Books found in dumpster belonged to Thomas Jefferson
msn.com
msn.com
A neighbor died, and a relative came by and rapidly dumpstered their apartment. Including a stack of family photo albums.
Now, I'd a childhood experience of family sorting things into two boxes: "toys to donate to the school sale", and "childhood photos and keepsakes". Think "all your eggs in one basket". The wrong box was then dropped off at the school. A few hours later, it had been categorized as trash, thrown out, and was unrecoverably lost.
So I salvaged some of the albums in the dumpster. And eventually got in touch with the family to ask, "are your sure?". They were. But before I got around to throwing them out again, I found the document inside a folded photo card thing. And wondered if there had been more in the dumpster, among that which I didn't salvage.
And if I died today, it would likely end up back in a dumpster. Need to find it a better home.
How sad. At least one can photograph the pages with a phone, as keeping those would be costless.
I recall them as saying it was mostly "other" families. A complexity that put it way over effort budget for me.
> At least one can photograph the pages with a phone,
:) Year 2000. Thus the pieced-together flatbed scans.
How about a local (or regional) museum, or university library? There are probably lots of places that would accept this and look after it.
The man was obsessed with reading (and gardening).
* On a related note, I'd also strongly encourage people visiting NYC to visit the JP Morgan Library. It's spectacular.
Step 2: go to jp morgan library[1]
How do people find the nerve to throw a book away? How?!
I've acquired a fairly large stash of firearms parts this way. There are a few valuable individual items, but in aggregate it's probably worth at least $15-20k. I probably have $250 invested in all of it, and it all fits in a single (heavy) moving box.
I've also gotten quite a few valuable fountain pens and parts for them the same way. Once I bought a ratty old desk for $50 because the drawers were full of office supplies that I wanted, including a couple of vintage Waterman pens. I dumped them into a box and gave the desk to the other person that was bidding on it so I didn't have to haul it home. She was ecstatic to get the desk for free, and I was happy to get ~$1k worth of vintage pens for almost nothing.
https://www.amazon.com/Coaching-Run-Shoot-Football-Black/dp/...
I have a copy of that on my shelf at home, somewhat perversely, learning that it had actual resale value made me want to sell it less
What else do you do? I have finite space. For the most part, I donate them to my local library for their annual book sale but I imagine most of them end up in a dumpster somewhere.
As for writing in them or marking pages, some are pieces of art in their physical form, but most are just a tool for communication. I make notes and otherwise mark up books that I'm using as a source of information. They're just a tool.
I see it as enhancement, added value - and I say it as someone who can't write in books after a decade of it being drilled into my head during childhood!
For what it's worth, the statement of Fermat's Last Theorem was written in a margin of a book.
I really like the process as a good book goes from new to well worn. A pristine book is an unread book, which generally means it was naff..
What I have left are books I haven't read, but plan to, and books with extreme sentimental value.
Is this true for libraries too? I was really bummed awhile back when I gave my local library some very good CS canon type textbooks and never saw them go on the shelves alongside the current crop of "Python for Dummies" type stuff. Is there any way to help them separate the wheat from the chaff when you donate?
Alternatively it could have been sent to another library in the county system.
I also Craigslist a lot of books when I'm done with them, or did before I moved more towards buying e-books.
Ehhhh. Those books probably cost more to store than they make in profit. Books take up a lot of space and are likely selling for $1 (hardcover) or 10 for $1 (paperback) at the use book sale. Used books are really hard to sell, and there are a lot of them lying around.
My wife had a collection of hundreds of paperbacks that the public library refused to take and Goodwill suggested we throw away, so we sent them to the recycling center.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002419
Librarians have to weed their collections regularly, or see them overrun with bad books. Due to changes in interest or deteriorating condition, some books need to be purged so that the important ones can be maintained and new ones can be brought in.
This was a liberating idea for me, as I'm a bibliophile from a family of bibliophiles. Your collection is only as good as your curation.
As you say, the goal shouldn't be to save everything just in case, but to weed out the irretrievably useless and carefully index the rest.
Having cleaned up after deceased book hoarders... it's a cruel thing to do. Case after case of books, of no real interest or value, that will never get read, still sitting there rotting because OMG IT'S A BOOK YOU CAN'T THROW BOOKS AWAY.
Keep the books that are great. The books you'll read again, or use for reference in the future, or that have true sentimental value (beyond omg it's a book). I often give books away when I'm done with them - if I loved it, I probably know someone else who will love it too.
But that copy of Learn Lotus 1-2-3 in 24 Hours? Trash it. That third-run paperback of a Stephen King novel? Trash it.
I recently picked up a copy of The Mythical Man-Month, from 1975. There's hardly a line in it that doesn't still apply today.
I could spend that time finishing Accelerate (potentially a timeless classic), or Openshift in Action (doomed to be dated and irrelevant someday, but immediately useful to me now). Those are genuinely useful to me. Hoarding is not.
In addition, the american legal tradition gives great importance to the concept of original intent, understanding the mind of a document's author. Important documents such as the US constitution, and therefore many modern day legal debates, are understood through the lens of historical context. Knowing the books read by those who wrote such documents gives one argumentative power in the modern context. So these sacred books are a source of modern day power, adding to their perceived value.
I want to know why he moved the first pages to the middle. Is that some masonic thing?
I assume you’d prefer to have Newton’s Principia, Turing’s papers, or your grandfather’s watch vs. a reproduction, even if the practical value of the information is the same.
However, when you can promote that A to a The, now the thing stands as an absolute in the course of history. The watch that Buzz Aldrin wore on the moon. The pen that signed the surrender of Japan. The Cullinan I Diamond that was cut with nine sibilings from the greatest raw stone ever discovered, and set in to St. Edward's Crown. The nature of the item itself becomes second to the story and the lineage associated with it, and its value ceases to be a function of what the thing does does, and becomes one of what it has done. Omega watches are interesting and technically impressive. But if a Seiko had gone to the moon on Buzz Aldrin's wrist, it would be worth just as much.
On the off chance you're interested in that particular pen, there were actually several of them. I collect fountain pens as a hobby, and ones used to sign historical documents are of particular interest to me.
This thread has lots of information on what they were and where they ended up, including a photo of one of them: http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/177886-japanes...
I had an opportunity to buy a Parker 51 (fountain pen) once owned by Oskar Schindler a while back. I passed on it because it was part of a larger lot at auction that I didn't want, which went for more than I was willing to pay for the pen alone.
I've been looking for years for a pen that I've seen in several photographs of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, but I've yet to come across it (or any of his personal effects). I'd pay a great deal more for it than I would for an identical pen without that provenance. I mention it here because who knows? Someone might know where it is. His family moved to SoCal after the WW2, so it's within the realm of possibility.
The rest of the wealth can be said was rightly divided between everybody else.
- Jefferson sired six children with Sally Hemmings, a slave on his Monticello estate.
- Jeffersions children were put to work in the fields, and never freed for decades.
- Jefferson himself whipped his own children.
- Jefferson intentionally avoided a strong opinion on emancipation and maintained a negative opinion on it frequently. He was accustomed to the opulence of Monticello and without slaves to run it, Jefferson knew his status in the merchant class would be diminished.
- Jefferson died in roughly two million dollars of modern debt. Most attributable to his lavish livestyle.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thom...
- He drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
- He served as the third President of the United States
- United States Military Academy was established during his presidency
- Jefferson doubled the size of the United States during his presidency
- He made sure US presence was established in the Louisiana territory
- President Jefferson abolished the slave trade
- He made an important contribution to the Library of Congress
- Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia
- He wrote a book titled Notes on the State of Virginia
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/thomas-jefferson-accomplishmen...
- Historical figures are people and are capable of both horrible acts of cruelty and cowardice, just as much as they are simultaneously capable of exalted acts of kindness and insight.
- Historical figures are not gods nor are they devils, they are, foremost, human; they, if they existed, were as complex as you or I.
- It follows then that notable historical figures are just as flawed as the rest of us in every respect.
- Notable historical figures worthy to be held to account for their failings as well as their successes.
- In general, those with power have obtained it by taking it from others. Rarely, there are exceptions.
- The stories of life are always abridged; minor characters are removed. Those silent partners are often where the balance of the equation of power lies. Watch for the shadows of the forgotten.
- In evaluating the merit of an achievement, the means by which the ends are achieved often better reflect the toll the end exacts.
- In evaluating the merit of morals and means against ends, one must understand the measures of the time and place in which the price was paid. Often, the price is still being paid; the interest on debt must be considered.
- In determining if an action is worthy of praise now and worth repeating in the future, the measures of the time and place the action was committed must be weighed against the measures of the present.
- Foremost, tread cautiously - you tread a path which no longer exists; indeed, the path may never have existed.
- Invented an encryption device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk
- Participated in writing the first draft of the "Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_t...
In any case, it's not entirely clear that other than the (wonderful) Bill of Rights, the American Revolution was anything other than the elites over here wanting more control. 3/5 compromise, male property owning voters, indirect election of senators, it really sounds like the new aristocracy, with an Enlightenment tinged bent, was taking control. After all, the UK was being run mainly by Parliament, not by the King.
Only popular struggle has made the US more democratic, direct election of senators, freeing the slaves, universal suffrage, but we see even that is being rolled back in the modern era with voter suppression, dark money, and the dark legacy of US foreign policy.
Thomas Jefferson certainly knew that slavery was unethical and contradictory to the values he was setting forth. He just did not have the will to act due to social pressure, greed, delusion, etc.
Time may only move forward, but people and societies can, and do, go in both directions.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
In a hundred years time, do you think today's heros will be stripped of their accomplishments because they drove cars while the planet could have been saved, or they ate animals while they could have eaten plant-foods?
Even beyond the absurdity of such notions, your statements paint a misleading picture. Jefferson, from the earliest days of the United States, worked to eliminate slavery. His initial draft of the declaration of independence overtly condemned slavery, though that was removed by the continental congress. Or see "Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves" [1] which was lobbied for by Jefferson for decades and passed immediately when he became president, the first opportunity it was legally possible.
On the abolition of slavery itself Jefferson took a different approach. Slavery was awful, yet it is not difficult to foresee what would happen if all slaves were immediately emancipated. It would lead to violence from both slaves and former owners, and also would likely leave the slaves themselves in an extremely difficult situation. Slaves would have had minimal to no skills, no education, no connections, and then set free in a country where success is driven by merit somehow expected to just go and make a life for themselves.
Instead of abrupt and complete abolition Jefferson proposed phasing out slavery. All slaves born after a certain date would be 'purchased' from their owners for a nominal fee by the government. The government then would handle their education, training, and then send them abroad to work as skilled independent freemen. The idea was to have a peaceful transition and give the former slaves the best opportunity of starting and creating a legacy of success for themselves. And, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps Jefferson was right. In the process of attempting to abruptly end slavery we ended up fighting a frightfully costly war with divides that remain to this day. And to this very day the descendents of slaves are still disproportionately struggling to find success in this nation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of...
I lived a couple of miles from Monticello for about five years, and have read pretty much everything I could get my hands on about Jefferson. My opinion is that he's absolutely a man worthy of respect, remembrance, and study.
He was not perfect; no one is. He was in many ways a man of his times, and you have to consider those times when considering his views.
For instance, on the topic of slavery: Yes, he fathered children with Sally Hemings. Yes, those children were enslaved from birth and considered chattel. Yes, he maintained a public position of ambiguity on the topic of emancipation and a negative private opinion of the same.
Some context around those facts:
Sally Hemings was almost certainly Martha Jefferson's half-sister, and was of 3/4ths European ancestry. Her children were 7/8ths European, and all but one ultimately chose to move and pass as free whites.
While Jefferson's relationship with Sally was certainly a scandal at the time and abhorrent to us today, it was not uncommon in his era. It did not begin until several years after his wife's death, when he took Sally with him to France - where slavery was illegal - where they conceived the first of their five probable children. According to Sally's daughter, Madison Hemings, Jefferson promised to free their children when they came of age.
Again, it was a bit more complicated than that in practice, because it was illegal for a black person to live in Virginia more than one year after being freed. Sally was "given her time" upon Jefferson's death, which effectively meant that she was able to live as a free person and was protected from being captured and re-enslaved. One of their children "escaped" when she was about to come of age - Jefferson gave her $50, sent her to Philadelphia, and never pursued her. Again, this protected her somewhat from being captured and re-enslaved, as Jefferson continued to own her under the law. The others were freed at the end of his life.
Jefferson likely saw his children's "apprenticeships" as a means of caring for them and providing for their futures without recognizing them as his own.
As for his stance on emancipation, Jefferson believed that slavery was immoral, but that immediate manumission was impractical and would lead to serious social and political consequences, both for those who would have been freed and for the nation itself. His solution to this was to propose a "gradual emancipation" where enslaved people born after a certain date would be free and sent to an African colony. James Monroe, who was a close friend of Jefferson's throughout his life and lived nearby, served as President of the American Colonization Society, which in turn established Liberia. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, is named for James Monroe due to his role in its establishment.
So, in summary - Jefferson's views, while abhorrent to modern sensibilities, were actually quite progressive given the society in which he lived. He seems to have done his best to protect his "shadow family" with Hemings, and to set them up for success in the future.
Indeed, we saw the effects of that during the Civil War. Perhaps Jefferson had more of a sense of the rising conflict than folks tend to give him credit for.
No, because to the extent that immediate manumission happened during the Civil War, it's hard to separate the effects from those of the war and the occupation of rebel states by the Union itself; manumission as a policy (the Emancipation Proclamation) was adopted as a result of the war, not a factor contributing to it.