Benjamin Banneker’s Letter to Thomas Jefferson & ‘UnSeen’ Portraiture | A Primary Source Close Read

0:05 Hello, and welcome to another edition of the Bill of Rights Institute’s. Close reads. I’m Kirk Higgins, and we’re back with you to unpack another interesting document from American History. And this week, we’re actually doing a bit of a crossover episode. So we’re going to be looking at a document. It’s a letter to Thomas Jefferson from Benjamin Banneker, and we’re also going to be looking at an image.

0:26 And to help me with both of those, I am joined by two of my colleagues, Mary Patterson and Elizabeth Evans. Welcome, Mary and Liz. Hi, everybody. Thanks for having us. So I’m really excited. We recently did a podcast kind of about this huge topic, and it was when is history? If you haven’t listened to our podcast before, it’s called Fabric of History.

0:48 It’s really excellent. Mary is featured on there as well, and that podcast was looking at this question of sort of when is history? So when do we start thinking about events as historical events? And that got me thinking as a historian, I get really jazzed about that question. But what it really got me thinking about was the complexity of history and how do we even go about telling singular

1:11 narratives in history, which is a challenge. We struggle with it here at the Institute is we’re putting together the curriculum. And I know that educators across the country struggle with it when they’re teaching in their classrooms. And I was introduced by an image by my colleague Liz here, by Titus Kaphar, and it got us talking about both what he’s doing in that image,

1:32 but also how challenging it can be in the classroom setting to tackle these really complex issues in a short amount of time. How do you cover all the perspectives that you want to cover? How do you cover all the different nuances and angles while also getting through all of the history that you need to get to? So I’m going to ask you, Mary and Liz,

1:53 just to kick this off, how did you both go about doing that in your classrooms? How do you go about thinking about it now as you’re pulling together different lessons and materials at the Bill of Rights Institute? Well, I think the short answer is to just be transparent, that it is very complex,

2:14 and just to be transparent with students about that. And I think also being transparent, that my own knowledge and my own gaps, I’m still finding out about them and I’m still learning. And I love that. I love when I find something new. And the letter that we’re going to look at in this episode is a perfect example of that. I had never read this before, and it’s amazing.

2:37 And it’s amazing, and I can’t wait to share it. So I think just acknowledging the complexity and being transparent about it, how it’s a process of constantly asking questions or seeking out new information or trying to just drive that new information with the stories that you’re familiar with. I think it’s an ongoing thing. It’s not limited to the classroom.

2:58 It’s life. And I agree with you, Mary. I think that for me, it was always bringing the kids along on the journey, because I remember the first time seeing this painting, and it really got to me. I mean, the whole exhibit did. It was unseen at the National Portrait Gallery, but it was a fun thing to

3:21 talk to students, and here’s what I saw, and here’s what I learned, and not only am I learning, but I’m doing a lot of unlearning. And I think that, like Mary said, when you’re transparent with students and I don’t know everything and nobody should be expected to know everything, but really what we’re trying to do is create questions we have about history and understand how we go about trying to find some answers,

3:46 because there’s not definitive answers sometimes, and that’s okay. But bringing students along with you on that journey and showing them like Mary said, I’m a learner, too. I think it’s a really impactful and powerful thing in a classroom. I love that idea of both the journey and transparency, because history is really a process, right?

4:09 It’s constructed. We piece together narratives. There’s a reason that there’s been countless numbers of books written about the founder we’ll be looking at today, Thomas Jefferson. Thousands of books. Thousands of books about his relationship with the enslaved individuals who worked on his plantations. There are countless stories that are being told and retold, and over time, we’re building that knowledge

4:31 and that historical process of sort of building that knowledge, building up understandings, and then starting to pick those understandings apart, reassembling them in different ways. I think it’s really cool, and I think it’s something, once you are able to highlight that with individuals and with students of all ages, you begin to see why it is that it takes a lifetime of dedication, and people spend time studying all

4:54 of these different things because there’s so much to know and so much to unpack. And so to begin that unpacking, let’s take a look at the image. Okay, so this is a fantastic image to look at if you’re thinking about the complexity of history. So the title of the piece is behind the Myth of Benevolence.

5:15 It’s a fairly recent piece. It was done in 2014. And again, the artist is Titus Kaphar. So just a quick note on Titus Kaphar. He’s a contemporary artist. He lives and works in New Haven, Connecticut. And his art is known for actually manipulating his material, so ripping,

5:36 stretching, tearing, crossing out things on the canvas. And he does that as a way to expose stories that are lesser told. So I think that’s important to keep in mind before you even dive into this image. So like you said, Kirk, you have here this image here’s, Thomas Jefferson. And this is the 1800 portrait by Rembrandt Peel. So this was a portrait of Jefferson.

6:01 It’s pretty well known. It was done of him while he was president of the United States. But you can see that he has kefar. It’s sort of tearing away. And behind the curtain, you have an African American woman. And this African American woman, her arm looks bare. We can’t see all of her. We can see that her leg looks bare. Is she washing?

6:24 Like, we’re not sure what she’s doing, and she’s gazing right at the viewer. You said when you saw this, you were sort of, like, taken aback by it, because myself as well, I saw it at the desk submission, and you’re like, Whoa. Is this Sally Hemmings? And Kaphar said of this piece, it is and it isn’t.

6:45 It’s really acknowledging that alongside this narrative of Thomas Jefferson as one of our founders and a brilliant thinker, is the narrative of enslaved individuals and particularly enslaved women who were brutalized. They were both a part of the story.

7:05 So it’s almost like a jewel with different facets, and they’re both there, and it’s just forcing the viewer and, I think forcing the artist, giving yourself space to understand that they exist alongside each other. So I don’t know. Liz, you said you had a strong reaction when you first saw that. Is there anything you would add to that or that is particularly powerful to you?

7:30 I think one of the things, when you look at this painting, it looks like the Jefferson is a curtain almost. Right? And what the artist, what Titus Far does as a whole, really is tries to attempt to get you to shift your days, because oftentimes when we look at art history, we look at the way America is portrayed in art.

7:51 It is very centered. The focal point is centered on people that we normally see. Right. And I think that when I walked into the exhibit and I saw this, what really struck me is how focused my learning was on the founders. And I’ve been to Monticello, and I’ve got to study and do all these

8:13 really cool things, and it wasn’t this whole piece, for me, was what is behind that curtain of the kind of traditional story we have of the founders and what pieces are we missing? And I really love Titus Kaphar period as an artist. I’ve learned so much from him,

8:34 but it made me really shift my focus and challenge my students. When you look at these early American paintings and, Mary, we’ve done some of them in BRIdge from the Past, but shift your gaze. What are you seeing and what are you not seeing? And I think that his work really

8:57 required me to reflect on what it is I needed to continue to learn about. So I think that’s, for me, was the striking piece of this. Yeah. And I think there’s a couple of Ted Talks he’s done and a few other interviews that, if you want to find out more about his

9:19 process, about the artist himself, really encourage you to check out. What really struck me about this image, too, is that it makes you, as the viewer, asked a question, and it’s deliberately inviting you into that question. And it’s not taking away the historical painting of Jefferson.

9:40 It’s merely peeling it back to show that there is more to the story. There’s sort of a depth to it. I even like that behind it is a room that has depth. It’s as though you’re going into it, and it’s inviting you in to see that there’s a lot going on here, and there’s a lot of complexity. And that complexity is really hard to even come to a conclusion about.

10:00 I think I often find myself thinking about some of these issues and just wringing my hand sometimes. It’s really hard to come to terms with it. But I think that invitation to continue to ask questions. To continue to learn. To continue to expand your perspective. Is one that helps all students as you’re

10:21 investigating history and you’re thinking about the nation. As you’re thinking about our own communities. Thinking about it from a civics perspective. It’s important to ask those questions. And it’s important to face it head on and not sort of keep it behind the curtain. So to speak. Because the whole truth is there and was known at the time. Too. And we’ll get into that a little bit here in just a second.

10:45 And that’s one of the things you brought up. His Ted Talks, which I really think that everybody should watch, he’s talking about he’s not trying to erase history. He’s trying to show this is where we were. So with the Thomas Jefferson painting, this is where we were. But then with the background, this is where we are now, and just understanding that we don’t need to erase things.

11:07 He talks about his painting. He’s not trying to erase Thomas Jefferson. He’s just trying to show the when and the now of just really understanding. And speaking about his process more broadly. He says his strategy is like an art history book. Take what is beautiful and insert

11:28 something or a story that hasn’t been told. So I think in terms of this image, something that is beautiful. Not saying that Thomas Jefferson was a beautiful man, but just what he did, what he wrote this declaration setting up these founding principles. And, Kirk, you pointed out earlier, it wasn’t he alone that wrote this document, but just to be shorter about it, that’s a beautiful thing.

11:55 But at the same time, the complexity is there existed slavery at odds with these sounding principles. So it’s not either or. It’s just like an acknowledgment that there’s an inconsistency here and we need to grapple with it. Yeah. As did the founding generation. I think we’ll start to transition into the letter here.

12:17 But I think, as you pointed out, Mary, the idea that Thomas Jefferson isn’t the only Thomas Jefferson authors Declaration of Independence, but he’s only one voice of a generation of Americans that are debating and talking about the ideas that are contained within that document. That’s a whole different layer of complexity.

12:38 And you have the complexity of slavery existing, which is something Thomas Jefferson himself dealt with in myriad different ways throughout his life. The first draft of the Declaration, of course, famously has that slavery was inflicted upon the colonies. It’s one of the complaints he includes.

13:00 Jefferson also put forward the landlords of 1784 that would have banned slavery in the territories, the Western territories after 1800. And then later in life, he has some crackpot, frankly, diffusion ideas and strange, horrific views on race and inequality when it comes to race.

13:22 And all of this is just this immensely complex thing that you have to weigh into, and that, as you dig deeper, it just gets more complex. And I think that it’s interesting and important. And thinking about sort of the ideals too, to me, makes it even more complex. And I think one of the things I find

13:43 really powerful about the Declaration Independence is it’s those very words that give the complexity life in this situation, right? It’s the call for equality that calls this hypocrisy. And the question if that call is not there. It’s still horrific and awful, but it takes on a different light because that wasn’t a part of what was being stated. But the fact that there’s a universal statement of equality

14:05 makes this just complex and, frankly, horrific that there wasn’t something that could have been done about or there wasn’t something done about it. There was obviously something that could have been done about it. But that takes us to the document we’re going to take a look at, which is a letter from Benjamin Bannecker to Thomas Jefferson written August 19, 1791.

14:26 So for a little historical context, new Constitution is authored in 1787. We have the Declaration of Independence in 1776. And then you have this fascinating individual named Benjamin Banneker who was born in Baltimore, I believe he was born free, but had an enslaved father, if I’m remembering correctly,

14:46 and he assisted in the laying out of the borders for the original District of Columbia and then also began publishing a series of almanacs. And he was someone, too. He was African American and struggled with that racial identity when people would not take his work seriously when he was publishing it. So he took the opportunity,

15:07 when he had published one of his almanacs, to send Thomas Jefferson a copy. And in sending that copy, he includes this letter. And I find the letter to be fascinating on a number of levels. I’m really excited to get into it with you. So with that, we’ll transition over to the letter itself. And I always begin with the opening of letters because I think it’s important.

15:29 And he says sir, I am fully sensible of the greatness of the freedom which I take with you on the present occasion, a liberty which seemed to me scarcely allowable when I reflected on that distinguished indignified station in which you stand in the almost general prejudice and prepossession which is so prevalent in the world against those of my complexion. I suppose it is a truth too well attested

15:51 to you to need to prove here that we are a race of beings who have long labored under the abuse and censure of the world, that we have long been looked upon with an eye of contempt, and that we have long considered rather as brutish than human and scarcely capable of mental endowments. So as an opening, that’s pretty powerful.

16:13 What do you make of it, Liz? Mary? I’m kind of with Mary. I did not know about this letter, honestly, until we started looking at it, and I think that putting into place here that Thomas Jefferson is Secretary of State at this time.

16:33 It is a very kind way, I feel like, to start off a letter. But it’s also like, I mean, he’s just stating facts here. I already know what you think or what people in general think about and people of my complexion, and that we don’t have

16:56 mental endowments and this is not a new thing. And the way I always feel this way, though, about primary sources written about during this time is the way they’re written seems a lot kinder than they actually need it to be. And that really struck me with this whole letter. Like, he’s calling out Thomas Jefferson in this letter, but the way he’s doing it,

17:22 it’s such a good argumentation, if that makes sense. He’s saying, I already know what you think, and then it’s going to go on to really just make such solid arguments. And I loved this letter. I think I had to read it, like, four or five times because it was just

17:46 he just makes such excellent points that I mean, I actually then did a deep dive. I was like, I wonder how Thomas Jefferson even responded to this, because I don’t know how I would respond to it. So for me, it was really just that. Well, I think his argument starts

18:07 from the beginning because I think he’s setting out. He’s saying, you and most people don’t believe that we black people have these mental endowments as you. But look at this letter that he’s writing. I think every word, I think, was very carefully and deliberately chosen.

18:27 And it sounds differential, but like he said, he’s really just calling out the whole time, and it’s a great letter. So I know, Liz, you have spoken before about the importance of reading the whole source, and I think this is one, it’s not terribly long. We cut a little bit out in this, but it’s definitely worth reading the whole letter because it really is

18:47 fascinating and deferential on the surface, but then kind of calling out hypocrisies pretty much the entire time. Yeah, it is. I wish we could go through all of it. I chose probably too many excerpts because it was too hard to cut down. And I think that politeness is also

19:09 showing the equality with which he is treating himself with Jefferson. We would call it passive aggressive today, but I think at the time it’s a recognition of a fact. It’s a recognition of speaking on an equal plane. That I think is interesting. And he dives in right in this next section about that equality

19:33 and almost beginning to throw Jefferson’s words back in his own face. Now. Sir. If this is founded in truth. I apprehend you will readily embrace every opportunity to eradicate that train of absurd and false ideas and opinions which so generally prevails with respect to us. And that your sentiments are concurrent with mine. Which are that one universal father hath

19:53 given being to us all and that he hath not only made us all in one flesh. But that he hath also. Without partiality. Afforded us all the same sensations and endured us all the same faculties and that however variable we may be in society of religion. However diversified and situation of color. We are all the same same family and stand in the same relation to him.

20:15 That to me. If you’re going to summarize an article for equality, that’s a pretty. A strong one. We’re all different. We all have our own personalities, our own backgrounds. We all come from different places, but we are all fundamentally the same. And that, again, coming in 1791, throwing that in the face of Thomas Jefferson, I think it’s is pretty awesome.

20:37 I think that first paragraph that you just read, it’s very much it’s a biblical moral argument that he is making. And he goes on, and I think that shows the influence of the Quakers. So Banneker was befriended and by the Ellicott family, who also were part of the surveying of what became Washington, DC. And they were Quakers. And the Quakers were very

21:00 the earliest opponents of slavery in the colonies and in the United States. And that was based on their belief of the equality of men and women. So I think you see that influence there. But, I mean, if you say and he was on those who profess the obligations of Christianity, he says in the next paragraph, how can you drive these two things together?

21:21 And he also references the rights of human nature. So I think he’s definitely got the moral, the Christian argument here, but he’s also referencing this idea of natural law. We’re equal. So there’s sort of this two-pronged argument that he’s making here. Okay, definitely a smart guy.

21:43 So he’s really just sort of throwing this stereotype in his face, I think. With this letter when it reminds me of the opening of the Declaration, right? Like, we have a creator where a dad buy that creator with unalienable rights? And he does. You’re right, Mary. He takes it and makes it more of this religious argument.

22:06 And I think that Kirk, he said passive aggressive. But I think that Benjamin Banneker is just coming with straight facts and having an understanding that by just having a conversation about it and showing here’s where the hypocrisy lies has so much more of an impact than if it

22:30 was an angry letter or anything else like that. And I think that showing that religious side of it, even though Thomas Jefferson I don’t necessarily know would call himself a Christian, but it’s still that big argument of we

22:50 have a Creator, we’re all equal under that Creator. Although we’re all different people, we still have a quality. And I think that’s what you’re trying to say in the Declaration. However, your words are one thing and your actions are completely different. Yeah, I think you’re right. I’ll take back my past progressive comment because I think you’re right.

23:11 It’s not being passive. I think he’s laying on an argument. I think it’s an honest putting forward effect. If this is what you believe, then you have to reckon with the fact that you’re not treating people equally in the way that you claim they are deserving of and that you need to be upfront and honest about that.

23:32 And he goes on. And I think that the line that stood out for me in this paragraph was but that I have abundantly tasted of the fruition of those blessings which proceed from the free and unequal liberty with which you are favored. In which I hope you will willingly allow. You have received from the immediate hand of that being from which precedes every good and perfect gift.

23:55 And to me, that’s him saying, look, I have been fortunate in my station to have experienced the benefits that come from freedom inequality, and you have to because you’re living in this way. And the fact that you are now denying that to other individuals is, quite frankly, horrific.

24:18 He doesn’t use those words, but I think he’s calling that into account and saying to deny this to individuals is to dehumanize them in a fundamental way. I like that he uses the word tyrannical and inhumane. And I think that those choices I mean, words matter, right? Especially words in a letter.

24:39 And I think that one of my favorite things about these primary sources is when you write a letter, you choose your words more carefully than when you speak in person or even when you speak online. The words and liberty and free and unequal, all of the word choice here is just really driving that point home.

25:04 For Jeffrey Vaniker’s father was an African slave who was brought over, but Banneker was born a free person, and he learned how to read and write, and he’s an accomplished person. And I think that it just

25:27 now, as we’re talking about, to see this is why primary sources are great to read, but they’re also really great to talk about, because as we’re talking about this and as I’m listening to you guys, Kirk and Mary, I’m starting to like, think of all of these other things. But for me, really, the word choice in this paragraph is

25:48 just a nail right into Jefferson, and I love it. Yeah, and he’s carefully building that argument, too, because he essentially opens it with, people of my race are treated terribly. You know, that because you profess the Christian faith, or you at least seem to by that faith, we are all equals.

26:10 They’re not treated equally. And so you’re treating us inhumanly and denying people the freedom and liberty that they deserve. And then he goes on in this next section to talk about, look, you know what this deprived feeling feels like because you yourself resisted British tyranny in pursuit of establishing this equality. And this appeal to Jefferson’s own experience, to me, is just another

26:35 strong argument saying, look, this is fundamentally apparent to you because you have lived through it in a certain sense, right? So he’s trying to find what that would mean in Jefferson’s own experience to communicate that to him, which I think is, again, a really powerful approach.

26:56 In my own annotations on the source, I refer to this as the mic drop because I went a little crazy there with my annotation but he’s basically he said, your abhorrence thereof of the British tyranny towards you was so excited that you publicly held forth this true and invaluable doctrine. And then he drops the Declaration of Independence on him.

27:19 So I don’t know if I’m thinking of music. I almost feel like this is the crescendo. He used his own words and now he’s going to sort of say, and now what? And now where do I go from here with this letter? Well played Benjamin Banneker. I love it. Yeah.

27:40 It was at this point when I was reading it that it really hit home to me how complex of a situation this is. And we’ll probably talk more about this in a minute, but the arguments that Banneker is making here show the clear knowledge that Jefferson had to have been grappling with these same questions

28:01 at the time of the founding and what it was going to mean. And they did and they talked about it. He talked about it. He’s got the famous wolf by the ears comment, right that slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears. I think what Banikar is saying here is like, that’s not enough. Yeah, sure, it’s a complex problem, but hey, how about we do something about it?

28:24 Let’s not just think about theoretically how hard it is. Let’s figure out something to do about it. And here I think that’s where he’s getting to with this final paragraph I saw. This is kind of a request to say, sir, I suppose that your knowledge of the situation to my brother is too extensive to need to recital here. Neither shall I presume to prescribe methods by which they may be relieved

28:48 otherwise than by recommending to you and all others to wean yourselves from these narrow prejudices which you have embodied with respect to them. And as Job proposed to his friends, put your souls in their soul stead. Thus shall your hearts be enlarged with kindness and benevolence toward them and thus shall you need neither direction of myself or others in what manner to proceed here in.

29:10 And this passage blew me away because so often conversations around the founding will focus more on enslavement and the system of slavery and what that meant. But here he’s appealing directly to racial sensibilities and differences between individuals based on the color of their skin and saying that you need to put your

29:31 souls and their souls put yourself in their shoes, as we might say today. And then that might start to open your eyes about how immediately you need to solve this problem and how horrific the actions that you’re taking really are. I think too, he’s talking about this is a complex problem, but who made the problem complex?

29:53 Because when he says like, I’m not going to I’m not going to sit here and lecture you, but I’m also not going to tell you how to solve it, I think it’s just trying to really get Jefferson to consider the complexity of this problem lies with

30:14 a group of people, not necessarily with another group of people. Whether that’s the government and I think that would be a good question to ask in a classroom. Like, where does this burden of complexity lie? Because you always hear that, right? Like, well, slavery is just too complex of an issue to deal with right now. I think Thomas Jefferson and one of his writing said,

30:38 slavery is an issue for another generation. Like, it’s not the issue for my generation, and where does that lie? And I think he does a really good job here, Benjamin Vaniker of saying, if you just considered for a second what this is and how this completely undermines

31:00 the Bible and the Declaration, you might understand a little bit more and kind of get that push you need to remedy the situation. And then he concludes and I like this conclusion a lot, mostly because he’s like, well, I didn’t mean to write all this, but I kind of did because I had the chance

31:21 to write to you, so I was going to take it. That’s kind of how obviously. My common vernacular is not nearly as well written as what Benjamin Vancouver puts in here. But the end of although my sympathy and affection for my brother and half caused my enlargement thus far. I ardently hope that your candidate generosity will plead with you

31:42 on my behalf when I make known to you that it was not originally my design. But that having taken up my pen in order to direct you as a present a copy of an almanac which I have calculated for the succeeding year. I was unexpectedly and unavoidably led there. Too. And now, sir, I shall conclude and subscribe myself with the most profound respect, your most obedient, humble servant, Benjamin Banneker.

32:07 What do you guys think of the final paragraphs here? I wish we still wrote letters, and I wish we still closed letters the way that they closed letters back then. I just love it. But when I read this, when he said that it was not originally my design to write this letter, I just wrote, what was it?

32:28 Because that was the bulk of the letter. And again, I think the almanac is supposed to be refuting the idea that African Americans aren’t as intellectually capable as white people, but so is the letter. And I think in his eloquence and the sophistication of his argument in the letter, it’s not just the almanac, it’s the letter, too.

32:50 I don’t know. Maybe I am wanting to read that into the letter, but I think that’s an interesting thing to ask students to. Why did he write the letter? Was it just to enclose the almanac, or was it for something else, something more? I think, too, he’s trying to show his passion, and I think that it’s

33:14 something that students and I know I can connect with where you start with one thing and then you realize the depth and the complexity or even the importance of what you’re doing, and so it quickly shifts into something else. And I think he’s trying to just show Jefferson, this is something this was not

33:34 my original intent, but once my pen hit that paper, it just came out. And you have that passion, too, like you read Jefferson’s writing, and I think he’s trying to kind of play off that you get it, that sometimes it just falls on the paper because of this passion and because you so badly want to change things.

33:57 And I agree with you, though, Mary, I really wish that there was more letter writing, so I’m going to try to do that. But even how they signed, and I think it’s an important thing to show students that that is actually a normal signature in that time. Because I think when you look at the word servants,

34:19 the one thing I would especially with students, it’s not that he. Benjamin banneker is a free man. That is just a very common and if you haven’t heard Hamilton, he says it in there, too. It’s a very common phrase. And so, again, the importance of words, it’s also just that sign of respect,

34:42 which now I think we put like sincerely or respectfully. But that closing. I just love that in letters. Yeah absolutely. And again, that respect is, again, another assertion of that equality, treating the other as equal, of deserving of it, even as he’s writing a letter, really frustrated.

35:07 I mean, beyond frustrated. Incensed, maybe a better word with the condition that’s happening. So just go back to our big question again. How do we grapple with this? Because, again, the Titus Kephar image, I think is a great opening to this. Thank you, Mary, for analyzing that for us. If you want more image analysis with Mary do, check out Bridge from the Past.

35:27 She does an awesome job. But looking at that image begins to show all of the levels. And even in our conversation, choosing Thomas Jefferson we saw from Titus Kaphar was an interesting one to choose, because even within Jefferson, there’s complexity there, not to mention all of the stories of the enslaved individuals that were on Jefferson’s plantation themselves, whether it’s Sally Hemmings or others, there’s so much to those stories.

35:53 And then reading this letter from Benjamin Baniker, who’s calling out the complexity to Jefferson within his own time, it’s like a nesting doll. Stories within stories within stories. What do we make of this? How do we begin to sort of make sense of this, especially for students who may be just being introduced to Thomas Jefferson or to the system of slavery for the very first time?

36:17 How do we begin to talk about this with our students? I think just the act of talking about it, even in the time that we’ve been talking, I’ve learned so much about how you both saw the document and how you saw. And I think that understanding that history is not just one story.

36:38 History is the collection of narratives of all of these different people. And when we start to include more narratives, sometimes it gives us more questions than it does answers. But that’s why I love studying history, and that’s why my students would always make fun of me, like, I would totally nerd out and geek out, because there just isn’t an answer sometimes, and that’s okay.

37:02 But it’s having an understanding that this web of history, this big thing of history, is really worth studying, and you’ll never finish studying it because, like you said, Kirk, I don’t know how many books are written on Thomas Jefferson. I’ve read a ton of them.

37:23 But even just in continuous study and as you have questions and wonder about things and expose yourself to, like, for me, going to the portrait gallery, to be very honest with you, I was like, I don’t really want to go to the portrait gallery. There’s so many other things in DC. And I had gone because my husband had a meeting there, and I went and got lost.

37:48 I got so lost in this art history. And just showing students that kind of stuff, I think, is so important because history is complex. It is. There’s never an answer, and that’s okay. But studying narratives outside your own

38:08 really helps broaden your scope of understanding. Yes, I think that’s very well said. I don’t know what I could add to that, but just maybe just the idea that it doesn’t have to be a huge, heavy conversation. It could just be something you can start with an image.

38:28 Maybe it’s not. Titus Kaphar but there are so many images that can generate discussion, and just to get students comfortable with the idea of having a discussion and the fact that there might not be an answer or the answer may change over time, because who’s looking at it or how they’re looking at it can change to just sort of expose them to the messiness. That’s the first step.

38:50 And then hopefully, the conversations become richer or they become more respectful. But they keep happening, I think is the important thing. Yeah. And as you often say on our podcast, Mary, keep asking questions. I think that’s the important thing to do. And I think introducing these topics, like you said, Mary,

39:12 I think in a way that’s accessible and isn’t trying to assume an answer, but is also willing to be open to amazing things that have taken place again. Thomas Jefferson the Declaration of Independence is a powerful thing that is giving context to the conversation that we’re having. And to not pay attention to that

39:33 is a loss, I think, to understanding this period. At the same time, to talk about the Declaration for Independence without talking about the system enslavement that was existing in the United States at that time, the individual lives of enslaved individuals that were living on Jefferson’s Plantation or across the United States during that time period would also be a disservice to that.

39:53 And starting to appreciate the entirety of that complexity and what that meant then, how that story changed and evolved over the story of American history up to the present day is an important one to have. And I hope all of you that are watching this now will be encouraged to go out and dig a little deeper and keep asking questions.

40:15 So thank you all for joining us. We hope you enjoyed it. Please do like and subscribe. Please reach out to us, social media or here on YouTube if you have any questions or comments or if you have any ideas for what you want to see us to explore next. So, Mary, Liz, thank you both so much for joining me. Thank you. Thank you very much. That was really fun. And we’ll see you all next time.