The first author described his good side for example, Thomas Jefferson is actually owned slaves however he took the opposite position that owners and white people should educate and train them self-sufficient, provide them with shelter and food, and establish colony where they could live as a free and independent people (secondary source Wilson). So basically he really understands the Jefferson’s act because of the historical condition. In addition, author argues between his actions, author keeps in mind that Jefferson could change the slaves condition but at the same time he supports Jefferson by saying “He did not fits blacks only for slaves” ( Willson). It seems that first author actually understands Jefferson’s situation of having a slaves during 18th century than the second author. The second author actually evaluates Jefferson using a negative term. For example, the author evaluates that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independent and was a leader of American Enlightenment however still owned slaves and did not free his slaves. The second author evaluates that Jefferson only cared about theoretical interest and his grand style. Jefferson concerned that should tdispotism by owners but he not really talked about regretting for mistreatment of the …show more content…
I am personally think that having a slaves even in 18th century where there were allowed to own the black people is not right. I would treat them as a same as I treat whites. In second sours I found more true arguments about Jefferson’s ethical standard to slaves than in first sours. For example, even of historical condition(presentism), law theorist, rhetoric’s, morals and manners I would not own the slaves. Jefferson should have found the way how to make a black population free because he was very educated and famous, he was a leader of Enlightenments, wrote a Declaration, and was plant