Jefferson didn't work "tirelessly" to end slavery. Franklin could possibly be seen as having done more than Jefferson. Was he philosophically against it? Yes. Was he, like many of his southern ilk, nevertheless tied to it? Yes. The "peculiar institution" did that to people, and Jefferson was no exception. He was fairly mum on the subject during his political prime. Sure, he thought much like many during his time, that perhaps you could free them, send them off to a remote colony somewhere; but with age came greater and greater reluctance to act. Toward the end of Jefferson's life, he had a letter from an up and coming gentleman (whose name escapes me). This young man wanted to rally support for more anti-slavery measures and sentiment. Jefferson in his more elderly years could have offered support, some social networks, whatever have you. Instead, the man diligently responded by telling the young man that the enterprise wasn't really worth the bother.
Does this to me mean that Jefferson's merits are destroyed? Not really, no. He did many great things. But much like John Adams' legacy had to endure for centuries, so too must Jefferson deal with the sensibilities of his successors of many generations down the line. It became somewhat of a canard to think that the greatness of american Presidents went from Washington to Jefferson, skipping poor frumpy Adams. Why? Because Adams not only made political errors with his cabinet, but he also was seen as this anti-democratic monster who crushed dissent during an emerging war. But now Mr. Adams is receiving a bit of a resurgence. Not just because of the War on Terror's reevaluation of civil liberties, but also because, quite frankly, Adams comes out smelling better with the slavery and race test than Jefferson does. It's the blunt truth.
Is the race or slavery test a bad idea? No. As I said before, each successive generation does this with the past anyway. We can't change that. But what has largely gone unsaid here (with exception to one poster) is that these ideas bring uncomfortable narrative changes to the predominant white historical narrative. Increases in criticisms of slavery or race are somehow construed as *merely* the creation of modernist sensibilities. This forgets, however, that there was another people living amongst the political class of the era, and they also sometimes happened to have a different skin color. Those people's perceptions matter. Black voice isn't isolated to modernist sensibilities. It's part of the past. It's inescapably tangled with it. Bringing that to the forefront isn't a dereliction of duty of being a scholar. It's perfectly in line with scholarship. should it keep in mind the dominant power structures in place and how that works? Absolutely. I have said so before numerous times. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean your slaves and black folks don't get a vote, either.
Will it change? Yep. Probably in directions which we can't quite predict yet. That's the way history works in the public's perception.