Similarities Between Wilson And Finkelman

Wilson and Finkelman in their books portray their diverse views on the application of presentism. Wilson believes that presentism should not be used to criticize or evaluate the ways of historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson. He firmly holds that criticizing Jefferson stand on the issue of slavery, by posing questions on why he owned slaves yet his viewpoint was that all men were equal, was presuming that, because he owned slaves he believed in it (Wilson, 1992). Finkelman on the other hand believes that accessing a historical figure based on his contradiction does not amount to presentism (Finkelman, 1993). He argues that, in order to understand Jefferson relationship on slavery, one needs to analyze his stands on the institution accounting …show more content…
He blames him for involving them in trade suppressing every means to their liberty through prohibition of legislative attempts to subdue this business. This is in support of Wilson’s opinion who described him as a master whose concern for the slaves’ welfare was beyond his own morals (Wilson, 1992). The second primary source concurs with Finkelman’s believe. Wilson talks of Jefferson as a person who does not consider slavery as a black man’s thing yet he acknowledges that the blacks should be retained in the states after emancipation. This article explains why freeing the slaves would not be according to their own interest. He quotes that “the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions.” The third and fourth article support Wilson’s idea when he expresses in the states in his third article that no one else was more willing to see the abolishment of trade and conditions of slavery and sacrifice for it as him. The fourth primary source supports this fact. It calls for the effecting of the emancipation of slavery. It is therefore evident that among the two secondary sources, Wilson’s argument is more supported by the primary