Jefferson's Treatment of the Native Americans

In Query 11 (“Aborigines”) of Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” Jefferson discusses the various tribes of Native Americans that were present when the colonists first arrived to America. In this discussion Jefferson comes across as very disrespectful towards the Native Americans, however, it is obvious that he is not intentionally doing so. To Jefferson, the way he is addressing the Native Americans is normal and completely acceptable, but in today’s society his words and actions would not be tolerated.

Jefferson held the same belief of most Englishmen from this time period—that they were superior to the Natives. He mocks the Native Americans for having no government and explains that the only reason they divide themselves into separate tribes is because “they have never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature.” I interpret this statement to mean that not only do the Native Americans lack the civilization of the English, but the only good qualities that have are those that are inherent in every man, thus they are clearly inferior to the Europeans. His beliefs become more evident when he refers to them as “savage Americans” and to the English as “civilized Europeans.” Furthermore, Jefferson goes on to explain that “as imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them” (note that he refers to the Native Americans as a “species of coercion”) due to their lack of government. However, “great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.” I understand this to mean that Jefferson believes that great societies, like England, can not exist without government, thus, the Native Americans must split into smaller societies and will never form a great society. Jefferson’s obvious racism would not be well tolerated in today’s society, however during his lifetime this was the common view of the Native Americans, and therefore I don’t feel that Jefferson means any harm in what he is saying.

The portion of this query that stood out the most in my mind was Jefferson’s description of the Native American burial rituals and the burial ground he came across. He mocks the rituals of the Native Americans stating that there is “no such thing existing as an Indian monument: for would not honor with that name arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half-shapen images.” He then goes into an anecdote of when he “opened and examined it [an Indian burial ground] thoroughly.” Jefferson goes into a detailed account of how he dissected the burial mound, the position in which he found the bones, the types of bones he found, their size, color, and the age of the deceased human. Today, his actions would be shocking in that he would be so disrespectful as to dig up and completely destroy this sacred piece of land. However, Jefferson does not commit this act out of spite or hatred; he is doing so in a very scientific manner. He views the burial ground as a great learning opportunity to understand more about these foreign people. Jefferson is very scientific in his examination of the bones. He compares their sizes to determine the age of the bone, observes the color of the bone to get an idea of how long it has been buried—all of this helps to justify that Jefferson’s actions, although disrespectful by today’s society, were done in the name of science and in his mind completely acceptable.

In Comparison: Jonathan Edwards vs. Cotton Mather

In both the Christian Philosopher and “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” Mather and Edwards preach about the spiritual light of God versus natural light. However, where as Mather seems tries to integrate these two ideas, Edwards paints a clear distinction between the two. In Mather’s first essay “Of the Light,” he uses metaphorical speech to transition from a literal discussion of light to a spiritual discussion of light. Mather claims that religion and science compliment one another and go together hand in hand. Throughout his essay he attempts to integrate these two elements. Although he does not fully achieve this he does make the distinction between the two unclear. He does not illustrate a clear-cut, individual description of the two forms of light. Conversely, Jonathan Edwards draws a definite distinction between the spiritual light of God and the natural light by repeatedly emphasizing the supremacy of the divine light. At the beginning of his sermon, Edwards lays out the outline for his doctrine, and the second point of this outline is “How it (divine light) is given immediately by God, not obtained by natural means.” Clearly, Edwards does not share Mather’s opinion that religion and science belong in the same category and he is in no way planning on integrating the two.

In part of his definition of divine light Edwards states “Natural men may have lively impressions on their imaginations; and we cannot determine but the devil, who transforms himself into an angel of light, may cause imaginations of an outward beauty, or visible glory, and of sounds and speeches, and other such things; but these are things of a vastly inferior nature to spiritual light.” In this passage, Edwards expresses the immense inferiority of the impressions and images caused by natural light to those caused by spiritual light. Throughout the sermon Edwards continually reiterates the superiority of the divine light referring to it as “an Excellency that is of a vastly higher kind” and “a glory greatly distinguishing them from all that is earthly and temporal.” Later in his sermon, Edwards makes a statement that I think best distinguishes the two forms of light in a way that Mather may have attempted to do but never fully accomplished. He says: “As the use that we make of our eyes in beholding various objects, when the sun arises, is not the cause of the light that discovers those objects to us.” The natural light of the sun allows us to see various objects, but the sun no match for the light of God that allowed those objects to exist in the first place. Without the light of God, natural light would have no purpose because there would be no natural world for it to illuminate. Clearly, Cotton Mather’s approach to science and religion greatly differs from that of Jonathan Edwards. Where as Mather feels that science and religion relate to one another, Edwards finds a clear distinction between the two.

about me

My name is Lauren and I am from Mocksville, NC. It's a small town that I'm sure no one has ever heard of. I am a freshman Spanish/Pre-Med major. I am planning to go to med school after graduating from UNC to be a neonatologist. I'm definitely a math/science person so English is not one of my strengths.