But you're not telling the whole truth. You're picking which part of the truth to tell--important unsavory parts of the truth. But not even the whole truth about the unsavory parts!

For example, about Sally Hemings, you don't mention that Jefferson took her to France (where she was technically free), that the age of consent at the time (relevant to "child molestation") was under 14 (perhaps 12, but I can't find a record), etc..

Unless one is going to become a specialist in the history of one area, you're never going to be able to tell the whole truth. There's simply too much.

What you include, and what you leave out, is a choice. It can inform, or it can mislead.

Bothsidesism is my shorthand term for the idea that you have to give equal weight to greatness and terribleness. But if the greatness was very great compared to the standard of the time, and the terribleness was rather ordinary for the time, this is highly misleading.

I certainly do not condone Jefferson's slaveholding, or his interactions with Sally Hemings. I am not sure how he could maintain the degree of cognitive dissonance needed to be perhaps the most vocal advocate for liberty and perhaps its worst violators amongst the Founders.

And I think a realistic view of history is very important, including the flaws, however bad, of key figures, especially when such flaws are relevant to the context. (For instance, when talking about principles of governance, Hemings is not terribly relevant; when deciding whether to build a statue, kinda more relevant; when going "I wanna be like Thomas!", extremely relevant.)

My point is just that it's easy to go past honesty and a realistic view into contempt and vilification.