how hard a person tries to defend themselves, they still may succumb to a stronger aggressor. Yet that person will indeed try to defend him/herself the very best they can, and there is nothing the aggressor can do about that. THAT inherent ability to defend his/her life is to what Jefferson refers to as "inalienable." Now, take this same concept and apply it to Slavery. It is a sad truth that Jefferson was limited in his assessment of Blacks by the time-honored scourge of Slavery. In his "Notes on Virginia," Jefferson made a scathing analysis of the Black race by observing that they were intellectually inferior, lazy, and lacking the moral character of Whites. But even Jefferson wasn't sure whether this observable fact was an inherent weakness in the Black race, or whether it was caused by centuries of slavery. He clearly verbalized this indecision in the work. Regardless of the cause, Jefferson believed that under the current condition, slaves were incapable of handling freedom and equality with Whites. And perhaps like many of his contemporaries, Jefferson consoled himself that perhaps Black's most beneficial condition would be as slaves. This, however, did not mean that Blacks were justifiably enslaved, in Jefferson's view, nor were Blacks exempt from the inalienable rights of Man. In a letter to Henri Gregoire, a French abolitionist, Jefferson responded to Gregoire's recent letter which included several poetic works by African poets. Gregoire sent them to Jefferson to prove that Blacks, indeed, were quite capable of intelligence and freedom. Jefferson responded with great pleasure: " Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable." Indeed, Jefferson's own scientific, reasoned, intellect enabled him to form new opinions in spite of common, and politically popular, conceptions. But what I find even more interesting is Jefferson's continued response to Gregoire: "....but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re"establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family." (http://teachingamericanhistory.org...) Hardly the words of someone who wished for the continuation of Slavery.