As we look at the migration of the Irish into the U.S, their presence greatly influenced the dynamics of american law and politics. I found it quite interesting learning about their impact on American politics and their commitment to President Thomas Jefferson. According to Whelan, the Irish were “a driving force in the creation of the Republican party cohering around Thomas Jefferson”. It is important to note that the Irish, during this period, are making a transition into “whiteness”. Not only is the concept of whiteness problematic, but their odd attraction with Jefferson is also questionable. For example, Whelan notes that the Irish viewed Jefferson as “the first man of purity of character, talents, and amiable manners in the Republican world”. There is no doubt that Jefferson, during this time, was the most logical choice for leadership in the country, however, I wouldn’t give him that much credit. Thomas Jefferson is viewed as one of America’s “great” founding fathers, along with being a founder of American enlightenment. Yet, in my opinion, his controversial view on slavery only makes him the greater of two evils. While the Irish never participated in the traditional form of slavery, in some sense, they were still affected by it.
Jefferson frowned upon the idea of slavery, and even viewed it as inhuman, still he continued to hold human beings as property his entire life. In addition, although he made some legislative attempts against slavery, he also profited directly from the institution on slavery. With that being said, I would agree that Jefferson’s intent to question the status quo did spark a civil movement, however, for a man who thought that “all men [were] created equal” it seems bizarre that the Irish put so much support behind him. Did they not see how blacks were treated? They must’ve been aware of their hierarchical position in American. So why would they support a man of “false promises”. It is interesting to see how the Irish were able to get more traction in regards to freedom and opportunity than blacks, especially since the two were once viewed equally by the majority. I begin to question, with their many similarities, why African-Americans and Irish-Americans weren’t able to form their own union.
I agree that, upon first glance, it is bizarre that such a marginalized group would side with a man known for keeping others in a position of subjugation while claiming “all men are created equal.” However, the matter becomes more understandable when thinking of the role of “the other” in society. If one group (such as the Irish), is able to unify with the majority based on one aspect of their identity, even an aspect as insignificant as skin-tone, that group effectively leaves the space of “the other,” leaving blacks to assume that role by themselves. It is unfair that the Irish were able to exit the space of “the other” simply based on their skin color, but after they did, they proved they could perform labor previously dominated by whites and were then able to remain in the social space of the majority.
Jefferson’s complicated legacy is usually grossly overlooked in service of his less complicated contributions. Paying attention to and not glossing over the complicated histories is, I think, critical to our conceptualization of the Circum-Atlantic because it will characterize the experiences of the groups we are comparing. I agree with Josh’s pause over the Irish support of Jefferson. It initially seems strange that a group we know to be marginalized would want to participate in hierarchy. Maybe it is exactly fitting, however, that the Irish would occupy this space. Jefferson himself was a man of contradictions, a slaveholder who did not hold with slavery. In the same vein, the Irish were identified with the slaves but still could access whiteness based on their physical attributes. That parallel, in contrast to the parallel we’ve already stated to draw between both groups, might help us to read the changes in categorization and self-identification going forward.