pleasantest and most conversable member of the diplomatic corps while I
was there; a man of good fancy, acuteness, irony, cunning, and egoism.
No heart, not much of any science, yet enough of every one to speak
its language: his forte was Belles-lettres, painting, and sculpture.
In these he was the oracle of the society, and as such, was the
Empress Catharine’s private correspondent and factor, in all things not
diplomatic. It was through him I got her permission for poor Ledyard to
go to Kamschatka, and cross over thence to the western coast of America,
in order to penetrate across our continent in the opposite direction
to that afterwards adopted for Lewis and Clarke: which permission she
withdrew after he had got within two hundred miles of Kamschatka, had
him seized, brought back, and set down in Poland. Although I never heard
Grimm express the opinion directly, yet I always supposed him to be
of the school of Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach; the first of whom
committed his system of atheism to writing in ‘_Le Bon Sens_,’ and the
last in his ‘_Systeme de la Nature_? It was a numerous school in
the Catholic countries, while the infidelity of the Protestant took
generally the form of theism. The former always insisted that it was
a mere question of definition between them, the hypostasis of which on
both sides, was ‘_Nature_,’ or ‘the _Universe_’: that both agreed in the
order of the existing system, but the one supposed it from eternity,
the other as having begun in time. And when the atheist descanted on
the unceasing motion and circulation of matter through the animal,
vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, never resting, never annihilated,
always changing form, and under all forms gifted with the power of
reproduction; the theist pointing ‘to the heavens above, and to the
earth beneath, and to the waters under the earth,’ asked, if these did
not proclaim a first cause, possessing intelligence and power; power
in the production, and intelligence in the design, and constant
preservation of the system; urged the palpable existence of final
causes; that the eye was made to see, and the ear to hear, and not that
we see because we have eyes, and hear because we have ears; an answer
obvious to the senses, as that of walking across the room, was to
the philosopher demonstrating the non-existence of motion. It was in
D’Holbach’s conventicles that Rousseau imagined all the machinations
against him were contrived and he left, in his Confessions, the most
biting anecdotes of Grimm. These appeared after I left France; but I
have heard that poor Grimm was so much afflicted by them, that he kept
his bed several weeks. I have never seen the Memoirs of Grimm. Their
volume has kept them out of our market.
I have been lately amusing myself with Levi’s book, in answer to Dr.
Priestley. It is a curious and tough work. His style is inelegant and
incorrect, harsh and petulant to his adversary, and his reasoning flimsy
enough. Some of his doctrines were new to me, particularly that of his
two resurrections: the first, a particular one of all the dead, in body
as well as soul, who are to live over again, the Jews in a state of
perfect obedience to God, the other nations in a state of corporeal
punishment for the sufferings they have inflicted on the Jews. And he
explains this resurrection of bodies to be only of the original stamen
of Leibnitz, or the human _calus in semine masculino_, considering that
as a mathematical point, insusceptible of separation or division. The
second resurrection, a general one of souls and bodies, eternally to
enjoy divine glory in the presence of the Supreme Being. He alleges that
the Jews alone preserve the doctrine of the unity of God. Yet their God
would be deemed a very indifferent man with us: and it was to correct
their anamorphosis of the Deity, that Jesus preached, as well as to
establish the doctrine of a future state. However, Levi insists, that
that was taught in the Old Testament, and even by Moses himself and the
prophets. He agrees that an anointed prince was prophesied and promised:
but denies that the character and history of Jesus had any analogy with
that of the person promised. He must be fearfully embarrassing to the
Hierophants of fabricated Christianity; because it is their own armor in
which he clothes himself for the attack. For example, he takes passages
of scripture from their context (which would give them a very different
meaning), strings them together, and makes them point towards what
object he pleases; he interprets them figuratively, typically,
analogically, hyperbolically; he calls in the aid of emendation,
transposition, ellipsis, metonymy, and every other figure of rhetoric;
the name of one man is taken for another, one place for another, days
and weeks for months and years; and finally he avails himself of all his
advantage over his adversaries by his superior knowledge of the Hebrew,
speaking in the very language of the divine communication, while they
can only fumble on with conflicting and disputed translations. Such is
this war of giants. And how can such pigmies as you and I decide
between them? For myself, I confess, that my head is not formed _tantas
componere lites_. And as you began yours of March the 2nd, with a
declaration, that you were about to write me the most frivolous letter I
had ever read, so I will close mine by saying, I have written you a full
match for it, and by adding my affectionate respects to Mrs. Adams, and
the assurance of my constant attachment and consideration for yourself.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXI.--TO JOHN TAYLOR, May 28,1816
TO JOHN TAYLOR.
Monticello, May 28,1816.
Dear Sir,
On my return from a long journey and considerable absence from home,
I found here the copy of your ‘Enquiry into the Principles of our
Government,’ which you had been so kind as to send me; and for which I
pray you to accept my thanks. The difficulties of getting new works in
our situation, inland and without a single bookstore, are such as had
prevented my obtaining a copy before; and letters which had accumulated
during my absence, and were calling for answers, have not yet permitted
me to give to the whole a thorough reading: yet certain that you and I
could not think differently on the fundamentals of rightful government,
I was impatient, and availed myself of the intervals of repose from the
writing-table, to obtain a cursory idea of the body of the work.
I see in it much matter for profound reflection; much which should
confirm our adhesion, in practice, to the good principles of our
constitution, and fix our attention on what is yet to be made good. The
sixth section on the good moral principles of our government, I found
so interesting and replete with sound principles, as to postpone my
letter-writing to its thorough perusal and consideration. Besides much
other good matter, it settles unanswerably the right of instructing
representatives, and their duty to obey. The system of banking we have
both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all
our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction,
which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping
away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I
consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the
lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation
coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free
possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unincumbered by
their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life. You have
successfully and completely pulverized Mr. Adams’s system of orders,
and his opening the mantle of republicanism to every government of
laws, whether consistent or not with natural right. Indeed, it must be
acknowledged, that the term republic is of very vague application
in every language. Witness the self-styled republics of Holland,
Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Poland. Were I to assign to this term a
precise and definite idea, I would say, that, purely and simply,
it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and
personally, according to rules established by the majority: and that
every other government is more or less republican, in proportion as it
has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct
action of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained to
very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be
practicable beyond the extent of a New England township. The first
shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannot
sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government,
being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen by the
citizens either _pro hac vice_, or for such short terms as should render
secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I
should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is
practicable on a large scale of country or population. And we have
examples of it in some of our State constitutions, which, if not
poisoned by priestcraft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures
with other elements; and, with only equal doses of poison, would still
be the best. Other shades of republicanism may be found in other
forms of government, where the executive, judiciary, and legislative
functions, and the different branches of the latter, are chosen by the
people more or less directly, for longer terms of years, or for life,
or made hereditary; or where there are mixtures of authorities, some
dependent on, and others independent of the peopje. The further the
departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has
the government of the ingredient of republicanism; evidently none
where the authorities are hereditary, as in France, Venice, &c. or
self-chosen, as in Holland; and little, where for life, in proportion as
the life continues in being after the act of election.
The purest republican feature in the government of our own State, is the
House of Representatives. The Senate is equally so the first year, less
the second, and so on. The Executive still less, because not chosen by
the people directly. The Judiciary seriously anti-republican, because
for life; and the national arm wielded, as you observe, by military
leaders, irresponsible but to themselves. Add to this the vicious
constitution of our county courts (to whom the justice, the executive
administration, the taxation, police, the military appointments of the
county, and nearly all our daily concerns are confided), self-appointed,
self-continued, holding their authorities for life, and with an
impossibility of breaking in on the perpetual succession of any faction
once possessed of the bench. They are, in truth, the executive, the
judiciary, and the military of their respective counties, and the sum
of the counties makes the State. And add, also, that one half of our
brethren who fight and pay taxes, are excluded, like Helots, from the
rights of representation, as if society were instituted for the soil,
and not for the men inhabiting it; or one half of these could dispose of
the rights and the will of the other half, without their consent.
What constitutes a State?
Not high-raised battlements, or lahor’d mound,
Thick wall, or moated gate;
Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crown’d;
No: men, high-minded men;
Men, who their duties know;
But know their rights; and, knowing, dare maintain.
These constitute a State.’
In the General Government, the House of Representatives is mainly
republican; the Senate scarcely so at all, as not elected by the people
directly, and so long secured even against those who do elect them; the
Executive more republican than the Senate, from its shorter term, its
election by the people, in practice (for they vote for A only on an
assurance that he will vote for B), and because, in practice, also,
a principle of rotation seems to be in a course of establishment; the
judiciary independent of the nation, their coercion by impeachment being
found nugatory.
If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their government
be the measure of its republicanism (and I confess I know no other
measure), it must be agreed that our governments have much less of
republicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that the
people have less regular control over their agents, than their rights
and their interest require. And this I ascribe, not to any want of
republican dispositions in those who formed these constitutions, but to
a submission of true principle to European authorities, to speculators
on government, whose fears of the people have been inspired by the
populace of their own great cities, and were unjustly entertained
against the independent, the happy, and therefore orderly citizens of
the United States. Much I apprehend that the golden moment is past
for reforming these heresies. The functionaries of public power rarely
strengthen in their dispositions to abridge it, and an unorganized
call for timely amendment is not likely to prevail against an organized
opposition to it. We are always told that things are going on well; why
change them? ‘_Chi sta bene, non si muova_,’ says the Italian, ‘Let him
who stands well, stand still.’ This is true; and I verily believe they
would go on well with us under an absolute monarch, while our
present character remains, of order, industry, and love of peace, and
restrained, as he would be, by the proper spirit of the people. But it
is while it remains such, we should provide against the consequences of
its deterioration. And let us rest in the hope that it will yet be done,
and spare ourselves the pain of evils which may never happen.
On this view of the import of the term republic, instead of saying, as
has been said, ‘that it may mean any thing or nothing,’ we may say with
truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican, as
they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in
their composition: and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens
is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the
evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than
those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition
of government which has in it the most of this ingredient. And I
sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more
dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money
to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling
futurity on a large scale.
I salute you with constant friendship and respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXII.--TO FRANCIS W. GILMER, June 7,1816
TO FRANCIS W. GILMER.
Monticello, June 7,1816.
Dear Sir,
I received a few-days ago from Mr. Dupont the enclosed manuscript, with
permission to read it, and a request, when read, to forward it to
you, in expectation that you would translate it. It is well worthy of
publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound,
and short. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful
limits of their powers: that their true office is to declare and enforce
only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights
of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him:
every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities
of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him: and, no
man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another,
it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third.
When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled
their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into
society we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by one
of these texts, would lessen much the labors of our legislators, and
lighten equally our municipal codes. There is a work of the first
order of merit now in the press at Washington, by Destutt Tracy, on the
subject of political economy, which he brings into the compass of three
hundred pages, octavo. In a preliminary discourse on the origin of the
right of property, he coincides much with the principles of the present
manuscript; but is more developed, more demonstrative. He promises a
future work on morals, in which I lament to see, that he will adopt the
principles of Hobbes, or humiliation to human nature; that the sense of
justice and injustice is not derived from our natural organization,
but founded on convention only. I lament this the more, as he is
unquestionably the ablest writer living, on abstract subjects. Assuming
the fact, that the earth has been created in time, and consequently the
dogma of final causes, we yield, of course, to this short syllogism.
Man was created for social intercourse; but social intercourse cannot be
maintained without a sense of justice; then man must have been created
with a sense of justice. There is an error into which most of the
speculators on government have fallen, and which the well known state
of society of our Indians ought, before now, to have corrected. In
their hypothesis of the origin of government, they suppose it to have
commenced in the patriarchal or monarchical form. Our Indians are
evidently in that state of nature which has passed the association of a
single family; and not yet submitted to the authority of positive laws,
or of any acknowledged magistrate. Every man, with them, is perfectly
free to follow his own inclinations. But if, in doing this, he violates
the rights of another, if the case be slight, he is punished by the
disesteem of his society, or, as we say, by public opinion; if serious,
he is tomahawked as a dangerous enemy. Their leaders conduct them by
the influence of their character only; and they follow, or not, as they
please, him of whose character for wisdom or war they have the highest
opinion. Hence the origin of the parties among them adhering to
different leaders, and governed by their advice, not by their
command. The Cherokees, the only tribe I know to be contemplating the
establishment of regular laws, magistrates, and government, propose
a government of representatives, elected from every town. But of all
things, they least think of subjecting themselves to the will of one
man. This, the only instance of actual fact within our knowledge, will
be then a beginning by republican, and not by patriarchal or monarchical
government, as speculative writers have generally conjectured.
We have to join in mutual congratulations on the appointment of our
friend Correa, to be Minister or Envoy of Portugal, here. This, I hope,
will give him to us, for life. Nor will it at all interfere with
his botanical rambles or journeys. The government of Portugal is so
peaceable and inoffensive, that it has never any altercations with its
friends. If their minister abroad writes them once a quarter that all is
well, they desire no more. I learn (though not from Correa himself) that
he thinks of paying us a visit as soon as he is through his course
of lectures. Not to lose this happiness again by my absence, I have
informed him I shall set out for Poplar Forest the 20th instant, and
be back the first week of July. I wish you and he could concert
your movements so as to meet here, and that you would make this your
headquarters. It is a good central point from which to visit your
connections; and you know our practice of placing our guests at their
ease, by showing them we are so ourselves, and that we follow our
necessary vocations, instead of fatiguing them by hanging unremittingly
on their shoulders.
I salute you with affectionate esteem and respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXIII.*--TO BENJAMIN AUSTIN, January 9, 1816
TO BENJAMIN AUSTIN.
Monticello, January 9, 1816.
[* This letter was accidentally misplaced, and is now
inserted out of its regular order.]
Dear Sir,
I acknowledge with pleasure your letter of the 9th of December last.
Your opinions on the events which have taken place in France, are
entirely just, so far as these events are yet developed. But we
have reason to suppose, that they have not reached their ultimate
termination. There is still an awful void between the present, and what
is to be the last chapter of that history; and I fear it is to be filled
with abominations, as frightful as those which have already disgraced
it. That nation is too high-minded, has too much innate force,
intelligence, and elasticity, to remain quiet under its present
compression. Samson will arise in his strength, and probably will ere
long burst asunder the cords and the webs of the Philistines. But what
are to be the scenes of havoc and horror, and how widely they may spread
between the brethren of one family, our ignorance of the interior feuds
and antipathies of the country places beyond our view. Whatever may be
the convulsions, we cannot but indulge the pleasing hope, they will
end in the permanent establishment of a representative government;
a government in which the will of the people will be an effective
ingredient. This important element has taken root in the European mind,
and will have its growth. Their rulers, sensible of this, are already
offering this modification of their governments, under the plausible
pretence that it is a voluntary concession on their part. Had Bonaparte
used his legitimate power honestly, for the establishment and support
of a free government, France would now have been in prosperity and rest,
and her example operating for the benefit of mankind, every nation in
Europe would eventually have founded a government over which the will
of the people would have had a powerful control. His improper conduct,
however, has checked the salutary progress of principle; but the
object is fixed in the eye of nations, and they will press to its
accomplishment, and to the general amelioration of the condition of
man. What a germ have the freemen of the United States planted, and
how faithfully should they cherish the parent tree at home. Chagrin and
mortification are the punishments our enemies receive.
You tell me I am quoted by those who wish to continue our dependence
on England for manufactures. There was a time when I might have been so
quoted with more candor. But within the thirty years which have since
elapsed, how are circumstances changed! We were then in peace; our
independent place among nations was acknowledged. A commerce which
offered the raw material, in exchange for the same material after
receiving the last touch of industry, was worthy of welcome to all
nations. It was expected, that those especially to whom manufacturing
industry was important, would cherish the friendship of such customers
by every favor, and particularly cultivate their peace by every act
of justice and friendship. Under this prospect, the question seemed
legitimate, whether, with such an immensity of unimproved land,
courting the hand of husbandry, the industry of agriculture, or that of
manufactures, would add most to the national wealth. And the doubt
on the utility of the American manufactures was entertained on this
consideration, chiefly, that to the labor of the husbandman a vast
addition is made by the spontaneous energies of the earth on which it
is employed. For one grain of wheat committed to the earth, she renders
twenty, thirty, and even fifty fold; whereas to the labor of the
manufacturer nothing is added. Pounds of flax, in his hands, on the
contrary, yield but penny weights of lace. This exchange, too, laborious
as it might seem, what a field did it promise for the occupation of the
ocean; what a nursery for that class of citizens who were to exercise
and maintain our equal rights on that element! This was the state of
things in 1785, when the Notes on Virginia were first published; when,
the ocean being open to all nations, and their common right in it
acknowledged and exercised under regulations sanctioned by the assent
and usage of all, it was thought that the doubt might claim some
consideration.