Produced by Robert Cicconetti and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's note: The second edition is still under copyright,
but contained a few corrections. The quote attributed to Jefferson
on pages 80-82 is from Thomas Paine and has a different plate.
The text on pages 82-85 and in the introduction were significantly
revised. The last paragraph on page 375 was reworded to be less
critical of John Adams.
The original text includes Greek characters, which have been replaced
with transliterations for this text version. Also, certain words use
"oe" ligature in the original. Carat (^) character has been used to
represent subscript in this text version.]
THOMAS JEFFERSON
_The Apostle of Americanism_
Books by Gilbert Chinard
VOLNEY ET L'AMERIQUE
JEFFERSON ET LES IDEOLOGUES
LES REFUGIES HUGUENOTS EN AMERIQUE
THE COMMONPLACE BOOK OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
LES AMITIES FRANCAISES DE JEFFERSON
THE LITERARY BIBLE OF JEFFERSON
[Illustration: BUST OF THOMAS JEFFERSON BY HOUDON
_In the possession of the New York Historical Society_]
THOMAS
JEFFERSON
THE APOSTLE OF AMERICANISM
_By_
GILBERT CHINARD
_With Illustrations_
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1929
_Copyright, 1929_,
BY LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
_All rights reserved_
Published September, 1929
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
INTRODUCTION
This study of Jefferson's mind is the indirect outcome of an ambitious
undertaking on which I launched about ten years ago. My original purpose
had been to determine more exactly than had heretofore been done the
contribution of the French thinkers to the political philosophy of
Thomas Jefferson.
The points of similarity were obvious: the parallelism between the
theory of natural rights and the _Declaration des droits de l'homme_ is
patent; the American statesman shared with the French "doctrinaires" the
same faith in the ultimate wisdom of the people, the same belief in the
necessity of a free press and religious freedom. Many of his utterances
had a sort of French ring and countless Gallicisms could be discovered
in his letters. He spent in France the five years immediately preceding
the Revolution of 1789; he knew Madame d'Houdetot, Madame Helvetius,
Lafayette, Condorcet, Cabanis, Du Pont de Nemours, l'Abbe Morellet and
Destutt de Tracy. He was accused of bringing back from France the
"infidel doctrines" of the philosophers and to some of his
contemporaries he appeared as the embodiment of Jacobinism. How could
such a man have failed to be influenced by the political, social and
economic theories which brought about the great upheaval of the end of
the eighteenth century?
A rapid survey of the Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress and in
the Massachusetts Historical Society soon convinced me that the subject
had scarcely been touched, notwithstanding the controversy that had been
raging about the origin of Jefferson's political ideas for more than a
century. Hundreds of letters written to Jefferson by French
correspondents were preserved in the precious archives, and had
apparently never been consulted. Many days were spent in the rotunda of
the Manuscript Division, turning the leaves of the two hundred and
thirty volumes of the Jefferson papers. Documents after documents threw
a new light on the mind of the great American--letters hastily written,
rough drafts corrected and recorrected, press copies blurred and hardly
decipherable, yellowed scraps of paper crumbling to pieces but piously
restored; more letters in a regular, precise hand, the hand of a man who
had been a surveyor and who drew rather than wrote. Fifty years of the
most eventful period of American history, told by the chief
participants, rose from the old documents, and day by day was revealed
more clearly the clean-cut figure of Jefferson the American.
First of all, the tall, lanky boy, born in a frame dwelling by the
Rivanna,--not a farmer boy by any means, but the son of an ambitious,
energetic and respected surveyor, a landowner and a colonel in the
militia, and of a mother in whose veins ran the best blood of Virginia.
The stern and pious education received in the family, the reading of the
Bible and Shakespeare, the lessons of Reverend Maury, the son of a
Huguenot who took the boy as a boarding student, the years at William
and Mary College in the brilliant, animated, but small capital of
Virginia, the conversations with Mr. Small, Mr. Wythe and Governor
Fauquier, the Apollo tavern, the first love affair, and the long
roamings in the hills surrounding Shadwell. More years as a student of
law and as a law practitioner, quickly followed by his marriage with a
Virginia "belle", and Thomas Jefferson had settled down, a promising
young man, a talented lawyer, a respectable landowner, an omnivorous
reader who culled from hundreds of authors moral maxims, bits of poetry,
historical, legal and philosophical disquisitions and copied them in a
neat hand in his commonplace books. But curiously enough during these
formative years, the direct influence of the French philosophers was
almost negligible. He knew Montesquieu's "Esprit des Lois" and
Voltaire's "Essai sur les moeurs", but he used both books as
repertories of facts rather than as founts of ideas. His masters were
the Greeks of old, Homer and Euripides, then Cicero and Horace, finally
Bolingbroke and above all the historians of the English law in whose
works he studied the principles, development and degeneration of free
institutions.
The choice of the abstracts made by this young Virginian who was still
in his twenties already reveals an extraordinary capacity for absorbing
knowledge and a most remarkable independence of thought. As he had
planned to build a house according to his own plans, he had likewise
decided to construct for himself, with material just as carefully
chosen, the intellectual house in which he intended to live. Had not the
Revolution intervened, Thomas Jefferson would probably have spent his
years in his native colony, become a successful member of the Virginia
bar, perhaps a judge learned and respected, a wealthy landowner adding
constantly to the paternal acres. He had no ambition and little
suspected his own latent genius, and yet, during all these years which
he might have passed in leisurely and pleasant idleness, he never
ceased, unknowingly as it were, to prepare himself for the great part he
was to play.
When the call came he was ready. The ideas expressed in the Declaration
of Independence were common property, but their felicitous wording was
not due to a sudden and feverish inspiration. The young Virginian
expressed only the definite conclusions he had slowly reached in reading
the historians and the old lawyers. The principles there proclaimed were
not abstract and _a priori_ principles; they were distinctly the
principles that had directed his Saxon forefathers in their "settlement"
of England. They were the legitimate inheritance of their descendants
and continuators who had brought over with them to America the rights
of their ancestors to settle in sparsely inhabited land, there to live
freely and happily under institutions chosen by themselves. To go back
to a primitive past, to the good old times, had been the dream of many
political philosophers; but Jefferson's vision of that ancestral past
was no dream, for it had originated in the only part of the inhabited
earth where it could become a reality. This was the true background of
the Declaration of Independence, the background of Jeffersonian
democracy--a curious justification of the pioneer spirit by a student of
history who cared little for abstract reasoning and philosophical
constructions.
Thus far the national consciousness of Thomas Jefferson had been
somewhat hazy. Born in Virginia and intensely devoted to the Old
Dominion, he had never left his native habitat until he was sent as a
delegate to Congress. There only did he realize the divergences of the
different colonies and the imperious necessity for them to organize
their life and to agree to some sort of a permanent compact. No dealings
with foreign nations could be transacted, no efficient measures of
protection against the common foe could be devised, unless the several
States were held together by some sort of a common bond and had achieved
some sort of a unity. While the Articles of Confederation were being
discussed, he puzzled over the essence and meaning of these "natural
rights" so often mentioned in the different committees on which he sat,
and he preserved the result of his meditations in an unpublished
document I had the good fortune to discover in the Library of Congress.
First of all, he was led to establish a distinction between the
fundamental natural rights, which the individual can exercise by
himself, and another class of rights which cannot be safely enjoyed
unless society provides adequate protection. In forming a society and in
accepting a social compact, the first rights were to be reserved and to
remain inalienable; rights of the second class, on the contrary, were
partly given up in exchange for more security. This very simple
distinction enabled the young delegate to do away with the old antinomy
so perplexing to many political philosophers and to solve the difficulty
against which Rousseau had vainly struggled in his _Contrat social_. The
individual remained in full possession of certain rights; society was
granted only part of the others, a part to be determined strictly in
forming a social compact: the citizen no longer had to sacrifice all his
rights on the altar of the country; he remained sovereign in a sovereign
society.
What was true of individuals was true of the States coalescing to form a
union or confederation. Each individual State remained sovereign and
yielded only part of certain rights in order to obtain more security
against foreign aggressors. To the right of expatriation for the
individual corresponded the right of secession for the State. But from
this recognition of the right to denounce the compact, it did not follow
that Jefferson would have encouraged either the individual or the States
to withdraw from the society thus formed in order to resume a precarious
life by themselves. Even if he had been an anarchistic instead of being
a truly "socialistic" political thinker, a few meetings of the
committees on which he sat would have sufficed to demonstrate that, to
the necessity of society for the individuals, corresponded the necessity
of a union for the individual States. The Virginian had developed into a
true American. Jefferson was thinking nationally and not sectionally; he
was ready for the great role he was about to assume.
His five-year stay in Europe confirmed him in the opinion that there
existed in America the germ of something infinitely precious, if
somewhat precarious, and he realized that his country had really become
the hope of the world. He was too fond of good music, good architecture,
good dinners, good wines and long conversations not to appreciate fully
the good points of life while in Paris. He praised the French for their
achievements in the arts and sciences, and formed with many of them
long-enduring friendships; but neither France, nor England, and even
less Italy or Spain, were countries toward which men could turn their
eyes when looking for a political "polar star." Traditions were too
deeply rooted, prejudices of too long standing, class distinctions too
sharply defined to leave room for any hope of ever seeing them establish
within a reasonable time a tolerable form of government. On the
contrary, unhampered by such hoary traditionalism and free to shape her
destinies, America, provided she carefully avoided the dangers under
which Europe was laboring, could not only establish the best possible
form of government, but set an example to be followed by the rest of
mankind.
These dangers were patent; they resulted from the existence of
privileged classes or hereditary aristocracies, of State religions,
censorship of the press and books, centralization and concentration in a
few hands of all the financial and economic resources of the country.
Anything that smacked of the European system was to be fought with the
utmost energy, not only for the sake of America, but for the sake of the
world. Such were the real reasons that justify the fight waged by
Jefferson after his return from Europe against the tendencies
represented by Hamilton. Not out of any sympathy for the Jacobins did he
seem to favor the French Revolution; but, since America herself had
become the battlefield of two opposed ideals, he sided with the one
which, in his opinion, presented the smaller danger for the existence of
his country.
Throughout the long-drawn-out battle, he remained convinced that only by
avoiding any entanglement with European politics could America fulfill
her destiny. The great obstacle to such an isolation was foreign
commerce, for Jefferson clearly understood that economic and commercial
bonds or dependence would necessarily entail political bonds and
political dependence. America was to live in her own world, to pay her
debts as soon as possible, to become industrially independent of
Europe, to manufacture at home enough for her own consumption "and no
more." She was also to seize every opportunity to eliminate dangerous
neighbors, not that she really coveted any territory or colony held by
foreign powers, not that she needed new land for a surplus of
population; but she could not keep out of European politics if Europe
remained at her doors and used her colonies as a "fulcrum for her
intrigues." Spain was so weak that nothing had to be feared directly
from her, but her colonies could be seized at any time by more powerful
enemies; France should not be permitted again to set her foot on the
American continent. As to England, she was to be expelled from her
continental dominions whenever America would be strong enough to enforce
the "_American jus gentium_", and the sea was to be neutralized.
Having removed all causes for foreign frictions and aggressions, America
would be free to develop along her own lines. She was to remain for long
years to come an agricultural nation; she would grow towards the west by
attaching to herself new territories as their population increased. The
Federal Government was to retain a minimum of power and attributions. It
was to be carefully and constantly watched for fear of concentrating too
much power in a few hands and in one place. Federal legislation was to
be kept down, for the more laws, the worse the republic--"_plurimae
leges, pessima republica_." There was nothing intangible, however, in
the government which had been hastily put together at the close of the
Revolution. It was desirable and necessary to preserve the main
principles embodied in the Constitution in so far as they expressed the
permanent and inalienable rights of the people and the States, but each
generation had a right to determine anew the details of the legislation
and how they chose to be governed. The different articles adopted in
1787 were not to be considered as sacred as the Tables of the Law, they
were the work of fallible and changing human beings, and the essence of
the American government did not rest on a written document but on the
dispositions of the individual citizens and on enlightened public
opinion.
This being the case, it became necessary to prepare each citizen for the
part he was called upon to play in the life of the country. The great
mass of the American people had a "cool common sense" and a certain
degree of instruction which fitted all of them to do certain things, but
not everything. A farmer could not overnight and by virtue of the
popular choice become qualified to judge of fine legal points, to settle
complicated economic problems, or to conduct difficult diplomatic
negotiations with foreign courts. All this required more than ordinary
common sense and ordinary education: the country needed leaders and
experts to be carefully trained in special institutions--in a national
university or, if this proved impossible, in State universities. As to
the great mass of the common people, they could be trusted to judge of
facts and to sit on a jury; they were also good judges of men and
properly could choose between candidates for the different offices. A
free press would keep them informed of the conduct of the men thus
selected; primary and secondary schools would help in the diffusion of
knowledge, and enlightened self-interest would prevent them at any time
from making grievous mistakes.
Such a system constituted the best form of government ever established
by man; but it did not ensue that it was immediately to be adopted by
all the nations of the earth. It embodied certain permanent principles
susceptible of general application, for they did nothing but express the
unalienable rights of man. All men, however, were not to be intrusted at
once with the full enjoyment of their rights. There were certain
countries which for generations had been priest-ridden and king-ridden
and in which men unaccustomed to use their judgment were swayed by
emotions, hatreds and prejudices. A time might come when the sacred
contagion of liberty would spread to these unfortunate populations, but
it would take many revolutions, much bloodshed and a slow and painful
process of education to enable them to shake off their shackles and to
enjoy the full benefits of self-government. America, on the contrary,
because of her geographical remoteness from Europe, because of the
quality of the people who had settled in the English colonies, had
fought, not to destroy an old order of things, but to preserve and to
extend already existing liberties. Among the nations of the world she
stood as an example and a hope. She was the living evidence that under a
free government a large nation could grow prosperous and powerful,
simply by existing, and without preaching any new gospel she fulfilled
her duty to mankind.
Whatever may be the shortcomings of this political philosophy, it was
distinctly an American doctrine; one cannot imagine it to have
originated in any European country, for what would have been a Utopian
and chimerical dream in the Old World was within the reach of man in
America. Whether it corresponds to present conditions is still another
question; it is nevertheless true that by emphasizing the uniqueness of
America and the political superiority of his native land for more than
fifty years, Thomas Jefferson did more than any other man of his
generation to formulate the creed of Americanism. The man who was
accused of being denationalized stands as the most integrally and truly
American among his contemporaries.
This does not mean, however, that Jefferson did not occasionally depart
from the policies he had thus drawn. No man can remain in public life
for half a century without ever falling into contradictions and
inconsistencies. Only "closet politicians" and mere theorists never
accept any compromise, and Jefferson was a very practical politician
with a keen sense of possibilities and realities. Trained as a
small-town lawyer, then placed on many committees in Congress, forced to
wrest war measures out of a reluctant Assembly, even managing to hold
his own with the resourceful diplomats of Europe, Thomas Jefferson knew
how to handle men and how "to take things by their smooth handle." There
was nothing quixotic about him and he never tried to fight against
windmills, nor did he break his head against blank walls. But he was
singularly apt to bide his time, to wait for a favorable opportunity
and, whenever he saw a chance, he never failed to come back to his
original line of conduct and to his original policies.
He seldom indulged in undue display of emotions and personal feelings,
but he was no mere thinking machine. In his youth he loved and suffered;
later he was perplexed by the riddle of the world; he studied the old
philosophers in order to find the moral props which religion could no
longer give him and, in his older age, came back to the morals of Jesus.
His encyclopedic curiosity and the versatility of his mind won for him
the admiration of his contemporaries, and, in that sense--the
eighteenth-century sense--he was truly "a philosopher." But he was too
practical-minded to waste much time in mere theorizing or in theological
and metaphysical "disquisitions." Firmly convinced that the business of
life was with matter, he considered science as an instrument and a tool
to master the blind forces of nature. He was more interested in
applications than in disinterested research, and in that respect, as in
many others, he was not only an American, but, above all, an
eighteenth-century man. Intensely nationalistic as he was when it came
to politics, he was truly cosmopolitan in the realm of intellectual
achievements, and thus was created the legend of a denationalized
Jefferson; for the popular mind, fond of generalizations, is unable to
recognize such distinctions. Among his friends he counted all the
leading scientists of the time and through them--particularly through
his French friends of the Museum--he exerted an influence of which he
himself was perhaps not fully aware. To his European correspondents he
appeared the embodiment of what was best in the American character. His
influence on the development of liberalism and democratic ideas
throughout the world can hardly be estimated, and separate
investigations will have to be carried out before his exact contribution
to the growth of democracy can be rightly estimated. Through his letters
he encouraged his friends to keep their faith, but better still he
demonstrated that self-government and democracy, as he understood it,
were practical and workable schemes and not the idle dreams of
philosophers shut in their closets.
I hardly dare mention here the names of the many friends and colleagues
who gave me most generously their assistance and encouragement. To
Doctor J. C. Fitzpatrick, untiring, most patient and helpful in his
suggestions, I owe a particular debt. Mr. W. C. Ford afforded me all
possible facilities for consulting the letters of Jefferson in the
Jefferson Coolidge Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. I
discussed more than once with Professors Willoughby, Latane and Lovejoy
and with President Goodnow of the Johns Hopkins University the
perplexing problems that confronted me, and submitted several hypotheses
to the History of Ideas Club of the University. Doctor L. P. Shanks gave
me his time and friendly assistance in the revision of the manuscript.
But none of my counselors and friends are to be held responsible for the
ideas here expressed, some of which they would probably refuse to
indorse.
In the course of this investigation I consulted too many books to list
them all. Randall is still very useful and has not been completely
superseded by more modern biographies. I found the books of Beveridge
fascinating though having somewhat of a tendency, and could not
completely agree with Mr. Beard on the economic origins of the
Jeffersonian democracy. I naturally made use of Mr. Becker's study of
the Declaration of Independence. I read the biography of Mr. Hirst with
great interest, though our points of view were very different, and I
almost decided to abandon my undertaking when the more recent work of
Mr. Nock appeared. Incomplete and unsatisfactory as they are in some
respects, the Ford Edition and the Memorial Edition are very useful
tools, the best available at the present time. Much to my regret, I had
to omit many documents still unpublished which are preserved in the
Jefferson papers.
The collections of the Library of Congress and the Massachusetts
Historical Society constitute the richest treasure house of historical
information ever left by a single man. It would take several lives and a
fortune to edit them properly; but since Monticello has now become again
a national shrine and will be safely preserved, it may not be out of
place to express the wish that the day will soon come when a national
association will undertake to publish an integral edition of the
Jefferson papers,--a most fitting monument to the greatest political
philosopher of America and one of her greatest sons.
GILBERT CHINARD
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOOK ONE: _The Virginian_
I A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD 3
II AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE OF GREECE AND OLD ENGLAND 19
III A VIRGINIA LAWYER 34
BOOK TWO: _Jefferson and the American Revolution_
I THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 59
II THE REVISION OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA 86
III GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA--THE "NOTES ON VIRGINIA" 108
IV A STATESMAN'S APPRENTICESHIP 137
BOOK THREE: _An American View of Europe_
I SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 159
II GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE AND THE DEBT QUESTION 176
III UNION AND ISOLATION 194
IV JEFFERSON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 215
BOOK FOUR: _Monocrats and Republicans_
I THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 245
II JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 274
III MONTICELLO--AGRICULTURE AND POLITICS 298
IV "THE DICTATES OF REASON AND PURE AMERICANISM" 321
V POLITICAL LEADER AND STRATEGIST 343
BOOK FIVE: _The Presidency_
I "ALL REPUBLICANS, ALL FEDERALISTS" 379
II PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM AND TERRITORIAL EXPANSION 396
III "SELF-PRESERVATION IS PARAMOUNT TO ALL LAW" 425
IV "PEACE AND COMMERCE WITH EVERY NATION" 440
BOOK SIX: _The Sage of Monticello_
I "AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE TO ITSELF" 467
II DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 489
III THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 513
INDEX 533
ILLUSTRATIONS
BUST OF THOMAS JEFFERSON BY HOUDON _Frontispiece_
_In the possession of the New York Historical Society_
A PAGE OF JEFFERSON'S REFLECTIONS ON THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION 80
_From the manuscript in the possession of the Library
of Congress_
A PAGE FROM JEFFERSON'S "COMMONPLACE BOOK" 102
_From the manuscript in the possession of the Library
of Congress_
LAFAYETTE 206
_After a lithograph from the portrait by Grevedon_
ALEXANDER HAMILTON 256
_From the painting by John Trumbull in the possession
of the Essex Institute, Salem, Mass._
THOMAS JEFFERSON 290
_From the portrait by Rembrandt Peale_
MONTICELLO AS IT APPEARS TO-DAY 314
THOMAS JEFFERSON 468
_From the portrait by Kosciuszko_
BOOK ONE
_The Virginian_
CHAPTER I
A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD
The peoples of the Old World worship at the birthplaces of their
national heroes and bury their mortal remains in splendid mausoleums,
pantheons or Westminster Abbeys. By a significant and symbolic contrast,
the memories of Washington and Jefferson are enshrined in no ancestral
homes, but in the mansions planned with loving care, in which they so
expressed themselves that their very spirit seems to haunt the deserted
rooms of Mount Vernon and Monticello. They are buried according to their
wishes on their own land, at the very center of the acres they had
themselves surveyed and reclaimed from the wilderness, close to nature
and Mother Earth. However great may be their debt to the past and their
remote ancestors, they stand by themselves at the threshold of America's
national history,--master builders who wrestled with gigantic tasks and
first thought of their country as the future home of unborn millions.
The boy who was born on April 2, 1743, in the recently erected farmhouse
at Shadwell, on the bank of the Rivanna, never gave much thought to his
lineage in his later life. Yet Virginians of good stock were always
proud of their ancestry, and more than once he was told by his mother
that the Randolphs could "trace their pedigree far back in England and
Scotland." Jefferson's mother and John Marshall's grandmother were
descended from William Randolph and Mary Isham, both of the English
gentry, and Jane Randolph, issued from the best blood in the Old
Dominion, had married when she was nineteen a man without means, whose
education had been neglected, but sturdy and industrious and belonging
to one of the proudest and most aristocratic lines of old Virginians.
Of his mother, Jefferson has told us very little either in his letters
or in his "Autobiography." We may surmise she had the refined, modest,
unobtrusive and yet efficient qualities so marked in the Virginia girls
of the Colonial days and so often noticed by travelers. Sons are apt to
mold their feminine ideal on the memory of their mother, and Jefferson
may have been thinking both of her and of his wife when, many years
later, he contrasted French frivolity with Virginian virtues:
In America, the society of your husband, the fond cares for the
children, the arrangements of the house, the improvements of the
grounds, fill every moment with a useful and healthy activity....
The intervals of leisure are filled by the society of real friends,
whose affections are not thinned to cobweb, by being spread over a
thousand objects. This is the picture, in the light it is presented
to my mind.[1]
The fond cares for her children would have been ample to fill all the
minutes of Jefferson's mother. Large families were the rule in Virginia;
fifteen children were born to Thomas Marshall and Mary Keith, and
Jefferson's family was no exception to the rule. Between 1740 and 1755,
Jane Randolph gave ten children to Peter Jefferson; Thomas was the third
child and the first son.
What information he gave about his father has to be completed from other
sources. The tradition in the family was that "the first paternal
ancestor came from Wales, and from near the mountain of Snowdon, the
highest in Great Britain." Peter Jefferson, landowner, practical
surveyor, of gigantic stature and strength, had the sturdy qualities and
ambition of the pioneer. He received a colonelcy in the militia, became
a member of the House of Burgesses in 1755, and in 1749 had been chosen
with Joshua Fry, professor of mathematics in William and Mary College,
to continue the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina. "He
was afterwards employed with the same Mr. Fry to make the first map of
Virginia which was ever made." Besides his association with Fry, from
whom he drew the theoretical knowledge of mathematics in which he was
lacking, Peter Jefferson improved himself by much reading, not novels,
but the serious and sound books which constituted the ordinary family
library in colonial Virginia,--historians, essayists, and most of all
Shakespeare. For in Virginia as well as in New England, Shakespeare and
the Bible were the two books found in every household, the two richest
springs of the modern English language. Religion took up as much of
their life as in New England. Prayers were said three and sometimes four
times a day, and from his earliest infancy, Jefferson became familiar
with the liturgy of the Church of England, and had stamped in his memory
the strong old words, vigorous phrases and noble speech of King James'
version.
He was only five years old when his father, already planning to give him
the education of which he himself had been deprived, decided to send the
boy to the best school in the neighborhood. He stayed two years at the
English school; then, when nine, he went to the school of Mr. Douglas, a
Scotch clergyman, who taught him French and the rudiments of Latin and
Greek. Most of his childhood was spent away from home, as a boarding
student, and the silence maintained by Jefferson with reference to his
parents is thus easily explained. It explains also the lack of
spontaneity and the awkwardness which always prevented him from
expressing freely his emotions and sentiments. What may seem in him a
national characteristic was largely a matter of training and early
discipline.
He was fourteen when his father died, with a last recommendation that
his son be given a classical education. Still a mere boy, Thomas
Jefferson had become the oldest living male of the family and to a
certain extent its head. Whether he was at first fully aware of his new
responsibility is very doubtful. He could not remember without a
retrospective fear in his later years how close he had come to wasting
his whole life:
When I recollect that at fourteen years of age, the whole care and
direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely, without a relation
or friend, qualified to advise or guide me, and recollect the various
sorts of bad company with which I associated from time to time, I am
astonished I did not turn off with some of them, and become as
worthless to society as they were.[2]
The next two years were spent as a boarding student with Reverend Mr.
Maury, "a correct classical scholar"--probably not a very inspiring one,
if we interpret rightly the adjective used by Jefferson. We may well
imagine him at sixteen, a tall, slim boy, with auburn hair and clear
eyes, fond of fowling, horse-riding and outdoors, fond of reading also,
but disposing of very few books; for his father's library was not large
and, if the Reverend Mr. Maury followed the tradition of many old
schoolmasters, he seldom opened his library to his students. Still, he
knew his Bible, had read a few English classics, was well grounded in
Greek and Latin, and had perfected his knowledge of French; but it is
doubtful whether he was acquainted with any French writer except the old
standard authors--"Telemaque", Berquin, perhaps "Gil Blas" and Pascal's
"Pensees." But, even at that age, Jefferson necessarily knew something
of the many duties of a landowner; for the slaves he was the young
master, and during the summer he had to become somewhat acquainted with
the management of a large estate. The education he had received was not
exactly a frontier education with the usual connotations of that word.
He had not been brought up in a log cabin, he had never engaged in
back-breaking tasks of felling trees or of splitting rails; he probably
had never put his hand to the plow except as an experiment.
He had heard his father tell of long journeys in the wilderness and of
treacherous Indians, but no Red Men roamed the forests near Shadwell.
The only Indians he knew were peaceful, almost romantic characters who
stopped at the house of Colonel Jefferson on their way to Williamsburg.
I knew much--he said--of the great Ontassere, the warrior and orator
of the Cherokees; he was always the guest of my father on his
journeys to and from Williamsburg. I was in his camp when he made
his great farewell oration to his people, the evening before his
departure for England. The moon was in full splendor, and to her he
seemed to address himself in his prayers for his own safety on the
voyage, and that of his people during his absence; his sounding
voice, distinct articulation, animated action, and the solemn silence
of his people at their several fires, filled me with awe and
admiration.[3]
This youthful impression left an indelible mark on his mind and was not
without some influence on the "Notes on Virginia" as well as on the
letters he wrote to Indian chiefs when he was President.
Nor was Shadwell exactly in the "howling wilderness", even if there was
no large city near it. It was located on the road to Williamsburg, and
many travelers stopped at the house on their way to the capital.
Hospitality to friends and strangers was a sacred rite and most
scrupulously observed. Much visiting was done in Virginia, and men
particularly spent considerable time traveling from house to house;
slaves were put up, horses were sent to the stable, while the best was
spread on the table for the master. During the summer months, when roads
were not made impassable by deep mudholes, one visitor had hardly left
when another came. They had to be entertained, sometimes at a
considerable expense, always at a considerable loss of time. Young
Jefferson soon realized, after returning to Shadwell, that he would
never amount to much and would probably become an idler, if he stayed on
the estate like so many of his young friends. The wasting of precious
moments irritated and disturbed him when he wanted to do some reading or
some study, and he felt that the condition of the estate hardly
warranted such a generous hospitality. He therefore decided to leave,
and the letter he wrote on this occasion to his guardian, Mr. John
Hervey of Bellemont, shows him fully aware of his responsibilities and
perfectly definite in his plans.[4]
In the spring of 1760, the young man, then exactly seventeen, went to
Williamsburg and enrolled in the College of William and Mary. Quite
possibly it was his first visit to the capital of Virginia, his first
contact with urban life. It was, for the time, a place of very
respectable size and considerable activity. Old Professor Hugh Jones, a
man much traveled and much read, described it enthusiastically in his
"Present State of Virginia", published in London in 1724:
Williamsburg is a market town, and is governed by a mayor and
aldermen. It is a town well stocked with rich stores, all sorts of
goods, and well furnished with the best provisions and liquors. Here
dwell several good families, and more reside here in their own houses
at publick times. They live in the same neat manner, dress after the
same modes, and behave themselves exactly as the Gentry in London;
most families of note having a coach, chariot, Berlin, or chaize....
Thus they dwell comfortably, genteely, pleasantly, and plentifully in
this delightful, healthful, and (I hope) pleasant city of Virginia.
Great occasions were receptions given by the Governor, meetings of the
Assembly, occasional performances by regular companies from New York,
semi-professional players and later, by the Virginian Company of
Comedians. Horse races attracted every year a large concourse of
people, for every true Virginian is a lover of horseflesh. Betting was
active and large sums of money changed hands, particularly for the
four-mile heat race given each year on the course adjoining the town.
Ladies in all the glory of their imported dresses, gentlemen in
brilliantly colored knee breeches and coats, with elegantly chased
swords at their sides and the best beaver hats made in London under
their arms, attended the receptions, the dances, the theater, and more
than once adjourned to the famous Apollo room in the Raleigh Tavern,
where they indulged in much drinking of "punch, beer, Nantes rum,
brandy, Madeira and French claret." The first time young Jefferson went
to the Raleigh he was probably shown the largest punch bowl in the
house, which had played a part in the purchase of Shadwell, for had not
Colonel Jefferson bought the site from William Randolph of Tuckahoe, for
"Henry Weatherbourne's biggest bowl of arrack punch"?
The college itself was no less an attraction than the town. Built
originally on the plans of Christopher Wren, it had unfortunately been
remodeled after a fire, "a rude, misshapen pile, which but it had a roof
would be taken for a brick-kiln", wrote Jefferson in his "Notes on
Virginia." Such as it was, however, with the Capitol, of much better
style, it was the first large building and monument the young man had
ever seen and he probably admired it at the time as much as most
Virginians did.
It was by no means a university, not even a real college. Like most
institutions of learning in the colonies, it had been established "to
the end that the church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary for
ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in
good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated
amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of the Almighty."
The lack of preparation of the students, the fact that the sons of the
wealthiest were sent to England to finish their education, perhaps also
an aristocratic scorn for specialized and intensive learning among the
gentry of Virginia, all had contributed to keep down the standards of
the institution. Much to his disgust, Jefferson found
... that the admission of the learners of Latin and Greek had filled
the college with children. This rendering it disagreeable and
degrading to young gentlemen, already prepared for entering on the
sciences, they were discouraged from resorting to it, and thus the
schools for mathematics and moral philosophy, which might have been
of some service, became of very little. The revenues, too, were
exhausted in accommodating those who came only to acquire the
rudiments of the sciences.[5]
Thus the problem of caring for the many, the danger of keeping together
in college the prepared and the unprepared students, which is still with
us, existed already in America one hundred and fifty years ago.
Evidently Jefferson considered himself as one of those young gentlemen
who were prepared for entering upon the study of the sciences; he was
certainly more mature for his years than most of his fellow students and
looked down upon them as well, we may surmise, as upon the teachers
themselves. On the other hand, the town offered many temptations and he
probably yielded to some of them. He was often thrown into the society
of horse-racers, card-players, fox-hunters, and at the end of his first
year in college it appeared to him that he had spent more than his share
of the income of the estate. He therefore wrote to his guardian to
charge his expenses to his share of the property: "No," Colonel Walker
is reported to have said,--"if you have sowed your wild oats thus, the
estate may well afford to pay the bill."
We possess no precise information upon the amount spent by Jefferson nor
any account book for that year, but we may surmise that Colonel Walker
would not have been so lenient if the total sum had been spent in
reprehensible dissipations. Williamsburg boasted of a large bookstore,
and in 1775 Dixon and Hunter published a list of more than three hundred
titles in their stock. Book lovers are born and not made. Jefferson had
never been able to satisfy fully his passion for books, and as the
college library offered him only very meager resources, he must have
plunged with delight in the bookshop of Williamsburg and bought
extravagantly, an expense the estate "could well afford to pay." But the
fact remained that what he had learned he had learned by himself, and
that college life had not furnished him the guidance and direction he
was looking for.
It was at this juncture that Doctor Small, professor of mathematics, was
appointed _ad interim_ professor of philosophy and soon developed an
interest in the young Virginian. Jefferson himself paid a grateful
tribute to the man who just in time rescued him from his frivolous
companions and brought back to his mind the serious purpose he had
entertained when he entered William and Mary.
It was my good fortune and that probably fixed the destinies of my
life, that Doctor William Small of Scotland was then Professor of
Mathematics, a man profound in most of the useful branches of
science, with a happy talent of communication, correct and
gentlemanly manners, and an enlarged and liberal mind. He, most
happily for me, became soon attached to me, and made me his daily
companion when not engaged in the school; and from his conversation I
got my first views of the expansion of science, and of the system of
things in which we are placed. Fortunately, the philosophical chair
became vacant soon after my arrival at college, and he was appointed
to fill it _per interim_: and he was the first who ever gave, in that
college, regular lectures in Ethics, Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres.[6]
For Jefferson Doctor Small was the prime awakener and inspirer. Through
him the young man was introduced to George Wythe who soon accepted him
as a student of law, and through him again he was received by Governor
Fauquier.
Such were the first really cultured men with whom Jefferson ever came in
contact: William Small, the mathematician and philosopher, would not
have been a true Scot if he had not had that passionate love for
discussion and logic which seems the innate gift of so many sons of the
Highlands. Francis Fauquier, "the ornament and delight of Virginia",
generous, liberal, elegant in his manners and requirements, was the son
of Doctor Fauquier of Floirac, near Bordeaux, who had worked under
Newton in the mint and become a director of the Bank of England. His
early biographer Burke, the Virginia historian, has chiefly emphasized
his propensity to gaming. But Fauquier was an economist of no mean
distinction and had written an important tract on the basis of taxation.
He was interested in physics or natural philosophy and had become a
Fellow of the Royal Society. He was a student of natural phenomena and
sent to the Society the description of a hail-storm in Virginia.
Finally, there was George Wythe, whose virtue was of the purest tint,
his integrity inflexible, and his justice exact. Last and most important
of all his qualities, perhaps, was the characteristic peculiarity
mentioned by Jefferson in the sketch he wrote after the death of his old
master: "he was firm in his philosophy, and neither troubling, nor
perhaps trusting any one with his religion."
Such were the true masters of Thomas Jefferson, and from their
conversations around the table, after bottles of port had been brought,
he learned more than any student at William and Mary ever acquired in
college. It was a rare privilege for a young man of Jefferson's age to
be admitted to the "_parties carrees_", and he must have already given
singular promise to have been invited at all into the society of these
three luminaries of Virginia. What topics were discussed among them can
easily be imagined. Fauquier would speak of old England, the theaters of
London, the monuments and works of art, of his colleagues of the Royal
Society, or discuss a problem of taxation or a recent meteorological
phenomenon. A man of the world, a friend of Admiral Anson whom he had
met after his circumnavigation of the globe, a director of the South Sea
Company, he would speak of ships, strange lands, and reveal to the young
man the existence of a world extending far beyond his native Virginia.
Thus was born in Jefferson that ardent desire to travel and most of all
to see England which appears in some letters written in the early
sixties.
Philosophical and religious subjects perhaps were introduced, although
that is rather doubtful, in my opinion. The passage on George Wythe,
already quoted, mentions his reticence on religion. Whatever may have
been the propensity of Fauquier to gaming, he was never accused by his
contemporaries of being a religious libertine. It is also very doubtful
whether any of the group would naturally have discussed such subjects,
particularly in the presence of a young student whose education had been
deeply religious. Finally it must be remembered that in Virginia, as
well as in New England, there always existed some "reserved questions",
that it was not good form to criticize established institutions and
current beliefs. It is quite possible that Fauquier may have lent to
Jefferson certain volumes of Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke, but in spite
of the contrary opinion expressed by some biographers of Jefferson, it
seems very unlikely that any of the three older men should have
undertaken to shake the foundations of his faith. The "_parties
carrees_" could not have lasted very long, since William Small went back
to Scotland in 1762. But Jefferson's acquaintance with Fauquier and
Wythe was continued for many years after the departure of the
philosopher and, in both cases, until the death of the older men.
The master of Shadwell had sown his wild oats; he had had his brief
flight of dissipation and had reformed; but he had by no means become a
hermit. He had not entirely given up attending horse races and fox
hunts.
Many a time--he wrote in 1808--have I asked myself, in the
enthusiastic moment of the death of a fox, the victory of a favorite
horse, the issue of a question eloquently argued at the bar, or in
the great councils of the nation. Well, which of these kinds of
reputation would I prefer? That of a horse jockey? a fox hunter? an
orator? or the finest advocate of my country's rights?[7]
What young man has not thus dreamed of serving his country and devoting
himself to some noble cause, what student preparing for the bar has not
pictured himself winning a difficult case, forcing the judge's attention
and swaying a reluctant jury? The ambition to become an orator may have
been awakened in his mind by the acquaintance he had made of the
"uncultured Demosthenes" of the Old Dominion. In the winter of
1759-1760, he had met at the house of Mr. Dandrige, in Hanover, a tall,
ascetic-looking fellow, rather disdainful of finery and careless in his
wearing apparel, but "with such strains of native eloquence as Homer
wrote in"--"I never heard anything that deserved to be called by the
same name with what flowed from him," wrote Jefferson later, "and where
he got that torrent of language is unconceivable. I have frequently shut
my eyes while he spoke, and, when he was done, asked myself what he had
said, without being able to recollect a word of it. He was no logician.
He was truly a great man, however--one of enlarged views."
His name was Patrick Henry. Far less uncultured than Jefferson's
portrait would lead us to believe, related to very good families,
although poor and a complete failure as a merchant, Patrick Henry had
suddenly decided to enter the legal profession, and after borrowing a
"Coke upon Littleton" and a "Digest of the Virginia Acts", he had
appeared after six weeks' preparation before the board of examiners. He
won his diploma through logic, clear presentation and common sense
rather than through his knowledge of the law, and commenced practicing
in the fall of the same year. Whenever a case appeared before the
General Court sitting at Williamsburg and consisting of the Governor and
his council, "he used to put up" with Jefferson, borrowing books which
he seldom read, always ready with stories of the backwoods. Fame came to
him soon after, when his fiery eloquence in the "parson's case" drew
down upon him clerical hostility and public admiration. "Instead of
feeding the hungry and clothing the naked," he cried out in the
courtroom, "these religious harpies would, were their powers equal to
their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishioner his last
hoe-cake, from the widow and her orphan children their last milch cow,
the last bed, nay, the last blanket, from the lying-in woman."[8] Not
even in the days of the Convention did the halls of Paris echo with more
vehement vituperations and more indignant denunciations. A magnetic
power, an emotional appeal to elementary passion, to a sense of justice
in the mass rather than to the letter of the law fitted him for
political life. He was soon to have his opportunity; in the meantime he
awoke in Jefferson a revolt against clerical usurpations that was to
bear its fruit in time. Usually passed over by Jefferson's biographers,
the plea made by Patrick Henry in the "parson's case" seems to have been
the incident that called the young man's attention to the position
occupied by the established Church in its relations to the civil power.
It started in him the train of thought that culminated in the "Bill for
religious freedom."
It has been sometimes said that Jefferson used to spend fourteen hours a
day in study when he was at Williamsburg; his correspondence with John
Page shows him in a very different light. He was not in any sense a
bookworm, even though he read enormously, but he played as strenuously
as he studied. A good horseman, a good violin player, a good dancer, he
was a much-sought-after young man. He had a keen eye for the ladies, and
very early in 1762 he had fallen in love with Miss Rebecca Burwell, the
_Bell-in-day, Belinda, campana in die, Adnileb_ of his letters to Page.
The young lady had given him her profile cut in black paper which he
carried in his watch case. Far from her, life lost all interest: "all
things appear to me to trudge in one and the same round: we rise in the
morning that we may eat breakfast, dinner and supper, and to go to bed
again, that we may get up the next morning and do the same, so that you
never saw two peas more alike than our yesterday and to-day." He had in
mind to go back to Williamsburg, to propose, receive his sentence and be
no longer in suspense: "but reason says, if you go, and your attempts
prove unsuccessful, you will be ten times more wretched than ever."[9]
Spring, then summer came, and he could not muster up enough courage to
declare himself. Madly in love as he was, he was not intending to marry
at once. He had formed great plans for traveling. He was dreaming of
hoisting his sail and visiting England, Holland, France, Spain, Italy
(where I would buy me a good fiddle), and Egypt, and return home through
the British provinces to the northward. This would take him two or three
years. Was it fair to ask Belinda to wait so long for him? And yet he
could not leave without speaking and remain in suspense and cruel
uncertainty during the whole trip. "If I am to meet with a
disappointment, the sooner I know it, the more of life I shall have to
wear if off ... If Belinda will not accept of my service, it will never
be offered to another. That she may I pray most sincerely: but that she
will, she never gave me reason to hope."[10]
When college opened again at the beginning of October, he had made up
his mind to make his position clear. A dance was to be given in the
Apollo room of the Raleigh Tavern. He dressed up in all his finery, he
rehearsed in his head such thoughts as occurred to him and made a
complete fiasco. "A few broken sentences, uttered in great disorder, and
interrupted with pauses of uncommon length were the too visible marks of
my strange confusion" (October 7, 1763). Belinda did not say a word to
relieve him in his embarrassment, did not manifest in any way that she
understood his purpose, and several months were to elapse before
Jefferson had another opportunity to express himself. This time he had
learnt his piece perfectly, and from what we know of him already it is
probable that he made a very clear presentation of his case, too clear
and too logical even, for he concluded by saying that the decision
rested with her and that a new interview would not serve any purpose. A
strange lover indeed, apparently as madly in love as a young man could
be, and yet too respectful of the free will of his beloved to attempt to
sweep her off her feet by too frequent interviews and too passionate
pleas! Belinda listened attentively but did not give any indication that
Jefferson's speech had convinced her and won her heart. A few weeks
later the bashful suitor heard indirectly of her answer when she
announced her marriage to Mr. B ... Whether it was "for money, beauty,
or principle will be so nice a dispute, that no one will venture to
pronounce", wrote Jefferson at the time. To crown the joke, his happy
rival, who evidently had been kept in blissful ignorance of Jefferson's
sentiments, asked him to act as a best man at the wedding. A more
ironical trick of fate could scarcely be imagined; but, all considered,
Belinda was not altogether to blame.
Thomas Jefferson did not think of committing suicide, he did not swear
revenge, nor did he curse the ungrateful one in any of his letters. We
have some reason to believe, however, that his affair with Belinda
marked a decisive turn in his life. It killed whatever romantic strains
may have existed in his heart; it matured him, and it was probably at
that time that the long-belated metaphysical crisis took place, the
disappointed lover evolving a certain philosophy of life which he was to
retain to the end of his days.
CHAPTER II
AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE OF GREECE AND OLD ENGLAND
Until very recently the material for a study of the formative years of
Thomas Jefferson was very scanty. Many of his earliest letters have
disappeared and he always felt a strong disinclination to analyze
himself in writing. It was also contrary to his training and to the
customs of his milieu to discuss personal matters too frankly and too
openly. An American Jean-Jacques Rousseau baring his heart to posterity
would have been as out of place as a man from the moon in New England or
Virginia. But what he did not express as his personal feelings, he
copied from the philosophers and poets he read during his studious
nights or when resting under a tree on one of the hills surrounding
Shadwell. The two commonplace books I have recently published, written
by Jefferson during his student days and consulted by him throughout his
life, could rightly be called "Jefferson self-revealed."[11] They enable
us at any rate to determine with a fair degree of certainty the
sentimental and intellectual preoccupations that filled his mind when
examining the problems of society and the universe.
It does not seem that, until 1764, that is to say until the unfortunate
ending of his love affair with Belinda, Jefferson had ever been touched
by any religious doubt. When, in July, 1763, he foresaw the possibility
of being rejected, he wrote to Page a long letter in which he appears
still strongly marked by the Christian training he had received in his
family and at the hand of Mr. Douglas and the Reverend Mr. Maury:
Perfect happiness, I believe, was never intended by the Deity to be
the lot of one of his creatures in this world; but that he has very
much put in our power the nearness of our approaches to it, is what I
have steadfastly believed.
The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently
meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us;
and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and
misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavors of
our lives. The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect
resignation to the Divine will, to consider that whatever does
happen, must happen; and that, by our uneasiness, we cannot prevent
the blow before it does fall, but we may add to its force after it
has fallen. These considerations, and such others as these, may
enable us in some measure to surmount the difficulties thrown in our
way; to bear up with a tolerable degree of patience under this burden
of life; and to proceed with a pious and unshaken resignation, till
we arrive at our journey's end, when we may deliver up our trust into
the hands of him who gave it, and receive such reward as to him shall
seem proportioned to our merit. Such, dear Page, will be the language
of the man who considers his situation in life, and such should be
the language of every man who would wish to render that situation as
easy as the nature of it will admit. Few things will disturb him at
all: nothing will disturb him much.[12]
This note of Christian stoicism is exactly what might be expected from a
young Protestant whose mind was not particularly perturbed by
metaphysical problems. At that time Jefferson did not even conceive that
there might exist a code of ethics resting on a different basis. If
Doctor Small had helped him to find his exact relation to "the system of
things in which we are placed", he was satisfied that complete
resignation to Divine Will was the only wisdom. It may be safely
assumed that three years after meeting Governor Fauquier, Thomas
Jefferson had retained intact the faith of his youth.
What brought a change in his attitude and disturbed his equilibrium is
certainly not the influence of the "infidel French philosophers." The
volume of extracts which I published under the title of "The Literary
Bible of Thomas Jefferson" does not contain a single quotation from
Voltaire, Diderot, or Rousseau, and French literature is represented
only by a few insignificant lines from Racine. It is more likely that
the first doubts were injected into his mind by the reading of
Bolingbroke. He did not even need the assistance of Fauquier to lead him
to the English philosopher. The catalogues of the old libraries of
Virginia frequently mention Shaftesbury's "Characteristics" and
Bolingbroke's "Works."[13]
Whether it was from the town bookstore or from Fauquier's own library,
the fact remains that sometime, when still a student, but certainly
after 1764, Jefferson obtained a copy of Bolingbroke and came to
question the authenticity of the Bible as a historical document. It may
have been due to the sentimental shock he had suffered, or simply to the
critical attitude developed in him by his study of legal texts and
decisions, but there is little doubt that he put into practice at that
time the advice he gave later to Peter Carr, when he told him to
"question with boldness the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of
blindfold fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your
own country. Read the Bible, then, as you would read Livy or
Tacitus."[14] He therefore went systematically through Bolingbroke,
learned from him methods of historical criticism and scientific doubt,
weighed the evidence with a legal mind and came to very definite
conclusions. At this decisive turn in his life, Jefferson might easily
have become a sceptic and a cynic, like so many men of the eighteenth
century. As a matter of fact, a careful study of his "Literary Bible"
indicates that at least for a time he was extremely cynical in his
attitude towards women. This may have been due to the cruelty of
Belinda, but it was more than a passing mood, for as late as 1770, two
years before his marriage, he scribbled on the margin of his account
book a Latin doggerel clearly indicating his distrust of the female
kind:
_Crede ratem ventis, animum ne crede puellis
Namque est foeminea tutior unda fide.
Foemina nulla bona est, sed si bona contigit ulla
Nescio quo fato mala facta bona est._
From Euripides particularly he collected with a sort of waggish pleasure
the strongest denunciations of women in the old poet and repeated with
him "Mortals should beget children from some other sources, and there
should be no woman-kind: thus there would be no ill for man"--and again,
"O Zeus, why hast thou established women, a curse deceiving men, in the
light of the sun?"
In Milton he found an echo of Euripides' misogynism and from "Paradise
Lost" and "Samson Agonistes", he compiled a pretty set of accusations
against female usurpations. His conclusion at that time was probably
that of the old English poet, and he affirmed his superiority over the
treacherous sex by repeating after him:
Therefore God's universal law
Gave to man despotic power
Over his female in due awe.[15]
His outlook on life must have been very gloomy, if we are to trust
certain quotations from Greek and Latin authors. To matters of
mythology, descriptions of battles, and grandiose comparisons in Homer,
Jefferson apparently paid no attention. He saw in the old poet a
repository of ancient wisdom and the ancient philosophy of life. From
him he collected verses in which he found expressed views on human
destiny,--a courageous, stoic, yet disenchanted philosophy, summed up in
two lines from Pope's translation:
To labour is the lot of man below
And when Jove gave us life, he gave us woe.
When he read from Cicero's "Tusculanae" he selected passages with a view
to confirm the deistic and materialistic principles towards which he was
leaning at the time: "All must die; if only there should be an end to
misery in death. What is there agreeable in life, when we must reflect
that, at some time or other we must die." This particular piece of
reasoning seems to have struck Jefferson quite forcibly, for he repeated
it again and again fifty years later in his letters to John Adams: "For
if either the heart, or the blood, or the brains, is the soul, then
certainly the soul, being corporeal, must perish with the rest of the
body; if it is air, it will perhaps be dissolved; if it is fire, it will
be extinguished."[16]
It was then that he copied and evidently accepted the statement of
Bolingbroke that "it is not true that Christ revealed an entire body of
ethics, proved to be the law of nature."
The "law of nature"--what was meant by the word? Was it the Epicurean
maxim of Horace,--"enjoy to-day and put as little trust as possible in
the morrow?" If such had been the conclusion reached by Jefferson he
could have followed the line of least resistance and enjoyed the good
things of life, the good wines of the Raleigh Tavern, the pretty girls
and all the social dissipations of many of his contemporaries. Such
would have been Jefferson's destiny, had he been born in the Old World.
Had he been made of weaker stuff he would have become one of the
fox-hunters, horse-racers and card-players of the Virginian gentry. But
he was saved by his aristocratic pride and the stern teaching of the old
Stoics.
He was conscious that he was of good stock, and he had read in Euripides
that "to be of the noble born gives a peculiar distinction clearly
marked among men, and the noble name increases in lustre in those who
are worthy."[17]
To be ever upright and to be worthy of one's good blood, this was the
simplest, most obvious and most imperious duty. It would have been very
difficult for Jefferson to believe any longer that "at the end of the
journey we shall deliver up our trust into the hands of him who gave it
and receive such reward as to him shall seem proportionate to our
merit", which was his belief in 1763. There was not even much to obtain
in our life as a reward, for most societies are so organized that
"whenever a man is noble and zealous, he wins no higher prize than baser
men."[18] Still the fact remained that, after the collapse of all the
religious superstructure, the foundations of morality were left
unshaken, so Jefferson undertook to rebuild his own philosophy of life
according to Bolingbroke's advice, with the material at hand. For it was
evident that "a system thus collected from the writings of ancient
heathen moralists, of Tully and Seneca, of Epictetus, and others, would
be more full, more entire, more coherent, and more clearly deduced from
unquestionable principles of knowledge."[19]
But he would take nobody's word for it, he would accept the teachings of
no professor of moral philosophy; every man had to think for himself and
to formulate once for all his own philosophy. When writing to his
nephew, who he thought might go through the same crisis, Jefferson
declared some forty years later that:
Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be
formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and
wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much part of his
nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true
foundation of morality and not the TO KALON, truth, etc. as fanciful
writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience is as much a
part of man, as his leg or arm.
But this is the Jefferson of 1808, the mature man, almost the aged sage
of Monticello. How far he was from having reached that poise and that
clear vision of the moral world, appears in the confusion and
contradictions of the abstracts collected in the "Literary Bible." Yet
when he read Homer, Euripides, Cicero, Shakespeare, and even Buchanan,
Jefferson had a clear and single purpose. He was reading more for profit
than for pleasure, to gather material with which to build anew, by
himself and for himself, a moral shelter in which he could find refuge
for the rest of his days. He was not thinking then of devoting his life
to his country; if he had any patriotism, it was dormant, and if he had
any sense of abstract justice it is nowhere manifest. And yet, quite in
contrast with the general run of quotations in the "Literary Bible" are
some maxims scribbled in one of his unpublished Memorandum books under
the year 1770. He had already levelled the top of the hill on which he
was to build Monticello and was digging the cellar. But one day, after
noting carefully that "4 good fellows, a lad and two girls, of about 16
each, have dug in my cellar a place in 8 hrs. 1/2, 3 feet deep, 8 feet
wide and 161/2 feet long," he stopped to recapitulate the most striking
maxims by which he intended to regulate his life:
... no liberty no life--endure and abstain--_bonum est quod honestum,
macte virtute esto, nil desperandum, faber suae quisque fortunae,
fari quae sentiat_, what is, is right--_ex recto decus_--_ne cede
malis sed contra audientior ito_--long life, long health, long
pleasure and a friend--_non votum nobis sed patriae_--_fiat justitia
ruat coelum_.
Clearly between the time he compiled his "Literary Bible" and this entry
in the Memorandum book, a considerable change had taken place in
Jefferson's mental world. What was dormant had been awakened, what was
non-existent had been created. Let those who are looking for influences
hunt for pale reflections of these maxims in the writings of the French
philosophers. I cannot perceive any. I would even say that there is no
distinct influence of Bolingbroke, for Jefferson borrowed from
Bolingbroke methods of approaching certain problems rather than definite
ideas. The young Virginian made use, for a short time only, of the
critical reasoning employed by the English philosopher, but when it came
to building anew, he gathered all the material, stone by stone and maxim
by maxim, from the old Greek Stoics. It was a pessimistic yet courageous
philosophy of life, far different from eighteenth-century optimism. By a
strange anomaly, the son of the pioneer, the young man supposedly
brought up under frontier influence, felt more kinship with Greece and
republican Rome than with the philosophers of London, Paris or Geneva.
During this early period of his life and when he had rejected the
Christian system of ethics, the young Virginian found the moral props he
needed in Homer's simple code of honor and friendship; in echoes from
the Greek Stoics discovered in Cicero; and through them also was
revealed to him a conception of patriotism and devotion to public duty
which was to mold the rest of his life.
In the transformation that took place in Jefferson's attitude towards
life, it would be unjust to leave out the influence exerted by Patrick
Henry. The young student was present when Henry delivered his famous
speech in the House of Burgesses in 1765 and ended the speech with the
defiant declaration, "If this be treason make the most of it." "He
appeared to me," wrote Jefferson, "to speak as Homer wrote; his talents
were great indeed, such as I never heard from any man." From Henry he
did not receive any particular political philosophy, but from him he
learned the value of those striking formulas which remain in the memory
of men, become mottoes and battle cries of political campaigns. He liked
the vehemence and completeness of Henry's affirmation and when, in 1770,
he wrote in his memorandum that maxim of all revolutionists and radicals
of every age--_fiat justitia ruat coelum_, let there be justice, even
if the heavens should crumble down--he was thinking as much of the
Virginia orator as of the Romans of old.
A last item in the same memorandum book of 1770 may justify the
supposition that still another influence had entered Jefferson's life.
By that time he had forgotten the fickle Belinda who had played with his
heart, but he was no longer a woman-hater. When he quoted from Pope "the
sleepy eye that speaks to the melting soul", he was already thinking of
the young and attractive widow he was to marry two years later.
In the meantime he had been pursuing assiduously his law studies and his
readings of political philosophers. Very early after entering college,
he had decided that he would not be satisfied with the study of
belles-lettres, or the life of a gentleman managing a large country
estate. The clergy and the law were the only two professions open to a
young man of distinctly aristocratic tendencies. He chose the law and
began his training under the direction of Mr. Wythe. This training was
markedly different from the instruction he would have received in
Europe. There was no regularly organized law school at Williamsburg;
candidates for the Bar had to prepare themselves under the direction of
an old practitioner; they attended the sessions of the court and
prepared briefs for their master; they studied by themselves and
consequently were much more familiar with the practice than with the
theory of jurisprudence. No examination was given by a regular faculty;
but a license to practice law and to hang out his shingle was obtained
by the candidate after appearing before a special board of examiners. In
the case of Patrick Henry, the examiners had been John Randolph,
afterward Attorney-general for the Colony, Peyton Randolph, Mr. Wythe
and perhaps Robert C. Nicholas. If Henry "got by" after six months'
study, thanks to his phenomenal fluency and "aplomb", it took Jefferson
six years before he considered himself sufficiently prepared to appear
before the examiners. A large part of his time however was spent at
Shadwell in agricultural pursuits and independent study; but he came
regularly to Williamsburg to consult Mr. Wythe, to attend the sessions
of the Court, to buy books, and also to attend during the winter the
many functions given by the brilliant society of the capital of
Virginia. These years, the most important of all in the formation of
Jefferson's political theories, can now be studied in the "Commonplace
Book", long thought destroyed, which even Randall had not been able to
find, but which is now safely deposited in the Library of Congress. It
is a most revealing compilation and throws an unexpected light on the
origin of Jefferson's political doctrines.
It contains first of all no less than five hundred fifty-six articles
analyzing special cases from the Reports of Cases in the King's Bench,
George Andrews, Robert Raymond, William Salkeld and Coke's "Institutes",
for in a colony where no attempt had been made to codify the body of
existing laws, and where the common law was the supreme law of the land,
the first prerequisite to becoming a good lawyer was to assimilate an
enormous number of cases and precedents. Jefferson proceeded, like all
the law students of his time, to dig in "Coke upon Littleton" and
others, putting down in his "Commonplace Book" decisions, discussions,
definitions, matters of importance to a country lawyer, such as wills,
devises, commercial contracts, cases on larceny, trespassing, debts,
damages, bankruptcy, leases, libels; and he did it with his customary
thoroughness and clarity. A detailed study of the "Commonplace Book"
would be most illuminating for those who, in spite of all evidence to
the contrary, still maintain that Jefferson was an impractical
philosopher, interested only in abstract principles and in theory. On
the other hand, he was not simply a country lawyer, either. If he had
not seemed to manifest any interest in the abstract study of the
principles of law, in what he used to call "metaphysical disquisitions",
he was keenly interested in the historical development of the legal
structure on which rested modern society and particularly the colonial
society of Virginia.
He carefully went through Lord Kames' "Historical Law Tracts" and
studied from him the history of criminal law, promises and covenant,
property, securities upon land, courts, briefs. It is in Kames that he
found a definition of society which he could have written himself and
which expresses his political individualism and subordination to law:
Mutual defence against a more powerful neighbor being in early times
the chief, or sole motive for joining society, individuals never
thought of surrendering any of their natural rights which could be
retained consistently with their great aim of mutual defence.
This is elaborated upon in the passage quoted from the "History of
Property":
Man, by his nature, is fitted for society, and society by its
conveniences is fitted for man. The perfection of human society
consists in that just degree of union among the individuals, which to
each reserves freedom and independency, as far as is consistent with
peace and good order. The bonds of society where every man shall be
bound to dedicate the whole of his industry to the common interest
would be of the strictest kind, but it would be unnatural and
uncomfortable, because destructive of liberty and independence;
so would be the enjoyment of the goods of fortune in common.
I am perfectly aware of the undeniable influence of Locke upon the
theory of Kames; and it would be very unlikely that Jefferson had not
read at that date Locke's "Treatise on Civil Government." The fact
remains, however, that neither Locke, nor so far as I know any political
thinker of the period, had yet so clearly defined that particular
combination of individualism and respect for peace and order so
characteristic of American democracy. We shall see in one of the
following chapters how Jefferson, elaborating on this statement of
Kames, derived from it all his conception of natural rights. The
Scottish Lord was for him a master and a guide.
In Sir John Dalrymple, author of an "Essay Towards a General History of
Feudal Property", in Francis Stoughton Sullivan's "An Historical
Treatise of the Feudal Laws and the Constitution of the Laws of
England", Jefferson studied the history of primogeniture and of entails
and came to the conclusion that both of them had foundation neither in
nature nor in law, and certainly did not appear in England before the
Norman Conquest. He reached to the same finding in his long dissertation
on the original common law, and thus we can trace directly through the
"Commonplace Book" the sources of the Bill on Primogeniture, of the Bill
for Religious Freedom, and of the Law to Abolish Entails, which
Jefferson considered as forming a system "which would eradicate every
fibre of ancient or future aristocracy and lay a foundation for a
government truly republican."
Some of the entries in the "Commonplace Book" were evidently made after
the period with which we are dealing in this chapter, although most of
them can be dated before 1776. We have no means of determining whether
Jefferson had undertaken a systematic study of federative governments
when he was still a student, or at what time he copied the many extracts
and quotations from Montesquieu. Nor can we enter here into a detailed
discussion of all the articles. One or two facts, however, stand out
even after a superficial glimpse of this repertory of ideas on
government and society. The first is that Jefferson at that date, and
indeed during most of his life, was not interested in abstract
principles or in theoretical discussions. His was eminently the mind of
a lawyer, and it is not for a lawyer to arrive at a definition of
justice but to determine what the law says on a particular point. Yet in
a country where law is not codified and the common law is the basis of
the legal structure, it is impossible to find out what the law is
without undertaking a historical study of the cases at hand in the
different repertories. Men are either fallible or dishonest, false
interpretations creep in, texts are distorted from their original
meaning, and thus it becomes necessary to apply to legal decisions the
rules of historical evidence formulated by Bolingbroke.
After undertaking such a study, Jefferson arrived at a very curious
conclusion; that at a time which was not buried in a mythological past,
the Anglo-Saxons had lived under customs and unwritten laws based upon
the natural rights of man and permitting the individual to develop
freely, normally and happily. In the course of time, these free
institutions deteriorated through the nefarious influences of several
agencies. Unwritten law became written law and jurists succeeded in
concealing under their sophistry and verbiage the primitive intent of
natural legislation. Priests, striving to extend their domination over a
realm which primitively was foreign to them, introduced religious
prescriptions into civil laws and thus diminished the rights of the
individual. Conquerors and a long lineage of hereditary kings further
modified primitive institutions in order to provide an apparently legal
foundation for their usurpations, until the people, no longer able to
withstand patiently the evils of tyranny, arose and recovered at least
some of their rights.
Such a conspectus of the history of England was neither new nor
original; it was one of the favorite contentions of English jurists
during the eighteenth century, and nowhere perhaps is it more forcibly
developed than in the last chapter of Blackstone's "Commentaries", "Of
the rise, progress and gradual improvements of the laws of England." It
is fundamentally also the doctrine of Jefferson, who went much farther
than any of the English political thinkers in his revindication of the
Saxon liberties.
One may see already how such a conception differs from the theories of
Rousseau and the French philosophers, and indeed from those of the
English philosophers. And this is easily explained, even if too seldom
realized. Born in the eighteenth century, Jefferson is in some respects
a man of the eighteenth century, but no greater mistake could be made
than to apply to him the same standards that apply to European political
thinkers. The very fact that he was born and grew up in a remote colony
prevented him from joining any particular school of political
philosophy. He had comparatively few books at his disposal, certainly
fewer gazettes, and only faint echoes of the philosophical battles
raging in Europe reached the capital of Virginia. During the long winter
evenings at Shadwell, he had ample time to think, to sift from the books
he was reading, not matter of passing interest, but matter of practical
value and principles susceptible of being applied to the society which
he knew and in which he lived. He could not have the cosmopolitan and
universal outlook of thinkers who had traveled and met with
representatives of many nationalities. His "Literary Bible", as well as
his "Commonplace Book", contains many examples which might be used to
illustrate his provincialism or, if one prefers, his regionalism.
No man can become genuinely interested in things he has never seen and
cannot imagine. He had never seen the English countryside and so, when
he copied from Thomson's description of spring, he selected only
passages that could apply as well to the landscape of Virginia as to the
scenery of old England. Even when he read Horace he eliminated verses
with too much local color, unknown plants, unfamiliar dishes and
beverages, until the descriptions of a Roman farm by the old poet would
fit a typical Virginia plantation with the slaves singing in the great
courtyard after the day's work is done. He knew Latin and Greek, French
and Italian, and perhaps even German; for the time and place his library
was rich and varied. He had read Milton, Shakespeare, Dryden, Buchanan,
Thomson, Thomas Moss; he had studied Kames, Pelloutier, Stanyan, Eden,
Baccaria, Montesquieu and possibly Voltaire's "Essai sur les Moeurs",
but from each of these he had culled facts and definitions rather than
principles and theories. He had read some books of travel and listened
with enjoyment to Fauquier's accounts of his long voyages. He was
dreaming of visiting England, the continent and the Mediterranean, but
the only form of society he knew was the colonial society of Virginia.
No cosmopolitan tendencies would develop in such surroundings. Superior
as he was in intelligence and culture to his fellow students and to the
young gentry of Williamsburg, Jefferson, at the age of twenty-five, was
not yet an American; he was distinctly a Virginian.
CHAPTER III
A VIRGINIA LAWYER
In 1767, Thomas Jefferson, then twenty-four years of age, was "led into
the practice of the law at the bar of the General Court" by his friend
and mentor, Mr. Wythe. He was the owner of a substantial estate
inherited from his father, and he managed the family property of
Shadwell, but he had already formed plans for an establishment of his
own and begun preparations to build Monticello on the other side of the
Rivanna. The only future open to him seemed to be that of any young
Virginian of his social class. He occasionally joined them in
fox-hunting and attended the races, enjoyed a dance, a concert, and a
good play at the theater. The following year was particularly brilliant
at Williamsburg. The governor held stately receptions and the Virginian
Company of Comedians presented a rich program: "The Constant Couple or a
Trip to Jubilee", a farce called "The Miller of Mansfield", "The
Beggar's Opera", "The Anatomist or Sham Doctor", besides the ordinary
plays of the repertory, were given during the spring and summer of that
year.[20]
Jefferson had his share of all these social pleasures, together with
others, but there were also simpler and more austere occupations. First
of all he had to look after his plantation. Agriculture, so long a
haphazard and empirical affair, was making great strides in Europe,
particularly in England. Treatises on the subject and special magazines
were read eagerly in Virginia; the choice of cultures, the improvement
of seeds, the introduction of new crops greatly concerned the minds of
progressive planters like Colonel Washington and the young master of
Shadwell.
The "Garden Books" kept by Jefferson and now published only in part,
reveal him as a forerunner of modern efficiency engineers. Fences,
walls, roads and bridges had to be built on the 1900-acre estate left
him by his father; trees had to be planted and vegetables raised for the
large family at Shadwell, for the slaves and for the many travelers and
visitors who continued to drop in. If all the seeds planted in
Jefferson's vegetable garden and orchards did well, he must have had an
extraordinary variety of produce, considerably larger than is to be
found on the best appointed farms of to-day. For he was not satisfied
with the staple vegetables which appear on the American table with
clocklike regularity; he sowed "salsifia, peppergrass, sorrel, salmon
radishes, nasturtium, asparagus, all sorts of lettuce, cresses, celery,
strawberries, snap-beans, purple beans, white beans, sugar beans,
cucumbers, watermelons, cherries, olive stones, raspberries, turnips",
and--horrors!--garlic. He was led into many such experiments by his
neighbor and friend Philip Mazzei, formerly of Tuscany and now of
Albemarle County, for many of the entries in the Garden Book are in
Italian and "_aglio de Terracina_ (_vulgo_ garlic), _radiocchio di
Pistoia_ (succory or wild endive), _cavolo broccolo Francese di Pisa,
fragole Maggese_ (May strawberries)" and dozens of other imported
varieties appear in his garden lists. Then there were the horses, for,
true to the Virginia tradition, Jefferson kept no less than half a dozen
blood mares of good pedigree. Above all, the regular crops of wheat,
corn and especially tobacco had to be looked after; for tobacco was the
only crop that could be marketed for solid cash or sent to London to be
exchanged for books, furniture, fine clothes, musical instruments, and
the choice wines of Europe. As a practical farmer Jefferson was rather
successful, since during these early years his land brought him an
average return of two thousand dollars. This was ample for his needs.
But his main resources were procured from the practice of law.
He kept a complete memorandum of all the cases in which he appeared
before the courts of Virginia and opposite each case entered the fee
received for his professional services.[21] These fees would seem very
moderate to the least ambitious practitioner of our days. In many cases
no fee is mentioned at all, and we are at liberty to suppose that
Jefferson took some charity cases, or that the defendants were not
always scrupulous in paying their bills. Yet, altogether, the total
averaged close to three thousand dollars a year, a nice fat addition to
the income from Shadwell and Monticello. Starting with one hundred and
fifteen cases in 1768, Jefferson was retained as attorney or counsel in
no less than four hundred thirty cases in 1771, and it is no
exaggeration to state that no day passed during the twelve years he
remained engaged in the practice of law without his giving considerable
time to his profession. The moderate amount of these fees and the large
number of cases indicate the kind of practice in which Jefferson was
employed. Trespassing of cattle on a neighbor's field, destruction of
fences, robbery committed by a clerk, wills, administration of estates,
interest, quarrels between two goodwives, with a lively exchange of
actionable words, assault and battery, all the seamy, sordid, petty side
of life, constituted for these twelve years the daily practice of Thomas
Jefferson, an apprenticeship of life and a training in the knowledge of
human nature enjoyed by very few abstract philosophers.
In the old days of the bar, one of the earmarks of most lawyers was a
fluency of speech, unsurpassed except perhaps by the ministers. But
words never came easily to Jefferson, or in great abundance. His voice,
pleasant and modulated in ordinary conversation, "sank in his throat",
if raised higher, and became husky. He was clearly a business lawyer,
an office lawyer, whose clear, precise, meticulous presentation of facts
fitted him particularly for appearing before a court of appeals like the
General Court, rather than for moving and emotionally convincing a jury
of twelve men good and true.
His scorn for oratory, long sentences, images, apostrophes may have been
a case of sour grapes, for in his youth he admired tremendously Patrick
Henry. As we have seen, he was wise enough not to aim higher than he
could reach. Not only did he never crave the fame of the popular orator,
but, conscious of his limitations, he always showed a real repugnance to
addressing a large assembly. Particularly brilliant in conversation, he
was destined to be a committee man, to win his ends by the pen rather
than by the silver tongue of the politician. Yet if he had been fond of
rhetoric, rhetoric would have found its way into his writings, but no
man of the period wrote less figuratively, employed fewer artifices of
style; metaphors, comparisons were unknown to him. Ideas remained ideas
and were never clad in the flowing garments of mythology; facts remained
facts and never became allegories. Liberty never appeared before his
eyes and was never represented by him as a goddess, and neither America
nor Britannia were majestic figures of heroic size that passed in his
dreams. He was neither emotional nor imaginative, yet his eyes were keen
and quick to note and establish distinctions between different varieties
of plants or animals. His mind was alert and always on the lookout for
new facts to add to his store of knowledge, after proper cataloguing.
Surely he was not the man to make startling discoveries in the realm of
natural history, or to propose a new system of the universe, nor was he
one to conceive, in a moment of inspiration, a new political gospel and
a new system of society; when he took up the practice of law in
Williamsburg, the greatest future that destiny had in store for him,
promising as he was, seemed to become as upright and sound a lawyer as
Mr. Wythe, and a legal authority as good and learned as Mr. Pendleton.
He was admitted to the Bar in 1767, and two years later was chosen as a
member of the House of Burgesses and placed on the committee appointed
to draw up an answer to the Governor's speech. His draft was rejected,
however, and Colonel Nicholas' address substituted.[22] A few days later
Governor Botetourt, unable to endorse the spirited remonstrance to the
King on the subject of taxation, dissolved the Assembly.
The next day--wrote Jefferson--we met in the Apollo of the Raleigh
Tavern, formed ourselves into a voluntary convention, drew up
articles of association against the use of any merchandise imported
from Great Britain, signed and recommended them to the people,
repaired to our several counties, and were re-elected without any
other exception than of the very few who had declined to follow our
proceedings.[23]
A spirit of discontent was abroad and had spread throughout the
colonies, but it was neither disloyalty nor rebellion. Easily satisfied
with this gesture, which for many remained a mere gesture, the
Virginians paid little attention to public affairs during the next two
years. In the words of Jefferson "nothing of particular excitement
occurring for a considerable time, our countrymen seemed to fall into a
state of insensibility and inaction." His private life was more
eventful. The first of February, 1770, the house at Shadwell in which he
lived with his mother, his brother and his unmarried sisters, was burnt
to the ground, and with it every paper he had and almost every book.
On reasonable estimate--he wrote to Page--I calculate the _cost_ of the
books burned to have been L200 sterling. Would to God it had been the
money, then it had never cost me a sigh. To make the loss more sensible,
it fell principally on my books of Common law, of which I have but one
left, at that time lent out. Of papers too of every kind I am utterly
destitute. All of these whether public or private, of business or of
amusement, have perished in the flames.
The disaster had not been quite so complete as Jefferson indicates. His
"Commonplace Book" was saved, his account books, garden books and many
memoranda and family papers escaped the flames and were discovered again
in 1851 at the bottom of an old trunk.[24] Even as far as books were
concerned, the loss was not altogether irretrievable. Jefferson wrote at
once to Skipwith for a catalogue of books, sent orders to London, and
two years later he could proudly enter in a diary not yet published that
his library consisted on August 1, 1773, of twelve hundred and fifty
books, not including volumes of music or "his books in Williamsburg." A
very substantial store of printed matter for the time.
Another event of quite a different order took place in his life.
Jefferson had lost a home, but he was building another, soon to be ready
for occupancy, on the hill of Monticello, and he already knew that the
house would not be left long without a mistress. On the third day of
December, 1771, he filled out a formal application for a marriage
license in the court of Charles City County and on the first of January
he was married to Martha Skelton, widow of Bathurst Skelton, and
daughter of John Wayles, then twenty-three years old. John Wayles of
"The Forest" was a lawyer with a large practice, a man of worth if not
of eminence, a boon companion welcomed in every society, who had amassed
quite a large fortune. His daughter Martha, a true type of Virginia
girl, of medium height and well-formed figure, had been well educated
and possessed all the social accomplishments of the time. She danced
gracefully, played the harpsichord and the spinet, was well read and,
above all, was a very efficient housekeeper, for she knew how to manage
the slaves and care for them in their illnesses, knew how to keep
accounts and to arrange for a reception. If the family tradition is
true, she was receptive to music, for Jefferson had won out over two
rivals because of his talent on the violin and his ability to sing
duets. It was a _mariage de raison_, to be sure, and two years later
Jefferson noted with undisguised satisfaction that, following the death
of his father-in-law, the portion that came to Martha was equal to his
own patrimony and consequently "doubled the ease of our circumstances."
But it was also a marriage of love, not without romantic color, with a
wedding trip from Charles City to Monticello through a snowstorm, and a
late arrival at night in the cold new house. Jefferson did not take any
of his friends into his confidence and did not celebrate his connubial
bliss; but at the very end of the pages given to Milton in his "Literary
Bible", as an afterthought and a recantation from his misogynism, are
found the following lines copied, we may surmise, during his honeymoon:
Nor gentle purpose, nor endearing smiles
Wanted, nor youthful dalliance, as beseems
Fair couple, linkt in happy league
Alone as they....[25]
Belinda had been forgotten, and the young woman-hater had found his fair
conqueror.
But death again took its toll and cast its cloud over Monticello. With
Page, Dabney Carr, Jefferson's fellow student at William and Mary, had
been his closest friend. Carr, a frequent visitor at Shadwell, had
married in 1764 Jefferson's sister Martha. Not a wealthy man, he was
described by his brother-in-law as living in a very small house, with a
table, half a dozen chairs, and one or two servants, but the happiest
man in the universe.[26] He died when hardly thirty and Jefferson had
him buried beneath the shade of their favorite tree at Monticello under
which they had so often read, dreamed and discussed; and such was the
origin of the little cemetery in which Jefferson was to bury so many of
his dear ones before he joined them himself in his last sleep. For Carr
he went to his "Literary Bible", as he himself felt unable to write a
fitting tribute, and copied from Mallet's "Excursion" an inscription to
nail on the tree, by the grave of the friend "who of all men living
loved him most."
Honored by the Royal Government and made by Botetourt "Lieutenant of the
County of Albemarle, and Chief Commander of all His Majesty's Militia,
Horse and Foot in the said county of Albemarle"; honored also by his
Alma Mater and appointed by the President of William and Mary "Surveyor
of Albemarle County",[27] a member of the Assembly, one of the richest
landowners of his county, one of the most successful lawyers of
Virginia, happily married, busy with his estate, his books, his violin,
his law practice, Jefferson could look forward to a long, quiet and
moderate life, the ideal life of a farmer, a gentleman and a scholar.
For a man who took his duties seriously it was by no means an existence
of idleness, in nowise to be compared with the life of an English
gentleman farmer. Every planter was to some extent a captain, and every
plantation was to a large extent self-sufficient and self-supporting. In
the case of Jefferson, who had recently increased his domain,
difficulties and new problems requiring inventiveness, resourcefulness
and ingenuity arose every day. Slaves had to be taught new trades and
trained, the wilderness had to be reclaimed. Thus were developed
qualities of leadership and qualities of class pride. A young planter
related to the best families of the colony felt that he belonged to a
ruling class, above which could only exist the remote power of the
British Parliament and the majesty of the king represented by a governor
who never really belonged, and who in spite of his exalted position,
always remained a stranger.
An English tourist, Burnaby, traveling in Virginia in 1760, had already
noted signs of impatience and restlessness among the colonists of
Virginia. "They are haughty," he wrote, "and jealous of their liberties;
impatient of restraint and can scarcely bear the thought of being
controlled by superior power. Many of them consider the Colonies as
independent states, not connected with Great Britain otherwise than by
having the same common King."[28]
When the delegates from Virginia were sent to the first Continental
Congress, Silas Deane noted that "the Virginia, and indeed all the
Southern delegates appear like men of importance...they are sociable,
sensible, and spirited men. Not a milksop among them."[29]
They were aristocrats wont to give orders and resentful of any
interference; they were lords and almost supreme rulers on their
plantations; they were owners of many slaves and they had been
accustomed to call no man master; and Jefferson was one of them.
The change in the situation had come very abruptly. It is not the
purpose of this book to present an elaborate discussion of the causes of
the American Revolution, whether they were economic or political or
philosophical, or whether they were of mixed motives, varying with each
colony and in each colony with every man, did not impel the colonies to
revolt against the mother country. I am aware of the present tendency to
attribute most of the agitation preceding the revolution to purely
economic causes; it must be remembered however, that, if the ulterior
motives of the promoters of the American Revolution were selfish and
interested, Jefferson was one of those who were moved by entirely
different considerations, as were, as a matter of fact, most of the
members of the First Continental Congress.
While life was still moving easily and happily in Virginia, where in
1772 the theatrical season had been particularly brilliant, things were
coming to a head in New England. News of the Bill closing the Port of
Boston on the first of June, 1774, reached the Virginia Assembly during
the spring session; how it was received had better be told in the words
of Jefferson. As so often happens in history at the decisive turn of
events, the leadership was taken by a very small group of men who made
up their minds at once, assumed responsibility and changed the course of
the ship of state. So far no strong protest had been made by Virginia to
the British Government. Dunmore was far from being tyrannical; the order
imposing duties on many English products had been largely rescinded,
except on tea, but it may not be sacrilegious to state that the Virginia
gentry were more partial to French wines, Madeira and Nantes rum than to
the English national beverage. If Virginia had not declared at that
particular time her solidarity, if Jefferson and his friends had not
taken the right steps and found the right words to "arouse the people
from the lethargy into which they had fallen", even New England
steadfastness and stanchness of heart would have been unequal to the
task. It was on this occasion, rather than on the Fourth of July, 1776,
that the fate of the British colonies of America was decided.
According to Jefferson's own statement, leadership in these subjects was
no longer left to the old members of the Assembly, but Patrick Henry, R.
H. Lee, F. L. Lee, three or four other members and he himself met in the
library after agreeing that they must take "an unequivocal stand in the
line with Massachusetts." They decided that the best means of calling
the seriousness of the situation to the attention of the public was to
appoint a day of general fasting and prayer, quite an unprecedented
measure in Virginia; but they rummaged in old books "for revolutionary
precedents and forms of the Puritans", and they finally "cooked up a
resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st
day of June on which the port-bill was to commence, for a day of
fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert from us the
evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our
rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to moderation
and justice."[30] Clearly the day of fasting and prayer did not appear
to any of the members of the unofficial committee as springing from a
profound religious sentiment, but they knew how strong over the people
was the power of the Church, and how impossible it was to unite them
except by giving a religious appearance to a purely political
manifestation. These young Virginia lawyers knew their people and were
not totally unacquainted with mass psychology; they knew how to play the
game of practical politics, despite their high and disinterested ideal.
The next day Governor Dunmore pronounced the usual English remedy in
such circumstances: the dissolution of the Assembly. Once more the
members met in the Apollo room, and "they agreed to an association, and
instructed the committee of correspondence to propose to the
corresponding committees of the other colonies to appoint deputies to
meet in Congress at such place _annually_ as would be convenient, to
direct, from time to time, the measures required by the general
interest."
This passage in the "Autobiography" has led historians into a spirited
controversy as to whether the proposal to form a Congress originated in
Virginia or in Massachusetts, and whether such a plan had not been
discussed in Boston as early as 1770. Whatever the case may be, the most
important part of the resolution passed in the Raleigh Tavern was not
the establishment of a cooerdinating organism; it was the declaration
recorded by Jefferson, "that an attack on any one colony should be
considered as an attack on the whole." This last part was not a simple
administrative provision, it was more than a promise of a union; it was
the constitution of a new society, since according to Kames as quoted by
Jefferson in his "Commonplace Book" "mutual defence against a more
powerful neighbor is in early times the chief, or sole motive for
joining society."
The deputies went back home and, on the first of June, met the
assemblies of the people "to perform ceremonies of the day and to
address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met
generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenance, and the effect
of the day, through the whole colony was like a shock of electricity,
arousing every man and placing him erect and solid on his centre."[31]
As a result of the train of thought started by the meeting, the
freeholders of Albemarle County adopted on June 26 a series of
resolutions evidently written by Jefferson. Here for the first time
Jefferson declared that:
The inhabitants of the several States of British America are subject
to the laws which they adopted at their first settlement, and to such
others as have been since made by their respective Legislatures, duly
constituted and appointed with their own consent. That no other
Legislature whatever can rightly exercise authority over them; and
that these privileges they as the common rights of mankind, confirmed
by the political constitutions they have respectively assumed, and
also by several charters of compact from the Crown.
The originality of this theory cannot be determined without comparison
with the resolutions adopted a few days before by the Assembly of
Fairfax County presided over by Colonel George Washington. These came
from the pen of George Mason and they stated with equal emphasis the
contractual theory of the government of the British colonies. Whether
Jefferson knew them or not, the similarity with the views expressed by
the freeholders of Albemarle is most striking.
The first article averred the principle also found in Jefferson's
"Commonplace Book" that "this colony and Dominion of Virginia cannot be
considered as a conquered country, and as it was, that the present
inhabitants are not of the conquered, but of the conquerors." It added
that:
Our ancestors, when they left their native land, and settled in
America, brought over with them, even if the same is not confirmed by
Charters, the civil constitution and form of Government of the
country they came from and were by the laws of nature and nations
entitled to all its privileges, immunities and advantages, which have
descended to us, their posterity, and ought of right to be as fully
enjoyed as if we had still continued with the realm of England.
The second article enunciated the most essential and "fundamental
principle of government", that the people "could be governed by no laws
to which they had not given their consent by Representatives freely
chosen by themselves."
The third article declared that the colonies had some duty to fulfill
towards the mother country and admitted that the British Parliament
might, "directed with wisdom and moderation", take measures to regulate
"American commerce", although such action was in some degree repugnant
to the principles of the Constitution.[32]
Whether or not Jefferson had received the Fairfax resolutions before
writing the Albemarle declaration, this is the capital difference
between the two documents and the two doctrines. On the one hand, George
Mason accepted the theory that the first settlers had brought over with
them the civil constitution and form of government of the mother
country, and consequently admitted a permanent connection between the
colony and the metropolis. Jefferson, on the contrary, asserted with
great strength and clarity the complete independence of the colonists
from the British constitution. They were subject to no laws except those
they had freely adopted when they had consented to a new compact and
formed a new society. He was perfectly justified when he declared in his
"Autobiography":
Our other patriots, Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas, Pendleton, stopped
at the half-way house of John Dickinson, who admitted that England
had a right to regulate our commerce, and to lay duties on it for the
purpose of regulation, but not of raising revenue. But for this
ground there was no foundation in compact, in any acknowledged
principles of colonisation, nor in reason; expatriation being a
natural right, and acted on as such by all nations, in all ages.
This was really the core of the question. Jefferson had reached that
conclusion, not from following a certain line of abstract reasoning, but
after studying the history of the Greek colonies in Stanyan, and the
history of the Saxon settlement of Great Britain in many authors, as may
be seen in his "Commonplace Book", and he was soon to reaffirm the
doctrine of expatriation as the fundamental principle on which rested
all the claims of the American colonies.
The Virginia Convention was to meet at Williamsburg on August 1, to
select delegates to a General Congress of the colonies. With all his
books at hand, all his legal authorities, the precious "Commonplace
Book" and all the repertories he had gathered in his library, Jefferson
proceeded to draft a project of instructions for the future delegates.
He was taken ill on his way to Williamsburg but forwarded the plan to
Peyton Randolph and Patrick Henry. Henry never mentioned it; Randolph
informed the convention that he had received such a paper from a
member, prevented by sickness from offering it, and laid it on the table
for perusal. It was read generally by the members, approved by many,
though thought too bold for use at that time; but they printed it in
pamphlet form, under the title of "A Summary View of the Rights of
British America."
In some respects it is a more original and more important document than
the Declaration of Independence itself. With the detailed account of the
grievances enumerated by Jefferson we cannot deal here. A few points,
however, deserve special attention. The difficulties that had arisen
between the colonies and the home government had occasioned the
publication of many pamphlets dealing with the situation. Most of
Jefferson's predecessors, however, had attempted to define _in jure_ the
rights of the British colonies. Thus George Mason had made his
"Extracts" from the Virginia charters, "with some remarks on them" in
1773, and he had come to the conclusion already given in the "Fairfax
resolves", that "the ancestors of the colonists when they had left their
native land and settled in America had brought with them, although not
confirmed by Charters, the civil government and form of government of
the country they came from."[33] But he had gone back no farther in
history and had not formulated the principles of the "constitution" of
England. Not so with Jefferson, who emphatically denied that the
colonists had anything to do with the British constitution or with its
form of government. He had studied the history of the settlement of
England in Molesworth, in Pelloutier, in Sir William Temple, in
Dalrymple, and had come to the conclusion enunciated in the "Rights of
British America":
That our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free
inhabitants of the British Dominions in Europe, and possessed a right
which nature has given to all men of leaving the country in which
chance, not choice, had placed them, and of seeking out new
habitations, and there establishing new societies, under such laws
and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public
happiness.
That their Saxon ancestors had, under this universal law, in like
manner, left their native wilds and woods in the North of Europe,
possessed themselves of the Island of Britain, then less charged with
inhabitants, and established there a system of laws which has been so
long the glory and protection of that country.
On another and not less important point, Jefferson was indebted to his
"Commonplace Book." He had taken great care to determine through
historical and judicial authorities the origin of land tenures in the
kingdom of England and he had found that in the good old Saxon times,
"upon settling in the countries which they subdued, the victorious army
divided the conquered lands. That portion which fell to every soldier he
seized as a recompense due to his valour, as a settlement acquired by
his own sword. He took possession of it as a freeman in full property.
He enjoyed it during his own life and could dispose of it at pleasure,
or transmit it as an inheritance to his children." It was not until
after the fifth century that the king, because as general he was thought
fittest to distribute the conquered lands to each according to his
merits, assumed to himself and was quietly allowed the entire power of
the partition of lands. This abominable system however was not
introduced into England before the Norman Conquest, and thus was spread
the false notion that all lands belonged to the crown.[34] Against this
last claim, which he believed to rest on a false conception of history,
Jefferson raises an emphatic protest. Backed by his knowledge of the
gradual encroachment of the feudal system on the natural rights of his
Anglo-Saxon ancestors, he claimed for the American colonists the same
rights as belonged in the good old Anglo-Saxon days to those who had
acquired a settlement by their own sword.
It is time for us to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to
declare, that he has no right to grant lands of himself. From the
nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the
limits, which any particular party has circumscribed around itself,
are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment; this may
be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their
legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority;
and, if they are alloted in neither of these ways, each individual of
the society, may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds
vacant, and occupancy will give him title.
According to this theory, one of the mainstays of the doctrine of
Americanism, of which Jefferson made himself the advocate, is the right
of conquest. But here Jefferson would have introduced a distinction
borrowed from Lord Kames, for "the northern nations who overran Europe
fought not for glory or dominion but for habitation" and invaded only
countries which were sparsely populated.[35] Whether such a position was
tenable historically is quite another matter. The important point
maintained by Jefferson is that when the first settlers left Great
Britain for the shores of America, they were not colonists but free
agents. By the mere fact of expatriating themselves they had severed all
ties with the mother country, they had recovered full possession of all
their natural rights and were at liberty to agree on a new social
compact; they derived their rights of property not from the king but
from their occupancy of a new and unsettled territory. All considered,
this curious doctrine was nothing but a sort of sublimation and legal
justification of the pioneer spirit.
This historical and legal demonstration, in which Jefferson had gone
back to the very beginnings of Anglo-Saxon society, transcended all
contemporary discussions on the Rights of the British Parliament.
Jefferson was perfectly aware of its originality and not a little proud
of it. It was in his opinion
the only orthodox or tenable doctrine--that our emigration from
England to this country gave her no more rights over us, than the
emigration of the Danes and Saxons gave to the present authorities of
the mother country, over England. In this doctrine, however, I have
never been able to get any one to agree with me but Mr. Wythe. He
concurred in it from the first dawn of the question, What was the
political relation between us and England?
Once the question was clearly put, Jefferson went at it with the methods
used by a lawyer to prove the title to a piece of property. The first
point to be settled was to determine who was the legitimate owner of the
territory occupied by the American "colonists", the king or the
colonists themselves; thus presented, the question became very simple:
For it is thought that no circumstance has occurred to distinguish
materially, the British from the Saxon emigration. America was
conquered, and her settlements made and firmly established, at the
expense of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own
blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own
fortunes expanded in making this settlement effectual. For themselves
they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone
they have a right to hold.
This was the keystone of Jefferson's social system at that time. It is
not unimportant to note that it was a doctrine that could apply only to
Anglo-Saxon colonies, more particularly to American colonies, and not a
doctrine susceptible of universal application. Whether or not the
principle might also be advanced by other peoples or nations, Jefferson
did not state and did not care. His was not a mind to generalize and to
extend universally any given principle. For the present, at least, he
was satisfied to claim for the American settlers not the rights of man,
but the rights of their Saxon ancestors. His position was legal and
historical, not philosophical.
It was also to some extent an aristocratic position. Since the land was
theirs by right of conquest, it almost necessarily ensued that only
landowners, or to use the old colonial word, freeholders, were entitled
to the rights, privileges, and happiness of self-government. The
consequence was not expressed but it was implied. The analogy with the
doctrine of the Physiocrats strikes one at first; but this analogy is
only superficial. True enough, only freeholders are really worth
considering and can raise a legitimate protest; but in a country as new
and as extensive as America, it is within the power of every inhabitant
to become a freeholder. For it is another iniquity to suppose that the
Crown has the right to give grants of land:
It is time for us to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to
declare, that he has no right to grant lands of himself. From the
nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the
limits, which any particular party has circumscribed around itself,
are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment; this may
be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their
legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority;
and, if they are alloted in neither of these ways, each individual of
the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant,
and occupancy gives him title.
Thus spoke the pioneer, a pioneer who had studied law and history and
could express in clear and forcible terms what the pioneers had felt
only confusedly. Unless I am much mistaken, it is the first enunciation
of one of the cardinal principles of Americanism; but, as far as
Jefferson is concerned, it did not rest upon any political philosophy,
either Hooker's or Locke's. The American settlers resumed and
resurrected on a new soil the tradition interrupted by Parliamentary and
kingly usurpations. By a sort of curious primitivism they renounced
their immediate and degraded British forbears to claim as their true
ancestors the Saxon conquerors of the British Isles. Can any one imagine
anything farther from the theory of Rousseau in the "Discourse on the
Origin of Inequality", or in the "Social Contract", anything farther
from the universal humanitarianism of the French philosophers? In a last
analysis, American society as it existed, and as it expressed its will
to exist through its young spokesman, rested essentially not on an _a
priori_ principle but on the right of conquest, or more exactly, of
discovery.
The best student of William and Mary, the young artist who wanted to
make Monticello a thing of beauty, the lover of the literature of Greece
and Rome, proclaimed loudly that "our ancestors who migrated hither were
laborers, not lawyers." His was not a political philosophy dealing with
"fictitious principles", it was the harsh, hard-headed, practical and
fierce determination of the pioneer who stakes out a piece of land in
the wilderness, ready to hold it against all claim jumpers.
The Virginia convention dominated by "Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas,
Pendleton" was not ready to go so far as the young master of Monticello.
The instructions to the delegates finally adopted and printed in an
appendix to Jefferson's own "Autobiography" were exceedingly tame, but
his declaration was printed, widely circulated among the people, and
even reached England. It was just what was needed to set afire the
public mind, for no people will rise, fight and die for an economic
doctrine or in defense of its commercial interests. They have to be
provided with mottoes which appeal to their imagination, they have to be
raised above the ordinary trend of things; they must have a banner, a
flag and a battle cry, and such was the object of Jefferson's
peroration, which no Pendleton and no Lee could have written:
That these are our grievances, which we have just laid before his
Majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a
free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature,
and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate. Let those flatter, who
fear: it is not an American art. To give praise where it is not due
might be well from the venal, but it would ill beseem those who are
asserting the rights of human nature. They know and will, therefore,
say, that Kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.
Congress assembled at Philadelphia on September 4, 1774, under the
presidency of Peyton Randolph of Virginia and adjourned in October, not
without a recommendation "to discountenance every species of
extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse racing, all kinds of
gaming, cock-fighting, exhibitions of shows, plays and other diversions
and entertainments."[36] The colonies were girding their loins for the
fight, society life came to a standstill; the brilliant days of the
little capital of Virginia were over.
When the counties organized committees of safety, Jefferson was at the
top of the list of appointees in his county. He was again sent to the
second convention of Virginia as representative from Albemarle. The
convention met in Richmond, March 20, 1775, and it was then that Patrick
Henry poured out in a fierce outburst the famous speech ending with the
war cry of "Give me liberty or give me death." The resolution to arm
passed with a decided majority and a plan of defense was adopted.
Collisions threatened between the militia and the regulars on several
occasions. But when Lord North's "Conciliatory Proposition" was
received, Lord Dunmore convened the House of Burgesses on the first of
July to take it into consideration. Peyton Randolph was then recalled
from Congress and Jefferson appointed to succeed him. He did not leave,
however, before an answer to the proposition had been drafted. The
Virginians did not close the door to a compromise, but insisted that the
final answer did not depend on them, for they considered that they were
"bound in honor as well as interest, to share their general fate with
their sister Colonies, and should hold themselves base deserters of that
Union to which they had acceeded, were they to agree to any measure
distinct and apart from them."
A few days later Lord Dunmore left the city and took refuge on board a
man-of-war lying at York, declaring he had taken this step for his
safety. Jefferson departed from Williamsburg for Philadelphia on the
eleventh of June, 1775, and reached the capital of Pennsylvania on the
twentieth. The national role of the young Virginia lawyer and landowner
was about to begin.
BOOK TWO
_Jefferson and the American Revolution_
CHAPTER I
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
When Thomas Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia and took lodgings with
"Ben Randolph" on Chestnut Street, he was only thirty-three years old,
"the youngest member of Congress but one." But he was already known as
the author of the "Summary View of the Rights of British America", he
was bringing with him Virginia's answer to Lord North's "Conciliatory
Proposition," and he had been appointed to succeed as delegate the
former President of Congress. Most of all he had behind him, not only
the first colony in population, but also, to a large extent, all the
Southern colonies, which were bound to follow the course of Virginia.
Unassuming and straightforward, he was at once welcomed with open arms
by the New England leaders, and years later John Adams still remembered
the first impression he made upon him:
Mr. Jefferson came into Congress in June 1775, and brought with
him a reputation for literature, science and a happy talent of
composition.... Though a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt,
frank, explicit and decisive upon committees and in conversation--not
even Samuel Adams was more so--that he soon seized upon my heart.
Five days later, he was placed on the committee appointed to draw up a
"Declaration of the Causes of Taking Up Arms." Through deference for the
authority of Dickinson, leader of the conservative party, he withdrew a
draft he had prepared and in the final text he claimed as his only the
last four paragraphs. But these last paragraphs contained some of the
sharply coined sentences that impress themselves on the mind, the final
expression of so many ideas ever since repeated in political speeches
whenever an attempt is made to define America's ideal policies. To a
certain extent Jefferson, as well as most of his contemporaries, may
have been influenced by Thomas Paine, whose "Common Sense", a pamphlet
addressed to the inhabitants of America, had taken the city by fire. For
the first time the colonists had been told that "the cause of America is
in a great measure the cause of all _Mankind_. Many circumstances, have
and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which
the Principles of all lovers of mankind are affected and in the event of
which this affection is interested." It also contained a rather vague
plan for a confederation, a "Continental charter", but Paine's pamphlet
was essentially an eloquent appeal to elemental feelings; it exalted the
cause of the colonists calling on them as the last defenders of
oppressed liberty; it had all the fire and passion of an evangelical
message:
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny, but
the tyrant, stand forth. Every spot of the old world is over-run with
oppression. Freedom hath been hunted around the globe. Asia and
Africa have long expelled her.--Europe regards her like a stranger;
and England hath given her warning to depart. O receive the fugitive,
and prepare in time an asylum for mankind!
But greatly as he admired Paine's eloquence, Jefferson did not try to
emulate it; impassioned as it was, his appeal to the inhabitants of the
British colonies sounded more like the summing-up of a lawyer before the
jury than an emotional sermon.
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect--our internal resources are
great.... We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to
mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by provoked
enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offense. They
boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder
condition than servitude or death.
Thus was the uniqueness of America's position emphasized and called to
the attention of her own people. Nor was it forgotten that the country
was particularly favored by God, for it declared that:
We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instance of the Divine towards
us, that His providence would not permit us to be called into this
severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength,
had been previously exercised in warlike apparatus, and possessed of
the means of defending ourselves.
Finally, Jefferson reiterated once more his favorite contention, the
theory which has become one of the fundamental axioms of the doctrine of
Americanism: that America did not owe anything to the older civilization
of Europe, and was a self-made country:
In our native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright,
and which we ever enjoyed until the late violation of it; for the
protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of
our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we
have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall
cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being
renewed shall be removed, and not before.
Then came a perfunctory appeal to conciliation, and a final religious
note strictly nonsectarian; for of his religious faith the young
delegate had retained the form and the tone which scarcely concealed his
deism:
With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial
Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine
goodness to conduct us happily through this great conflict, to
dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and
thereby to relieve the empire from the calamity of civil war.
No wonder this "Declaration" was read amid thundering huzzas in every
market place and amid fervent prayers in nearly every pulpit in the
colonies. With an extraordinary "felicity of expression", with a unique
sense of fitness, Jefferson had struck every chord susceptible of
response in every American heart. He had drawn for the people an ideal
picture of the nation and themselves, he had portrayed them as they
yearned to be looked upon by posterity and the nations of the world: he
had formulated the creed of Americanism.
Far more judicial in tone was the neat state paper prepared by Jefferson
to answer Lord North's "Conciliatory Proposition." The committee
appointed consisted of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams
and Richard H. Lee. The youngest member of the committee was chosen to
draw up the document, the answer of the Virginia Assembly he had brought
with him having been approved. Not for nothing had Jefferson attended
the courts of justice of Albemarle County and Williamsburg for more than
ten years and listened to decisions from the bench. The answer strives
to be a cold, dispassionate enumeration of facts, with its short
paragraphs beginning: "we are of opinion"--recalling the "Whereases" of
legal documents. But there is an undertone of indignation, cropping up
in every sentence, which belies the studied reserve. The conclusion, one
might call it a peroration, is a genuine specimen of revolutionary
eloquence:
When it considers the great armaments with which they have invaded
us, and the circumstances of cruelty with which these have commenced
and prosecuted hostilities; when these things, we say, are laid
together and attentively considered, can the world be deceived into
an opinion that we are unreasonable? Or can it hesitate to believe
with us, that nothing but our own exertions may defeat the
ministerial sentence of death or abject submission?
Truly Jefferson might have become a great orator had he chosen to
correct his handicap in speech and train his voice. Historians who
attribute much importance to racial traits and inherited characteristics
may believe that this was due to the Welshman that reappeared in him at
times; but the Welsh temperament was suppressed and checked by the
puritanical restraint of Mr. Small, Mr. Maury, the judicial reserve of
Mr. Wythe, the example of Mr. Peyton Randolph; and, carried away as he
was by Patrick Henry's oratory, Jefferson saw in him impulsive and
emotional qualities to be admired but to be shunned. More than any of
his contemporaries, however, he was unconsciously influenced by
reminiscences of speeches he had read and memorized in Livy, Cicero and
perhaps Demosthenes. These sentences have a classical ring; his true
models were the Greek and Latin orators, and if a critical edition of
Jefferson's early papers were ever attempted, a careful investigation
could not fail to bring to light the classical sources of his
inspiration.
The report was adopted on July 31, and Congress adjourned the next day.
Jefferson returned at once to Monticello, to stay in Virginia until the
opening of Congress. In spite of the fiery tone of the answer to Lord
North's proposition, it seems that neither he nor any of his friends
seriously entertained nor even considered the possibility of the
colonies separating entirely from the mother country. War had already
begun, but it was a civil war. There still remained some hope that an
"everlasting avulsion from Great Britain would be avoided." Yet it could
be avoided only on one condition: that the British Government should
accept, without reservation or restriction, the minimum terms of
Congress. Jefferson then wrote to his friend, John Randolph, who had
decided to remove to England:
I would rather be in dependence on Great Britain, properly limited,
than on any nation upon earth, or than on no nation. But I am one of
those, too, who, rather than submit to the rights of legislation for
us, assumed by the British Parliament, and which late experience has
shown they will so cruelly exercise, would lend my hand to sink the
whole island in the ocean.[37]
The manuscript letter in the Library of Congress is not the one that was
used in the different editions of Jefferson's "Works." It is a much
corrected and written-over draft, containing several passages which have
disappeared in the published text.[38] It contained particularly a
request to John Randolph who was going to "the hub of literature", to
buy him "books of parliamentary learning." It also included a request to
Randolph to sell him his fine violin, to which Randolph acceded,
averring that "Tho we _may politically_ differ in sentiments, yet I see
no reason, why _privately_ we may not cherish the same esteem for each
other which formerly I believe subsisted between us. We both of us seem
to be steering opposite courses: the success of either lies in the womb
of Time."[39]
Such letters are very significant, for they express better than long
dissertations the state of mind of the leading men of the day. The
question at issue was still a political question; it was a question of
internal politics on which men could differ without necessarily becoming
enemies or losing each other's esteem and affection. Less than a year
before the Declaration of Independence, independence seemed to Jefferson
the worst possible solution, to be delayed and avoided if it were
possible.
Chosen again as delegate to Congress, but delayed by the illness and
death of his second child, Jefferson reached Philadelphia on September
25, twenty days after the opening of the session. He stayed only until
the twenty-eighth of December, and resumed his seat on May 13 of the
following year. In the meantime events were moving rapidly. Congress had
been advised of the king's refusal even to notice their second petition;
and Jefferson, writing a second time to John Randolph, could declare:
Believe me, my dear sir, there is not in the British empire, a man
who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But
by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a
connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in
this I think I speak the sentiment of America. We want neither
inducement nor power, to declare and assert a separation. It is will
alone which is wanting, and that is growing apace under the fostering
hand of our King.[40]
On the sixth of December, a declaration was adopted repudiating
allegiance to the king, and the British Constitution was proclaimed "our
best inheritance." Four days previously Jefferson had drafted a
declaration concerning Ethan Allen, when news arrived of his being
arrested and sent to Britain in irons to be punished for pretended
treason. For the first time the delegate from Virginia referred to the
British as "our enemies" and called upon them to respect "the rights of
nations."
At this juncture and shortly after being appointed on an important
committee, Jefferson abruptly left Congress and set out for home. The
reason for his sudden departure has never been satisfactorily explained.
It may have been due to news of the bad health of his mother: she died
on March 31, 1776, and this is the only explanation that Randall could
offer. It was more probably due to his anxiety about the fate of his
family. Communications with Virginia were rare and difficult. He wrote
home regularly every week, but on October 31 he had not yet received a
word "from any mortal breathing", and on November 7 he repeated:
"I have never received the script of a pen from any mortal in Virginia
since I left it, nor been able by any inquiries I could make to hear of
my family. I had hoped that when Mrs. Byrd came I could have heard
something of them. The suspense under which I am is too terrible to be
endured. If anything has happened, for God's sake let me know it!" Two
weeks later he urged his wife to keep herself "at a distance from Ld.
Dunmore", and he was planning to meet Eppes "as proposed."
There seems to be very little doubt that he yielded to his anxiety and
to the entreaties of Eppes who seems to have urged him to come back. He
had left at Monticello a sick mother, his sisters, a wife who had
recently lost a child and had hardly recovered from the blow, and he was
in constant fear that a raid from the British troops, who had already
burnt Norfolk, should endanger the lives of his dear ones. Furthermore
he believed that his presence in Philadelphia was not indispensable; for
he was never one who overrated himself. Finally, a document overlooked
by his biographers informs us that on September 26, 1775, he had been
appointed by the Committee of Safety for the Colony of Virginia,
Lieutenant and Commander in chief of the Militia of the County of
Albemarle.[41] In view of Lord Dunmore's impending attacks his presence
was evidently required to organize local forces. All these are reasons
enough to explain why he left Philadelphia. We do not even know that he
hesitated at all or experienced any conflict of duties. National
patriotism was still limited by family duty, and local patriotism was
stronger in him than obligations to a country which did not yet exist.
So it happened that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence
was to miss many of the preliminary steps and discussions that preceded
it. He did not resume his seat in Congress until May 14, 1776. Five days
before, a resolution framed by Adams and R. H. Lee had been adopted,
instructing the colonies to form governments. It was passed the very day
Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia. Not only had he come back rather
reluctantly, but he was anxious to return to Virginia in order to
participate in the work of the Colonial Convention, as appears from his
letter to Thomas Nelson, Junior:
Should our Convention propose to establish now a form of government,
perhaps it might be agreeable to recall for a short time their
delegates. It is a work of the most interesting nature and such as
every individual would wish to have his voice in.... But this I
mention to you in confidence, as in our situation, a hint to any
other is too delicate however anxiously interesting the subject is to
our feelings.
With all his attention turned towards the Old Dominion and in his
anxiety to participate in establishing a model form of government for
his "country", he then decided to send to Pendleton, President of the
Assembly, the draft of a proposed constitution for Virginia, or rather,
as he termed it, "A Bill for new modelling the form of government and
for establishing the Fundamental principles of our future
constitution."[42] This is a capital document for the history of
Jefferson's political thought. For the first time he had the opportunity
to develop fully his views on society and government. How clear in his
mind were the theories of which he later became the advocate will be
easily perceived. The draft started with a recital of the grievances of
the colony against "George Guelph King of Great Britain", which
Jefferson was to utilize in the Declaration of Independence. It declared
that "The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary shall be forever
separate" and continued with a description of the three branches of
government. For the Legislative, Jefferson proposed a bicameral system,
consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House was to
be elected by "all male persons of full age and sane mind having a
freehold estate in (one fourth of an acre) of land in any town or in 25
acres of land in the county and all persons resident in the colony who
shall have paid scot and lot to government the last two years." The
Senate was to be appointed by the House of Representatives. The death
penalty was abolished for all crimes except murder and offences in the
military service; torture was abolished in all cases whatsoever. Some of
these provisions were incorporated later in the "Bill for Apportioning
Crimes and Punishment." The Administrator was to be appointed by the
House of Representatives, as well as the Attorney-general and the Privy
Council. Judges were to be appointed by the Administrator and Privy
Council; the High Sheriffs and Coroners of counties were to be elected
annually by the voters, but all other officers, civil and military, to
be appointed by the Administrator. The bill proposed that "descents
shall go according to the laws of Gavelkind, save only that females
shall have equal rights with males."--"All persons shall have full and
free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to support
or maintain any religious institution." "Printing presses shall be free
except so far as by commission of private injury cause may be given of
private action. There shall be no standing army but in time of actual
war." The introduction of slaves into the State was forbidden. Finally
provisions were made for the revision of the Constitution.
Truly most of the reforms advocated by Jefferson are already contained
in this document, not implicitly but explicitly: religious freedom,
freedom of the press, abolition of slavery, the laws of descent and the
bill to abolish entail, the "Bill for Proportioning Crimes and
Punishment" are all here. It was a bold and radical proposal, and no
wonder the young delegate from Virginia was anxious to go home in order
to defend it before his colleagues of the Assembly. The delegates, after
much wrangling, had come to practical agreement on the most important
points. It was too late and they were too "tired" of the subject to
resume the discussion. From Jefferson's plan they simply borrowed the
long recital of grievances which became the preamble to the Virginia
Constitution.[43]
As finally adopted, the Constitution was far less liberal than the plan
proposed by Jefferson, and this may explain his severe criticism of it
in his "Notes on Virginia" (Query XIII). It embodied, however, some of
the same essential principles; it proclaimed the separation of powers
and established two Chambers. It retained the name of governor, redolent
of the English regime, instead of "administrator"; it made no mention of
slavery, entails, descents and freedom of the press, but in some
respects it was even more democratic than the Jefferson plan since both
houses were directly elected. In the meantime things were coming to a
head in Philadelphia, and on June 7 certain resolutions concerning
independence being moved and adopted, it was
_Resolved_, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be,
free and independent States, that they are absolved from all
allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved.
That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures
for forming foreign Alliances.
That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the
respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.[44]
On June 10, it was
_Resolved_, That the consideration of the first resolution be
postponed to this day, three weeks (July 1), and in the meanwhile,
that no time be lost in case the Congress agree thereto, that a
committee be appointed to prepare a declaration to the effect of the
said first resolution.
The next day it was resolved, That the committee to prepare the
declaration consist of five members: The members chosen, Mr. [Thomas]
Jefferson, Mr. J[ohn] Adams, Mr. [Benjamin] Franklin, Mr. [Roger]
Sherman, and Mr. R[obert] R. Livingston.[45]
Jefferson's biographers have indulged in a great many discussions about
the reasons which determined the selection of the committee. Jefferson
certainly did not seek the honor, and little did he dream at the time
that it would bring him such fame. Without renewing the old controversy
on the participation of the other members of the committee in the
drawing up of the famous document, a few facts have to be considered.
First of all it was not an improvisation. The committee appointed on
June 10 reported only on June 28. A written draft was submitted to Adams
and Franklin, whose advice could not be neglected, and they suggested
several modifications, additions and corrections. Furthermore, Jefferson
was too good a harmonizer not to discuss many points with his colleagues
of the committee, so as to ascertain their views before writing down the
first draft. Even the desirability of having a declaration was a highly
controversial question, and Jefferson himself, in the detailed notes he
took of the preliminary discussion, indicates that when the committee
was appointed "the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware and South Carolina were not yet matured for falling from the
parent stem."[46]
On June 28, the committee appointed to prepare a declaration brought in
a draft which was read and "_Ordered_ to lie on the table." On July 2,
Congress resumed the consideration of the resolution agreed to by and
reported from the committee of the whole; and the same being read, was
agreed to as follows.
_Resolved_, That these United Colonies are, and, of right, ought to
be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from
allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion
between them, and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved.
Properly speaking this is, as Mr. Becker has remarked, the real
Declaration of Independence. But the principle once adopted, it remained
to proclaim and explain the action taken by Congress not only to the
people of the Free and Independent States, but to the world at large.
Congress then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, only to
decide that it was too late in the day to take up such a momentous
question. The discussion continued on the next day but Harrison reported
that the committee, not having finished, desired leave to sit again. On
July 4, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole to take
into further consideration the Declaration; and after some time, the
president resumed the chair. "Mr. (Benjamin) Harrison reported, that the
committee of the whole Congress have agreed to a Declaration, which he
delivered in. The Declaration being again read, was agreed to." Congress
then ordered that the Declaration be authenticated and printed, and the
committee appointed to prepare the Declaration "to superintend and
correct the press."
Such is briefly told from the "Journals of Congress" the story of the
momentous document in its external details. It has been too well related
by Mr. Becker and Mr. Fitzpatrick to leave any excuse for a new account.
Writing many years later, John Adams declared "there is not an idea in
it but what had been hackneyed in Congress two years before," and
replying to Adams' insinuations, Jefferson admitted that:
Pickering's observations, and Mr. Adams' in addition, that it
contained no new ideas, that it is a commonplace compilation, its
sentiments hacknied in Congress for two years before ... may be all
true. Of that I am not judge. Richard H. Lee charged it as copied
from Locke's treatise on Government ... I only know that I turned to
neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as
any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether and to offer no
sentiment which had never been expressed before.
In another letter to Lee, written in 1825, a year before his death,
Jefferson had given, as his last and final statement on the subject:
Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before
thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said
before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject,
in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.... Neither
aiming at originality of principles or sentiments, nor yet copied
from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an
expression of the American mind.... All its authority rests on the
harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation,
in letters, printed essays, on the elementary books of public right,
as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.
Two phrases in this letter deserve particular notice, "an expression of
the American mind" and "the harmonizing sentiments of the day." This is
truly what Jefferson had attempted to express in his "felicitous
language"--the confused yearnings, the inarticulate aspirations, the
indefinite ideals of the speechless and awkward masses. He did it in
words so simple that no man could fail to understand it, in sentences so
well balanced and so rhythmic that no artist in style could improve upon
them. The Declaration of Independence is not only a historical document,
it is the first and to this day the most outstanding monument in
American literature. It does not follow, however, that Jefferson had no
model. Mr. Becker in his masterly study has demonstrated that it was the
final development of a whole current of thought, the origins of which
can be traced back in history even farther than he has done. The
Declaration of Independence is essentially of Lockian origin, but it
does not ensue that Jefferson had memorized Locke, nor even that he was
conscious, when he wrote the document, that he was using a Lockian
phraseology. As a matter of fact, even if he remembered Locke, it is
more than probable that reminiscences from two other more modern
expressions of the same idea haunted his mind. The first was a pamphlet
of James Wilson, written in 1770, published in Philadelphia in 1774 and
entitled "Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative
Authority of the British Parliament." Mr. Becker has pointed out the
similarity between a passage in Wilson and the preamble. Since then I
have found that, in his "Commonplace Book", Jefferson copied passages
from Wilson's pamphlet, although for reasons which I could not determine
he omitted the very passage which presents the most striking
resemblance:
All men are, by nature, equal and free: No one has a right to any
authority over another without his consent: All lawful government is
founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: Such consent
was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of
the governed above what they could enjoy in an independent and
unconnected state of nature. The consequence is, that the happiness
of the society is the First law of every government.
A Lockian theory to be sure, but Wilson in the footnote to this
paragraph quoted Burlamaqui to the effect that "This right of
sovereignty is that of commanding finally but in order to procure real
felicity; for if this end is not obtained, sovereignty ceases to be
legitimate authority." But this is not all! The Declaration of Rights of
1774 ("Journal of Congress", I, 373) stated in somewhat similar terms
the rights of the inhabitants of the English colonies. Finally the
"Virginia Bill of Rights" written by George Mason, adopted by the
Virginia Assembly on June 12 and necessarily forwarded to the delegates
in Congress, contained articles resembling more closely those of the
Declaration of Independence:
I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have
certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of
society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive their posterity;
namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety.
II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from the
people; that Magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all
times amenable to them.
III. That government is or ought to be, instituted for the common
benefit, protection and security of the people, nation, or community;
of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which
is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety,
and is most effectually secured against the danger of
mal-administration; and that when any government shall be found
inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community
has the undubitable, unalienable right, to reform, alter, or abolish
it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public
weal.[47]
This time it is no longer a question of analogy, or similarity of
thought--the very words are identical, "Unalienable rights" is the
expression which finally replaced "undeniable" in the final form--and
"pursuing and obtaining happiness" has become the well-known "pursuit of
happiness." Does it mean that Jefferson should be accused of plagiarism?
Not in the least, since, as the French author said, "_l'arrangement est
nouveau_", and, in a work of art, "_l'arrangement_" constitutes true
originality, according to the formula of the classical school.
Furthermore, it was clearly Jefferson's role and duty as a delegate from
Virginia to incorporate in the Declaration as much as he could of the
"Bill of Rights" recently adopted by his native dominion. The only fault
that could be found is that he did not more clearly acknowledge his
indebtedness to George Mason. But his contemporaries, and particularly
the Virginians, could not fail to recognize in the national document the
spirit and expression of the State document. Jefferson had expressed the
American mind but he had above all expressed the mind of his fellow
Virginians.
Whether the doctrine enunciated in the Declaration of Independence is
founded in fact and is beyond question "undeniable", is a problem which
cannot even be touched upon here. We cannot dismiss it, however, without
mentioning a feature which seems to have escaped most American students
of political philosophy, probably because it has become such an integral
part of American life that it is not even noticed. I do not believe that
any other State paper in any nation had ever proclaimed so emphatically
and with such finality that one of the essential functions of government
is to make man happy, or that one of his essential natural rights is
"the pursuit of happiness." This was more than a new principle of
government, it was a new principle of life which was thus proposed and
officially indorsed. The most that could be asked from governments of
the Old World was to promote virtue and to maintain justice; honor,
"_amor patriae_" and fear were the essential principles on which rested
the governments described by Montesquieu. But in spite of the eternal
and unquenchable thirst for happiness in the heart of every man, what
European, what Frenchman particularly, could openly and officially
maintain that the "pursuit of happiness" was a right, and that happiness
could be reached and truly enjoyed. This quest of happiness had been the
main preoccupation of French philosophers during the eighteenth century,
but in spite of their philosophical optimism, they were too thoroughly
imbued with pessimism ever to think that it was possible to be happy;
the most they could hope for was to become less unhappy. The whole
Christian civilization had been built on the idea that happiness is
neither desirable nor obtainable in this vale of tears and affliction,
but as a compensation Christianity offered eternal life and eternal
bliss. The Declaration of Independence, on the contrary, placed human
life on a new axis by maintaining that happiness is a natural right of
the individual and the whole end of government. To be sure, the idea was
not original with Jefferson, it had been mentioned more than once in
official or semi-official documents, it was in James Wilson, as in the
Bill of Rights, but I cannot quite conceive that such a formula could
have originated in New England. I cannot conceive either that it could
have been proclaimed at that date anywhere except in a new country where
the pioneer spirit dominated, where men felt that they could live
without being crowded or hampered by fierce competition, traditions, and
iron-bound social laws.
In his plan for a _Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen_,
Lafayette some twelve years later included "_la recherche du bonheur_",
in memory of the American Declaration of Independence, but "_la
recherche du bonheur_" disappeared in the committee and was never
mentioned again in any of the three Declarations of the French
Revolution. The nearest approach to it is found in the first article of
the Declaration of June 23, 1793; but it simply states that the aim of
society is common happiness--and this is quite a different idea. Whether
it was right or not, Jefferson, when he reproduced the terms used by
George Mason in the Virginia Bill of Rights, gave currency to an
expression which was to influence deeply and even to mold American life.
In that sense, it may be said that the Declaration of Independence
represents the highest achievement of eighteenth-century philosophy, but
of one aspect of that philosophy that could not develop fully in Europe.
Trees that are transplanted sometimes thrive better under new skies than
in their native habitat and may reach proportions wholly unforeseen.
Thus the Declaration of Independence written to express the sentiments
of the day probably shaped the American mind in an unexpected manner. It
was essentially a popular document planned to impress the masses, to
place before the young nation at its birth a certain ideal and a certain
political faith, but it was also a legal and judicial document intended
to make more precise the reasons why the united American colonies had
finally resolved to separate from the mother country.
For this part of the Declaration Jefferson drew largely from the
"Constitution" he had drafted for Virginia and sent to Randolph by Mr.
Wythe. He was his own source--the more so as he substantially repeated
many of the grievances enumerated two years earlier in the "Rights of
British America." But here again he markedly improved the first version,
which was a monotonous recital of dry facts, starting with a legal
"Whereas" and beginning each article with a clumsy participle. "By
denying his Governor permission:... By refusing to pass certain other
laws ... By dissolving Legislative Assemblies," became in the
Declaration the dramatic presentation of facts by a prosecuting attorney
and not the summing-up of a case by a judge. But the final renunciation
of the mother country has an unsurpassed dignity, a finality more
terrible in its lofty and dispassionate tone than any curse:
"We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in
War, in Peace Friends." There again one is reminded of the well-known
French formula: "_beau comme l'antique_." Twice in its history the
supposedly young and uncultured people had the rare fortune to find
spokesmen who, without effort and laborious preparation, reached the
utmost heights. The Declaration of Independence, with its solemn
renunciation of ties of consanguinity, reminds one of the tone of the
Greek tragedy; while the only parallel to the Gettysburg address is the
oration pronounced by Pericles over the warriors who had laid down their
lives during the first war of Peloponnesus.
Such heights can only be reached if the author is moved to his innermost
depths. Singularly unimaginative in ordinary circumstances, for once in
his life Jefferson was superior to himself: the student of Greece, the
refined Virginian, became truly the voice of the people. But great
effects often have small causes. We may wonder if he would have spoken
with that same suppressed emotion, fiercely burning and yet controlled,
if at that very time he had not been laboring under an emotional stress
that never recurred in his life.
While he was in Philadelphia, writing the first draft in which he opened
to the people of America "the road to glory and happiness", he could
well wonder whether his personal happiness was not about to be
destroyed.--His mother had recently died, he had just lost a child and
had left in Monticello a beloved companion dangerously ill. "Every
letter brings me such an account of the state of her health, that it is
with great pain I can stay here," he wrote to Page (July 20, 1776), and
for those who knew how reserved he was in the expression of personal
feelings, the restraint in his expression hardly conceals the anxiety
and distress by which he was torn.
There were also other reasons for his desiring to go home. Jefferson had
always understood that as a delegate to Congress his duty was not so
much to make a record for himself as to voice the _sentiments of the
people he represented and to carry out their instructions_.[48] He was
much worried about his standing with the Virginia Convention and
suspected that some members were trying to knife him in the back. The
Convention had just proceeded to elect delegates for the next Congress.
Harrison and Braxton had failed to be reappointed, and Jefferson was
"next to the lag."--"It is a painful situation," he wrote to William
Fleming, on July first, "to be 300 miles from one's county, and thereby
opened to secret assassination without a possibility of
self-defence."[49]
A week later, he wrote to Edmund Pendleton to decline his new
appointment as a delegate to Congress:
I am sorry that the situation of my domestic affairs, renders it
indispensably necessary that I should solicit the substitution of
some other person here in my room. The delicacy of the House will not
require me to enter minutely into the private causes which render
this necessary. I trust they will be satisfied. I would not urge it
again, were it not unavoidable.[50]
On July 8 he announced to R. H. Lee that he would return to Virginia
after the eleventh of August. It was not until September 2 that, his
successor having arrived, he considered himself as free to go. His final
reason, possibly not the least important, is given by Jefferson himself
in his "Autobiography":
Our delegation had been renewed for the ensuing year, commencing
August 11; but the new government was now organized, a meeting of the
legislature was to be held in October, and I had been elected a
member by my county. I knew that our legislation, under the regal
government, had many vicious points which urgently required
reformation, and I thought I could be of more use in forwarding that
work. I therefore retired from my seat in Congress on the 2d of
September, resigned it and took my place in the Legislature of my
State, on the 7th of October.
"My state," wrote Jefferson in 1818, but in his letters to William
Fleming he was speaking of Virginia as his "country", and at that time
constantly referred to the colonies and not the United States.
The necessity of some sort of a union or confederacy had been keenly
realized for a long time, but the ways and means were far from receiving
unanimous support. As a matter of fact, union had been obtained just on
the point of secession, or as Jefferson had it "avulsion from Great
Britain"; but the consciousness of solidarity, the community of ideals
and interests which constitute an essential part of patriotism hardly
existed at that date. Thus the man who had just been the voice of
America probably felt himself more of a Virginian than of an American,
for local patriotism was very strong, while national patriotism was
still in a larval stage. Curiously enough the independence of the
_United States_ had been proclaimed before the Articles of
Confederation, which really constituted the United States, had been
adopted or even reported. When they were drafted the name "colonies" was
used and this was not changed to "states" until the second printing.[51]
The only official bond that united the colonies was loyalty to the
Crown. That bond once severed, each of them became a separate unit and
returned to a sort of "state of nature." For a student of government
this was the most fascinating situation that could be devised, since he
was going to witness the actual formation of a new society and the
signing of a social compact. Jefferson attended all the meetings of
Congress in which the Articles of Confederation were discussed, without
actively participating in the debates. He took copious notes and
inserted them in his "Autobiography" but for reasons presently to be
seen, he refrained from expressing his own opinion on the matter. Only
when he was back in Virginia could he collect his ideas and formulate to
his own satisfaction a theory on the formation of society. He then sat
at his table and sent to a friend his reflections on the debates he had
just attended. I had the good fortune to discover this document in the
Library of Congress. It is of such importance that it must be given here
in full.
[Illustration: A PAGE OF JEFFERSON'S REFLECTIONS ON THE ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION
_From the manuscript in the possession of the Library of Congress_]
After I got home, being alone and wanting amusement I sat down to
explain to myself (for there is such a thing) my Ideas of natural and
civil rights and the distinction between them--I send them to you to
see how nearly we agree.
Suppose 20 persons, strangers to each other, to meet in a country not
before inhabited. Each would be a sovereign in his own natural right.
His will would be his Law,--but his power, in many cases, inadequate
to his right, and the consequence would be that each might be
exposed, not only to each other but to the other nineteen.
It would then occur to them that their condition would be much
improved, if a way could be devised to exchange that quantity of
danger into so much protection, so that each individual should
possess the strength of the whole number. As all their rights, in the
first case are natural rights, and the exercise of those rights
supported only by their own natural individual power, they would
begin by distinguishing between these rights they could individually
exercise fully and perfectly and those they could not.
Of the first kind are the rights of thinking, speaking, forming and
giving opinions, and perhaps all those which can be fully exercised
by the individual without the aid of exterior assistance--or in other
words, rights of personal competency--Of the second kind are those of
personal protection of acquiring and possessing property, in the
exercise of which the individual natural power is less than the
natural right.
Having drawn this line they agree to retain individually the first
Class of Rights or those of personal Competency; and to detach from
their personal possession the second Class, or those of defective
power and to accept in lieu thereof a right to the whole power
produced by a condensation of all the parts. These I conceive to be
civil rights or rights of Compact, and are distinguishable from
Natural rights, because in the one we act wholly in our own person,
in the other we agree not to do so, but act under the guarantee of
society.
It therefore follows that the more of those imperfect natural rights,
or rights of imperfect power we give up and thus exchange the more
securely we possess, and as the word liberty is often mistakenly put
for security M^r Wilson has confused his Argument by confounding the
terms.
But it does not follow that the more natural rights of _every kind_
we resign the more securely we possess,--because if we resign those
of the first class we may suffer much by the exchange, for where the
right and the power are equal with each other in the individual
naturally they ought to rest there.
M^r Wilson must have some allusion to this distinction or his
position would be subject to the inference you draw from it.
I consider the individual sovereignty of the States retained under
the Act of Confederation to be of the second Class of rights. It
becomes dangerous because it is defective in the power necessary to
support it. It answers the pride and purpose of a few men in each
state--but the State collectively is injured by it.
Unless I am much mistaken we have here the key to the whole democratic
system of government evolved by Jefferson and the solution of the
apparent contradictions often pointed out in his system. Starting from
the hypothesis of Hobbes that in a state of nature men are free agents
and have no other law but their own will, Jefferson attributes to the
surrounding dangers the urge to form some sort of a society, a theory
also found in Locke. But what follows is more original: in forming a
social compact, men do not abdicate all their sovereignty as in the
hypothesis of Rousseau; they do not even abdicate a certain portion of
all their rights. On the contrary, they reserve entire a certain class
of rights, all those they can exercise fully without the aid of exterior
assistance, and they exchange for more security those they cannot
exercise themselves. Thus the social compact is no longer a _pactum
subjectionis_. It is no longer a question of deciding whether in a
society the individual or the society are sovereign, since both are
sovereign in their respective domains. How far Jefferson was from being
a demagogue is clearly indicated by the sentence in which he refers to
James Wilson. Liberty, except liberty of speech and thought, cannot be
unlimited and unrestricted in any society; it is a matter of bargain and
exchange. Thus Jefferson proposed a definition of liberty entirely
different from the French conception as found in Rousseau and reproduced
in the "Declaration des droits de l'homme" of May 29, 1793: "_La liberte
consiste a pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas a autrui._" With him,
on the contrary, liberty consists in the free enjoyment of our will
except in certain specific cases, to be enumerated at the time we form a
social compact. Hence the necessity of a Bill of Rights, in which the
individual accepts certain limitations in order to obtain a
corresponding amount of security, and specifically denominates those of
his natural rights he means to keep integrally and wholly.
This explains clearly why Jefferson, who is represented as the champion
of State rights, not only accepted the abridgment of State sovereignty
but declared that the retention by the States of certain rights was
dangerous and illogical. One of the first cases arises when dealing with
foreign nations. Here the individual State is clearly unable to protect
itself against foreign aggressions and foreign encroachments, and
foreign policies must properly be placed in the hands of the Federal
Government. This applies not only to questions of protection, but to
questions of commerce, and for two reasons, both of them practical and
not theoretical. Commerce is one of the great causes of war. In order to
protect the confederation the government has the right to levy taxes,
and the most convenient form is that of imposts or taxes on
importations. Secondly, the Federal Government is evidently in a better
situation than the individual States for obtaining favorable treatment
of their commerce by foreign nations. Hence the insistence of Jefferson
throughout his life on the prerogatives of the Federal Government in all
matters referring to foreign policies, and his reiterated declarations
in favor of State rights.
Incidentally, this document explains two otherwise unexplainable
incidents in Jefferson's career.
The Declaration on Violation of Rights adopted by the First Continental
Congress had specified the rights of the inhabitants of the British
colonies:
"_Resolved_, That they are entitled to life, liberty, & property, and
they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to
dispose of either without their consent."[52] The Virginia Bill of
Rights had similarly declared that among the inherent natural rights
was the means of acquiring and possessing property.
Now, in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which follows
so closely the Bill of Rights, the word "property" does not appear,
while the other rights are reasserted.
Nor was this an unintentional omission, for when Lafayette submitted to
Jefferson his "Declaration des droits de l'homme", Jefferson put in
brackets the words "droit a la propriete", thus suggesting their
elimination from the list of natural rights.
Yet he was not in any way a communist, and it would be a serious error
to see in that systematic omission the influence of Rousseau's "Discours
sur l'Origine de l'Inegalite." The fact is that, with his mind
accustomed to draw fine legal distinctions, he had come to the
conclusion that the right of possessing and acquiring property had to be
protected by society in order to be enjoyed securely. It is one of those
rights which are at the same time abridged and made more secure by
society, since in any society it may be found necessary to levy taxes on
the property of any citizen and even to condemn his property in the
interests of the community.
Such a philosophy of natural rights had never before been expressed by
any political philosopher I have been able to refer to, with one
possible exception. While Locke had said that one divests oneself of his
liberty in assuming the bonds of civil society--while Rousseau had
declared that man sacrifices all his natural rights on the altar of
society--a Scottish jurist had maintained that "Mutual defence against a
more powerful neighbor being in early times the chief, or sole motive
for joining in society, individuals never thought of surrendering any of
their natural rights which could be retained consistently with their
great aim of mutual defence." Not only had Jefferson read Kames, but he
had copied extensively from his "Historical Law" tracts in his
"Commonplace Book", where this very passage is to be found. He had also
seen in the tract on history of property the fine distinction
established by Kames between possession and property, the two terms
being coextensive among savages, while in more refined society the
relation of property was gradually evolved and disjoined from
possession.[53]
Thus if Jefferson borrowed from any one the main principles of his
philosophy, it was not from any of the eloquent and famous thinkers of
France and England. Locke he had certainly read, he had abstracted
Montesquieu, he may have known Rousseau's theory, although this is
doubtful, but he had read and summarized the tracts of a Scottish jurist
whom he had probably discovered through Doctor Small. His conception of
the social compact is not the conception of a philosopher; it is
essentially the conception of a jurist and a lawyer. The social compact
is not a metaphysical hypothesis, nebulous and lost in the night of
ages, it is a very specific and very precise convention to be entered
into or to be denounced by men who retain their "rights inherent and
unalienable", who remain free and yet agree to submit themselves to
certain rules and a certain discipline in order to obtain more security.
And thus was evolved and defined by Jefferson a combination of liberty
and order, individualism and discipline which lies at the basis of
American civilization, an object of wonder to most foreigners, often
discussed but never so satisfactorily elucidated as in the document
written by Jefferson when, "wanting amusement", he sat down to explain
to himself his ideas of natural and civil rights and the distinction
between them.
CHAPTER II
THE REVISION OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA
At the meeting of July 4, 1776, Congress, after adopting the Declaration
of Independence,
"_Resolved_, That Dr. Franklin, Mr. J. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, be a
committee, to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of
America."[54]
Among the several suggestions made in the committee, the one proposed by
Jefferson, according to John Adams, deserves particular attention: "Mr.
Jefferson proposed, the children of Israel in the wilderness led by a
cloud by day, and a pillar by night--and on the other side, Hengist and
Horsa, the Saxon chiefs, from whom we claim the honor of being
descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have
assumed."
None of the suggestions made by the committee, or their final report,
was ever adopted, but the device proposed by Jefferson is a significant
indication that his thoughts were still running in the same channel.
"The children of Israel" would remind one of the favorite contention of
the settlers, piously preserved by their descendants to this day, that
they were a chosen people; but the other side of the seal reminds one
that Jefferson's great ambition at that time was to promote a
renaissance of Anglo-Saxon primitive institutions on the new continent.
Thus presented, the American Revolution was nothing but the reclamation
of the Anglo-Saxon birthright of which the colonists had been deprived
by "a long trend of abuses." Nor does it appear that there was anything
in this theory which surprised or shocked his contemporaries; Adams
apparently did not disapprove of it, and it would be easy to bring in
many similar expressions of the same idea in documents of the time.
The principle once established, there remained to put it into effect,
and to make a beginning in Virginia. This was the thought uppermost in
Jefferson's mind when he went back to the Old Dominion. "Are we not the
better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system," he
wrote to Edmund Pendleton. "Has not every restitution of the ancient
Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at
once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most
perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the 8th
century?"[55] This is the true foundation of Jefferson's political
philosophy. No greater mistake could be made than to look for his
sources in Locke, Montesquieu, or Rousseau. The Jeffersonian democracy
was born under the sign of Hengist and Horsa, not of the Goddess Reason.
On September 26, 1776, Congress proceeded to the election of
commissioners to the Court of France, and the ballots being taken, Mr.
Benjamin Franklin, Mr. Silas Deane, and Mr. Thomas Jefferson were
chosen. This was a signal recognition of the prestige of the young
author of the Declaration of Independence. An express was sent at once
to Jefferson to inform him of his appointment. For the first time he was
offered an opportunity to visit the Old World. His desire to go was so
strong that he remained undecided for three days before he made up his
mind to decline the nomination and to send his refusal to Hancock. In
the letter he then wrote, he alleged that "circumstances very peculiar
in the situation of my family, such as neither permit me to leave nor to
carry it compel me to ask leave to decline a service so honorable and at
the same time so important to the American cause."[56] His biographer
Randall observes on this occasion that "the private causes" were the
precarious situation of his wife's health. The family record contains
the following entry: "a son born May 28th, 1777, 10 h. P.M."[57] The
true reason, however, is to be found in the "Autobiography", as given
before.
The very day Jefferson answered Hancock, he was put on several
committees, and the next day he obtained leave to bring in a bill "To
enable tenants in taille to convey their land in fee simple." The Bill
to Abolish Entails was reported on October 14, and after discussion and
amendments passed by the House on October 23, and approved by the Senate
on November first.
The bill was no improvisation and Jefferson intended by it "to strike at
the very root of feudalism in Virginia." On August 13, 1776, he had
already written to an anonymous correspondent, probably Edmund
Pendleton:
The opinion that our lands were allodial possessions is one which I
have very long held, and had in my eye during a pretty considerable
part of my law reading which I found always strengthened it.... This
opinion I have thought and still think to prove if ever I should have
time to look into books again.... Was not the separation of the
property from the perpetual use of lands a mere fiction? Is not it's
history well known, and the purposes for which it was introduced, to
wit, the establishment of a military system of defense? Was it not
afterwards made an engine of immense oppression?... Has it not been
the practice of all other nations to hold their lands as their
personal estate in absolute dominion? Are we not the better for what
we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system?[58]
It was the first great blow at the landed hereditary aristocracy of
Virginia. The abolition of patrimonial estates, rendering them subject
to all the obligations of personal property "susceptible to be sold,
conveyed, seized, exchanged and willed" as ordinary property, meant the
rapid abolition of that refined class of Virginia planters which
constituted such a distinguished feature of colonial life. It was a bold
step to take, since it meant the antagonism of a powerful class, the
beginning of hatred that pursued Jefferson during his whole life and
long after his death. Yet he had the courage to do it and was no little
proud of it.[59] He was opposed by both Mr. Pendleton and Patrick Henry,
"but the bill passed finally for entire abolition."
With the Bill to Abolish Entails Jefferson introduced another bill on
the naturalization of foreigners, containing an expressed recognition of
the right of expatriation already defended in the "Summary View" of
1774,--another remarkable instance of Jefferson's persistency and
relentless efforts to win his point by legal means.
Simultaneously a committee on religion had been appointed "to meet and
adjourn from day to day, and to take into their consideration all
matters and things relating to religion and religious morality." Besides
Jefferson, there were seventeen members on the committee, including
Fleming, Page, and Nicholas. Being in a minority, Jefferson began the
struggle which was to end in the famous Bill for Religious Freedom,--a
long hard fight of which more will be said later. For the time being,
however, Jefferson had to be satisfied with a partial success:
We prevailed so far only, as to repeal the laws which rendered
criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions, the forbearance
of repairing to church, or the exercise of any mode of worship; and
further, to exempt dissenters from contributing to the support of the
established church; and to suspend, only until next session, levies
on the members of that church for the salaries of their own
incumbents.[60]
Yet this was a very significant victory since, from the days of Sir
Walter Raleigh, there had been an express proviso that the laws of the
colony "should not be against the true Christian faith, now professed in
the Church of England." Dissenters as well as members of the Established
Church were assessed for the support of the Anglican ministers, and
although other denominations, particularly Presbyterians, had succeeded
in gaining more than a foothold in some parishes, a majority of
dissenters were still obliged to pay for the support of the minority.
But important as they were, these constituted only minor points. The
whole structure of laws had to be remodelled to fit new conditions; a
new legal monument had to be erected. Jefferson's practice of law had
convinced him of the obscurities, contradictions, absurdities, and
iniquities of the assemblage of English laws on top of which had been
superimposed local regulations. The Bill for a General Revision of the
Laws passed October 26. The fifth of November five revisors were
appointed by ballot in the following order: Thomas Jefferson, Edmund
Pendleton, George Wythe, George Mason, Thomas Ludwell Lee. As this is a
more important contribution of Jefferson, we may omit here the part he
played on many committees of the House, drafting and reporting on
"Declaring what shall be treason"; bills "For raising six additional
battalions of infantry", "For establishing a Court of Appeals", "For
establishing a High Court of Chancery", "For establishing a General
Court and Courts of Assize", "For establishing a Court of Admiralty",
"For better regulating the proceedings of the County Courts." He plunged
into the work of the complete reorganization of the State judicial
machinery, with all the enthusiastic zeal of a born jurist, and his
capacity for precise, minute work was once more brought into play.
The committee of revisors met at Fredericksburg to determine on a manner
of procedure and to distribute the work between the five members. First
of all a question of methods had to be settled: "It had to be determined
whether we should propose to abolish the whole existing system of laws,
and prepare a new and complete Institute, or preserve the general
system, and only modify it to the present state of things."
Pendleton and Lee stood for the former methods, Wythe, Mason, and
Jefferson for the latter, and this was the procedure finally adopted.
Rather than the account given by Jefferson in his "Autobiography" we
shall follow the contemporary account drawn up at the time by George
Mason.
Plan settled by the committee of Revisors in Fredericksburg, January,
1777.
(1) The common law not to be meddled with, except where alterations
are necessary. The statutes to be revised and digested, alterations
proper for us to be made; the diction where obsolete or redundant, to
be reformed; but otherwise to undergo as few changes as possible. The
acts of the English Commonwealth to be examined. The statutes to be
divided into periods; the acts of Assembly made on the same subject
to be incorporated into them. The laws of other colonies to be
examined, and any good ones to be adopted.
In the margin is here written:
General rules in drawing provisions &c., which would do only what the
law would do without them, to be omitted. Bills to be short; not to
include matters of different natures; not to insert an unnecessary
word; nor omit a useful one. Laws to be made on the spur of the
present occasion, and all innovating laws to be limited in their
duration.[61]
Truly an admirable plan! Not the scheme of rash reformers, of _a
priori_-minded legislators, deriving a code of laws from a certain
number of abstract principles. It was not their purpose to make a
_tabula rasa_ of the old structure which had slowly grown stone by
stone, statute by statute and to rebuild entirely on new plans. The old
house resting on solid Anglo-Saxon foundations was still substantial
and safe and it could serve its purpose if only a few partitions were
torn down, a few useless annexes demolished, and better ventilation
provided. Nothing was farther from the mind of the committee than to
erect in Virginia a Greek or Roman temple of Themis.
The statutes were divided into five parts. Jefferson was to take "the
first period in the division of statutes to end with 25th, H. 8th";
Pendleton the second period "to end at the Revolution"; Wythe the third
"to come to the present day"; G. Mason the fourth, "to consist of the
residuary part of the Virginia laws to which is added the criminal law
and land law." The fifth, attributed to Lee, "to be the regulation of
property in slaves, and their condition; and also the examination of the
laws of the other colonies."[62] Mason soon retired, "being no lawyer",
and Lee having died, the work was redistributed which explains the
somewhat different allotment indicated by Jefferson in the
"Autobiography." On the other hand, he seems to have claimed for himself
in the "Autobiography" an honor and an attitude that really belonged to
the committee:
I thought it would be useful, also, in new draughts to reform the
style of the later British statutes, and of our own arts of Assembly;
which, from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their
involution of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis,
and their multiplied efforts at certainty, by _saids_ and
_aforesaids_, by _ors_ and by _ands_, to make them more plain, are
really rendered more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to
common readers, but to the lawyers themselves.
The notes taken by G. Mason leave no doubt that this was also the
attitude of the committee and their definite policy. It was a slow,
painstaking, meticulous task, requiring common sense, good judgment, a
good sense for words and erudition. To make laws intelligible and clear
is no small achievement. But certainly it was not the sort of work that
an _a priori_ philosopher, fond of generalizations and universal
principles, would have relished, or would have been willing to submit
himself to for more than two years. If in some political matters
Jefferson differed from Mr. Pendleton, he admired him and later paid him
a handsome tribute in the "Autobiography." Pendleton--cool, smooth and
persuasive, quick, acute and resourceful--was a remarkable debater.
George Mason, a man of the first order of wisdom, of expansive mind,
profound judgment, cogent in argument, learned in the lore of our
former constitution, and earnest for the republican change on
democratic principles ... his virtue was of the purest tint; his
integrity inflexible, and his justice exact; of warm patriotism, and,
devoted as he was to liberty, and to the natural and equal rights of
man, he might truly be called the Cato of his country without the
avarice of the Roman.[63]
When the preliminary work was done, the reviewers met at Williamsburg in
February, 1779, and "day by day" they examined critically their several
parts, sentence by sentence, scrutinizing and amending, "until they had
agreed on the whole." "The Revised Laws", comprehending one hundred and
twenty-six bills, were reported to the General Assembly June 18, 1779;
bills were taken out occasionally from time to time, and because of
Madison's efforts fifty-six out of the one hundred and twenty-six were
after amendments made laws at the sessions of 1785, 1786. Among the
bills reworded or initiated by Jefferson several stood out
conspicuously.
The Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments is a particularly good
example of the methods used by Jefferson in rewriting the old
legislation. On sending it to George Wythe he wrote:
I wished to exhibit a sample of reformation in the barbarous style
into which our modern statutes have degenerated from their ancient
simplicity. In its style, I have aimed at accuracy, brevity,
simplicity, preserving however the words of the established law,
wherever their meaning had been sanctioned by judicial decision, as
rendered technical by usage.[64]
The transformation undergone by the old statutes can more easily be
observed because Jefferson was careful to indicate in footnotes his
authorities from the old texts, in Latin, and even in French and
Anglo-Saxon. But the very title of the bill indicates that Jefferson's
purpose went farther than a mere codification of the old law. He could
not be entirely satisfied with the scale of punishments determined by
the committee; he regretted particularly the maintainance of the _Lex
Talionis_, "an eye for an eye and a hand for a hand" (Section XV), and
he attempted to restrict the penalty of death to a few limited cases,
for it was "the last melancholy resource against those whose existence
is become inconsistent with the safety of their fellow citizens." His
preamble reflects to a large extent the views of Montesquieu and
Beccaria which he copied in the "Commonplace Book." But it could hardly
be called humanitarian in the modern and sometimes derogatory sense of
the word. The provisions of the code itself are far from showing any
weakness or sentimentality: the death penalty is provided for treason
against the Commonwealth and for whomsoever committeth murder by way of
duel; manslaughter, previously "punishable at law by burning in the
hands, and forfeiture of chattels", is punished by hard labor for seven
years in the public works, and the murderer "shall forfeit one half of
his lands and goods to the next of kin of the person slain, the other
half to be sequestered during such times, in the hands, and to the use,
of the commonwealth." Rape, polygamy, or sodomy "shall be punished if a
man by castration, if a woman by boring through the cartilage of her
nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at least." Witchcraft,
conjuration, or sorcery "shall be punished by ducking and whipping, at
the discretion of a jury, not exceeding fifteen stripes", and, most
extraordinary for modern readers, "Whenever sentences of death shall be
pronounced against any person for treason or murder, execution thereof
shall be done on the next day but one, after such sentence, unless it be
Sunday, and then on Monday following" (Section XIII). Truly enough the
law of nature is once mentioned in a footnote to the effect that if a
prisoner tries to escape from prison he shall not be considered as a
capital offender. "The law of nature impels every one to escape from
confinement; he should not therefore be subjected to punishment. Let the
legislature restrain his criminal by walls, not by parchment." If there
is "philosophy" in this statement it is common sense and certainly not
sentimentality.
The Bill for the more General Diffusion of Knowledge is far more
philosophical in its terms. There for the first time will be found a
picture of democracy as Jefferson pictured it to himself at that date.
The general statement at the beginning may be an echo from Montesquieu;
but while the French philosopher had not indicated any remedy for such a
situation, Jefferson was interested in it only in so far as it could be
amended.
Experience has shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted
with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into
tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of
preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the
minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them
knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth,... and whereas it
is generally true that people will be happiest whose laws are best,
and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and
honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer
them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting
the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed
with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education
worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the
rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should
be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other
accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the
greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own
expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and
disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better
that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of
all, than that the happiness of all should be confined to the weak or
wicked.
Is this a democratic view in the modern sense of the word? At any rate
it is not the democratic phraseology of a modern politician. There is no
protest at all in the name of immanent justice against the unequality of
conditions, there is no desire to give every boy a fair chance in life,
no indication that men being born equal, all children should have equal
opportunities. We are perfectly free to believe that Jefferson
entertained such sentiments at that date. Historically, however, there
is no evidence that he did so. All we have here is a hard-headed
proposition with the corrective that, under the new system, a child of
genius or great talent was to be given an opportunity to develop his
native qualities, for it was both the duty and the interest of society
to prevent such a waste of intellectual potentialities. Furthermore,
Jefferson was manifestly of the opinion that no man could properly
participate in the government of society unless he had been rendered
worthy to receive and able to guard the _sacred_ deposit of the rights
and liberties of his fellow citizens. Neither wealth, birth, nor
accidental circumstances should determine who is fit for public office,
but education should be the criterion. As he was doing his utmost to
abolish the last privileges and prestige of the landed hereditary
aristocracy of Virginia, Jefferson was striving to constitute and to get
recognition for another aristocracy, an aristocracy of learning and
intelligence, a true ruling class, or more exactly a governing and
legislative class; for he was persuaded that the business of the
legislator cannot be learned in a day, that it requires, besides native
qualities of mind, a certain expert knowledge of the subject.
The provisions of the bill are most extraordinary for the time.
Jefferson provided for the division of the State into a certain number
of districts or hundreds; in each hundred a schoolhouse was to be built
and so located that all the children within it might daily attend the
school.
In each of the schools shall be taught reading, writing, and common
arithmetick, and the books which shall be used therein for
instructing the children to read shall be such as will at the same
time make them acquainted with Graecian, Roman, English and American
history. At these schools all the free children, male and female,
resident within the respective hundred, shall be entitled to receive
tuition gratis for the term of three years.
In addition, the bill provided that a certain number of grammar schools
would be erected, "their situation to be as central as possible for the
inhabitants of the said counties, the schools to be furnished with good
water, convenient to plentiful supplies of provision and fuel and above
all things that it be healthy." In all of these grammar schools, which
shall receive boarders
shall be taught the Latin and Greek languages, English Grammar,
geography, and the higher part of numerical arithmetick, to wit.,
vulgar and decimal fractions, and the extrication of the square and
cube roots. In order to provide proper facilities for children of
particular ability, the overseer of the hundred schools (one for ten
schools) shall appoint from among the boys who shall have been two
years at the least at some one of the schools under his
superintendance and whose parents are too poor to give them farther
education some one of the best and most promising genius and
dispositions to proceed to the grammar schools.
At the end of the first year one third of the boys shall be discontinued
as public foundations after examination; "all shall be discontinued at
the end of two years save one only, the best in genius and disposition,
who shall be at liberty to continue there four years longer on the
public foundation, and shall thence forward be deemed a senior."
Finally, "the visitors will select one among the said seniors of the
best learning and most hopeful genius and disposition who shall be
authorized by them to proceed to William and Mary College; there to be
educated, boarded, and clothed three years: the expense of which shall
be paid by the Treasurer."
This rigorous selective process looks very familiar to any one
acquainted with the modern French system of free elementary schools,
boarding _colleges_ and _lycees_, and the system of competitive
scholarships and fellowships of the French. But it was not fully
developed in France before the Third Republic and it was not even
dreamed of before the Revolution. Many times the French have been
criticized for the undemocratic features of an educational system which
reserves secondary education to those who are able to pay and to the
small number of children who win scholarships. There is no possibility
that this scheme was ever borrowed by Jefferson from any French
theorician, and there is, on the contrary, some reason to believe that
in France it owes its beginning to the publication of Jefferson's plan
in the "Notes on Virginia" printed in Paris and in French in 1786.
The educational structure of the State would not have been complete if
Jefferson had not provided for a reorganization of William and Mary
College. Such is the purpose of the next bill (Bill LXXX) in the Report
of the Committee of Revisors. There he was more ruthless and more
radical. After a first section which recounts the foundation of the
college and its history, Jefferson concluded that "the said college,
thus amply endowed by the public has not answered their expectation, and
there is reason to hope, that it would become more useful, if certain
articles in its constitution were altered and amended." By one stroke
of the pen, Jefferson abolished the school of theology, took the
administration out of the hands of the former trustees to place it in
the hands of visitors appointed by the Legislature and "not to be
restrained in their legislation by the royal prerogatives, or the laws
of the kingdom of England, or the canons of the constitution of the
English Church, as enjoined in the Charter." The president and faculty
were to be dismissed, and six professorships created; to wit, one of
moral law and police; one of history, civil and ecclesiastical; one of
anatomy and medicine; one of natural philosophy and natural history; one
of the ancient languages Oriental and northern; and one of modern
languages.--
A missionary will be appointed to the several tribes of the Indians,
whose business will be to investigate their laws, customs, religion,
traditions, and more particularly their languages, constructing
grammar thereof, as well as may be, and copious vocabularies, and on
oath to communicate, from time to time, to the said President and
Professors the material he collects.
Thus the college was to become the training school in which "those who
are to be the future guardians of the rights and liberties of their
country may be endowed with science and virtue, to watch and preserve
the sacred deposit." It was not a democratic institution, but the
finishing school of the future legislators and experts in the science of
government.
As to disinterested "researches of the learned and curious", they were
to be encouraged by the establishment at Richmond of a Free Public
Library with yearly appropriation of two thousand pounds for the
purchase of books and maps.
One may state here without any fear of contradiction that no system so
complete, so logically constructed and so well articulated had ever been
proposed in any country in the world. It already embodied the ideas for
which Jefferson stood during all his life, it preceded by more than
fifteen years the plans of the French Convention. As the first charter
of American public education it is an astonishing document and deserves
more attention than it has hitherto received.
The Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Jefferson's opinion
ranked in importance with the Declaration of Independence. It was not
intended to be a revolutionary document, but simply a common-sense
adjustment of the situation brought about by the repeal of several
provisions of the old Virginia laws. Jefferson took care to explain the
true purpose of the bill in the "Notes on Virginia" (Query XVII). The
Virginia Bill of Rights had proclaimed "it to be a truth, and a natural
right that the exercise of religion should be free." On the other hand,
no mention of it had been made in the Convention and no measure had been
adopted to protect religious freedom. The Assembly, however, had
repealed, in 1776, "all _acts_ of Parliament which had rendered criminal
the maintaining any opinion in matters of religion", and suspended the
laws giving salaries to the clergy. This suspension was made perpetual
in October, 1779. But religious matters still remained subject to common
law and to acts passed by the Assembly. At Common Law, heresy was a
capital offence, punishable by burning, according to the writ _de
haeretico comburando_. Furthermore, by an act of the Assembly of 1705,
"if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a
God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies
the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine
authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold
any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military: on the
second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian,
executor, or administrator, and by three years' imprisonment without
bail."[65]
This being the situation, the article of the Bill of Rights concerning
religious freedom remained a dead letter until provisions could be made
to take religious matters out of the jurisdiction of the Common Law.
Historians seem to have been somewhat misled both by the lofty and
philosophical tone of the Bill for Religious Freedom and the comments
made by Jefferson in the "Notes on Virginia", specially written by him,
as we always must remember, for a group of French philosophers and the
French public. A philosopher he was, but before all he was a purist and
a historian of law. For him the main question was first to determine
whether the jurisdiction of the Common Law in matters of religion was
founded in law. He had already studied minutely the history of Common
Law and made copious extracts in his "Commonplace Book"; he had noticed
in Houard's "Coutumes Anglo-Normandes" that some pious copyist had
prefixed to the laws of Alfred four chapters of Jewish law. "This
awkward Monkish fabrication makes the preface to Alfred's genuine laws
stand in the body of the Work; and the very words of Alfred himself form
the frauds, for he declares in that preface that he has collected these
laws from those of Ina, of Offa, Ethelbert, and his ancestors, saying
nothing of any of them being taken from the scripture." Consequently the
pretended laws of Alfred were a forgery.
Yet, palpable as it must be to a lawyer, our judges have piously
avoided lifting the veil under which it was shrouded. In truth, the
alliance between Church and State in England, has ever made their
judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder
than they are: for, instead of being contented with these four
surreptitious chapters of _Exodus_, they have taken the whole leap,
and declared at once, that the whole Bible and Testament, in a lump,
make part, of the Common law.... Finally in answer to Fortescue
Aland's question why the Common law of England should not now be a
part of the Common law of England? We may say that they are not,
because they never were made so by legislative authority; the
document which imposed that doubt on him being a manifest
forgery.[66]
[Illustration: A PAGE FROM JEFFERSON'S "COMMONPLACE BOOK"
_From the manuscript in the possession of the Library of Congress_]
Bolstered up with his texts, references, and authorities, Jefferson
could now, if need be, confute the redoubtable Mr. Pendleton in the
Committee of Revisors, but such a legal technical presentation of the
facts would evidently not appeal either to the Assembly at large or to
the public. These had to be approached in an entirely different way; for
to speak of frauds, forgeries, and monkish fabrication would not do at
all in a public document and, on the contrary, might create a revulsion
of feeling. It became necessary to present the reform in an entirely
different light and Jefferson did so in the first section of the bill.
The phrasing of these lofty principles is well known; still it may not
be out of place to reproduce them once more:
Well aware that the opinions of belief of men depend not on their own
will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds;
that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether
susceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by
temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend
only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness ... to compel a man to
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which
he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;... that our
civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more
than our opinions in physics or geometry;... that the opinions of men
are not the object of civil government.
In Section II, after that preamble, the religious independence of the
individual was proclaimed:
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested,
or burthened in his body or goods, or shall otherwise suffer, on
account of his religious opinions or beliefs; but that all men shall
be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in
matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish,
enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Furthermore, in the first section, Jefferson gave the first and final
expression of his understanding of freedom of thought:
That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government
for its offices to interfere when principles break out into overt
acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great
and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and
sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the
conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural
weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous
when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
It is not surprising that the bill was savagely attacked in the Assembly
and did not pass until 1786. It simply shows that the Church of England
had more supporters than Jefferson led us to believe, when he wrote in
the "Notes on Virginia" that "two-thirds of the people had become
dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution." The remaining
third, if such was the proportion, were at least well organized and
offered a strong resistance. This bill marked the beginning of the
accusations of impiety and infidelity so often launched at Jefferson.
Whatever his private sentiments on the matter may have been, he was not
the man to discriminate against any one because of religious beliefs;
and at the very time when he was engaged in preparing his bill, he took
the initiative of starting a subscription towards the support of the
Reverend Mr. Charles Clay of Williamsburg. The document, never before
published, is entirely written in his hand and is of such importance
that I may be permitted to reproduce it here:
Whereas, by an act of General assembly, freedom of Religious opinion
and worship is restored to all, and it is left to the members of
each religious society to employ such Teachers they think fit for
their own Spiritual comfort and instruction and to maintain the same
by their free and voluntary contributions. We the subscribers
(professing the most Catholic affection for other religious sectaries
who happen to differ from us in points of conscience,) yet desirous
of encouraging and supporting (a church in our opinion so truly
Apostolick as) the Protestant Episcopalian Church, and of deriving to
ourselves, through the ministry of it's teachers, the benefits of
Gospel-knowledge and Religious improvement, and at the same time of
supporting those, who, having been at considerable expence in
qualifying themselves by regular education for explaining the holy
scriptures, have dedicated their time and labor to the service of the
said church (and moreover approving highly the conduct of the rev^d
Charles Clay, who early rejecting the tyrant and tyranny of Britain,
proved his religion genuine by its harmony with the liberties of
mankind and conforming his public prayers to the spirit and the
injured rights of his country, addressed the god of battles for
victory to our arms, while others impiously prayed that our enemies
might vainquish and overcome us) do hereby oblige ourselves our heirs
executors and administrators on or before the 25th day of December in
this present year 1777, and likewise on or before the 25th day of
December in every year following until we shall withdraw our
subscription in open vestry, or until the legislature shall make
other provision for the support of the said clergy, to pay to the
(reverend) said Charles Clay of Albemarle his executor or
administrators the several sums affixed to our respective names: in
Consideration whereof we expect that the said Charles Clay shall
perform divine service and preach a sermon in the town of
Charlottesville on every fourth Sunday, or oftener, if a regular
rotation with the other churches that shall have put themselves under
his care will admit a more frequent attendence.
And we further mutually agree with each other that we will meet at
Charlottesville on the 1^{st} day of March in the present year, and
on the second Thursday in ---- in every year following so long as we
continue our subscriptions and there make choice by ballot of three
wardens to collect our said subscriptions, to take care of such books
and vestments as shall be provided for the use of our church, to
call meetings of our Congregation when necessary, and to transact
such other business relating to our Congregation as we shall
hereafter confide to them.
Th. Jefferson, six pounds; Jno Harvie, four pounds; Randolph
Jefferson, two pounds ten schillings; Thos. Garth, fifteen
schillings; Philip Mazzei, sixteen schillings eight pence.[67]
Far more important than the local reception of the revised laws, since
most of them were adopted only years later, and thanks to the efforts of
Madison, during the sessions of 1785 and 1786, is the fact that
Jefferson had already formulated at that time for himself and his fellow
citizens the most essential principles of his doctrine. He was not
unaware of this, and stated it himself in his "Autobiography" when he
declared: "I considered four of these bills, passed or reported as
forming a system by which every fibre would be eradicated of ancient or
future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly
republican."[68]
The ideal government he had in mind at the time could perhaps be
described as a democracy, but he did not use the word himself, not even
many years later in his "Autobiography" where he simply spoke of "a
government truly republican." He was much opposed to the perpetuation of
an hereditary landed gentry, but I do not see that he would have
approved or even conceived the possibility of a government placed
entirely under the control of unenlightened men. The Bill for the more
General Diffusion of Knowledge makes clear that only through a liberal
education can men be "rendered worthy to receive and able to guard the
sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens",
and the Bill for Amending the Charter of William and Mary proclaims
even more emphatically that the old college must "become the seminary,
in which those who are to be the future guardians of the rights of
liberty of their country may be endowed with science and virtue, to
watch and preserve the sacred deposit." Jefferson was a friend of the
people, but no admirer and no flatterer of the "plain people", nor did
he entertain any illusion about their participation in all the forms of
government. For the present it was enough, as he wrote in the
"Autobiography", if they were qualified through elementary education "to
exercise with intelligence _their_ parts in self-Government." If he
rebelled against aristocracy of wealth, he would have reacted with equal
vehemence against mob tyranny. Neither was he radical enough to admit
_propagandistes par le fait_ and to forbid society the right to
intervene "when principles break out into overt acts against peace and
good order." (Bill for Religious Freedom.) For freedom of speech does
not entail freedom of action: and the civil rights or rights of compacts
are necessarily subject to civil regulations.
It is easily seen now that Jefferson so far remained perfectly
consistent, and followed in practice the distinction between natural
rights and rights of compact he had established in order to clarify his
own mind, in the meditation quoted at the end of the preceding chapter.
If this theory is accepted, it is evident that society being founded
upon a legal compact, the ideal form of government is one in which both
parties, the individual on the one hand and society on the other,
scrupulously live up to its terms. A breach of contract can no more be
condoned in the individual than in society. On the other hand, natural
rights remain always truly "inalienable" and apart from civil rights.
When any individual comes to the conclusion that the sacrifice he has
made of certain rights in order to enjoy more security is not
compensated for by sufficient advantages, he has the right to denounce
the compact: hence the right of expatriation always so energetically
maintained by Jefferson. This is the very reason why Jefferson could not
and did not blame John Randolph for going to England in August, 1775,
since "the situation of the country had rendered it not eligible to him
to remain longer in it." Thus the conflict seen by so many political
philosophers between man and society disappears entirely. The individual
cannot stand against society when he is free to break the social bond at
any time--nor can society oppress the individual without endangering its
very existence. Such a theory was more than a "philosophical
construction." It was largely based upon facts and observation; it
expressed the current political philosophy of the colonies. It was
eminently the juridistic explanation of the pioneer spirit.
Granting what is undoubtedly true, that Jefferson aroused antagonism and
enmities in the Assembly, he certainly had also his admirers and
followers. If the prophet had preached in the desert, he would not have
gained the prompt recognition that came to him when he was chosen
Governor of Virginia, the first of June, 1779, to succeed Patrick Henry.
He was then thirty-six years old.
CHAPTER III
GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA--THE "NOTES ON VIRGINIA"
Jefferson served two years as Governor of the Commonwealth and when he
wrote his "Autobiography" he gave only a short paragraph to this episode
of his eventful career, referring for more details to Girardin's
continuation of Burk's "History of Virginia." The student of law, the
erudite jurist, and classical scholar was by the choice of the Assembly
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a war chief, and it
cannot be said that Jefferson enjoyed the experience. The duties of
governor were not only exacting but almost impossible to fulfill
satisfactorily. For more than two years, Virginia, without money, with a
poorly equipped militia reenforced with an inadequate number of Federal
troops, had been overrun by the enemy and had known all the atrocities
of the war. The governor had to honor the continuous requests of the
general in chief for more ammunition, more equipment and provision, and
at the same time had to keep under arms, and as much as possible in
fighting condition, militiamen anxious to go back to their farms for the
harvest or the plowing, so as to protect the territory of the State
against the raids of the invader and prevent Indian uprisings on the
western border. Last, but not least, he had to take into consideration
the general attitude of the people of the State and the measures adopted
by the legislature. Jefferson's correspondence with Lafayette during the
first months of 1781 is most illuminating in this respect. When, after
Arnold's treason, Lafayette was sent by Washington to apprehend the
traitor and give some assistance to the Old Dominion, he found that
there were neither boats, wagons, nor horses to carry his equipment from
Head of Elk to the siege of operations. The treasury was empty, the
Assembly most chary in granting impressment warrants, and practically
all the governor could offer in the way of help was his unlimited good
will. Lafayette had to use oxen for his artillery and to mount cannon on
barges; but even after powers of impressment were granted to the
Marquis, Jefferson had to remind him of the necessity of not impressing
stallions or brood mares, so as not to kill the "goose with the golden
eggs."[69]
Jefferson's attitude in these critical circumstances reveal his true
character to a degree, and without entering into a detailed account of
the campaign, a few illustrations may be included here. It may be
remembered that four thousand British troops, taken prisoners at the
battle of Saratoga, had been ordered by Congress to Charlottesville. The
problem of housing and feeding them soon became acute, and Jefferson was
called upon to assist in finding a proper solution. The life imposed
upon the captive soldiers was comparatively mild. Barracks were erected,
while the officers, well provided with money, rented houses in the
vicinity of the camp and bought some of the finest horses in Virginia.
For most of them the Charlottesville captivity was a very pleasant
_villegiature_. On the other hand, some of the inhabitants did not view
without alarm this sudden increase in the population of the county, and
application was made to Governor Patrick Henry to have at least part of
the prisoners removed to another section of the State. This, according
to Jefferson, would have been a breach of faith, since the articles of
capitulation provided that the officers should not be separated from
their men. On this occasion he wrote a very vehement letter to the
governor, March 27, 1779, protesting that such a measure "would suppose
a possibility that humanity was kicked out of doors in America, and
interest only attended to." Yet the governor could not entirely neglect
interested consideration, and Jefferson once more revealed that curious
mixture of high principles and hard, practical common sense, to which we
already called attention. He was aware that the circulation of money was
increased by the presence of these troops "at the rate of $30,000 a week
at least." The rich planters, "being more generally sellers than
buyers", were greatly benefited by these unexpected customers, although
the poor people were much displeased by inroads made by them upon the
amount of supplies and provisions available in the county.
Never were prisoners better treated or made more welcome, and if
Jefferson reflected the feelings of his neighbors there was no animosity
against the soldiers in the field:
The great cause which divides our countries is not to be decided by
individual animosities. The harmony of private societies cannot
weaken national efforts. To contribute by neighbourly intercourse and
attention to make others happy is the shortest and surest way of
being happy ourselves. As these sentiments seem to have directed your
conduct, we should be as unwise as illiberal, were we not to preserve
the same temper of mind.[70]
Truly this was a war of philosophers and gentlemen, and the courtly
generals of Louis XV would not have expressed more elegantly their
consideration for the enemy. Jefferson's declaration was no mere
gesture, for he struck up lasting friendships with several of the
prisoners. He was particularly interested in a young German officer,
Louis de Unger, who showed a remarkable talent for philosophy, in Baron
de Geismer with whom he kept up a correspondence for more than ten
years,[71] and in Major General Baron de Riedesel who, with his wife,
was a frequent guest at Monticello. To many of them Jefferson opened
his house, his library, and his dining room. He discussed philosophy and
agriculture with them, played duets on his violin, and sincerely
regretted the loss of that pleasant society when he had to leave after
his appointment as governor.[72]
Yet a sterner trait in his character was soon to be revealed. While the
British prisoners were described as "having thus found the art of
rendering captivity itself comfortable, and carried to execution, at
their own great expense and labor, their spirits sustained by the
prospect of gratifications rising before their eyes", the American
prisoners and noncombatants were receiving harsher treatment at the
hands of the British. War had become particularly atrocious after Indian
tribes had been encouraged to attack the insurgents, and this was an
offense that Jefferson could not condone. When Governor Hamilton of
Kaskakias, with his two lieutenants, Dejean and Lamothe, who had
distinguished themselves by their harsh policy, surrendered to Clark and
were brought to Virginia, Jefferson ordered them confined in the dungeon
of the public jail, put in irons and kept incommunicado. On General
Philips' protest Jefferson wrote to Washington to ask him for advice,
but added that in his opinion these prisoners were common criminals and
that he could "find nothing in Books usually recurred to as testimonials
of the Laws and usages of nature and nations which convicts the opinion
I have above expressed of error."[73] To Guy Carleton, Governor of
Canada, he answered that "we think ourselves justified in Governor
Hamilton's strick confinement on the general principle of National
retaliation", and no punishment was too severe for a man who had
employed "Indian savages whose known rule of warfare is an
indiscriminate butchery of men, women and children."[74]
When a few weeks later, upon Washington's request, the irons were taken
from the prisoners and a parole offered to them, Jefferson obeyed very
reluctantly and informed the general that "they objected to that part of
it which restrained them from _saying_ anything to the prejudice of the
United States" and insisted on "freedom of speech"; they were in
consequence remanded to their confinement in the jail, "which must be
considered as a voluntary one until they can determine with themselves
to be inoffensive in words as well as deeds."[75]
Even when the prisoners were freed, Jefferson wrote again to Washington:
I shall give immediate orders for having in readiness every engine
which the Enemy have contrived for the destruction of our unhappy
citizens captivated by them. The presentiment of these operations is
shocking beyond expression. I pray heaven to avert them: but nothing
in this world will do it but a proper conduct in the Enemy. In every
event I shall resign myself to the hard necessity under which I shall
act.[76]
Writing the same day to Colonel George Mathews, Jefferson defined with
more precision what he understood by these "operations" when he declared
that "iron will be retaliated by iron, prison ships by prison ships, and
like for like in general."[77]
The faults of his own people did not find him any weaker, for he
declared: "I would use any powers I have for the punishment of any
officer of our own who should be guilty of excesses injustifiable under
the usages of civilized nations." He was not slow either in punishing
mutineers, in having the ringleaders seized in their beds "singly and
without noise" and in recommending cavalry, "as men on horseback have
been found the most certain Instrument of public punishment."[78]
This trait of Jefferson's character, hardly ever noticed, was no passing
mood. It was little apparent in ordinary circumstances, but it was to
reappear with the same stern inflexibility during the prosecution of
Aaron Burr twenty-five years later. The dreamer, the theorist, the
"philosopher" does not appear in the letters written by Jefferson during
his governorship. He was punctual, attentive to details and careful to
abide by the measures taken by the legislature. Yet he was subjected to
bitter criticism and a sort of legend grew up about his lack of
efficiency. He was approaching the end of his second term, which expired
on June 2, 1781, and the legislature, feeling that the present danger
required desperate action, was thinking of appointing a temporary
dictator. Although most decidedly opposed to the creation of such an
office, Jefferson believed that the appointment of a military leader was
highly desirable (Letter to Washington, May 28), and according to his
wishes General Nelson in command of the State troops was elected in his
place. But before the Assembly could come to a decision an unexpected
incident happened. It has been related at great length, and I am afraid
with some embellishments, by Randall, who reconstructed it from
Jefferson's papers and from the family traditions. Virginia was
literally overrun by the enemy, and the raids of the British cavalry
were a common occurrence. During one of these raids Tarleton attempted
to capture the legislature and almost succeeded in taking the governor.
The account of the incident, as I found it written by Jefferson, is far
less picturesque, but probably more reliable than the highly colored
narration of the biographer:
This was the state of things when, his office having expired on the
2^d June, & his successor not yet in place, Col. Tarlton, with his
regiment of horse, was detached by L. Cornwallis, to surprise him
(supposed to be still governor) & the legislature now sitting in
Charlottesville, the Speakers of the two houses, & some other members
of the legislature, were lodging with him at Monticello. Tarleton,
early in the morning of June 4. when within 10 miles of that place,
detached a company of horse to secure him & his guests, & proceeded
himself rapidly with his main body to Charlottesville, where he hoped
to find the legislature unapprised of his movement. notice of it
however had been brought both to Monticello & Charlottesville about
sunrise, by a Mr Jouett from Louisa, who seeing them pass his
father's house in the evening of the 3.^d and riding through the
night along by-ways, brought the notice. The Speakers, with their
Colleagues returned to Charlottesville, & with the other members of
the legislature, had barely time to get out of the way.[79]
A few days later Jefferson left Amherst and returned to Monticello which
he found practically undamaged; it was then that, riding to Poplar
Forest, he was thrown from his horse and so seriously hurt that he could
not ride horseback for several months. Shortly afterwards he learned
that some members of the legislature, probably irked by the humiliation
of having fled before the British raiders, not once, but several times,
were not unwilling to accuse the governor of having neglected to take
proper measures of defense. As I have found nowhere any indication to
contradict Jefferson's account of the incident, it had better be given
here in his simple words:
I returned to Monticello July 26. & learning some time after that Mr
George Nicholas, than a young man, just entered into the legislature
proposed to institute some enquiry into my conduct before the
legislature, a member from my county vacated his seat, & the county
elected me, in his room, that I might vindicate myself on the floor
of the house. thro' the intervention of a friend, I obtained from Mr.
Nicholas a written note of the charges he proposed to bring forward &
I furnished him in return the heads of the answers I should make. on
the day appointed for hearing his charges he withdrew from the house;
& no other undertaking to bring them forward, I did it myself in my
place, from his paper, answering them verbatim to the house. the
members had been witnesses themselves to all the material facts, and
passed an unanimous vote of approbation, which may be seen on their
journals. Mr. Nicholas was an honest and honorable man, & took a
conspicuous occasion, many years after, of his own free will, & when
the matter was entirely at rest, to retract publicly the erroneous
opinions he had been led into on that occasion, and to make just
reparation by a candid acknowledgment of them.[80]
This unfortunate incident revealed another fundamental trait of
Jefferson's character,--his total incapacity to accept public criticism
with equanimity. It was not until December 19, 1781, that he had the
opportunity of presenting his case before the legislature and of
receiving the vote of thanks intended "to obviate and remove all
unmerited censure." In the meantime, and because he did not wish to
leave a free field to his enemies, he had to decline a new appointment
from Congress, when on the fifteenth of June he was designated to join
the four American plenipotentiaries already in Europe. The letter was
transmitted through Lafayette, and to Lafayette alone Jefferson confided
his deep mortification at having to
lose an opportunity, the only one I ever had and perhaps ever shall
have, of combining public service with public gratification, of
seeing countries whose improvements in science, in arts and
civilization it has been my fortune to admire at a distance but never
to see and at the same time of lending further aid to a cause which
has been handed on from it's first organization to its present stage
by every effort of which my poor faculties were capable. These
however have not been such as to give satisfaction to some of my
countrymen & it has become necessary for me to remain in the state
till a later period, in the present year than is consistent with an
acceptance of what has been offered me.[81]
A letter written to Edmund Randolph hints at other considerations which
"that one being removed, might prevent my acceptance." The family
record shows that Mrs. Jefferson was then expecting a child who was born
on November, 1781, and died in April of the following year. Jefferson
himself was far from being well and had not yet recovered from his
accident; but there is little doubt that he would have gladly seized the
opportunity to fulfill one of his earliest dreams and to visit Europe,
had he been free to go. However this may be, it was on this occasion
that he reiterated once more, but not for the last time, his wish to
return entirely and definitively to private life:
Were it possible for me to determine again to enter into public
business there is no appointment whatever which would have been so
agreeable to me. But I have taken my final leave of everything of
that nature. I have retired to my farm, my family and books from
which I think nothing will evermore separate me. A desire to leave
public office with a reputation not more blotted than it deserved
will oblige me to emerge at the next session of our assembly &
perhaps to accept of a seat in it, but as I go with a single object,
I shall withdraw when that has been accomplished.[82]
I must confess that Jefferson's determination can scarcely be understood
or excused. He was not yet forty and, for a man of that age, his
achievements were unusual and many, but he had by no means outlived his
usefulness or fulfilled the tasks he had mapped out for himself. Even
supposing he had done enough for the United States and did not feel any
ambition to return to Congress, there was much to be done in Virginia.
For one thing the war was not over and the situation of his native
State, his "country", as he still called it, was as precarious as ever.
Even supposing the war to be of short duration and destined to end in
victory, the work of reconstruction loomed considerable upon the
horizon. Not only had plantations been burned, houses destroyed, cattle
killed off, Negroes decimated in many places, but the financial
resources of Virginia were nil, the currency depreciated and valueless.
Above all, republican institutions were far from secure, Jefferson was
not at all satisfied with the Constitution as adopted, there remained
many bills on the Revised Laws to be presented, defended, and approved.
The laws adopted so far might have laid the foundations of true
republican government, but the task was still enormous. Was Jefferson
irritated and despondent at the ingratitude of his fellow citizens who
had not rejected at once the charges made by Nicholas? Was he so alarmed
by the health of his wife that he did not feel that he could leave her
even for a few days? Was he not rather a victim of overwork and
overexertion? He had been severely shaken by his accident and seems to
have suffered at the time a sort of nervous breakdown, for on October
28, 1781, when writing to Washington to congratulate him on Cornwallis'
capitulation at Yorktown he deplores the "state of perpetual
decrepitude" to which he is unfortunately reduced and which prevents him
from greeting Washington personally.
Several of his best friends were unable to understand or condone his
retirement. Madison himself wrote to Edmund Randolph:[83]
Great as my partiality is to Mr. Jefferson, the mode in which he
seems determined to revenge the wrong received from his country does
not appear to me to be dictated either by philosophy or patriotism.
It argues, indeed, a keen sensibility and strong consciousness of
rectitude. But his sensibility ought to be as great towards the
relenting as the misdoings of the Legislature, not to mention the
injustice of visiting the faults of this body on their innocent
constituents.
Monroe, ardent friend and admirer of Jefferson's, was even more direct
when writing to acquaint his "master" with the criticism aroused by his
retirement. To which Jefferson answered with a letter in which he poured
out the bitterness of his heart. He first recited all his different
reasons for making his choice; the fact that after scrutinizing his
heart he had found that every fiber of political ambition had been
eradicated; that he had the right to withdraw after having been engaged
thirteen years in public service; that his family required his
attention; that he had to attend to his private affairs. But the true
reasons came only in the next paragraph:
That however I might have comforted myself under the disapprobation
of the well-meaning but uninformed people, yet that of their
representatives was a shock on which I had not calculated.... I felt
that these injuries, for such they have been since acknowledged, had
inflicted a wound on my spirit which only will be cured by the
all-healing grave.
The man who wrote these lines had an epidermis far too sensitive to
permit him to engage in politics and least of all in local politics.
Jefferson in these particular circumstances forgot the lesson of his old
friends the Greek and Latin philosophers--truly he was no Roman.
Yet we cannot regret very deeply Jefferson's determination to retire
from public life at that time, since to his retirement we owe his most
extensive literary composition, one of the first masterpieces of
American literature. During the spring of 1781 he had received from the
secretary of the French legation, Barbe-Marbois, a long questionnaire on
the present conditions of Virginia. During his forced inactivity, he
drew up a first draft which was sent to Marbois, but extensively
corrected and enlarged during the following winter. A few manuscript
copies were distributed to close friends, but the "Notes on Virginia"
were not published until 1787 and after they had been rather poorly
translated into French by Abbe Morellet.[84]
No other document is so valuable for a complete conspectus of
Jefferson's mind and theories at that time. But two important
observations must be made at the very outset. First of all the "Notes"
were not intended for publication, and as late as 1785 Jefferson wrote
to Chastellux that:
the strictures on slavery and on the constitution of Virginia ... are
the parts I do not wish to have made public, at least till I know
whether their publication would do most harm or good. It is possible
that in my own country these strictures might produce an irritation
which would indispose the people towards the two great objects I have
in view, that is the emancipation of their slaves & the settlement of
their constitution on a firmer and more permanent basis.[85]
The second point is that the "Notes" were written for the use of a
foreigner of distinction, in answer to certain queries proposed by him.
Jefferson, therefore, is not responsible either for the plan of the
work, or the distribution into chapters, and he necessarily had to go
into more details than if he had written solely for his fellow
countrymen.
The twenty-three Queries cover such an enormous range of information and
contain such a mass of facts that it would have been physically
impossible for any one to complete the work in so short a time, if it
had been an impromptu investigation. We can accept without hesitation
the statement of the "Autobiography" on the methods of composition
employed in the "Notes":
I had always made a practice whenever an opportunity occurred of
obtaining any information of our country, which might be of use
in any station public or private to commit it to writing. These
memoranda were on loose papers, bundled up without order, and
difficult of recurrence when I had occasion for a particular one.
I thought this a good occasion to embody their substance, which I
did in the order of Mr. Marbois' queries, so as to answer his wish
and to arrange them for my own use.
The book was printed in France, in England, in Germany, and went through
many editions in America. It probably did more than any other
publication to propagate the doctrine of Americanism, for, in his
retreat of Monticello, Jefferson formulated the creed and gave final
expression to the hopes, aspirations, and feelings that were to govern
his country for several generations. It also gives a complete picture of
the mind of Jefferson at that date, when he thought he had accomplished
the task assigned to him and felt he could stop to take stock, not
merely of his native "country", but of the whole United States of
America.
Unimaginative, unpoetical, unwilling to express personal emotions as he
was, he had always been deeply moved by certain natural scenes. His
description of the Natural Bridge, the site of which he owned, is well
remembered.
You involuntarily fall on your hands and feet, creep to the parapet,
and peep over it. Looking down from this height about a minute, gave
me a violent head ache. If the view from the top be painful and
intolerable, that from below is delightful in an equal extreme. It is
impossible for the emotions arising from the sublime to be felt
beyond what they are here; so beautiful an arch, so elevated, so
light, and springing as it were up to heaven, the rapture of the
spectator is really indescribable!
The "passage of the Patowmac through the Blue ridge" is even more
famous, and the broad, peaceful, almost infinite scene is painted by the
hand of a master:
It is a true contrast to the foreground. It is as placid and
delightful as that is wild and tremendous. For the mountain being
cloven asunder, she presents to your eye, through the cleft, a small
catch of small blue horizon, at an infinite distance in the plain
country, inviting you, as it were, from the riot and tumult roaring
around, to pass through the breach to the calm below.
Only Bartram a few years later, and Chateaubriand at the beginning of
the next century, with much longer and more elaborate descriptions,
could equal or surpass these few strokes of description. Jefferson was
truly the first to discover and depict to Europeans the beauty of
American natural scenery, and to proclaim with genuine American pride
that "this scene is worth a voyage across the Atlantic--and is perhaps
one of the most stupendous in nature." It matters little that he
followed Voltaire in the origin of fossils, to decide timidly in 1787
that we must be contented to acknowledge that "this great phenomenon is
as yet unsolved." I shall not even remark on the completeness and
exactness of his list of plants, "medicinal, esculent, ornamental or
useful for fabrication", of which he gives the popular names as well as
the _Linnaean_, "as the latter might not convey precise information to a
foreigner", or on his list "of the quadrupeds of North America"; nor
shall I mention his long dissertation on "the bones of Mamoths" found on
the North American continent and his refutation of Buffon. Far more
interesting is his protest against the assertion of the great French
naturalist that "the animals common both to the old and new world are
smaller in the latter, that those peculiar to the new are in a smaller
scale, that those which have been domesticated in both have degenerated
in America." He composed with much tabulation a complete refutation of
Buffon's error, and demonstrated that plants as well as animals reached
a development hitherto unknown under the new conditions and the
favorable circumstances of the American climate.
When it came to the aborigines, he had little to say of the South
American Indians, but of North American Indians he could speak "somewhat
from his own knowledge" as well as from the observations of others
better acquainted with them and on whose truth and judgment he could
rely.
Not only they are well formed in body and in mind as the _homo
sapiens Europaeus_, but from what we know of their eloquence it is of
a superior lustre.... I may challenge the whole orations of
Demosthenes and Cicero, and of many more prominent orators, if
Europe has furnished any more eminent, to produce a single passage,
superior to the speech of Logan, a Mingo chief, to Lord Dunmore when
Governor of this State.
But his temper was thoroughly aroused when he discovered that Abbe
Raynal had undertaken to apply the theory of Buffon to the white men who
had settled in America.
If this were true and if climateric conditions were such as to
prevent mental and physical growth there would be little hope for the
newly constituted country to ever become a great nation. Nature
itself pronouncing against the Americans what chance could they have
to be able to ever come up to the level of the older nations.
Sentenced to remain forever an inferior race, this struggle to
conquer independence would have proved futile, and sooner or later,
they would fall the prey of superior people.
Never before had Jefferson been so deeply stirred and moved, never
before had he felt so thoroughly American as in his spirited answer to
Raynal, when he claimed for the new-born country not only unlimited
potentialities, but actual superiority over the mother country:
"America has not yet produced one good poet." When we shall have
existed as a people as long as the Greeks did before they produced a
Homer, the Romans a Virgil, the French a Racine and Voltaire, the
English a Shakespeare and Milton, should this reproach be still true,
we will inquire from what unfriendly causes it has proceeded, that
the other countries of Europe and quarters of the earth shall not
have inscribed any name in the roll of poet. But neither has America
produced "one able mathematician, one man of genius in a single art
or science." In war we have produced a Washington, whose memory will
be adored while liberty shall have votaries, whose name will triumph
over time, and will in future ages assume its just station among the
most celebrated worthies of the world, when that wretched philosophy
shall be forgotten which would have arranged him among the
degeneracies of nature. In Physics we have produced a Franklin, than
whom no one of the present age has made more important discoveries,
nor has enriched philosophy with more, or more ingenious solutions of
the phaenomena of nature.... As in philosophy and war, so in
government, in oratory, in painting, in the plastic arts, we might
show that America, though but a child of yesterday, has already given
hopeful proofs of genius, as well as of the nobler kinds, which
arouse the best feelings of man, which call him into action, which
substantiate his freedom, and conduct him to happiness, as of the
subordinate, which serve to amuse him only. We therefore suppose that
this reproach is as unjust as it is unkind: and that, of the geniuses
which adorn the present age, America contributes her full share....
The present war having so long cut off all communications with Great
Britain, we are not able to make a fair estimate of the state of
science in the country. The spirit in which she wages war, is the
only sample before our eyes, and that does not seem the legitimate
offspring either of science or civilization. The sun of her glory is
fast descending to the horizon. Her Philosophy has crossed her
channel, her freedom the Atlantic, and herself seems passing to that
awful dissolution whose issue is not given human foresight to scan.
This is the fullest and most complete expression of national
consciousness and national pride yet uttered by Jefferson. The American
eagle was spreading her wing and preparing to fly by herself. The
American transcended the Virginian and looked confidently at the future.
In Query VIII, we come again to a question of national importance. The
country being what it is, it would take at least one hundred years for
Virginia to reach the present square-mile population of Great Britain.
The question then arises whether a larger population being desirable,
the State should not encourage foreigners to settle in as large numbers
as possible. To unrestricted immigration, Jefferson, fearful for the
integrity of the racial stock, fearful also for the maintenance of
institutions so hardly won and yet so precariously established, was
unequivocally opposed. In a most remarkable passage he stated the very
reasons that after him were to be put forth again and again, until a
policy of selective and restrictive immigration was finally adopted. I
would not say that he was a hundred and fifty years ahead of his time,
but a hundred and fifty years ago he formulated with his usual "felicity
of expression", feelings and forebodings which existed more or less
confusedly in many minds. When he spoke thus he was more of a spokesman
than a prophet of America:
Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps
are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a
composition of the freest principles of the English constitution,
with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these
nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies.
Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants.
They will bring with them the principles of the governments they
leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off,
it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as
is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were
they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These
principles, with their language, they will transmit to their
children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the
legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its
directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted
mass.... Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three
months longer for the attainment of any degree of population desired
or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more
peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans
[were] thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the
condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy,
less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of
foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect
here.... I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the
importation of useful artificers.... Spare no expence in obtaining
them. They will after a time go to the plough and to the hoe; but in
the mean time they will teach us something we do not know.
Everything is there! That America is essentially and should remain an
Anglo-Saxon civilization; the fear that unassimilated immigration may
corrupt the institutions of the country and bring into it uneradicable
germs of absolutism; the admission even that America needs a certain
class of immigrants, of specialists to develop new arts and new
industries. In 1781, Jefferson was not only an American, but a hundred
per cent. American, and the sentiments he expressed then were to reecho
in the halls of Congress through the following generations whenever the
question was discussed.
The government as it was presently organized was far from perfect--it
even had "very capital defects in it." First of all, it was not a truly
representative government since, owing to the representation by
counties, it happened that fourteen thousand men living in one part of
the country gave law to upwards of thirty thousand living in another; in
spite of the theoretical separation of powers, all the powers of
government, legislature, executive, and judiciary, were vested in the
legislative body. "The concentrating these in the same hands is
precisely the definition of despotic government." Assuming that the
present legislators of Virginia were perfectly honest and disinterested,
it would not be very long before a change might come, for "mankind soon
learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they
possess, or may assume."
"With money we will get men," said Caesar, "and with men we will get
money." ... They should look forward to a time, and that not a
distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which
we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of the government,
and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will
purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human
nature is the same in every side of the Atlantic and will be alike
influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruptions
and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us.
Before proceeding any further, it may be well to pause, in order to
analyze more carefully these statements of Jefferson's. It will soon
appear that they do not form a perfectly logical construction and are
not part of an _a priori_ system. He had proclaimed his faith in the
ultimate recognition of truth, but he did not believe that unaided truth
should necessarily prevail, for human nature being very imperfect, very
narrow and very selfish, the best institutions have a permanent tendency
to degenerate. Jefferson had already clearly in mind the famous maxim
"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It is this curious
combination of unshakable faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and
healthy pessimism as to the present possibilities, that distinguishes
Jefferson from the "closet politicians" and theoretical philosophers. It
is an alliance of the contraries which seems absurd to many Frenchmen,
but is often found in English statesmen, and is probably more common in
America than in any other nation. In this respect as in many others
Jefferson was typically American.
His criticism of the legislature came clearly from two different
motives. He attempted first of all to demonstrate to himself that the
Assembly that had listened to charges against him was not a truly
representative body, not only because the attribution of two delegates
to each county, irrespective of the population, was iniquitous, but also
because, owing to emergencies, the Assembly had come to decide
themselves what number would constitute a quorum. Thus an oligarchy or
even a monarchy could finally be substituted for a regular assembly by
almost imperceptible transitions. "_Omnia mala exempla a bonis orta
sunt; sed ubi imperium ad ignaros aut minus bonos pervenit novum illud
exemplum ab dignis et idoneis ad indignos et non idoneos fertur._"
This is nothing but a re-affirmation of the aristocratic doctrine of the
"Literary Bible." Once more, the aristocrat of mind revolts, for "when
power is placed in the hands of men who are ignorant or not so good, it
may be taken from those who are deserving and truly noble to be
transferred to unworthy and ignoble men." This is the constant
undercurrent which runs through Jefferson's political theories and
unexpectedly reappears at the surface from time to time. A government of
the best minds, elected by a populace sufficiently enlightened to select
the best minds,--such is at that time Jefferson's ideal of government.
On the other hand his attitude towards dictatorship, as it appears in
the "Notes on Virginia", is no less significant for a true estimate of
his character. Unless the views expressed there are carefully considered
and kept well in mind, we might fall into the common error of
attributing to some mysterious influence of the French Revolution and
the French philosophers the opinions expressed by Jefferson on
presidential tenure, during the debate on the Constitution and his
famous quarrel with Hamilton. As a matter of fact, he had expressed the
very same views already and even more emphatically on a previous
occasion, when George Nicholas had proposed in the Assembly "that a
Dictator be appointed in this Commonwealth who should have the power of
disposing of the lives and fortunes of the Citizens thereof without
being subject to account"; the motion seconded by Patrick Henry "been
lost only by a few votes."[86] One may even wonder if the accusation of
inefficiency against Jefferson had not been introduced by the same
George Nicholas, in order to clear the way for the appointment of a
dictator. Hence the impassioned tone of Jefferson's refutation. Deeply
stirred and deeply hurt in his _amour-propre_, Jefferson incorporated in
the "Notes on Virginia" the speech he would have made on the occasion
had he been an orator.
How must we find our efforts and sacrifices abused and baffled, if
we may still, by a single vote, be laid prostrate at the feet of
one man. In God's name, from whence have they derived this power?
Is it from any principle in our new constitution expressed or
implied? Every lineament of that expressed or implied, is in full
opposition to it.... Necessities which dissolve a government, do not
convey its authority to an oligarchy or monarchy. They throw back
into the hands of the people the powers they had delegated, and leave
them as individuals to shift for themselves. A leader may offer, but
not impose himself, nor be imposed on them. Much less can their necks
be submitted to his sword, their breath be held at his will or
caprice.... The very thought alone was treason against the people;
was treason against mankind in general; as rivetting forever the
chains which bow down their necks, by giving to their oppressors a
proof which they would have trumpetted through the universe, of the
imbecillity of republican government, in times of pressing danger, to
shield them from harm. Those who assume the right of giving away the
reins of government in any case, must be sure that the herd, whom
they hand on to the rods and hatchet of the dictator, will lay their
necks on the block when he shall nod to them. But if our assemblies
supposed such a resignation in the people, I hope they mistook their
character.... Searching for the foundations of this proposition, I
can find none which may pretend a colour of right or reason, but the
defect before developed, that there is no barrier between the
legislative, executive, and judiciary departments.... Our situation
is indeed perilous, and I hope my countrymen will be sensible of it,
and will apply, at a proper season, the proper remedy; which is a
convention to fix the constitution, to amend its defects, to bind up
the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they
transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary
an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every
infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence
shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.
This is much more than an occasional outburst written under a strong
emotional stress. Jefferson had discovered in his own country the
existence of a group of men stanchly opposed to the republican form of
government, ready in an emergency to go beyond the powers that had been
delegated to them--not necessarily dishonest men, but dangerous because
they did not have a correct conception of their rights and duties. All
the controversy with the Federalists already exists in germ, in this
declaration, and Jefferson from the very first had taken his position.
The immediate effect was to sever the last bonds which still tied him to
the aristocratic spirit of the social class to which he belonged by
birth, and to make him raise a protest against the fact that, "the
majority of men in the state, who pay and fight for its support are
unrepresented in the legislature, the roll of freeholders entitled to
vote, not including generally the half of those on the roll of militia,
or of the tax gatherers."
"It has been thought that corruption is restrained by confining the
right of suffrage to a few of the wealthier people"; but experience has
shown, irrespective of any consideration of justice or right, that a
truly republican form of government is not safe in their hands. What
will be the conclusion? That suffrage must be extended so as to become
universal. The people themselves are the only safe depositories of
government. "If every individual which composes this mass participates
of the ultimate authority, the government will be safe; because the
corruption of the whole mass will exceed any private resources of
wealth." But if the people are the ultimate guardians of their
liberties, they must also be rendered the safe guardians of it. Hence
the necessity of providing for them an education adapted to the years,
the capacity, and the conditions of every one, and directed toward their
freedom and happiness. On this occasion Jefferson reproduced the view
already expressed in the Bill for the More General Diffusion of
Knowledge, as well as the tenor of the first section of the Bill for
Religious Freedom, but with new considerations which could scarcely be
incorporated in a statute.
Then comes a conclusion unexpected and revealing, a sort of pessimism
little in accordance with the supposed democratic faith of the writer;
there is no inherent superior wisdom in the people, but it happens that
under stress they so rise as to be superior to themselves, and it is for
those who direct the course of the State to make the best of this
fugitive opportunity:
The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become
corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence
persecutions, and better men be his victims. It can never be too
often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a
legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united.
From the conclusion of this war we shall go down hill. It will not
then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support.
They will be forgotten therefore and their rights disregarded. They
will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and
will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights.
The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the
conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier
and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
Is this a dreamer, a philosopher, a mere theorician, or a very alert and
keen politician with a high ideal and an exact realization of the
people's limitations? This pessimistic view of human nature and human
society did not make Jefferson entirely cynical, since he kept his faith
in his ideal and never questioned the eminent superiority of the
republican form of government. But he knew men too well to have faith in
their collective intelligence and disinterestedness, the naive faith of
so many French philosophers. If in this passage Jefferson reminds one of
any French writers, it is not Rousseau, nor Helvetius, nor even
Montesquieu, but of Montaigne, the Mayor of Bordeaux, who after the
pestilence retired to his "Library" and composed his famous "Essais."
One may well understand why Jefferson took such care to recommend his
friends not to let the "Notes" out of their hands, and not to permit it
to be published in any circumstances. The French like to say "_toutes
les verites ne sont pas bonnes a dire_"--these were truths that should
not be permitted to leak out and to circulate broadcast among the
people: at most they were good only to be disclosed to this elite who
had at heart the gradual betterment of the "plain people."
Jefferson's opposition to slavery rests on the same calculating motives.
The existence of slavery is as degrading for the master as for the
slave; it is destructive of the morals of the people, and of industry.
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to
be violated but with his wrath?... It is impossible to be temperate
and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of
policy, of morals, of history natural and civil.
But it does not ensue that Negroes should ever be placed on a footing of
equality with the whites. To pronounce that they are decidedly inferior
would require long observation, and we must hesitate
to degrade a whole race of men from the work in the scale of beings
which their Creator may _perhaps_ have given them.... I advance it
therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a
distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are
inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body and mind. It is
not against experience to suppose that different species of the same
genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different
qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who
views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of
philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man
as distinct as nature has formed them.
However the case may be, the blacks cannot be incorporated into the
State, and the only solution after they are emancipated and educated is
to "colonize them to such places as the circumstances of the time shall
render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of household
and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful animals, etc.,
to declare them a free and independent people, and extend to them our
alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength." But
the freed slave "is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture", and the
purity of the white stock must be preserved.
Throughout the book Jefferson untiringly harps on the fact that American
civilization is different from any other that has developed in Europe,
and that principles of "economy" which apply to European nations should
not be transferred "without calculating the difference of circumstance
which should often produce a difference of results." The main difference
lies in the fact that while in Europe "the lands are already cultivated,
or locked up against the cultivator, we have an immensity of land
courting the industry of the husbandman." America is essentially
agricultural, and agricultural it must remain:
Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever
he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar
deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which
he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from
the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of
cultivators is a phaenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished
an example.... While we have land to labour then, let us never wish
to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff.
Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the
general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in
Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to work men
there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them
their manners and principles.
This vision of an American entirely given to agricultural pursuits may
look Utopian in the extreme, and would be Utopian if Jefferson had
really believed that it was susceptible of becoming an actual fact. But,
in practice, this ideal was on the contrary subject to many adjustments
and modifications.
Jefferson's relativism is even more clearly marked in the last chapter,
which forms the real conclusion of the book. It outlines the future
policy of the United States with regard to foreign nations; it
formulates a peaceful ideal which has remained on the whole the ideal of
America. Once more it illustrates that curious balancing of two contrary
principles so characteristic of the philosopher of Americanism as well
as of the country itself.
Young as we are, and with such a country before us to fill with
people and with happiness, we should point in that direction the
whole generative force of nature, wasting none of it in efforts of
mutual destruction. It should be our endeavour to cultivate the peace
and friendship of every nation, even of that which has injured us
most, when we shall have carried our point against her. Our interest
will be to open the doors of commerce, and to knock off all its
shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the want of
whatever they may choose to bring into our ports, and asking the same
in theirs. Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any
subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it
is their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to
gain, at the close of a long war, a little town, or a little
territory, the right to cut wood here, to catch fish there, expended
in improving what we already possess, in making roads, opening
rivers, building ports, improving the arts and finding employment for
their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier
and happier.
"This," adds Jefferson, "I hope will be our wisdom." But it is only a
hope and circumstances which cannot be changed by pious hopes exist and
have to be confronted. In order to avoid every cause of conflict it
would be necessary to abandon the ocean altogether, and "to leave to
others to bring what we shall want, and to carry what we shall spare."
This unfortunately is impossible, since a large portion of the American
people are attached to commerce and insist on following the sea. What
then is the answer?--Preparedness.--"Wars then must sometimes be our
lot; and all the wise can do, will be to avoid that half of them which
would be produced by our own follies, and our own acts of injustice; and
to make for the other half the best preparations one can."
One would not have to search long in the speeches of Woodrow Wilson to
find the same idea expressed in almost identical terms. Even a
Republican president such as Mr. Coolidge did not speak differently,
when he simultaneously proposed conferences of disarmament and
recommended that appropriation for the navy be enormously increased.
This combination of will to peace, these reiterations of the pacific
policies of the United States have been since the early days combined
with the fixed determination to maintain a naval force adequate to cope
with any attacking force. For such is the policy advocated by Jefferson.
One should not be deceived by his very modest statement, "the sea is the
field on which we should meet an European enemy. On that element it is
necessary that we should possess some power." What he proposes is simply
the building in one year of a fleet of thirty ships, eighteen of which
might be ships of the line, and twelve frigates, with eighteen hundred
guns. And he significantly adds, "I state this only as one year's
possible exertion, without deciding whether more or less than a year
should be thus applied." But, so as not to leave any potential aggressor
in doubt as to the resources of America, he mentions that this naval
force should by no means be "so great as we are able to make it."
After stating categorically his principles, Jefferson did not object to
minor modifications when it came to practice. As early as the winter of
1781 he had found and determined the main tenets of his political
philosophy. It was essentially American and practical. The idea never
entered his mind that in order to establish an American government it
was necessary to make a _tabula rasa_ of what existed before. As a
matter of fact, Americans had certain vested rights through several
charters enumerated by Jefferson in answer to Query XIII; they had
revolted in defense of these rights, but the principles of their
government, "perhaps more peculiar than those of any other in the
universe", were simply "a composition of the freest principles of the
English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural
reason." Essentially "founded in common law as well as common right", it
was not necessarily the best possible form of government or the only one
imaginable, "for every species of government has its specific
principle." But despite its imperfections, it was better adapted to
American conditions than any other that could be devised. At that time,
at least, Jefferson did not seem to suspect that it could be taken as a
model by any other nations, or that its main principles would prove so
"contagious." The situation of America was unique. Unlimited
agricultural lands extended to the west, and one could estimate that it
would take at least a century to reach a density of population
comparable to that of the British Isles. For a long time America would
remain mainly agricultural, with a population scattered in farms instead
of being concentrated in large cities, and would keep many of the
virtues inherent in country life. In addition, the country would be
practically free from any attack by land, as she had no powerful
neighbors. She was geographically isolated from the rest of the world,
and even if she were attacked by sea, it would be by a fleet operating
far from its base and therefore at a disadvantage. No permanent army had
to be maintained and a comparatively small fleet would suffice for
protection. Free from the ordinary "sores" of civilization, not yet
wealthy but prosperous, for, says Jefferson "I never saw a native
American begging in the streets or highways", a country peaceful and
with hatred towards none, not even to "that nation which has injured us
most",--such is the ideal picture of America drawn by Jefferson for
himself and his French correspondent during the winter of 1781-1782.
Whatever faults existed would be corrected in time. If slavery could be
abolished and the last vestiges of an hereditary aristocracy eradicated,
little would be left to be desired. Yet it would not be a complete
Arcadia, for Jefferson did not believe that a state of perfection once
reached could be maintained without effort. Several dangers would always
threaten America. The influx of foreigners might alter the character of
her institutions. In spite of her peaceful ideals, dangers from the
outside might threaten her prosperity. But on the whole, the country,
even in its "infant state", was in no wise inferior to any European
nation. In all the sciences it gave promise of extraordinary
achievements. In architecture, to be sure, it seemed that "a genius has
shed its malediction over this land", but artists and artisans could be
induced to come, and even if America never reached the artistic
proficiency of some European nations, it was and would remain more
simple, more frugal, more virtuous than nations whose population
congregate in large cities.
Such, briefly told, is the conception of Americanism reached by
Jefferson when he wrote the "Notes on Virginia." He had not had any
direct contact with Europe, but he had read enormously and he had come
to the conclusion that, reasonably secure against foreign aggressions,
keeping her commerce at a minimum, America could develop along her own
lines and, reviving on a new land the old Anglo-Saxon principles
thwarted by kingly usurpations and church fabrications, bring about an
Anglo-Saxon millennium which no other country might ever dream of
reaching. It now remains to see to what extent and under what influences
Jefferson came to modify certain of his conclusions, following his
prolonged contact with Europe.
CHAPTER IV
A STATESMAN'S APPRENTICESHIP
The year 1782 was for Jefferson a year of trial and suffering. A child
was born to Mrs. Jefferson on May 8; she never recovered fully and soon
it appeared that she was irrevocably doomed. This tragic, touching story
had better be told in the simple words of his daughter Martha, then nine
years of age:
As a nurse no female had ever more tenderness nor anxiety. He nursed
my poor mother in turn with aunt Carr and her own sister--sitting up
with her and administering her medicines and drink to the last. For
four months that she lingered he was never out of calling; when not
at her bed-side, he was writing in a small room which opened
immediately at the head of her bed. A moment before the closing
scene, he was led from the room in a state of insensibility by his
sister, Mrs. Carr, who with great difficulty, got him into the
library, where he fainted, and remained so long insensible that they
feared he never would revive. The scene that followed I did not
witness, but the violence of his emotion, when, almost by stealth, I
entered his room by night, to this day I dare not describe to myself.
He kept his room three weeks, and I was never a moment from his side.
He walked almost incessantly night and day, only lying down
occasionally, when nature was completely exhausted, on a pallet that
had been brought in during his long fainting fit. My aunts remained
constantly with him for some weeks--I do not remember how many. When
at last he left his room, he rode out, and from that time he was
incessantly on horseback, rambling about the mountain, in the least
frequented roads, and just as often through the woods. In those
melancholy rambles I was his constant companion--a solitary witness
to many a burst of grief, the remembrance of which has consecrated
particular scenes of that lost home beyond the power to obliterate.
In Jefferson's prayer book is found this simple entry:
"Martha Wayles Jefferson died September 6, 1782, at 11 o'clock 45
minutes A.M."
She was buried in the little enclosure in which rested already three of
her children; on a simple slab of white marble her husband had the
following inscription engraved:
To the memory of
Martha Jefferson,
Daughter of John Wayles:
Born October 19th, 1748 O.S.
Intermarried with
Thomas Jefferson
January 1st 1772;
Torn from him by death
September 6th 1782
This monument of his love is inscribed
[Greek: Ei de thanonton per katalethont' ein Haidao,
Autar ego kakeithi philou memnesom' hetairou.][87]
If in the house of Hades men forget their dead
Yet will I even there remember my dear companion.
Whether, as Tucker thought, Jefferson selected a Greek quotation so as
not to make any display of his feelings to the casual passer-by, or
whether Greek had so really become his own habit of thought that he
could not think of any better way to express his grief, is a matter of
conjecture. He was not the man to speak of himself and his sorrows, even
to his closest friends. But it was probably at this time that he wrote
these lines found after his death in his pocketbook: "There is a time in
human suffering when exceeding sorrows are but like snow falling on an
iceberg", and in Latin, "_Heu quanto minus est cum reliquis versari quam
tui meminisse._"
At thirty-nine he was left a widower with a house full of children.
Martha, born in 1772, Mary born in 1778, Lucy Elizabeth, the baby just
born, who was to die two years later, and in addition the children of
his friend and brother-in-law Carr, whom he had adopted at the death of
their father. As soon as he had recovered from the first shock,
Jefferson went with the children to the house of Colonel Archibald Cary,
at Ampthill, in Chesterfield County, where he had them inoculated for
the smallpox. "While engaged as their chief nurse on the occasion, he
received notice of his appointment by Congress as Plenipotentiary to
Europe, to be associated with Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams in negotiating
peace (November 13,1782)."[88]
He was just emerging from the stupor of mind which had rendered him "as
dead to the world as she whose loss occasioned it."[89] It appeared to
him that "public interest and the state of his mind concurred in
recommending the change of scene proposed; and he accepted the
appointment."[90]
The next three months were spent in preparing for the journey. He made
arrangements for his children and wrote a very touching letter to
Washington, evincing once more that reluctance to express affectionate
feeling so often found in Americans, a result of early education and
training as much as of the national temperament: "Were I to indulge
myself in those warm effusions which this subject forever prompts, they
would wear an appearance of adulation very foreign to my nature; for
such is the prostitution of language, that sincerity has no longer
distinct terms in which to express her own truths."[91]
The ship that was to carry him to France was caught in the ice at the
entrance of the Chesapeake, with no prospect of sailing before the
beginning of March. When news came early in February that the
negotiations were making satisfactory progress, he felt some doubts
about the desirability of a voyage which entailed so much expense, and
placed the matter in the hands of Congress. It was not until April 1,
however, that he was informed that the object of his appointment was "so
far advanced as to render [it] unnecessary for him to pursue his
voyage." He left for Virginia a few days afterwards. For the third time
his plans for visiting Europe had been thwarted, but he does not seem to
have resented it so deeply as previously.
The wounds inflicted to his _amour-propre_ by the Virginia Assembly were
healing. He had renewed his contact with public affairs, and when, on
June 6, he was chosen as delegate to Congress, with Samuel Hardy, John
F. Mercer, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, he accepted without hesitation.
The two years which were to elapse between June, 1782, and July 5, 1784,
the date of his final departure from France on the _Ceres_, are not the
most eventful or the most picturesque of Jefferson's career. In many
respects, however, they are the fullest and the most important for a
true understanding of his mind and character. In the absence of Franklin
and Adams he stood out in Congress, head and shoulders above his
colleagues; he was placed on most of the important committees, he
completed his acquaintance with the internal and foreign policies of the
United States, he reported on measures of vital importance and
crystallized his opinion on fundamental problems.
Before being chosen as a delegate to Congress, Jefferson had already
decided "to lend a hand to the laboring oar" and to participate in the
affairs of his State, if not as a legislator at least as an adviser and
counsellor. From the conversation he had held in Richmond with "as many
members" of the Assembly "as he could",[92] he had concluded that
Virginia was ready to call a convention to revise the Constitution of
1776. On June 17 he wrote again to Madison, inclosing his ideas on the
"amendments necessary." No convention was called at that time, but
Jefferson's memorandum was printed in pamphlet form later in Paris, and
he added it to his "Notes on Virginia." First of all he reassured that
the Constitution of 1776 had no legal permanent value, being simply the
result of the deliberation of a General Assembly, in no way different
from the succeeding Assemblies. A power superior to that of the ordinary
legislature could alone have authority to decide on a constitution. This
could only be done by recommending "the good people of the State" to
choose delegates "with powers to form a constitution of government for
them, and to declare those fundamentals to which all our laws present
and future shall be subordinate." Many of the provisions of the proposed
constitution were not original and, as indicated by Jefferson himself in
his letter to Madison, had been tried in other States. The document,
however, may serve to illustrate the progress accomplished by Jefferson
in the science of government since he had written his first State paper,
and to show how far he still remained from his reputed views on
democracy.
Although still a free State, Virginia was no longer completely
independent, since she had entered a society of States, and it was
acknowledged that: "The confederation is made a part of this
constitution, subject to such future alterations as shall be agreed to
by the legislature of this State, and by all the other confederating
States."
Almost universal suffrage was granted, the vote being given to "All free
male citizens of full age, and sane mind, who for one year before shall
have been resident in the country, or shall through the whole of that
time have possessed therein real property to the value of ----, or shall
for the same time have been enrolled in the militia."
This was an immediate consequence of the contractual concept of society
and it is not without some interest to remark that this principle stood
in direct contradiction to the physiocratic doctrine; for it was the
contention of the Physiocrats that, society resting essentially on real
property, those who own the land can alone participate in the government
of the country. If, on the contrary, society is considered as an
association of men who agree to live together in order to secure fuller
enjoyment of their fundamental rights, all the signatories to the
compact must have the same rights as well as the same obligations in the
government of the association thus formed.[93]
Yet it remained understood that the voters were not to be intrusted with
all the details of government, and Jefferson thought it desirable to
establish certain safeguards against the possible lack of knowledge of
the electors. They chose delegates and senators, but the governor was to
be appointed by joint ballot of both houses of the Assembly, and the
same procedure was to be followed in choosing a Council of State to
advise the governor, the judges of the High Court of Chancery, the
General Court and Court of Admiralty, while the judges of inferior
courts were to be appointed by the governor on recommendation of the
Council of State. The powers of the governor were to be strictly limited
and it was made clear that although the old English title was preserved,
the chief executive of the State had "none of the powers exercised under
our former government by the Crown": "We give him those powers only
which are necessary to execute the laws (and administer the government),
and which are not in their nature either legislative or judiciary." The
governor had a sort of suspensive veto. The military was to be
subordinate to the civil power, and the printing press to be subject to
no other restraint but liability to legal prosecution for false facts
printed and published. The plan provided also for the gradual abolition
of slavery after the year 1800.
The most remarkable feature of this scheme was the strict imitation of
popular participation in the government. The only power recognized as
belonging to the people was that of selecting delegates to both Houses,
and of appointing delegates to a constitutional convention whenever "any
of the three branches of the government, concurring in opinion each by
the voice of two-thirds of their existing number, decided that such a
convention is necessary for amending the constitution." We are very far
from government by referendum and even by periodic elections, since none
of the State officials were directly appointed by the people. Jefferson
had not at that time departed from his fundamental idea that government
must be placed in the hands of well-qualified experts, carefully
selected and appointed. The "Constitution of Virginia" was a "true form
of Republican government", but by no means demagogical or even truly
democratic. Curiously enough, and through mere coincidence, the
essential features of the present constitution of France closely
resemble the general outline of the plan proposed by Jefferson. This
alone should suffice to demonstrate how far he was at that time from
accepting and propounding some of the main tenets of the so-called
Jeffersonian democracy. But Virginia was not yet ready for a change; the
constitutional convention was not called, and nothing had been done when
Jefferson left the State late in November, arriving at Annapolis on the
twenty-fourth.
Much to his disgust, he found that, after a fortnight, the delegates
from only six States had appeared and that it was impossible to transact
any serious business. The Treaty of Commerce had been received and was
referred to a committee of which Jefferson was chairman, but a bare
quorum was not assembled until December 13, and on the twenty-third,
according to the "Autobiography", it was necessary to send to several
governors a letter "stating the receipt of the definitive treaty; that
seven States only were in attendance, while nine were necessary to its
ratification."
In the meantime Washington had come to Annapolis to resign his
commission, in circumstances which can scarcely have been as impressive
as is generally related, since the whole program carefully laid out by
Jefferson took place before a bare majority of Congress. The rest of the
month was spent in discussing whether the treaty could be ratified by
less than nine states. It soon appeared that "there now remained but
scanty sixty-seven days for the ratification, for its passage across the
Atlantic and its exchange. There was no hope of our soon having nine
States present; in fact that this was the ultimate point of time to
which we could venture to wait; that if the ratification was not in
Paris by the time stipulated, the treaty would become void...."--On
January 13, delegates from Connecticut attended, and the next day a
delegate from Carolina having arrived, "the treaty was ratified without
a dissenting vote."
This was for Jefferson a most profitable experience. As chairman of the
committee, he had to familiarize himself with questions of foreign
policies and foreign commerce. He had also to put aside whatever
remnants of sectionalism and provincialism he unconsciously retained and
he realized that "Those United States being by their constitution
consolidated into one federal republic, they be considered in all such
treaties & in every case arising under them as one nation under the
principles of the Federal Constitution."[94]
The same principle is reasserted more strongly in the "Draft for
proclamation announcing ratification of definitive treaties", in which
all the good citizens of the United States are enjoined to reverence
"those stipulations entered into on their behalf under the authority of
that federal (moral, political and legal bond) whereby they are called,
by which their existence as an independent people is bound up together,
and is known and acknowledged by the nations of the world."[95]
On January 16, Jefferson wrote to Governor Harrison enumerating the
important objects before Congress:
1. Authorizing our Foreign minister to enter into treaties of
alliance and commerce with the several nations who have deserved it;
2. Arranging the domestic administration; 3. Establishing arsenals &
ports on our frontiers; 4. Disposing of Western Territory; 5.
Treaties of peace and purchase with the Indians; 6. Money.
A full program, requiring for the adoption of any measure the
concurrence of nine States, while barely nine were present, seven of
which were represented only by two members each; "any of these fourteen
gentlemen differing from the rest would stay the proceedings", and it
seemed very doubtful whether anything could be achieved during the
session.
This brought home to Jefferson the fact that the concentration of the
executive functions in Congress was an obstacle to carrying out
effectively the business of the Confederation, and he thought it his
duty to point out this defect in his "draft of the report on a committee
of the States", January 30, 1784. It was a lengthy report, not very
accurately summed up in the "Autobiography", authorizing a permanent
Committee of the States to act as executive during the recess of
Congress, and enumerating very minutely the powers that such a committee
might exercise and those from which it would be excluded. The plan as
adopted was somewhat different and it was resolved: "That the Committee
should possess all the powers which may be exercised by the seven States
in Congress assembled", except concerning foreign relations.
Jefferson recalled in the "Autobiography" that during the following
recess the committee quarrelled, split into two parties, "abandoned
their posts, and left the government without any visible head, until the
next meeting of Congress." He significantly added: "We have since seen
the same thing take place in the Directory of France; and I believe it
will forever take place in any executive consisting of a plurality. Our
plan,--best, I believe,--combines wisdom and practicality; by providing
a plurality of Counsellors, but a single Arbiter for ultimate decision."
This conclusion was already reached in 1784, not following a logical
reasoning, or because of an innate need of unity, but as a result of
experience. Very early in his life Jefferson became convinced that the
country could not be properly administered unless the executive powers
were concentrated in one responsible person, with powers strictly
defined, but left free to act and to act rapidly within that field. This
explains, among other things, not only Jefferson's approval of the
powers granted to the Executive under the Constitution, but also his
conduct during his two terms as President.
He soon had an opportunity to study the financial problems of the
Confederation, when a "grand Committee of Congress" was appointed to
take up the Federal expenses for the current year, inclusive of articles
of interest on the public debts foreign and domestic.[96] He presented
on March 22 a "Report on the Arrears of Interest", in which were
carefully tabulated not only the interest on sums due on account of the
national debts but an estimate of the expenses for the year 1784,--in
other words a budget. An outgrowth of the work assigned to the Committee
was the _establishment of a money unit, and of a coinage for the United
States_. The report of Jefferson retained some of the essential
provisions of the proposal drawn up by the "Financier of the U.S."
(Robert Morris, assisted by Governor Morris), and Jefferson himself did
not claim so much originality for it as has been given him by some of
his biographers. The report of the financier proposed that the new
coins "should be in decimal proportions to one another", and this was
retained. On the other hand, Morris had proposed as a unit "the 1440th
part of a dollar", after taking into consideration the old currencies,
"all of which this unit measures without leaving a fraction." Jefferson
pointed out that, although theoretically perfect, the unit was much too
complicated and too small, and he maintained that the unit should be the
Spanish dollar "a known coin, and the most familiar of all to the minds
of the people." ... "It is already adopted from South to North," he
added, "has identified our currency, and therefore happily offers itself
as a Unit already introduced."
In spite of the financier's opposition, the plan as amended by Jefferson
was finally adopted and still constitutes the essential foundation of
the American monetary system. To the student of psychology this incident
affords another illustration of Jefferson's practical-mindedness. Having
to choose between two solutions, one mathematically perfect, and another
one simply regulating and organizing what already existed, he did not
hesitate a minute and practical considerations prevailed at once in his
mind.
In the meantime he was working on one of his most important State
papers. Randall called attention to it and P. L. Ford maintained that
"next to the Declaration of Independence (if indeed standing second to
that) this document ranks in historical importance of all those drawn by
Jefferson; and, but for its being superseded by the 'Ordinance of 1787',
would rank among all American state papers immediately after the
National Constitution."[97] Yet it does not seem that its value is
generally recognized and it is but seldom listed as one of the
outstanding achievements of Jefferson. For reasons that will shortly
appear, Jefferson himself neglected to mention it in his
"Autobiography." It is a capital document by which to understand the
growth of the Jeffersonian doctrine.
First of all, it resolved that "so much of the territory ceded or to be
ceded by individual States to the United States as is already purchased
or shall be purchased of the Indian inhabitants & offered for sale by
Congress, shall be divided into distinct states." Which simply meant
that the westward growth of the country, instead of being left to the
initiative of the individual States, was placed under the aegis of the
Confederation and thus became a matter of national importance and
significance. It provided for a practically unlimited expansion of the
United States by the establishment of States analogous to the already
existing Confederacy. It also insisted strongly that all such territory
be connected as closely as possible with the already existing Union.
Settlers in any of the territories thus organized, had authority to
establish a temporary government, adopting with due modification the
constitution and laws of any of the original States. A permanent
government was to be established in any State as soon as it should have
acquired a population of twenty thousand free inhabitants, provided, and
here we probably have the most important provisions:
1. That they shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of the
United States of America. 2. That in their persons, property and
territory they shall be subject to the Government of the United
States in Congress assembled & to the articles of confederation....
4. That their respective Governments shall be in republican forms and
shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds any hereditary title.
5. That after the year 1800 of the Christian aera, there shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states.
Finally, "whenever any of the said States shall have, of free
inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one of the least numerous,
of the thirteen original States, such State will be admitted by it's
delegates into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing
with the said United States."
This report, submitted March 1, recommitted to the committee March 17,
was considered again by Congress on April 19, 21, 23, and adopted after
amendment by every State except one. But the amendment took the teeth
out of the report, since the clause referring to slavery was struck out,
as well as that concerning the admission of persons holding hereditary
titles. Other provisions concerning the names to be given to the new
States were also eliminated. The scholar reappeared in these
suggestions. If Jefferson's original motion had been accepted, the
present State of Michigan would wear the name of _Chersonesus_ and on
the map of the United States would appear such designations as
_Metropotamia_, _Polypotamia_, and _Pilisipia_.[98]
Finally Jefferson intended to complete the organization and expansion of
the United States with "An ordinance establishing a Land Office" for the
United States "to give sure title to the settlers and determine the
division and subdivision into lots" which was defeated, an entirely new
ordinance being adopted April 26, 1785.[99]
The most striking feature of all these bills was the eagerness of
Jefferson to consolidate the Union and to strengthen Federal bonds. With
a common monetary unit, common interest in a large territory just
acquired by cession from Virginia, one more thing remained to be
settled: the organization of permanent relations with foreign nations,
that is to say, the conclusion of commercial treaties.
It had appeared very soon to Jefferson that if such treaties were to be
concluded it was desirable to adopt a working policy outlined in his
"Resolves on European Treaties."[100] To have foreign plenipotentiaries
come to the United States, discuss with the badly organized body called
the Continental Congress, whose members would have to report to their
legislatures and after interminable delays accept or reject the
proposal, was an impossible procedure. This distrust of Congress was
amply justified at the time, and one may wonder whether satisfactory
treaties could ever have been concluded under the supervision of
Congress; Jefferson therefore proposed that ministers be sent to Europe
to negotiate with the old and established nations, who could not be
expected to cross the Atlantic.
On May 7, Congress agreed on _Instructions to the Ministers
Plenipotentiary appointed to negotiate treaties of Commerce with the
European Nations_. Once more it was proclaimed:
"That these United Sates be considered in all such treaties, and in
every case arising under them, as one nation, upon the principle of the
Federal constitution."
It was also deemed "advantageous that treaties be concluded with Russia,
the Court of Vienna, Prussia, Denmark, Saxony, Hamburg, Great Britain,
Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Tuscany, Rome, Naples, Venice, Sardinia and the
Ottoman Porte. That treaties of amity and commerce be entered into with
Morocco, and the Regencies of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. To have
supplementary treaties with France, the United Netherlands and Sweden in
order to incorporate the new policies of the United States."
The plan of treaties contained some remarkable provisions; they were
clear departures, not from the theory of international law and _droit
des gens_, as Jefferson had found it in the authorities consulted, but
from the actual policy of the European nations.
Thus it was proposed that in case of war between the two contracting
parties,
The merchants of either country, then residing in the other shall be
allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their
affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects,
without molestation or hinderance, and all fishermen, all cultivators
of the earth, and all artisans or manufacturers, unarmed and
inhabiting unfortified towns, villages or places, who labor for the
common subsistence and benefit of mankind, and peaceably follow
their respective employments, shall be allowed to continue the same.
That "neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue any
commission to any private armed vessels, empowering them to take or
destroy such trading ships, or interrupt such commerce."
In case of war with another nation, "no merchandize heretofore called
contraband, such as arms, ammunition and military stores of all
kinds,... shall, on any account, be deemed contraband, so as to induce
confiscation, and a loss of property to individuals." The right to
detain vessels carrying such goods a reasonable length of time was
granted, as well as the right not to seize, but "to purchase" military
stores with a reasonable compensation to the proprietors; in all cases
the owners of the ships delayed were to receive a compensation. But all
vessels not carrying contraband were to be entirely free, adding that a
blockade in order to be recognized had to be effectual, but even in that
case "no vessel of the party who is not engaged in the said war, shall
be stopped without a material and well-grounded cause."
Besides these general provisions, it was recommended that "each party
shall have a right to carry their own produce, manufactures, and
merchandise in their own bottoms to the ports of the others, and thence
the produce and merchandise of the other, paying, in both cases, such
duties only as are paid by the most favored nations."
A paragraph was intended specially for the commerce with the West
Indies, "desiring that a direct and similar intercourse be admitted
between the United States and possessions of the nations holding
territorial possessions in America."
Finally, as Jefferson as well as his contemporaries were already fearful
of seeing any influx of foreigners settle in their country and dominate
the infant government, it was stipulated that no right be accorded to
aliens to hold real property within these States, this being "utterly
inadmissible by their several laws and policy."
From the European point of view many things were inadmissible in the
plan of treaties. To request the nations of the Old World not only to
abandon privateering, but to relinquish their definitions of contraband
and their commercial monopolies with their own colonies, was something
which must have appeared as the wild dream of a people unexperienced in
the handling of foreign relations. As a matter of fact, the treaties
were never signed. But if the principles formulated by Jefferson were
not accepted by the European powers, they remained nevertheless an
essential part of the foreign policy of the United States.
On the very day the "Instructions" were adopted, Jefferson was appointed
Minister Plenipotentiary to "negotiate treaties of commerce with foreign
nations in conjunction with Mr. John Adams and Dr. Franklin." No man in
Congress was better qualified for such a mission. His work for two years
on several important committees had acquainted him with the main
problems of the Union. He had demonstrated his ability to present clear
reports on the most intricate questions. He had completed his
apprenticeship of men and things; but it may be wondered whether the
delegates who recommended his appointment were not impelled by ulterior
motives. The stand taken by Jefferson on slavery had made him decidedly
unpopular with the Southern delegates. He had opposed the original
statutes of the Order of Cincinnati, in which he saw the beginnings of a
new aristocracy. He had made enemies as well as friends and could write
to Washington that an experience of twenty years had taught him "that
few friendships stand this test, & that public assemblies, where
everyone is free to act & to speak, are the most powerful looseners of
private friendship." The petty discussions in Congress, the long
speeches he had to listen to, the quibbling, lack of initiative and
lack of national spirit of the delegates had thoroughly disgusted him.
Before receiving his appointment he had already repented of his return
to public life and had signified his intention of going back to his
beloved Monticello.
I have determined--he wrote to Washington--to take no active part in
this or anything else, which may lead to altercation, or disturb that
quiet & tranquillity of mind to which I consign the remaining portion
of my life. I have been thrown back by events on a stage where I had
never more thought to appear. It is but for a time, however, & as a
day laborer, free to withdraw, or be withdrawn at will.[101]
He seized with eagerness the opportunity of visiting older civilizations
and enjoying a change of scenes. Having hastily cancelled his order for
printing a few copies of the "Notes on Virginia", he at once made
preparations for his departure.
The new plenipotentiary decided to take with him his older daughter
Martha, then in Philadelphia at Mrs. Hopkinson's, and to leave the two
younger ones with their maternal aunt, Mrs. Eppes, in Virginia. William
Short, his "_eleve_" and friend, accompanied him as private secretary
and Colonel David Humphreys as secretary of the legation.[102] From
Philadelphia he went to Boston, visiting Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
the principal towns on his way, in order to acquire "what knowledge he
could of their commerce and other circumstances." He sailed from Boston
on the _Ceres_, Captain Sainte-Barbe, bound to Cowes.
Jefferson was then forty-one years old. He knew life and men and had no
illusions; he had experienced happiness and sorrow; he had had moments
of exaltation, of hot patriotic fever; he had occupied the front of the
stage in several circumstances never to be forgotten; he had aroused
enmities and made devoted and faithful friends, among them Monroe,
Madison, and Short whom he was taking along with him. But neither his
disappointments nor his sorrows had made him a misanthrope. Not an
orator, he liked to talk, and he could not live without society. The
tall spare man in black was no longer able to feel his heart moved by
the early emotions of his youth. Next to Washington, who remained in
America, and to Doctor Franklin, a debonair patriarch, he was the most
famous national figure of America. None was better qualified by his
former life and studies to represent America and to speak for his
country. Whatever sectionalism he may have had in him had disappeared in
these last two years of Congress, when he had striven so strenuously to
make the Union an actual fact and to consolidate the loose Federal
fabric, for only there could men "See the affairs of the Confederacy
from a high ground; they learn the importance of the Union & befriend
federal measures when they return. Those who never come here, see our
affairs insulated, pursue a system of jealousy and self interest, and
distract the Union as much as they can."
Of Europe he knew little, except what he had been able to absorb from
books. It was a country of great artistic productivity, of enviable
social life. Towards England he was not particularly attracted; towards
France he felt much more favorably inclined. He had met many Frenchmen;
some of them already had become his close friends, two particularly, the
Chevalier de Chastellux and especially the youthful, impulsive, and
charming Lafayette, who in a parting note had asked him to consider his
house as his and to take the little motherless girl to Madame de
Lafayette. He knew he would not be without friends, without society,
that he would have an unique chance to meet the best minds of Europe.
This practical American, so little given to the "_joie de vivre_" and
without _abandon_, wanted primarily to increase his knowledge, to gather
facts, to make comparisons. He had retained the taste for society, the
good breeding, the polite manners, the artistic tendencies of the
Virginian, but in him the American was already fully grown. He felt also
that he had a certain mission and intended to fulfill it: it was to
convey to the European statesmen whose wiles he distrusted the
impression that the United States existed as a country, that they did
not form a loose and temporary confederation of States, but a nation to
be reckoned with and respected. His country was no longer his native
Virginia alone: he was thinking nationally and not sectionally. For the
French Jefferson was already a great American figure; he was going to
embody the best there was in the newly constituted Union.
BOOK THREE
_An American View of Europe_
CHAPTER I
SOCIETY AND TRAVEL
The _Ceres_ reached Portsmouth nineteen days after leaving Boston, a
remarkably swift passage, without incident, except for three days spent
in fishing on the Banks of Newfoundland, while the ship was becalmed.
Jefferson and his companions were delayed a week in Portsmouth by
Martha's slight illness, and then went directly to Paris, where he
arrived on August 6, 1784. Jefferson was to remain in France till the
fall of 1789--five years crowded with pleasures, social duties,
political duties, and hard work. His activities were so varied and his
interests so diversified that it is no longer possible to follow any
chronological order; we must establish arbitrary divisions, though
Jefferson passed at all times from one subject to another and was
incessantly busy with undertakings and plans truly encyclopedic.
First of all, he had to find quarters. He had put up at the Hotel
d'Orleans, Rue des Petits Augustins, then he had rented "Hotel
Tete-Bout, cul-de-sac Tete-Bout", and a year later moved to a house
belonging to M. le Comte de L'Avongeac "at the corner of the Grande
Route des Champs Elysees and Rue Neuve de Berry", where he continued to
live as long as he remained in Paris. His secretary Short and Colonel
Humphreys, secretary to the legation, lived with him. It was "a very
elegant house, even for Paris, with an extensive garden, court and
outbuildings, in the handsomest style."
Of Jefferson's first impressions after landing in France we
unfortunately know nothing. Not until a full year had elapsed did he
express his personal views in writing. Although he deplored the
wretched condition of the larger mass of the people, he had already come
to the conclusion, probably correct, that life in Paris was more
pleasant than anywhere else on earth: "The roughnesses of the human mind
are so thoroughly rubbed off with them, that it seems as if one might
glide through a whole life without a jostle."[103] It was some time,
however, before he felt entirely at home in Parisian society. He was
somewhat handicapped and humiliated at first because of lack of means at
the disposal of the Minister of the United States for maintaining his
rank. In his report on the reduction of the civil list (March 5, 1784),
Jefferson, animated with a fine republican zeal, had fixed the
compensation of American representatives abroad at ten thousand dollars.
Now that he was in Paris he found the allowance very inadequate. A proud
Virginian, accustomed to entertain generously, he considered hospitality
an imperious duty as well as a pleasure, and his letters to Congress are
filled with complaints on the niggardliness of his resources. However,
he procured a good French cook in the person of the worthy Petit, who
became quite attached to him, and wrote for him recipes for "_poulet en
casserole_" and "_cafe a la francaise_." He informed himself concerning
the best French wines, some of which he already knew, and made a
thorough and scientific study of the different vintages, recording the
result of his observations in unpublished notes. Nor was he so selfish
as to keep all his knowledge to himself. Adams and Washington used his
good offices to keep their cellars well stocked in champagne and
sauternes. For them and for Madison he subscribed to "L'Encyclopedie
Methodique", he bought new French books, engravings, plaster casts, and
medals, and his willingness to oblige his friends and to go shopping for
them was so well known that Mrs. Adams asked him to buy for her daughter
"two pairs of corsets", much to his distress, since she had omitted to
send him the measure. For Mrs. Bingham he filled boxes with "caps and
bonnets"; for Madison he bought a pocket telescope, a walking stick, a
chemical box, for poor little Polly who had remained with her aunt at
Eppington "sashes" and Parisian dolls.
Through Franklin, Jefferson was introduced to Madame d'Houdetot, who had
unlimited admiration for a man who not only was an American and a
philosopher, but who also knew the names of American plants and trees
much more thoroughly than her dear Doctor. He obtained for her seeds,
bulbs, and trees to be planted in the park of Sannois.[104] Through
Franklin also he met Madame Helvetius and her two abbes, who always
wrote jointly to Jefferson.[105] At her house, he saw Cabanis, then a
very young man, Destutt de Tracy and abbe Morellet. He attended concerts
at Madame d'Houdetot's brother's house, but above all he was attracted
by Lafayette's family and friends. It was large enough for a man of more
leisure and more worldly tendencies. There was the Marquis himself and
his charming wife, who befriended Martha and wrote Jefferson several
notes filled with that delightful eighteenth-century "_sensibilite_" and
amiability of which we have lost the secret. There was also Madame de
Tesse, Lafayette's cousin, who was, however, considerably older than the
Marquis and whom he called "aunt." Jefferson saw her in Paris and
visited her often at Chaville, where Short stayed for weeks at a time,
perfecting himself in the French language and the ways of French
society. She loved trees, good paintings, fine buildings, statues, and
music, and did much to educate Jefferson's taste in these matters. Not
mentioned by his biographers, Madame de Corny played a not
inconsiderable part in Jefferson's sentimental life. Young, pretty,
witty, and married to a husband much older than herself, she enjoyed
Jefferson's company, took with him many walks in the Bois de Boulogne
and perhaps, secretly, found him too scrupulously polite and too
respectful.[106] There were also several other women, Madame de Tott, a
distinguished painter, the vivacious and charming Lucy Paradise,
Comtesse Barziza, a real "_enfant terrible_", irresponsible, outspoken,
who in her letters to Jefferson listed all the scandals of the
days.[107] And one must not forget among Jefferson's feminine
acquaintances the old Comtesse de la Rochefoucauld, dignified,
sarcastic, a terrible bore at times, whom on many occasions he vainly
tried to avoid.
But when all is told, it does not appear that the circle of Jefferson's
friends was ever very large. During his first year in Paris he did his
best to keep in the background. To Franklin he owed deference, because
of his age and the position of the Doctor as the only accredited
representative to the Court of Versailles. Adams, the other
plenipotentiary, was older than Jefferson, who on every occasion
insisted that his colleagues should have precedence over him. A good
listener, he was much more reserved than Franklin and always remained
somewhat self-conscious when he spoke or wrote French. If the Doctor
spoke French as badly as he wrote it, his conversation must have been an
extraordinary jargon; but Jefferson was too sensitive and had too much
_amour-propre_ to venture upon long discussions and conversations with
people he did not know intimately. Most of his French letters were
written by Short, who became rapidly a master of the language, and we
may presume that Jefferson never really felt at home in a purely French
circle.
This was true at least of his first year in Paris. He had many fits of
despondency and wondered at times whether he was not too old to accustom
himself to strange people and to strange manners. He often experienced
the usual longing of the traveler for his native land: "I am now of an
age which does not easily accommodate itself to new modes of living and
new manners," he wrote to Baron Geismer, the former prisoner of
Charlottesville; "and I am savage enough to prefer the woods, the wilds
and independence of Monticello, to all the brilliant pleasures of this
gay capital. I shall therefore, rejoin myself to my native country with
new attachments and exaggerated esteem for its advantages."[108] It was
probably on these occasions that he took refuge in the most silent of
all places, a Carthusian monastery, a very strange abode for one who has
been accused of being a fierce anti-clerical:
He also had rooms in the Carthusian Monastery on Mount Calvary; the
boarders, of whom I think there were forty, carried their own
servants, and took their breakfasts in their own rooms. They
assembled to dinner only. They had the privilege of walking in the
gardens, but as it was a hermitage, it was against the rules of the
house for any voices to be heard outside of their own rooms, hence
the most profound silence. The author of "Anarcharsis" was a boarder
at the time, and many others who had reasons for a temporary
retirement from the world. Whenever he had a press of business, he
was in the habit of taking his papers and going to the hermitage,
where he spent sometimes a week or more till he had finished his
work. The hermits visited him occasionally in Paris, and the Superior
made him a present of an ivory broom that was turned by one of the
brothers.[109]
From time to time this same mood recurred:
I am burning the candle of life without present pleasure or future
object--he wrote to Mrs. Trist in 1786.--A dozen or twenty years ago
this scene would have amused me; but I am past the age for changing
habits. I take all the fault on myself, as it is impossible to be
among a people who wish more to make one happy--a people of the very
best character it is possible for one to have. We have no idea in
America of the real French character.[110]
Not foreign to this despondency was the bad news that came from America.
His youngest daughter Lucy died in the fall of 1784 and he was not
satisfied until he had his remaining daughter near him in Paris, and
Mary, familiarly called Polly, had joined her sister in the best convent
of the French capital.
Between social duties and pleasures, dinners at the house of Lafayette,
meetings of the Committees of Commerce, interviews with Vergennes,
preparation of long letters to be sent home to keep his Government
informed of the situation in Europe, correction of the proofs of the
"Notes on Virginia", interviews with former French volunteers clamoring
for their back pay, visits to shops and factories, Jefferson was a very
busy man indeed. But exacting as his occupations were, he found time to
escape from Paris on three different occasions to see something of
France and Europe. In 1786 he journeyed to England, traveled in France
and Italy in the spring of the following year, and visited Holland and
the Rhine shortly before leaving for home. The diaries he kept during
these trips are both revealing and disappointing. They demonstrate how
little of European culture had penetrated his American mind, how
carefully he preserved himself from the contamination of European
manners and ways of thinking. In some respects it must be confessed that
Jefferson remained very narrow and provincial, and almost a Philistine
in his outlook.
The most damning document is the outline he made for Rutledge and
Shippen on June 3, 1788, though in some respects it shows good judgment,
as when Jefferson recommends "not to judge of the manners of the people
from the people you will naturally see the most of: tavern keepers,
_valets de place_, and postillions."--"These are the hackneyed rascals
of every country. Of course they must never be considered when we
calculate the national character." He manifested the same good sense in
recommending always to ask for the _vin du pays_ when traveling. But the
worst comes in his enumeration of the "Objects of Attention for an
American." It has to be read to be believed and should be transcribed
here almost in full:
1. Agriculture. Everything belonging to this art, and whatever has a
near relation to it.... 2. Mechanical arts, so far as they respect
things necessary in America, and inconvenient to be transported
thither ready-made, such as forges, stone quarries, boat bridges,
etc. 3. Lighter mechanical arts, and manufactures. Some of these will
be worth a superficial view; but circumstances rendering it
impossible that America should become a manufacturing country during
the time of any man now living, it would be a waste of attention to
examine these minutely. 4. Gardens peculiarly worth the attention of
an American, because it is the country of all others where the
noblest gardens may be made without expense.... 5. Architecture worth
a great attention. As we double our numbers every twenty years, we
must double our houses.... It is, then, among the most important
arts; it is desirable to introduce taste into an art which shows so
much. 6. Painting, Statuary. Too expensive for the state of wealth
among us. It would be useless, therefore, and preposterous, for us to
make ourselves connoisseurs in those arts. They are worth seeing, but
not studying. 7. Politics of each country, well worth studying so far
as respects internal affairs. Examine their influence on the
happiness of the people. Take every possible occasion for entering
into the houses of the laborers, and especially at the moment of
their repast; see what they eat, how they are clothed, whether they
are obliged to work too hard.... 8. Courts. To be seen as you would
see the tower of London or menagerie of Versailles with their lions,
tigers, hyenas, and other beasts of prey, standing in the same
relation to their fellows.... Their manners, could you ape them,
would not make you beloved in your own country, nor would they
improve it could you introduce them there to the exclusion of that
honest simplicity now prevailing in America, and worthy of being
cherished.
The man who wrote these lines was certainly not denationalized; the
emancipated Virginian had unconsciously retained a puritanical distrust
of purely aesthetic enjoyments. He seems to have taken a sort of wicked
pleasure in denying himself the disinterested joys of the artist and
philosopher and his travels in Europe were no "sentimental journey." It
cannot even be maintained that the views expressed in the letter to
Shippen were a paradox and that he felt free to enjoy the pleasures from
which he strove to protect his fellow countrymen. Most revealing in this
respect is the following passage from a letter written to Lafayette,
when he was traveling along the Riviera:
In the great cities I go to see, what travellers think alone worthy
of being seen; but I make a job of it, and generally gulp it all down
in a day. On the other hand, I am never satisfied with rambling
through the fields and farms, examining the culture and cultivators,
with a degree of curiosity which makes some take me to be a fool, and
others to be much wiser than I am.[111]
He seems to have been dominated by the same utilitarian preoccupations
during his English journey. There he noted carefully all the
peculiarities of English gardens, visiting all the show places with
Whateley's book on gardening in his pocket: "My inquiries," he himself
said, "were directed chiefly to such practical things as might enable me
to estimate the expense of making and maintaining a garden in that
style." This is why the only thing worth noticing at Kew was an
Archimedes screw for raising water, of which he made a sketch. His
conclusions were summed up in a letter to John Page after he came back
to Paris. England had totally disappointed him. The "pleasure gardens",
to be sure, went far beyond his ideas, but the city of London, though
handsomer than Paris, was not so handsome as Philadelphia: "Their
architecture is in the most wretched style I ever saw, not meaning to
except America, where it is bad, not even Virginia, where it is worse
than in any other part of America which I have seen." On the other
hand, the mechanical arts were carried to a wonderful perfection, but
he took no joy in visiting manufactures and shops, since the view
reminded him that the frivolity of his fellow countrymen made them
import many articles from London and thus pay tribute to a foreign
nation.[112]
When he left Paris for the South of France he was in no more amiable
mood. It was his first real contact with the French countryside and he
was shocked beyond words at the sight of the first villages he passed
through from Sens to Vermanton. He could not understand why the French
peasants insisted on living close together in villages instead of
building their houses on the grounds they cultivated. He racked his
brains for an explanation and could find no better one than to suppose
that they were "collected by that dogma of their religion which makes
them believe, that to keep the Creator in good humor with His own works,
they must mumble a mass every day." The people were illy clothed; the
sight of women and children carrying heavy burdens and laboring with the
hoe made the Virginian slave-owner conclude that "in a civilized
country, men never expose their wives and children to labor above their
force and sex, as long as their own labor can protect them from it." But
he nowhere expressed any emotional distress nor heartfelt sympathy for
these poor wretches and concluded that if there were no beggars it was
probably an effect of the police.[113]
On the other hand, he noted every detail of the fabrication of Burgundy
wine, enumerated the different vintages, the cost of casks, bottles,
methods of transportation and marketing, the price of "_vin ordinaire_",
of oil, butter, cattle, the cultivation of olive trees and fig trees and
capers. Monuments are described with a mathematical eye, many small
points noted, columns described, ornaments studied, but the only
personal impression elicited by Arles is that "The principal monument
here, is an amphitheatre, the external portico of which is tolerably
complete."
What is true of France is even more true of Italy. At Milan the
cathedral is not even mentioned, but "the salon of the Casa Belgiosa is
superior to anything I have ever seen." And he adds immediately, "The
mixture called Scaiola, of which they make their walls and floors, is so
like the finest marble as to be scarcely distinguishable from it." Pages
are given to the fabrication of Parmesan cheese. Once, however, in
walking along the shore from Louano to Alberga, he could not resist the
enchantment of the landscape. There he noted the remarkable coloration
of the Mediterranean and was puzzled by it, but he also added, let it be
marked to his credit:
If any person wished to retire from his acquaintances, to live
absolutely unknown, and yet in the midst of physical enjoyments, it
should be in some of the little villages of this coast, where air,
water and earth concur to offer what each has most precious. Here are
nightingales, beccaficas, ortolans, pheasants, partridges, quails, a
superb climate, and the power of changing it from summer to winter at
any moment, by ascending the mountains. The earth furnishes wine,
oil, figs, oranges, and every production of the garden, in every
season. The sea yields lobsters, crabs, oysters, thunny, sardines,
anchovies etc. Ortolans sell at this time at thirty sous, equal to
one shilling sterling, the dozen.
A queer mixture of suppressed artistic emotions and avowed culinary
preoccupations. Shades of Rousseau and Wordsworth, to mention the
nightingale and the ortolans in one breath! But one thing at least we
must be thankful for is his lack of pretence and conventional
admiration. It is, after all, refreshing to find a traveler who does not
copy from his guidebook and does not fall into raptures and worked-up
ecstasies. He came back through "Luc, Brignolles, Avignon, Vaucluse",
simply noting that "there are fine trout in the stream of Vaucluse and
the valley abounds particularly with nightingales." He saw Nimes,
Montpellier, Frontignan, where he discussed the manufacture and price of
wine; he passed through Carcassonne and was much interested in the canal
and "the carp caught there", but did not mention the walls; he stayed
several days at Bordeaux, measured the remains of a Roman amphitheater
and made a thorough study of the wines; "Chateau Margau, La Tour de
Segur, Hautbrion, Chateau de la Fite, Pontac, Sauternes, Barsac." He
visited Nantes, Rennes, Angers, Tours, and ascertained the truth of the
allegations of the famous "growth of shells unconnected with animal
bodies" mentioned by Voltaire and discussed in the "Notes on Virginia."
He saw Chanteloup and heard a nightingale there, but was far more
interested in "an ingenious contrivance to hide the projecting steps of
a stair-case."
The same utilitarian preoccupation reappears most conspicuously in his
"Memorandums on a Tour from Paris to Amsterdam, Strasburg, and back to
Paris" (March, 1788). At Amsterdam he studied the Dutch wheelbarrow, the
canal to raise ships over the Pampus, joists of houses, the aviary of
Mr. Ameshoff near Harlem; he made a sketch of the Hope's House "of a
capricious appearance yet a pleasant one"--an architectural atrocity if
ever there was one. At Duesseldorf "the gallery of paintings is sublime",
but equally interesting is the hog of this country (Westphalia) "of
which the celebrated ham is made which sells at eight and a half pence
sterling the pound." If he saw the cathedral at Cologne he forbore to
mention it, but at Coblenz he had his first taste of the Moselle wine.
It would be cruel to reproduce his description of the "clever ruin at
Hanau, with the hermitage in which is a good figure of a hermit in
plaster, colored to the life, with a table and a book before him, in the
attitude of contemplation."
And yet, when the worst is told, one may wonder whether there would not
be some unfairness in judging Jefferson merely from these memoranda.
There he noted information for which he foresaw some further use,
interesting knowledge which could be utilized at Monticello or for the
benefit of his fellow countrymen. How to plant and prune the vines and
the olive trees; how to make cheese and oil; how to introduce the "St.
Foin", new vegetables, new crops such as rice, new industries such as
the silkworm and mulberry tree; how to build a house; all this required
exactness and precision and could scarcely be trusted to memory.
Pleasant impressions of travel, on the contrary, could always be evoked
through the imagination and would lose very little of their charm and
value with time. Furthermore to put down these impressions in black and
white would have required a certain process of analysis entirely foreign
to Puritan consciousness, and a Puritan Jefferson had remained in his
speech and manners far more than he himself believed. There was in these
purely aesthetic pleasures something really too personal to be indulged
in, at least in writing. Once, however, he did away with all the
restraint imposed upon him by education and the "habits of his country";
it is in the well-known letter written from Nimes to Madame de Tesse.
Parts of it at least, in all fairness to Jefferson, have to be quoted
here as a contrast to the dryness and objectiveness of the notes on
travel....
Here I am, Madam, gazing whole hours at the Maison Quarree, like a
lover at his mistress.... This is the second time I have been in love
since I left Paris. The first was with a Diana at the Chateau de
Laye-Epinaye in Beaujolais, a delicious morsel of sculpture, by M. A.
Slodtz. This, you will say, was in rule, to fall in love with a
female beauty; but with a house, it is out of all precedent. No,
Madam, it is not without a precedent in my own history. While in
Paris, I was violently smitten with the Hotel de Salm, and used to go
to the Tuileries almost daily to look at it. The loueuse des
chaises--inattentive to my passion--never had the complaisance to
place a chair there, so that sitting on the parapet, and twisting my
neck around to see the object of my admiration, I generally left with
a torti-colli.
From Lyons to Nismes I have been nourished with the remains of Roman
grandeur. They have always brought you to my mind, because I know
your affection for whatever is Roman and noble. At Vienna I thought
of you. But I am glad you were not here; for you would have seen me
more angry than, I hope, you will ever see me. The Praetorian palace,
as it is called--comparable, for its fine proportions, to the Maison
Quarree--defaced by the barbarians who have converted it to its
present purpose, its beautiful fluted Corinthian columns cut out, in
parts, to make space for Gothic windows, and hewed down, in the
residue, to the plane of the buildings, was enough, you must admit,
to disturb my composure. At Orange too, I thought of you. I was sure
you had seen with pleasure the sublime triumphal arch of Marius at
the entrance of the city. I went then to the Arenae. Would you
believe, Madam, that in this eighteenth century, in France, under the
reign of Louis XVI, they are at this moment pulling down the circular
wall of this superb remain, to pave a road? And that too, from a hill
which is itself en entire mass of stone, just as fit, and more
accessible.[114]
This is indeed a charming letter; but why did he not write more often in
this vein? Why did he send to Martha moralizing and edifying letters
when he was traveling in Southern France and Italy? His latent
puritanism, as already shown, may partly account for this reticence, but
this came from a deeper feeling. He had already protested in his "Notes
on Virginia" against the claim made by Europe to intellectual supremacy.
He realized, however, how powerful was the attraction of the great
centers of European culture on young America, and was afraid that the
introduction of foreign arts, foreign literature, foreign customs, and
"mode" might corrupt the very springs of American life. This blind
admiration of everything European constituted one of the greatest
dangers if America wished to develop on her own soil a civilization of
her own. Friends in Virginia had to be convinced that an American youth,
brought up on a strictly American diet, would in nowise be inferior to
most Europeans. If one insisted upon sending a young man to Europe, the
chances were that he would learn nothing essential, that on the contrary
he would lose many of his native qualities and at any rate his native
innocence and purity of mind. This appears most conspicuously in a
letter written to J. B. Bannister, Junior, who had manifested the
intention of sending his son to Europe. There Jefferson proceeded to
denounce the features of European civilization as vehemently as any
Puritan preacher and with the same frankness of expression. To enumerate
the disadvantages of sending a youth to Europe "would require a volume",
so he had to select a few. England is shortly disposed of: "If he goes
to England, he learns drinking, horse racing, and boxing," for those are
the peculiarities of English education. If he goes to the continent he
will acquire a fondness for luxury and dissipation, he will contract a
partiality for aristocracy and monarchy; he will soon be led to consider
"fidelity to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice." He will
become denationalized and recollecting "the voluptuary dress and arts of
the European women, will pity and despise the chaste affections and
simplicity of those of his own country." He will return to America "a
foreigner", speaking and writing his own tongue "like a foreigner", and
therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions, which eloquence of
the pen and tongue ensures in a free country. There can be only one
conclusion after such a fierce denunciation of Europe:
It appears to me, then, that an American, coming to Europe for
education, loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health, in
his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on
this head before I came to Europe: what I see and hear, since I came
here proves more than I had expected. Cast your eye over America: who
are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved by
their countrymen and most trusted and promoted by them? They are
those who have been educated among them, and whose manners, morals,
and habits, are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.[115]
Very bold indeed would have been the American father who, with such a
frightful picture before his eyes, would have sent his son to Europe.
Thus we are led to a very unexpected conclusion. There is little doubt
that Jefferson's democratic theories were confirmed and clarified by his
prolonged stay in Europe. But this was not due to the lessons he
received from the French philosophers. He had gone to France under the
misapprehension that he would be considered there as a "savage from the
mountains of America"; he had been dazzled at first by the splendor of
the old world, but he had soon overcome his admiration and arrived at
the conclusion that the game was not worth the candle. Life in Paris was
very pleasant, but some one had to foot the bill, and the general fate
of humanity was most deplorable in Europe. Such are the general
impressions he sent to his friend Bellini one year after arriving in
Paris:
It is a true picture of that country to which they say we shall pass
hereafter; and where we are to see God and his angels in splendor,
and crowds of the damned trampled under their feet. The great mass of
the people suffer under physical and moral oppression; but the
condition of the great if more closely observed cannot compare with
the degree of happiness which is enjoyed in America. Among them there
is no family life, no conjugal love, no domestic happiness; intrigues
of love occupy the young and those of ambition, the elder part of the
great.
Much, very much inferior, this, to the tranquil, permanent felicity with
which domestic society in America blesses most of its inhabitants;
leaving them to follow steadily those pursuits which health and reason
approve, and rendering truly delicious the intervals of those pursuits!
If one looks to another field, the situation is very similar. "In
science, the mass of the people are two centuries behind ours; their
literature half a dozen years before us." But that is no serious
inconvenience; books which are really good acquire a reputation in that
lapse of time and then pass over to America, while poor books,
controversial and uncertain knowledge are naturally weeded out, so that
America is not bothered with that "swarm of nonsensical publications
which issue daily from a thousand presses, and perishes almost in
issuing."
On some points, however, Europeans have a decided superiority over the
Americans: they have more amiable manners, they are more polite, more
temperate, "they do not terminate the most sociable meals by
transforming themselves into brutes. I have never seen a man drunk in
France, even among the lowest of the people."
Finally in the arts there is no possible comparison:
Were I to proceed to tell you how much I enjoy their architecture,
sculpture, painting, music, I should want words. It is in these arts
they shine. The last of them particularly, is an enjoyment the
deprivation of which with us, cannot be calculated. I am almost ready
to say, it is the only thing which from my heart I envy them, and
which, in spite of all the authority of the Decalogue, I do
covet.[116]
Nor are we to believe that in Jefferson's opinion this was a small
achievement. Had he been more poetically inclined he might have repeated
the apostrophe of the old poet: "France mother of all the arts." But
when all is told, the fact remained that Europe had more to learn from
America than she could possibly give to the new nation, and thereupon
Jefferson started to "boost" his own country. Protesting against a
pseudo-discovery of an English wheelwright, he declared that the idea
had been stolen from Doctor Franklin who had observed it in
Pennsylvania, Delaware and Jersey, and the Jersey farmers might have
borrowed it from Homer, "for ours are the only farmers who can read
Homer."[117] Against the architectural feats of the Europeans it is not
unfair to claim the superiority of American scenery, particularly of the
Virginia marvels, such as the Natural Bridge, for "that kind of pleasure
surpasses much in my estimation, whatever I find on this side of the
Atlantic."[118]
At the end of his journey in France and Italy he conceded that there are
indeed in these countries "things worth our imitation." But he
immediately added, "the accounts from our country give me to believe
that we are not in a condition to hope of the imitation of anything
good."[119] In the meantime it is better for the Americans to stay at
home, for "travelling makes men wiser, but less happy"; and he wrote to
Peter Carr, whose education he had undertaken to direct: "There is no
place where your pursuit of knowledge will be so little obstructed by
foreign objects, as your own country, nor any, wherein the virtues of
the heart will be less exposed to be weakened."[120]
CHAPTER II
GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE AND THE DEBT QUESTION
After Franklin's departure from Paris, Jefferson was left officially in
charge of the diplomatic relations of the United States with the French
Court. Adams was in London and Carmichael in Madrid, and with them he
exchanged extensive communications. But the Paris legation was really
the headquarters of American diplomacy, and the problems that came up
taxed the ingenuity and all the intellectual resources Jefferson could
command.
Summing up his activities in Paris, he declared with too much modesty in
his "Autobiography":
My duties, at Paris, were confined to a few objects; the receipts of
our whale oils, salted fish, and salt meat, on favorable terms; the
admission of our rice on equal terms with that of Piedmont, Egypt and
the Levant; a mitigation of the monopolies of our tobacco by the
Farmers-general, and a free admission of our productions into their
islands, were the principal commercial objects which required
attention; and on these occasions, I was powerfully aided by all the
influence and the energies of the Marquis de LaFayette, who proved
himself equally zealous for the friendship and welfare of both
nations.
As a matter of fact, Jefferson's duties extended to many other subjects,
of which the most important and at any rate the most perplexing may have
been the settlement of the debt question. This problem, as we shall
presently see, haunted Jefferson's mind and was never separated by him
from the purely commercial questions. In many respects the situation
then existing between the United States and France was very similar to
the present situation and certainly not easier to solve. An estimate of
Jefferson's career that would leave out this particular side of his
activities when in France, would necessarily be incomplete, if not
misleading. A large part of the minister's time was devoted, not to
philosophical conversations with Helvetius' friends but to obstinate,
patient, and harassing endeavor to obtain for his country commercial
rights and even privileges that would enable her to pay off her debt to
Europe. In spite of his affected scorn for figures and statistics, the
"philosopher" demonstrated an unusual business ability.
The tobacco trade in which the Southern States and particularly Virginia
were vitally interested was at that time entirely in the hands of the
Farmers-general, whose monopoly was not administered to the best
interests of either the American growers or the French consumers. Being
closely allied with some of the prominent economists and entirely in
sympathy with their views, Lafayette was naturally against the farming
of taxes on tobacco. But as he realized that there was very little hope
of doing away entirely with the system, he contented himself at first
with employing his best efforts to facilitate the direct importation of
tobacco into France. As early as May, 1785, he managed to obtain a copy
of a document indicating that some London dealers were offering to the
Farmers-general large quantities of Virginia tobacco. He communicated
the document at once to Jefferson, and suggested that it was important
for both countries to eliminate the London middlemen. Direct commercial
relations should be established between France and America, not only as
a matter of patriotism, but also as a matter of interest.[121]
This proposed change in the traditional policy of the Farmers-general,
who were accustomed to deal with British intermediaries, met with a
strong opposition from the Farmers-general. For reasons which they did
not state openly, they refused either to deal with independent American
growers, or to buy from a new and strictly American company planned by
Jefferson.[122]
Unable to overcome the resistance of the Farmers-general, Jefferson
decided that the next step would be to fight the monopoly and to
persuade the Court to do away with it. It was a logical more than a
truly diplomatic procedure, since Jefferson took upon himself to meddle
in the internal affairs of the government to which he was accredited.
But Jefferson, without being the originator of the famous "shirt-sleeve"
diplomacy, was not the man to let diplomatic proprieties stand in the
way of the best interests of his country. Furthermore, he was quite
sincere in his belief that he was acting to the greatest advantage of
both France and America. He therefore wrote to Vergennes a long letter,
in which he stated the advantages which would accrue to the royal
treasury from the abolition of the tobacco monopoly.[123]
There is no indication that Vergennes resented in any way Jefferson's
suggestion; but there is no evidence either that he paid any attention
to it. Things remained in the same condition to the end of the year. Up
to that date, Lafayette had fought as a free lance the commercial battle
of the United States, using his personal influence and family
connections to undermine the prestige of the Farmers-general. At the
beginning of 1786, Calonne, yielding to his solicitations, formed the
Comite du Commerce composed of Farmers-general, inspectors of commerce,
and members of the council, in order to study the future of the
commercial relations between France and the United States. Lafayette was
appointed to the committee on February 9, 1786. He had very little
training in economics and had never displayed any particular aptitude
for financial problems. But back of him was Jefferson, and on the
committee Lafayette was nothing but the spokesman of the American
Plenipotentiary. The account of his speeches before the committee, given
by Brissot, and reprinted in a note to the "Memoirs of General
Lafayette", is simply the resume of a letter sent by Jefferson to
Vergennes six months earlier. Jefferson prompted him, furnished him with
figures and statistics, and in a letter written at the eleventh hour
urged him to expose the fundamental dishonesty of the Farmers-general.
Since, according to their own figures, said Jefferson, they lose
annually over four million livres by the farming of tobacco "the king,
in favor to them, should discontinue the bail; and they cannot ask its
continuance without acknowledging they have given in a false state of
quantities and sums."[124]
Standing alone in the committee against a strong combination of skilled
financiers, Lafayette was fighting for a lost cause without any profit
to himself or any visible hope of success.[125]
Both Lafayette and Jefferson were outmaneuvered by the financiers. They
professed that they were willing to denounce their contracts with the
London merchants, and thus seemed to accomplish a grand patriotic
gesture, but they granted to the American financier, Robert Morris, the
exclusive privilege of buying tobacco for them and thus defeated the
main purpose of Jefferson. The minister had to confess that he was
beaten, although he had spared no pains to strike at the root of the
monopoly. "The persons interested in it are too powerful to be opposed,
even by the interest of the whole country."[126]
But it was not in his character ever to give up; he soon renewed the
attack at another point. First he succeeded in postponing for six months
the effect of the new lease to Morris, and thus permitted American
importers who had accumulated stocks in Lorient to sell them directly
to the Farmers-general. Some time later he partially nullified the
concession to Morris by obtaining an order from the council "obliging
the Farmers-general to purchase from such other merchants as shall offer
fifteen thousand hogshead of tobacco", and to grant to the sellers in
other respects the same terms as they had granted Robert Morris.
Thus, indirectly but very effectively, Jefferson finally achieved his
purpose: to undermine an odious monopoly which caused a great loss to
the planters of his country; to enable the American consumers to buy
directly from France manufactured products, or at least those
"commodities which it is more advantageous to us to buy here than in
England, or elsewhere"; finally "to reinforce the motives for a
friendship from this country towards ours.--This friendship we ought to
cultivate closely, considering the present dispositions of England
towards us."[127]
In addition, he flattered himself that he had taught the French some
sound economic principles:
I have been for some time occupied in endeavouring to destroy the
root of the evils which the tobacco trade encounters in this country,
by making the ministers sensible that merchants will not bring a
commodity to a market, where but one person is allowed to buy it; and
that so long as that single purchaser is obliged to go to foreign
markets for it, he must pay for it in coin and not in commodities.
These truths have made their way to the mind of the ministry
insomuch, as to have delayed the execution of the new lease of the
farms, six months. It is renewed, however, for three years, but so as
not to render impossible a reformation of the great evil. They are
sensible to the evil, but it is so interwoven with their fiscal
system, that they find it hazardous to disentangle. The temporary
distress, too, of the revenue, they are not prepared to meet. My
hopes, therefore, are weak, though not quite desperate.[128]
One might well wonder to what extent these "truths" were as new to the
French as Jefferson seemed to believe, and to what extent he was
operative in strengthening the opposition to the Farmers-general,
already very strong in France. However that may be, the American
minister learned from the French example as much as he taught the
members of the committee. The tobacco monopoly was to him another object
lesson on the danger of farming taxes, and he did not forget it.
Even greater obstacles were encountered by Jefferson and Lafayette in
their effort to develop commercial transactions with New England. The
negotiations extended over three years and would be worth relating in
detail.[129] Jefferson, bent on breaking customs barriers and obtaining
free entrance for the products of New England fisheries, brought forward
every possible argument to fight the doctrine of commercialism and
summed up his case in a letter sent to Lafayette, but evidently intended
for the committee. There for the first time he pointed out the necessary
connection existing between the tariff question and the repayment of the
French debt. The problem of "transfers" is not a new one, and
Jefferson's reasoning sounds strangely familiar to all those who have
paid any attention to our present problems of debt settlement,
reparations, and tariff. The following passage seems particularly worth
quoting:
On running over the catalogue of American imports, France will
naturally mark out those articles which she could supply us to
advantage; and she may safely calculate, that, after a little time
shall have enabled us to get rid of our present incumbrances, and
some remains of attachment to the particular forms of manufacture to
which we have been habituated, we shall take those articles which she
can furnish, on as good terms as other nations, to whatever extent
she will enable us to pay for them. It is her interest therefore, as
well as ours, to multiply the means of payment. These must be found
in the catalogue of our exports, and among these will be seen neither
gold nor silver. We have no mines of either of those metals. Produce
therefore is all we can offer.[130]
The conclusion was that it was imperative to obtain such abatement of
duties and even such exemptions as the importance of the article might
justify, in the hope that his country would be enabled to build up a
commercial credit of about 275,000 louis, which would provide for the
service and amortization of the American debt to France.
Thanks to the unrelenting efforts of Lafayette and also to the
sympathetic attitude of the committee, a series of _arrets du conseil_
listed in a letter to Monroe was finally obtained.[131] There was little
hope at first that they would be countersigned, but in October of the
same year Jefferson, with evident satisfaction, was able to inform Jay
of the new regulations granting free ports to America, abolishing export
taxes on brandies, and for a year the tax on whale oil and spermaceti,
on potash, furs, leather, timber, trees, and shrubbery, brought either
in American or French bottoms. Every effort had been made not only to
place the United States on the footing of the most favored nation, but
to encourage her infant industries and manufactures. The new regulations
approved by Calonne did much to free America from her commercial
subservience to Great Britain and also reinforce, according to
Jefferson's wishes, the motives for a "friendship from France towards
America."
This was by no means the end of all difficulties; the abatement on whale
oil was only temporary and Jefferson was never able to obtain entire
satisfaction in respect to the tobacco trade, but there is no doubt that
the situation had greatly improved.
Even during the last months of his stay in France he never overlooked an
opportunity to further the commercial interests of the United States.
His fear to see his fellow countrymen "over-trade themselves and embark
into the ocean of speculation" had not abated. He still believed that
"we have no occasion for more commerce than to take off our superfluous
produce", and tobacco was clearly in that class.[132] But at that time
there arose an opportunity both to develop commercial relations and to
be of distinct service to France. The years that immediately precede the
French Revolution were marked by a very distressing food shortage in
France and particularly in the capital. This was one of the most
disquieting problems confronting the Committee of Commerce and the city
syndics. Jefferson, because of his connections with Lafayette, Du Pont
de Nemours, and Mr. Ethis de Corny, was particularly well informed on
the situation and he turned his best efforts to induce the government to
remedy it through the importation of American products. He thought that
besides the salt fish from New England, salt meat and corn beef would
constitute a desirable addition to the French diet and he undertook a
campaign to convert the French to the idea. One of his last letters to
Necker, on September 26, 1789, was to recommend the importation of
salted provisions from the United States, appraising the quality of
American salt meat, for "the experience of a great part of America,
which is fed almost entirely on it, proves it to be as wholesome as
fresh meat."[133]
In spite of all the obstacles to the development of the Gallo-American
commerce because of the deep-rooted French horror of innovations and
changes, the efforts of Jefferson and his friends were not wholly
unavailing. According to Mr. Woolery, in 1789 importations from the
United States amounted to 140,959 barrels of flour, 3,664,576 bushels of
wheat and 12,340,000 pounds of rice. Vessels coming from the United
States to French ports in this year included thirteen French,
forty-three English and one hundred and sixty-three American; the
tonnage of American vessels was 19,173 in 1788 and 24,173 in 1789.
Exports to France in 1788 were valued at $1,384,246; to French
possessions in America $3,284,656; and from them, $155,136 and
$1,913,212 respectively. In this trade the American tonnage engaged was
approximately ten times that of the French. The philosopher had proved
himself a first-class commercial agent. He had built up trade relations
which would have consolidated the friendship between the two countries
if the Revolution had not intervened. But no real friendship can exist
between creditor and debtor; the debt problem was no less important than
the commercial problem, and Jefferson displayed on this occasion an
ingenuity and a diplomatic skill no less worthy of commendation.
When he took charge of the legation at Paris the finances of the United
States were in a deplorable condition. Loans made by the
Farmers-general, by Beaumarchais, by the King of France, and loans
contracted in Holland and in Spain, constituted the most important
outstanding liabilities of the American Government. In 1783 the
situation as reported to Congress was as follows:
To the Farmers-general of France, livres 1,000,000
To Beaumarchais 3,000,000
To King of France, to the end of 1782 28,000,000
To same for 1783 6,000,000
To this total was to be added a loan from Holland for $671,200, and
$150,000 borrowed from Spain by Jay. Interest was coming in at the rate
of four per cent. on the French loan, making it a total of approximately
$7,885,000. The domestic situation was far worse; the States had plunged
into issues of paper money: $241,552,780 had been issued in bills of
credit by Congress, and $209,524,776 by the States.
If it is remembered that private investors had bought American paper
rather recklessly, that important sums were due to England, and that
the United States could not even meet the interest on the debts without
further borrowing, it is small wonder that European creditors began to
wonder whether they would ever be repaid. The first task confronting the
new Minister Plenipotentiary was to convince them that the United States
as then organized had a sufficient stability to allay all fears.
Jefferson undertook at once to clarify the situation. In a letter to the
Dutch bankers, N. and J. Van Staphorst, he asserted that no man in
America had ever entertained any doubt that "our foreign debt is to be
paid fully." He significantly added: "Were I the holder of any of them,
I should not have the least fear of their full payment." But he had to
call the attention of the bankers to the fact that some international
notes were issued for paper money debts, and those of course would be
subject to a certain depreciation, to be settled by Congress according
to carefully worked out tables. The safer thing, therefore, for European
investors was to beware of and to avoid any speculation on American
bills and "foreigners should be sure that they are well advised, before
they meddle with them, or they may suffer."[134] He repeated the same
advice on October 25: "It is a science which bids defiance to the powers
of reason."
With the particulars of the different loans obtained by Jefferson while
he was in France, and with the transactions that took place in Holland,
we cannot deal here. It would be a study well worth undertaking
separately, and one for which there is abundant material not yet
utilized in the Jefferson papers, particularly in his correspondence
with Dumas, the agent at the Hague. We shall restrict ourselves,
however, to the political aspect of the debt settlement during
Jefferson's mission.
The French were at first very polite about it; without insisting in any
way on the question of payment, Vergennes simply asked Jefferson whether
"the condition of American finances was improving." The French minister
did not even mention the possibilities of the United States paying the
arrears of the interest; but Jefferson suffered and irked, thinking that
he was probably expected to mention it first, while he could not do so
without instructions and there were "no visible means to pay anything
for the present."[135]
Curiously enough, the matter came to a head with England during the trip
made by Jefferson in the spring of 1786. He held several conferences
with the British merchants and tried to obtain with them a sort of
compromise by which American merchants would repay in full the capital
of debts contracted before and after the war, but withdrawing payment of
the interest for the period of the war. It was then that Jefferson put
forth the principle he was to maintain persistently with the
French,--namely that the matter of commerce and the question of the
debts could not be separated, "were it only as a means of enabling our
country to pay its debts."[136]
The chief fault of Jefferson's solution, however, was that there was
very little America could sell to England, while the Americans
themselves were eagerly buying goods manufactured in England. There was
great danger of seeing that economic vassalage perpetuated, for "instead
of a proper equilibrium, everything at present lies all in the British
scale."[137] Importations being permitted, fashion and folly requiring
English products, the country was sinking deeper and deeper into
poverty, and all the news on the matter received by Jefferson "filled
him with despair."
However, something had to be done at once in the case of the French
debt, as Jefferson knew that the French Minister of Finance was "at his
wit's end to raise supplies for the ensuing year."[138] It does not
appear that the French Court had made any representation on the debt to
the American Plenipotentiary, but Jefferson fully realized that he was
placed in a position of inferiority as long as the vexing question
remained unsettled and payments on the interest were overdue. This was
the more deplorable, as France was the only European nation with which
the United States could hope to develop really satisfactory relations.
It was at this juncture that a very interesting proposition was made
through Dumas by the Dutch bankers. The French debt's most objectionable
feature was that it placed the American Government under direct
obligation to the French; in other words, as we would say now, it was a
political debt, but means might be found to change it into a purely
commercial debt. If a company of bankers were formed to pay off France
at once, the American Government would be able to treat with them on a
business basis, the greatest advantage being that in case of delayed
payments, no political pressure could be exerted or political advantage
claimed.
The only objection to such a combination was that it could not be made
without the consent of both the French and American governments, and
negotiations to that effect would necessarily take a long time. To
provide for the most pressing needs, Jefferson proposed to raise
directly in Holland the four and twenty millions due to France as
accrued interest. This would make a beginning and create a precedent. In
the meantime Adams was urged to go to Holland to acquaint himself with
the situation, so as to be able to present a definite solution to
Congress on his return to America.[139] The French court remained very
considerate and did not make any formal representations; but very harsh
criticism of the failure of America to meet her obligations were heard
during the Assemblee des Notables. The funds were so low that the
American Government could not even pay its debts to the French officers
who, because of their influence with the Court, should have received
special consideration. Yet Congress did not seem to realize how pressing
the matter was, and Jefferson could only repeat with real despair and
disgust: "Would to heaven they would authorize you to take measures for
transferring the debt of this country to Holland before you leave
Europe."[140]
On their side, the French Court did their best to reassure the French
creditors, and when the written report of the Assemblees des Notables
appeared it had been considerably toned down, simply stating that:
... the interest of the claims of His Majesty on the United States of
America, cannot be drawn out for the present, except as a document.
The recovery of these claims, as well as principal as perhaps even
interest, although they appear to rest on the most solid security,
may, nevertheless, be long delayed, and should not consequently, be
taken into account in estimating the annual revenue.
But even that mention seemed to Jefferson a reflection on the national
honor of his country. He was harassed by French claimants; Beaumarchais
had just placed in his hands a memorial to Congress; French officers
were writing to him and calling on him, threatening to sell their claims
to a single creditor, or to ask the court to intervene in their favor.
But all the unfortunate American minister could answer was that Congress
"would do in that business, what justice would require, and their means
enable them."[141]
At the end of the same year he learned that Congress had rejected the
proposition of the Dutch bankers, and he could not help expressing deep
disappointment. One hope was left however: the sale of western lands
then going on which would provide Congress with important liquid
assets.
I turn to this precious resource--he wrote to a friend--as that which
will, in every event, liberate us from our domestic debt, and perhaps
too, from our foreign one; and this much sooner than I had expected.
I do not think anything could have been done with them in Europe.
Individual speculators and sharpers had duped so many with their
unlocated land-warrants, that every offer would be suspected.[142]
In the meantime something had to be done to reassure the creditors of
the United States, and Jefferson pressed Dumas to publish a series of
articles in the _Gazette of Leyden_ to demonstrate the financial
stability of his country. The situation had to be presented as follows:
two sales of five million and two million acres respectively had been
made, another for four million was in process and Jefferson considered
that these sales had absorbed seven million dollars of the domestic
Federal debt. The States had absorbed by taxation and otherwise about
ten million dollars, so "that the debt stands now at about ten millions
of dollars, and will probably be all absorbed in the course of next
year. There will remain then our foreign debt, between ten and twelve
millions, including interest. The sale of land will then go on for
payment of this."[143] But in spite of this official optimism the
Commissioners of the Treasury had informed Willincks and Van Staphorsts
that they should "not be able to remit one shilling till the New
Government gets into action" and that consequently they were not to pay
anything towards the interest of the Dutch loan except out of the
proceeds of the last loan. To which the Dutch bankers had answered that
"there was not much prospect to raise as much on that new loan as would
cover the next June interest and that the credit of the United States
was in danger of being wiped off."[144] As Adams was about to leave for
America, Jefferson, at the request of the Dutch bankers, met him at
Amsterdam and for several days the two American envoys did their best to
convince close-fisted financiers, who had speculated in American bonds
and refused to do anything until paid for the interest on the domestic
bonds they held. They finally yielded, but to avoid further
embarrassment Jefferson and Adams decided to provide at one stroke for
the years 1789 and 1790 by signing new bonds for a million florins,
subject to approval of Congress.[145]
The real danger, as both Adams and Jefferson saw it, came from unwise
speculation in American domestic bonds, since the bankers had tried to
use these bonds as a sort of lever; consequently the transfer of
domestic bonds to Europe was to be discouraged by every possible means.
"If the transfer of these debts to Europe, meet with any encouragement
from us, we can no more borrow money here, let our necessities be what
they will."[146]
How desperate the situation was at that date appears in two letters
written to General Washington May 2, 1788, and to James Madison, May 3,
1788.[147] Jefferson's visit at Amsterdam had convinced him that the
credit of the United States was at its lowest ebb and in great danger of
being reduced to nil. The nation with the highest credit was Great
Britain, because the English never asked for a loan without providing by
new taxes for the repayment of it. He indicated that no doubt was
entertained by any one in Holland about the ultimate repayment of the
capital, but that repeated failures to pay the interest on the old loans
had stopped any further borrowing. As to the French debt, the Court had
carefully avoided any public mention of it, "the government here, saying
nothing about it, the public have supposed they wished to leave us at
our ease as to the payment. It is now seen that they call for it, and
they will publish annually the effect of that call." The most pressing
need was an order from the Treasury to pay the arrears for the last
three years to the French officers. With much difficulty Jefferson had
prevented them from holding a meeting to agree on concerted action on
the matter, and when he came back he prevented them from taking
"desperate measures" till July. But a solution could not be deferred
much longer. The necessary sum was comparatively small: twenty thousand
florins a year would have sufficed "to suppress these clamors", and
through diplomacy he finally succeeded in staying the address they
intended to send to Congress and to the king, asking him to intervene on
their behalf.[148]
Fortunately the loan launched in Holland to meet the payment of the June
interest had succeeded and had been finally ratified by Congress.[149]
It was a beginning that brought some respite to Jefferson, but he
insisted again that the next step to take was the funding of the foreign
debt, for the French Government expected "a very satisfactory provision
for the payment of their debt, from the first session of the new
Congress."[150] He was enclosing two tables "showing what fund will
suffice to discharge the principal and interest, as it shall become due
aided by occasional loans, which the same fund will repay." This very
detailed and technical proposal now preserved in the Jefferson papers of
the Library of Congress would repay careful study.
During the spring of the same year, however, Jefferson made a startling
discovery which added to his distress. The international bankers of
Amsterdam were not as politically disinterested as he had thought at
first. He even suspected that, by careful manipulations, they intended
to keep control of the credit of the United States.
I have observed--wrote Jefferson--that as soon as a sum of interest
is becoming due, they are able to borrow just that, and no more; or,
at least, only so much more as may pay our salaries and keep us
quiet.... I think it possible, they may choose to support our credit
to a certain point, and let it go no further, but at their will; to
keep it poised, as that it may be at their mercy. By this, they may
be sure to keep us in their own hands.[151]
This had to be remedied at once; energetic representations were sent to
the bankers and an order of the Treasury was obtained deciding that
"money for the captives and foreign affairs was to be furnished before
any other payment of interest."[152]
In spite of these tremendous handicaps, due to the apathy of Congress,
to the "stagnation" of American affairs, Jefferson succeeded, through
sheer persistency and hard work, in gaining at least a few points. The
history of his negotiations concerning the debt and the commerce of the
United States may not be so dramatic and picturesque as some other
episodes of his long career; but it cannot be neglected without doing
injustice to his sense of duty, to his industry and above all to his
political vision and understanding of international psychology. The
application to the present situation is so obvious that it needs not to
be elaborated upon. More fortunate than many recent negotiators,
Jefferson had been able to obtain a settlement of the debt question
satisfactory to both parties, and succeeded in eliminating the political
factor from the situation; the debt to France was no longer an obstacle
to the maintenance of friendly relations between the two countries. He
was not the man to boast of his achievements but the legitimate pride he
felt at having done his work to the best of his ability appears in the
letter he wrote to John Jay shortly before his departure from France:
I am well informed that our credit is now the first at that exchange
(Amsterdam), (England not borrowing at present). Our five per cent.
bonds have risen to ninety-seven and ninety-nine. They have been
heretofore at ninety-three. There are, at this time, several
companies and individuals here, in England and Holland, negotiating
to sell large parcels of our _liquidated debt_. A bargain was
concluded by one of these the other day, for six hundred thousand
dollars. In the present state of our credit, every dollar of this
debt will probably be transferred to Europe within a short time.[153]
CHAPTER III
UNION AND ISOLATION
Even an incomplete survey of Jefferson's activities in Paris would
convince any one that at all times the preoccupation uppermost in his
mind was to defend and further the interests of the United States. He
shared practically without any reservation the commonly accepted theory
of his time that self-interest is the most powerful motive of human
actions, and that enlightened self-interest is the true foundation of
morality. Never a sentimentalist, he felt it his duty to put all the
questions he had to discuss on a purely practical basis, neglecting
every other consideration. He had been welcomed enthusiastically and
would have been lionized if he had permitted it. But in the midst of the
adulation showered upon him by Madame d'Houdetot, Madame de Tesse and
the friends of liberty, he endeavored to keep a cool head; and at the
end of his first year in France, he summed up as follows his views of
the situation:
The body of the people of this country love us cordially. But
ministers and merchants love nobody. The merchants here, are
endeavoring to exclude us from their islands, the ministers will be
governed in it by their political motives, and will do it or not do
it, as these shall appear to dictate, without love or hatred to
anybody. It were to be wished that they were able to combine better,
the various circumstances which prove, beyond a doubt, that all the
advantages of their colonies result in the end, to the mother
country.[154]
Representing a country hardly organized, without any diplomatic
traditions, and inexperienced in dealing with foreign affairs, Jefferson
had no easy task. One of his first duties was to convince the diplomats
he was dealing with that America was a country to be trusted, in which
existed a certain permanency and some sort of responsible organization
with which it was possible to deal. This preoccupation influenced to
such an extent his views on the American Constitution that they can be
considered to a large extent a result of his experiences in Europe.
As chairman of the committee on the ratification of the peace treaties,
as plenipotentiary entrusted with the negotiations of the treaties of
commerce, Jefferson had more than once felt how insufficient were the
Articles of Confederation. He had repeatedly proclaimed that to all
intents and purposes the United States were to be regarded as one
nation; but as long as treaties with foreign powers had to be ratified
not only by Congress but by the different States, as long as delegates
had to refer constantly to the particular States they represented, the
Federal organization remained a very clumsy, inefficient piece of
machinery, and business could not be transacted. He never thought for an
instant that it was possible or desirable for the former colonies to
remain completely independent; they had at least to form a society of
nations in order to insure their very existence and their development.
His first months in Europe could only confirm him in these views, and he
wrote to Madison at the end of 1786: "To make us one nation as to
foreign concerns, and keep us distinct in domestic ones, gives the
outlines of the proper division of powers between the general and
particular governments. But to enable the federal head to exercise the
powers given it to best advantage, it should be organized as the
particular ones are, into legislative, executive and judiciary."
At that date, however, he had not admitted the desirability of
appointing a single executive and came back to all his proposals of
vesting the executive powers in a committee of the States, leaving to
Congress the legislative authority.
To Adams, who saw in Congress "not a legislative but a diplomatic
assembly", he protested that it was an opinion not entirely correct and
not likely to do good. As a matter of fact, in forming a confederation,
the individual States yielded some parts of their sovereignty to
Congress, and these parts were both legislative and executive. The
confederation was part of the law of the land, and "superior in
authority to the ordinary laws, because it cannot be altered by the
legislature of any one State." It is not without piquancy to remark here
that the man who was to become the champion of State rights and
decentralization was advocating a strong Federal bond, while the future
Federalist was in favor of a very loose association of States, truly a
sort of League of Nations. In Jefferson's view, on the contrary, the
United States as such were endowed with a sort of super-power, while the
independent States retained only those rights which they were able to
exercise fully.[155] On the other hand, Congress should have absolutely
no authority over acts which do not concern the confederacy. In case of
conflict an appeal could be made "from a state judicature to a Federal
court", in other words to a Supreme Court, and there again Jefferson
takes the position which his enemies were fifteen years later to defend
against him, namely that there ought to be some power above Congress to
restrain it.
It will be said that this court may encroach over the jurisdiction of
the State courts. It may. But there will be a power, to wit,
Congress, to watch and restrain them. But place the same authority in
Congress itself, and there will be no power above them, to perform
the same office. They will restrain within due bounds a jurisdiction
exercised by others, much more rigourously than if exercised by
themselves.[156]
In a letter to Edward Carrington he summed up his views even more
clearly. Reforms are necessary, although with all its defects the
present government of the United States is so far superior to any
monarchy that its defects must be viewed with indulgence. If any change
is to be made, the general principle ought to be
to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign
nations, and several as to everything purely domestic. Then to
separate the executive from the legislative in order to avoid the
terrible delays which are bound to happen with a large assembly and
to have the most important propositions hanging over, from week to
week and month to month, till the occasions have passed them, and the
things never done.[157]
Even if originally Jefferson had been of another opinion, the situation
in Europe would have rapidly brought him to the same conclusion. For the
credit of the United States could only be maintained on the condition
that the newly formed confederation gave guarantees of permanency and
stability. In his letters to foreign correspondents, such as Dumas,
financial agent of the United States in Holland, he consequently
affected more confidence in the wisdom of the convention than he perhaps
felt at heart:
No trouble of any sort is to be anticipated. Happily for us that when
we find our constitutions defective and insufficient, to secure the
happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of
philosophers, and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth
must have recourse to arms to amend or restore their
constitutions.[158]
The main principle to observe is a separation of powers into
"legislative, executive and judiciary" as complete as possible, and the
rest will follow of itself.
Yet as the convention approached, he favored less than ever the
possibility of trusting any individual with the executive power for an
indefinite length of time. "There are things in it which stagger all my
dispositions to subscribe to what such an Assembly has proposed," he
wrote to Adams. His chief objection to the Constitution was the
appointment of a President who would be a sort of Polish king. If they
wanted a President they could have it, provided they should make him
ineligible at the end of four years. He even came to wonder whether too
much ado was not made by the convention, for all the good that was in
the new Constitution "could have been couched in three or four new
articles added to the old articles of confederation." Far from being a
radical and one of these reformers who first think of destroying the old
order of things in order to build anew, Jefferson proposed to keep as
much as possible "the good old and venerable fabric which should have
been preserved, even as a religious relic."[159]
At that time Jefferson had not yet received the text of the Constitution
and had only vaguely heard of the discussion in the convention. When the
newspapers brought him more details, he acquainted Carmichael with his
views on the situation. This time his objection to the proposed scheme
was more specific. It bore not only on the presidency but on the absence
of a Bill of Rights; the thirteen States could not be melted into one
government without guarantees to the people, and particularly without
the recognition of the freedom of the press. The subordination of the
laws of the States to Federal legislation was equally objectionable and
he predicted that many States, among them Virginia, would reject several
articles, making it necessary to assemble another convention to reach a
better agreement.[160]
But it was reserved for Madison finally to become his confident on this
question, and Jefferson's letter to him is both a capital document for
the history of Jeffersonian democracy and a discussion of the first
rank on the science of government. The good things Jefferson saw in the
Constitution were many: the division of powers; the election of a
greater House by the people directly; the negative given to the
executive by a third of either Houses, and many others of less moment.
But the absence of a Bill of Rights could not be condoned, for it was a
sacred palladium of liberty, nor the abandonment of rotation in office,
particularly in the case of the President. He did not despair of the
Commonwealth, but he foresaw the necessity of calling another convention
to agree on an explicit Bill of Rights and to change the objectionable
features of the convention. In a postscript, he made one of those
curious proposals which would be disconcerting if it were not remembered
that his faith in democracy and representative government was tempered
with a great deal of common sense. The people are right most of the
time, the people are right in most cases, but the people are not right
in all cases: they are apt to be swayed by temporary interests and
considerations and they are apt also to pass contradictory laws from day
to day. In order to remedy this instability of legislation, Jefferson
did not hesitate to recommend that there should always be "a twelvemonth
between the engrossing a bill and passing it", adding that if
circumstances required a speedier passage, it should take "two thirds of
both Houses instead of a bare majority."[161]
Having thus defined his position with regard to the Constitution, he
thought it necessary to qualify it. Despite its imperfections, it
contained many excellent points; and if it were felt that insistence on
a Bill of Rights, or on the principle of rotation for the presidency
should cause dissensions between the States, Jefferson declared himself
ready "to swallow the two bitter pills" in order to avoid a schism in
the Union. For that would be "the incurable evil" because near friends,
falling out, never re-united cordially; "whereas, all of us going
together, we shall be sure to cure the evils of our new Constitution
before they do great harm."[162]
The unlimited confidence he had in the ultimate wisdom of the people
convinced him that if they went wrong for a time they would soon admit
their mistakes, for there was in America a "good sense and a free
spirit" which was the safest guarantee that things will right themselves
in time. First ratify and amend afterwards, such was therefore the best
procedure to follow, and he prayed heartily that a sufficient number of
States would ratify, even Virgina and obstinate little Rhode Island! For
after all there was no immediate danger, and the character of Washington
was such that nobody could suspect him of coveting a life tenure for
himself.[163]
Following anxiously and almost day by day the progress of the
ratification, he declared himself perfectly satisfied with the
successful result obtained in August, 1788, and was confident that the
two main defects would be remedied, the first one, the lack of a Bill of
Rights, very soon, the other as soon as General Washington should retire
from office. Jefferson had come gradually to this stand, to a large
extent under the influence of the _Federalist_, which had "rectified him
on several points" and which he considered the "best commentary on the
principles of government ever written."[164]
The most complete expression of Jefferson's views at that time is found
in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, written at the beginning of 1789. He
had been informed that both his friends and his enemies were trying to
put a definite label on him and protested on that occasion that he was
not a Federalist, because, he said, "I never submitted the whole system
of my opinions to the creed of any party whatever, in religion, in
politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for
myself. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not be
there at all." But he added at once, "I am even farther from the
anti-federalists." Neither a Federalist, nor an anti-Federalist, nor "a
trimmer between parties", he absolutely refused at that date to take
sides, for he would have been sure to draw criticism from the other side
and to see his name in the papers. This was to be avoided at any cost,
for "the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more
acute than the pleasure of much praise." As a matter of fact, Jefferson
was already preparing to become the leader of a new party whose program
would combine elements borrowed from the Federalists as well as from
their opponents, but which would rest essentially upon principles
apparently overlooked by both sides. These principles had already been
enunciated in the document written by Jefferson concerning the Articles
of Confederation; they are really the key to his political philosophy.
In forming a society of States, as well as in forming a society of men,
there are rights "which it is useless to surrender to the government,
and which governments have yet always been found to invade." These
rights which cannot be abridged or alienated are "the rights of thinking
and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing; the right of free
commerce; the right of personal freedom." In a similar way, there are
some instruments of government which are so trustworthy that they ought
to be placed beyond the power of any legislature to alter; the most
important of these is probably trial by jury. Scarcely less essential to
the permanency of a free government is the absence of a standing army,
for such a body of men whether placed at the disposal of the executive
or of the legislative power, may always become an instrument of
oppression. Hence the necessity of a separate instrument, a Bill of
Rights, to secure and protect these fundamental principles of free
government. On the whole, Jefferson declared himself well pleased with
the Constitution "unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men";
its obvious defects would be remedied in the near future, and in the
meantime it had effected its main object, the consolidation of the
thirteen States into a Union.[165]
Whether Jefferson would have reached that lofty and disinterested
attitude if he had remained in America is quite another question. He was
placed in a situation entirely different from that of his countrymen who
could not help being influenced by party politics and sectionalism. But
it is a fact worth remembering that before the Constitution was adopted,
the only men who constantly had to think of the United States as one
nation were the American ministers abroad. The very fact that Jefferson
was in Paris not only put him above all parties, but brought home to him
the fact that the United States could not hope to face successfully
external dangers or even survive unless they gave up some of their
liberty for more security, while reserving some of their unalienable
rights. In his views on the Constitution, Jefferson remained perfectly
consistent and followed very closely the principles he had formulated in
1776.
On the other hand, he had found in Europe an opportunity to test his
principles by facts and direct observation. He was opposed to monarchy
on general grounds, but he had seen in France monarchy and absolutism at
their worst. A well-meaning king, not by any means a tyrant, unable to
prevent the dissolution of the nation, a corrupt hereditary aristocracy,
in the main narrow and selfish, a State religion, monopolies, a standing
army, "_lettres de cachet_", no freedom of the press, everywhere
ignorance and misery; such was the picture of France that presented
itself to his eyes; and conditions were such that they could not be
remedied effectively except through a bloody revolution, a last and
desperate resort, to be dreaded as much as monarchical oppression. In
many respects the same situation prevailed all over Europe,
demonstrating beyond the possibility of a doubt that absolutism does not
pay, that it fails to procure the maximum of happiness to the largest
number of inhabitants, that it is wasteful, inefficient and leads
nations to follies, ruin, and war. America was free from all these
evils, but every precaution had to be used lest they should take root
there.
This task naturally required constant vigilance, for everywhere men in
power have a tendency to continue in power, and to extend the limits of
their attributions; some safeguards against these encroachments could be
provided, the greatest safeguard being the pressure of public opinion.
Public opinion could be misled temporarily; but after a time, in a
country where the citizens were reasonably educated, and knowledge more
diffused than in any other country, the chances were that in most cases
the citizens would see where their true interest lay and correct such
evils. This could be achieved only if the citizens were in a position to
collect information on the true state of affairs, to discuss freely with
their neighbors, and communicate their opinion so as to make that
pressure felt. A free press, therefore, was one of the most essential
features of a republican government, for one might conceive a modern
nation existing without a legislature, but it was impossible even to
think of a free government existing without the control of the men who
had subscribed to the social compact. Public opinion and a free press
were not a fourth estate, they were the true source of all three powers,
and superior to all.
Thus, after more than fifteen years of personal reflection aided by
direct observation, Jefferson came to formulate very clearly in his own
mind a certain number of principles founded on reason and verified by
facts. Whether he was at that time under the influence of any particular
philosopher cannot be proved satisfactorily. It may even be said that it
is very improbable, for he was not a man "to submit the whole system of
his opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever." Elements of
different origins can be recognized in his political philosophy: the
theory of natural rights was perhaps Lockian in its principle, but it
had been developed by many philosophers, incorporated in the Virginia
Bill of Rights and thus naturalized as American even before the
Declaration of Independence. The theory of the social compact, too, may
have come from Locke; certainly it did not come from Rousseau; but
Jefferson introduced into it a fundamental modification when he
distinguished between real natural rights and the civil rights
guaranteed by society but limited in order to provide for more safety.
At any rate, Jefferson's conception of the social compact was far more
rigorous, precise, and specific than any that had been proposed before.
A man who had been trained as a lawyer knew exactly what a contract was,
and how necessary it is, in such an instrument, to write clauses
safeguarding both parties. The Bill of Rights was to serve that very
purpose: it was nothing but a document enumerating, defining, and
recognizing once for all a certain number of rights that every
individual specifically reserved in joining a new society. The
constitution on the contrary was purely an instrument of government,
susceptible of all sorts of amendments from time to time, and certainly
from generation to generation. Public opinion was set up as a court of
last resort in all cases; for public opinion, not necessarily right in
all cases, is always right ultimately in a nation where people have
received a minimum of education and are kept informed by a free press.
Such were the essential lines of Jefferson's political philosophy on the
eve of his departure from France. It does not appear that there was in
it anything particularly English or particularly French, although the
remote source of some ideas may be traced to English and French
political thinkers. His principles, as a matter of fact, belonged to the
common fund of political thought drawn upon by all the liberal thinkers
of the eighteenth century, and Jefferson, calling no man his master,
simply reflected the general trend of his time. But whatever may have
been the primary origin of some of his ideas, he was fully convinced
that they corresponded to conditions existing in America and nowhere
else on earth, that in America alone were they susceptible of immediate
application and extensive development.
These views on the uniqueness of America's position among the nations of
the world contributed to the crystallization of certain principles which
Jefferson enunciated when he was sent to Paris and endeavored to apply
when Secretary of State and President. They were to exert a tremendous
influence upon the destiny of the nation and to a certain extent are
still to-day the directing principles of America's foreign policy.
If Jefferson had ever believed that it was possible for the United
States to cooeperate effectively and satisfactorily with Europe in any
common undertaking, after his failure to organize a confederacy of the
European States against the Barbary pirates, he soon came to the
conclusion that such a hope was chimerical. The question of the
navigation of the Mediterranean was not the least complicated of the
puzzles that confronted the American minister in Paris. After long
hesitations the European powers had finally adopted a _modus vivendi_
with the Barbary pirates--a solution far from satisfactory, since it
meant the paying of a regular tribute to the Dey of Algiers, the Regency
of Tunis, and the Sultan of Morocco. Was the young republic of the
United States to follow in their steps and accept such a humiliating
compromise? If they refused, their commerce with the Near East was
placed on a very precarious foundation. On the other hand, they could
hardly maintain a sufficient fleet in the Mediterranean to insure the
safety of their merchantmen. To pay tribute, or to give efficient
protection to the merchant marine entailing expenditure of sums easily
as large as the tribute, or else to give up the Mediterranean trade,
were the only solutions to be considered.[166]
[Illustration: LAFAYETTE
_After a lithograph from the portrait by Grevedon_]
The first solution was absolutely repugnant to Jefferson. "When this
idea comes across my mind, my faculties are absolutely suspended between
indignation and impatience."[167]
He therefore approached Vergennes to sound him on his intention and to
determine whether it would not be possible to establish a permanent
blockade of Algiers. Although Admiral d'Estaing was in favor of the plan
and thought it perfectly feasible, the prudent diplomat did not give
Jefferson much encouragement. But in spite of the instructions sent by
his government and the pressure exerted by Adams, who thought it cheaper
to buy peace, Jefferson's preference for war remained entire. With his
characteristic obstinacy, he tried another approach and thought it
possible to organize a confederation of all the nations interested in
the Mediterranean trade, in order to maintain an international blockade
before the ports of the pirates and thus paralyze their operations. He
explained his plan in detail to Adams and even drew up the articles of
confederation.[168]
At this juncture he took Lafayette into his confidence as he had already
done so many times, and discussed the situation with him. The Marquis
saw at once another opportunity to be of service to America. He had
hardly left Jefferson's house before the idea came to his mind that he
could offer his services as chief of the operations against the Barbary
pirates, and he wrote at once to Jefferson to that effect.[169] That the
project did not come to completion was due to many causes and to a large
extent to Adams' opposition, as may be inferred from a letter written
by Lafayette to his "Dear General" during the fall of 1786,[170] but
most of all to lack of cooeperation between the European powers; and
during the rest of his mission Jefferson had to restrict himself to
making arrangements in order to obtain the release of the American
captives.
On the other hand, if it was evident that Europe was unwilling to
cooeperate with America in the Mediterranean, it was not so certain that
France, England, and Spain had given up their ambitious designs on the
New World, and Jefferson considered it his duty to forestall any attempt
of theirs to develop or reestablish colonies on the American continent.
As far as France was concerned, she had given up all claims to her
former colonies by the Treaty of Alliance signed on February 6, 1778,
but there always remained the possibility that she might attempt to
settle on the western coast of the American continent and thus take
possession of the back door of the country. The preparations made for
"La Peyrouse's voyage to the South Seas" aroused strong suspicions in
Jefferson's mind. He could not be persuaded that the French were in a
position to spend so much money "merely for the improvement of the
geography of that part of the globe." They certainly had some ulterior
aims, at least that of establishing fur-trading stations on the western
coast, as a first step towards regular colonization; and "if they should
desire a colony on the western side of America, I should not be quite
satisfied that they would refuse one which should offer itself on the
eastern side," wrote Jefferson to Jay. So, to ascertain the true nature
of the expedition, he commissioned Paul Jones to go to Brest "to satisfy
himself of the nature of the expedition; conducting himself so as to
excite no suspicion."[171] This was not a very important incident in
itself, but it is not impossible that it attracted Jefferson's attention
to the western coast fifteen years before he sent out the Lewis and
Clarke Expedition; and his unwillingness to permit France to obtain a
footing even in a very remote part of the continent is quite
significant.
His fears of the colonizing designs of France were soon allayed, but
there remained England to consider, and England still constituted the
greatest potential danger for the United States. While in America,
Jefferson never manifested any strong animosity against the British as a
people, and even expressed the hope that a reconciliation would follow
the victory of American arms. Soon after coming to Europe, however, he
had to admit that the commercial policy of Great Britain was so
obnoxious that the American hatred "against Great Britain having lately
received from that nation new cause and new aliment, had taken a new
spring."[172] Thus, added Jefferson, "in spite of treaties, England is
still our enemy. Her hatred is deep rooted and cordial, and nothing is
wanting with her but the power to wipe us, and the land which we live on
out of existence." The only hope of avoiding a new war was to make Great
Britain realize that her true interest lay in some compromise, and that
America had more energy than she suspected. But all told it was "a
conflict of dirty passions."[173] Unfortunately the British were
absolutely unrelenting in their hostility:
... they keep a standing army of newswriters formally engaged in war
against America. They dwell very much on American bankruptcies--and
thus worked to such good effect that by destroying America's credit
they checked her disposition to luxury; and forcing our merchants to
buy no more than they have ready money to pay for, they force them to
go to those markets where that money will buy most.[174]
Jefferson's tour in England only confirmed him in his views, for
that nation hate us, their ministers hate us, and their King more
than all other men. They have the impudence to avow this, though they
acknowledge our trade important to them.... They say they will pocket
our carrying trade as well as their own. Our overtures of commercial
arrangements have been treated with a derision, which shows their
firm persuasion, that we shall never unite to suppress their
commerce, or even to impede it. I think their hostility towards us is
much more deeply rooted at present than during the war.[175]
To Dumas, the financial agent at the Hague, he reiterated his views that
"the English are still our enemies." He even predicted war, a war which
would renew the scenes of Rome and Carthage: "Peace and friendship with
all mankind is our wisest policy; and I wish we may be permitted to
pursue it. But the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in
our choice."[176]
Finally the Spanish colonies in America constituted another source of
danger. Jefferson was confident that Spain would never be in a position
to conduct a war of aggression against the United States; but being a
weak country and embroiled in European affairs, her colonies might be
used at any time as mere pawns in the unscrupulous game of European
politics. In these circumstances the attitude the United States should
observe in their relations with the Spanish colonies was to be seriously
considered. A curious illustration of the fears and schemes which passed
at that time through Jefferson's mind is found in an episode of his
Southern journey during the preceding year. The gist of his conversation
with a Brazilian he met at Montpellier was that an important group of
colonists were ready to follow the example of the United States and
proclaim their independence of the mother country. But as Portugal was
certain to join forces with Spain in repressing such a revolution, the
Brazilian patriots had decided not to undertake anything before securing
the assistance of some other country. The thinking part of the
population had naturally thought of the United States. "They would want
cannons, ammunition, ships, sailors, soldiers and officers, for which
they are disposed to look to the United States, it being always
understood that every service and furniture will be well paid." The
answer of Jefferson to that alluring proposition, contains more than one
interesting point:
I took care to impress on him, through the whole of our conversation,
that I had neither instructions nor authority to say a word to
anybody on this subject, and that I could only give him my own ideas,
as a single individual; which were, that we were not in a condition
at present to meddle nationally in any war; that we wished
particularly to cultivate the friendship of Portugal, with whom we
have an advantageous commerce. That yet a successful revolution in
Brazil could not be uninteresting to us. That prospects of lucre
might possibly draw numbers of individuals to their aid, and purer
motives our officers, among whom are many excellent. That our
citizens being free to leave their own country individually, without
the consent of their governments, are equally free to go to any
other.[177]
Amusingly enough, Jefferson evidently believed that he had displayed a
remarkable caution during the whole conversation. It is doubtful that
such would have been the opinion of the Portuguese Government had his
letter to Jay been intercepted, and one may wonder what he would have
said if he had really intended to encourage a revolution in the
Portuguese colonies. With a Mexican who made a similar inquiry he was
somewhat more reserved. He had observed that the gentleman was "intimate
at the Spanish Ambassador's" and suspected that he might be a spy. He
was therefore "still more cautious with him than with the Brazilian";
mentioning simply that "a successful revolution was still at a distance
with them": that he feared "they must begin by enlightening and
emancipating the minds of their people." He finally recalled that the
British papers had mentioned during the late war an insurrection in Peru
"which had cost two hundred thousand lives, on both sides!"--a figure
not to be taken too literally.
During the course of a year, however, Jefferson's views underwent a
remarkable change. In May, 1788, he mentioned to Carmichael his
suspicions that a Spanish squadron had been sent to South America in
order to quell an incipient revolt started at the instigation of the
British. This placed the situation in an entirely different light. The
United States would have very little to gain if a weak neighbor were
displaced by a powerful and treacherous nation. He consequently
requested his colleagues to reassure the Spanish Court that the United
States would not favor in any way a revolt of the Spanish colonies in
the New World, for "those who look into futurity farther than the
present moment or age, and who combine well what is, with what is to be,
must see that our interests, well understood, and our wishes are, that
Spain shall (not forever, but) very long retain her possessions in that
quarter; and that her views and ours must, in a good degree, and for a
long time concur."[178]
This is the more important as it already defines the position taken by
Jefferson twelve years later during the negotiations concerning the
Louisiana Purchase. It is also a reiteration of that desire of isolation
which constituted the cardinal principle of American foreign policies
and which had been enunciated in the Treaty of Alliance concluded with
France in 1778. Jefferson had not originated the principle, since this
article of the Treaty of Alliance was due to Adams, but his direct and
prolonged contact with European affairs had strengthened in him the
instinctive conviction that it was the only wise course for America to
follow. If he had felt free to indulge in his own theory, he would have
gone even further than any of his contemporaries for, as he wrote in
1785, "I should wish the United States to practice neither commerce, nor
navigation, but to stand, with respect to Europe, precisely on the
footing of China." Unfortunately, this was only a theory and the
servants of the country were not at liberty to follow it, since
"Americans have a decided taste for navigation and commerce." Being on a
mission to protect and further the commerce of his fellow countrymen,
Jefferson consequently thought it his duty to forget for the time being
his personal preferences. In a similar way, although he strongly
believed in free trade and would have seen no objection to "throwing
open all the doors of commerce, and knocking its shackles", he realized
that such an ideal condition could not be reached unless the European
powers granted similar treatment to American goods. He therefore came to
the conclusion that, "as this cannot be done for others, unless they
will do it for us, and there is no great probability that Europe will do
this, we shall be obliged to adopt a system which may shackle them in
our ports, as they do in theirs."[179]
We have here another striking instance of the close partitioning
established by Jefferson between theory and practice, between his wishes
as a political philosopher, and his conception of his duties as a public
servant. Far from being a single-track mind, his was decidedly a
double-track intellect, with two lines of thought running parallel
without any apparent contradiction, for theory never seemed to have
interfered with his practice. When a month later he wrote to W. W.
Seward about the future of commercial relations between Ireland and
America, he excellently defined his position by saying that "the system
into which the United States wishes to go, was that of freeing commerce
from every shackle. A contrary conduct in Great Britain will occasion
them to adopt a contrary system, at least as to that island."[180]
There is probably nothing in this to astonish the man in the street,
either in Washington or in London, for it seems to be a curious quality
of the Anglo-Saxon mind to be able to pursue a very practical and
hard-headed policy, while keeping its belief in disinterested and
idealistic principles. Yet it may not be out of place to mention that
this is the very reason why both England and America have so often been
accused of hypocrisy by European public opinion. Without attempting to
justify all the foreign policies of the United States on that score, it
may be said that in this particular case there was no hypocrisy.
Jefferson made no attempt whatever to conceal the difference that
existed between his theory and his practice; he even called attention to
it. He did not attempt to color unpleasant reality with idealistic
camouflage, and gave the European nations a chance to choose between two
entirely different courses. He would rather have chosen to follow the
more liberal system, but he gave due notice that if it came to playing
the game of real politics, America could be just as practical and firm
in insisting upon her rights as any nation of the Old World.
The millennium had not yet arrived; and America, in spite of her
peaceful attitude, might be caught at any time in European "commotions."
While maintaining a policy of strict aloofness, it would have been
foolish and ostrich-like for her to ignore that danger, and it became
the strict duty of those in power to keep close watch on political
developments in the Old World. Such is the conclusion reached by
Jefferson as a result of his observations, and in a letter to E.
Carrington he outlined a policy of watchful waiting to which Woodrow
Wilson himself would have subscribed:
I often doubt whether I should trouble Congress or my friends with
these details of European politics. I know they do not excite that
interest in America, of which it is impossible for one to divest
himself here. I know, too, that it is a maxim with us, and I think it
is a wise one, not to entangle ourselves with the affairs of Europe.
Still I think, we should know them. The Turks have practiced the same
maxim of not meddling in the complicated wrangles of this continent.
But they have unwisely chosen to be ignorant of them also, and it is
this total ignorance of Europe, its combinations and its movements,
which exposes them to that annihilation possibly about to take place.
While there are powers in Europe which fear our views, or have views
on us, we should keep an eye on them, their connections and
opposition, that in a moment of need, we may avail ourselves of their
weakness with respect to others as well as ourselves, and calculate
their designs and movements, on all the circumstances under which
they exist. Though I am persuaded, therefore, that these details are
read by many with great indifference, yet I think it my duty to enter
into them, and to run the risk of giving too much, rather than too
little information.[181]
Watchful waiting, no political entanglements, unofficial
observers--everything is here and this page could have been written ten
years ago or yesterday. It is sometimes said that America, being a young
and inexperienced nation, has had no time to develop traditions, but it
may be wondered whether any other nation could be found which, after
defining so clearly the essentials of a policy, has adhered to them so
persistently for a century and a half. There is no doubt, at any rate,
that once again Jefferson, although he did not originate the theory,
formulated it with his usual felicity of expression, and thus
contributed toward giving America what Descartes would have called her
"maxims of action."
CHAPTER IV
JEFFERSON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
Jefferson has often been represented, both by his enemies and friends,
as the American exponent of the theories of the French Revolution. The
possible influence exerted upon the development of his political
philosophy by French thought has been the subject of lengthy discussions
and probably will never be determined with any degree of exactness. It
is very difficult to see how a man of his character could have remained
in Paris for more than five years without participating in some manner
in the great battle of theories which preceded the French Revolution. He
associated with Lafayette and his group of "republicans", exchanged some
correspondence with Condorcet, frequently saw Abbe Morellet, was
introduced by Benjamin Franklin to Madame Helvetius and her coterie; he
worked with Du Pont de Nemours on commercial questions, subscribed to
papers and gazettes and to the "Encyclopedie Methodique", a continuation
and systematization of Diderot's "Encyclopedie."
But when all is said, the most careful scrutiny of the letters he wrote
during that period fails to reveal any enthusiasm or even any
endorsement of the many and somewhat contradictory political doctrines
which were preached in France at the time. I do not even see that his
prolonged sojourn in France modified to any extent the conclusions he
had already reached independently in the "Notes on Virginia." When he
arrived in Paris he was over forty and had been in public life for
almost fifteen years; he had written not only the Declaration of
Independence but many reports on vital questions; he had participated
actively and for several years in the deliberations of the Virginia
Assembly and of the Congress of the United States and he had been chief
executive of his native State. Such a man was not a student coming to
Paris to sit at the feet of French masters; he was considered by the
French themselves, not only as a master but as the apostle of the
religion of liberty.[182] They looked up to him for advice and help, for
he had over them the great superiority of having been more than a simple
theorizer; he had contributed to a great movement of liberation; he was
the promoter of the Bill for Religious Freedom; he had proposed a
complete plan of public education and he had proclaimed in a national
document the inviolable rights of man. They had much to learn from
Jefferson and he was not reluctant to teach them, but he never felt that
his French friends could repay him in kind. On the other hand, it cannot
be denied that he was very happy to find enunciated in a very clear and
logical way some of his favorite ideas; it is equally certain that
France was to him a living demonstration and a sort of horrible example
of all the evils caused by aristocratic, monarchical, and ecclesiastical
oppressions. His sojourn in France had at least the effect of making him
more intensely, more proudly American than he was before sailing, and
more convinced than ever of the unsurpassed superiority of the
civilization which had already developed on the northern continent of
the New World.
This sentiment appears even during the first year of his stay in Paris
in a letter to Mrs. Trist:
It is difficult to conceive how so good a people, with so good a
king, so well-disposed rulers in general, so genial a climate, so
fertile a soil, should be rendered so ineffectual for producing human
happiness by one single curse--that of a bad form of government. But
it is a fact in spite of the mildness of their governors, the people
are ground to powder by the vices of the form of government. Of
twenty millions of people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion
there are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed, in every
circumstance of human existence, than the most conspicuously wretched
individual of the whole United States.... Nourish peace with their
persons, but war against their manners. Every step we take towards
the adoption of their manners is a step to perfect misery.[183]
This was no passing mood: a few weeks earlier he had written much more
vehemently to his friend and "_eleve_", James Monroe, engaging him to
come to France in order to see for himself the extraordinary superiority
of America over Europe and particularly France.
It will make you adore your own country, it's soil, it's climate,
it's equality, liberty, laws, people & manners. My God! how little do
my country men know what precious blessings they are in possession
of, and which no other people on earth enjoy. I confess I had no idea
of it myself. While we shall see multiplied instances of Europeans
going to live in America, I will venture to say no man now living
will ever see an instance of an American removing to settle in
Europe & continuing there.[184]
But unhappy as they are, the French are lovable, for he loved them with
all his heart and thought that, "with a better religion, a better form
of government and their present Governors, their condition and country
would be most enviable." At any rate they were to be preferred to the
"rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbling, carnivorous animals who
lived on the other side of the Channel."[185]
At the beginning of his stay, Jefferson paid little attention to the
internal affairs of the country; the only incident worth comment during
his first year in Paris was the imprisonment of the chief editor of the
_Journal de Paris_ who was sent to the Bastille, perhaps to end his days
there:
Thus--wrote he--you see the value of energy in Government for
such a measure, which would have been wrapt in the flames of war
and desolation in America, ends without creating the slightest
disturbance. Every attempt to criticize even mildly the government
is followed immediately by stern measures, suppressing the London
papers, suppressing the _Leyden Gazette_, imprisoning Beaumarchais,
and imprisoning the editor of the _Journal_, the author of the
_Mercure_, etc.[186]
It is not until February, 1786, that he gave hints, quite incidentally,
that the situation might become critical and that serious disturbances
might be feared for the future.
But he did not see anywhere any immediate danger of a political
commotion and during that year he continued to repeat in his letters
that "Europe was very quiet for the present." As a matter of fact, he
had come to the conclusion that the case of the Old World was hopeless;
they were past redemption and, "if the Almighty had begotten a thousand
sons, instead of one, they would not have sufficed for this task. If all
the sovereigns of Europe undertook to emancipate the minds of their
subjects, a thousand years would not place them on that high ground on
which our common people are now setting out." France has become a
horrible example to place constantly before the eyes of America, to
remind her that the most important factor for the happiness of the
people is the diffusion of common knowledge that will enable them to
preserve themselves from kings, nobles, and priests, for it is
impossible to imagine a people of more pleasant dispositions, more made
for happiness, surrounded by so many blessings of nature, and yet
"loaded with misery by kings, nobles, and priests, and by them
alone."[187]
Never before had Jefferson been so vehement in his denunciations of
kingly and priestly usurpations, never had he been so positive of the
necessity of preserving American civilization from any foreign
influences. But again this is not with him an _a priori_ view, it is the
result of his observations more than of his theories.
He was confirmed in his hatred of the French regime by his conversations
with Latude, who "comes sometimes to take family soup with me, &
entertains me with anecdotes of his five & thirty years imprisonment,
all of which for having written four lines on Madame de Pompadour."[188]
In a letter to Washington already quoted, but capital for the history of
his mind, he remarked that before coming to Europe he had not even begun
to suspect the evils of monarchical government; what he saw there
brought home to him the conviction that "as long as a single fibre of it
would remain in America, the scourge that is rendering existence a
scourge to 24 out of 25 parts of the inhabitants of this country might
break out."[189]
As late as 1787 he was still persuaded that under pretence of governing,
the ruling classes have divided the nations into two classes, wolves and
sheep: "But what can the sheep do against the wolves except to submit,
to suffer without any hope of ever changing the established order."[190]
His first mention of the possibility of introducing some modification in
the existing order does not occur before he heard of the convocation of
the Assembly of the Notables "which had not been done for one hundred
and sixty years"; but this interests him only mildly at the beginning,
as nothing certain could be known about the program of the
Assembly.[191] A few days later he admitted to Colonel Edward Carrington
that "this event which will hardly excite any attention in America is
deemed here the most important one which has taken place in their civil
life during the present century." But his only real interest in it was
that Lafayette had finally been put on the list and was the youngest of
the Notables but one.[192] He felt that it was his duty to attend the
first meeting of the Notables, and still more to pay his call to the new
minister Montmorin--the only thing that detained him in Paris, and when
he wrote to John Adams and Jay to describe the inaugural session opened
by the king, he restricted himself to a dry recital of facts. With a
prince of the blood at the head of each committee, he did not expect
great results from the convocation and was skeptical about the
efficiency of the members.[193] Just as he was leaving Paris for his
long extensive trip to the South of France, he thought, however, of
sending a last word of advice to Lafayette whose republican ideas he
evidently feared. It was a counsel of prudence. Whatever may have been
his sympathies for the republicans, in his opinion France was not ready
for a complete change in her system of government.
Least of all was she ready for a democratic experiment. Consequently
Jefferson, the American patriot, the enemy of England, the alleged hater
of aristocracies, advised his friend "to proceed step by step, towards a
good constitution, keeping the good model of your neighboring country
before your eyes. Though that model is not perfect, yet, as it would
unite more suffrages than any new one which could be proposed, it is
better to make that the object.
"You see how we Republicans are apt to preach", he said in conclusion;
but his letter was more than a sermon; it contained also the advice of a
shrewd and very practical politician who recommended that every possible
effort be made to give the king what he wanted in the way of personal
expenses. "If every advance is to be purchased by filling the royal
coffers with gold, it will be gold well employed. The King who means so
well, should be encouraged to repeat those Assemblies."[194]
That was all he could say, and even so he had probably said too much,
for it was a risky thing for a diplomat to write about or to discuss at
all. Jefferson was certainly guilty of trespassing on a province that
constituted an essential part of the internal politics of the kingdom.
And yet the charge of plotting against the existing government cannot be
laid at his door. As long as he remained in France, and I believe, even
after he came back to America, he carefully refrained from giving any
encouragement to those of his French friends who held radical views. He
was caught in the torrent and, as we shall see later, did not always
observe the reticence of an old-fashioned diplomat; but whatever
influence he exerted was exerted in order to maintain rather than to
overthrow the existing order of things.
During his trip he observed the condition of the peasants and, much to
his surprise, found among them a smaller degree of poverty than he had
expected; but if he made observations and entered many minute facts in
his diary, he did not come to any conclusion nor did he seem to have
been interested by the state of mind of the people. He had judged them
once for all, he knew that they were priest-ridden and lord-ridden and
did not see how any real reform might originate from them. Once,
however, but only once, did he indicate that he had paid serious
attention to the work before the Assembly. Writing to Lafayette's aunt,
Madame de Tesse, in the evident expectation that she would communicate
his ideas to the proper persons, he drew up an almost complete plan of
administrative reforms: To have frequent meetings of the Assembly of
Notables; the Assembly to be divided into two houses--the Noblesse and
the Commons; the Commons to be taken from those chosen by the people for
provincial administrations; the number of deputies for the Nobility to
be reduced. These two Houses so elected "would make the King great and
the people happy." And the next sentence expresses very cleverly, too
cleverly perhaps, that this innocuous reform would in fact be a sort of
revolution, the name of which would be avoided. "They would thus put
themselves in the track of the best guide they can follow (the king);
they would soon overtake it, become its guide in turn, and lead to the
wholesome modifications wanting in that model, and necessary to
constitute a rational government." What he had in mind at the time was a
sort of government following very closely the lines of the British, not
as an ideal but as a temporary measure; for before the eyes of his
friends he held another prospect. But for the present that was the
maximum they could wisely expect; "should they attempt more than the
established habits of the people are ripe for, they may lose all, and
retard indefinitely the ultimate object of their aim."[195]
Commerce more than politics absorbed all his attention when he came back
from his trip. He found time, however, to send to Madison his first
estimate of the king and queen, a most unflattering portrait of poor
Louis XVI.
The King loves business, economy, order, and justice, and wishes
sincerely the good of his people; but he is irascible and rude, very
limited in his understanding, and religious, bordering on bigotry. He
has no mistress, loves his queen, and is too much governed by her.
She is capricious like her brother, and governed by him: devoted to
pleasure and expense; and not remarkable for any other vices or
virtues. Unhappily the King shows a propensity for the pleasures of
the table. That for drink has increased lately, or, at least, it has
become more known.[196]
It was not until August that he summed up in a letter to Monroe the
great improvements in the constitution of the French effected by the
Assemblees des Notables. He was surprised at the great explosion of
joy, which he thought unwarranted; for after all, even the unexampled
boldness of the enemies of the regime was nothing but the "follies of
nations in their dotage."[197] Yet writing to John Jay the next day he
took a more serious view of things and declared "It is evident, I think,
that a spirit of this country is advancing towards a revolution in their
constitution. There are not wanting persons at the helm, friends to the
progress of this spirit. The Provincial Assemblies will be the most
probable instrument of effecting it."[198]
But it is primarily from the American point of view that he continues to
be interested, and he becomes more and more convinced that, "with all
its defects, and with all those of our particular governments, the
inconveniences resulting from them, are so light in comparison with
those existing in every other government on earth that our citizens may
certainly be considered as in the happiest political situation which
exists."[199] With more intimate friends he was far more violent and
outspoken, as in the letter he wrote the same day to Colonel Humphreys.
It is seldom he indulges in these outbursts of passionate invective, so
seldom that it may be wondered whether his expression is not stronger
than his thought:
From these events, our young Republic may learn useful lessons, never
to call on foreign powers to settle their differences, to guard
against hereditary magistrates, to prevent their citizens from
becoming so established in wealth and power, as to be thought worthy
of alliance ... in short to besiege the throne of heaven with eternal
prayers, to extirpate from creation this class of human lions,
tigers, and mammoths called Kings; from whom, let him perish who does
not say, "good Lord deliver us!"[200]
He had caught something of the general fever, and he drew a vivid
picture of Paris with crowds surrounding the "Parliament House",
stopping carriages in the queen's livery, indulging in _bons mots_,
caricatures, "collecting in mobs, and yet the King, long in the habit of
drowning his cares in wine, plunges deeper and deeper. The Queen cries,
but sins on", and the only practical result one can see is that "all
tongues in Paris and in France have been let loose."[201] The same note
is given six weeks later in a letter to John Jay. "The King goes for
nothing. He hunts one half of the day, is drunk the other, and signs
whatever he is bid."[202] Even the reforms, the most important from the
point of view of the French, seem to him insignificant, and when the
edict on the Protestants appears, it is cruelly analyzed by the American
minister:
It is an acknowledgement that Protestants can beget children, and
that they can die, and be offensive unless buried. It does not give
them permission to think, to speak, or to worship.... What are we to
think of the condition of the human mind in a country, where such a
wretched thing as this throws the State into convulsions, and how
must we bless our own situation in a country, the most illiterate
peasant of which is a Solon, compared with the authors of this
law.[203]
When he wrote his "Autobiography", Jefferson used very extensively not
only the notes he had taken when in Paris but the press copies of his
correspondence, and on the whole gave an accurate picture of the events
that immediately preceded the French Revolution--those he had witnessed
before his departure from Paris, in October, 1789. But, true as the
picture may be, it is not progressive, and here we aim not to trace
again the main episodes of the French Revolution, but the development of
Jefferson's mind, his reaction towards the events. Most of all we must
seek to find out from contemporary evidence whether the old accusation
launched by Gouverneur Morris, seized upon eagerly by Jefferson's
enemies, and since repeated again and again, is in any way justified.
We have already seen that, with a corrupted court, a weak king, a
selfish and ignorant queen, the only remedy he recommended at first was
for the French not to reconquer their liberties by force and by a
revolution, but gradually to buy them from the king. Yet he foresaw that
the nobility would make a sort of alliance with the people, that is to
say the _tiers etat_, in order to get money from them, and he held the
rather cynical view that "Courtiers had rather give up power than
pleasures; they will barter, therefore, the usurped prerogatives of the
King, for the money of the people. This is the agent by which modern
nations will recover their rights."[204] This is written, not to Jay in
a confidential letter, but to a French liberal of his acquaintance, and
that practical piece of advice cannot be called philosophical.
Altogether the results reached by the Assemblee des Notables were small
and the king terribly slow to see the light. So for a long time
Jefferson refused not only to encourage but even to admit that he was
witnessing the beginnings of a true revolution. Writing to Rutledge in
July, 1788, he declared "That the struggle in this country is, as yet,
of doubtful issue. It is, in fact, between the monarchy and the
parliaments. The nation is no otherwise concerned, but as both parties
may be induced to let go some of its abuses, to court the public favor.
The danger, is that the people deceived by a false cry of liberty, may
be led to take sides with one party, and thus give the other a pretext
for crushing them still more."[205] Writing to Cutting a few days later
he was more optimistic. Most of the late innovations had been much for
the better; a convocation of the States-General could not be avoided;
"it will produce a national assembly meeting at certain epochs,
possessing at first a negative on the laws, but which will grow into the
right of original legislation. Much could be hoped from the
States-General and it was also to be hoped that all this will be
effected without convulsion."[206]
Such was his confident expectation. He foresaw "that within two or three
years this country will be in the enjoyment of a tolerably free
constitution, and that without its having cost them a drop of
blood."[207]
To Carmichael he described his own attitude as that of a bystander, not
otherwise interested, but entertaining a sincere love for the nation in
general and a wish to see their happiness promoted, "keeping myself
clear of the particular views and passions of individuals."[208] Had he
felt differently he would not have taken into his confidence a man for
whom he felt no particular friendship; but, at that date at least, he
could make that statement without departing from the exact truth. As far
as contemporary evidence is concerned, it does not seem that he ever
urged his friends forward, but on the contrary he always advised them to
play a waiting game, and to keep from having recourse to violence. About
the middle of that year, 1788, he toned down his severe estimate of the
king, to whom he attributed "no foible which will enlist him against the
good of his people."[209] Calonne had been removed and Necker called in
as Director General of finance; things were looking decidedly better, a
convocation of the States-General had been decided upon; the issue
depended largely on three possible solutions: whether the three orders
would meet separately; whether the clergy and the nobility would form a
house and the Commons a second one; or finally whether the three orders
would meet in one house which would give the majority to the Commons.
The choice was really thought incumbent upon the king, who thus had the
power to place the people on his side if he was wise enough to prefer
to have on his side twenty-three millions and a half instead of the
other half million.[210]
At the end of 1788, with the convocation of the States-General announced
for the beginning of the following year, he was still very optimistic,
but he had not departed from his cautious and reserved recommendations.
The States could not succeed if they asked too much, for the Commons
would frighten and shock the court and even alarm the public mind. If
any durable progress was to be accomplished, it would have to be by
degrees and successive improvements. Such probably would be the course
followed, unless an influence unaccountable, impossible to measure, and
yet powerful entirely changed the situation: "The fact that women visit
alone persons in office, solicit in defiance of laws and regulations, is
an extraordinary obstacle to the betterment of things, unbelieveable as
it may be to the inhabitant of a country where the sex does not
endeavour to extend itself beyond the domestic line."[211]
He did not even believe that any real reform could be accomplished
beyond fixing periodical meetings of the States-General and giving them
the right to participate in the legislation and to decide on taxes. They
did not seem to be unanimously in favor of the _habeas corpus_; as for
the freedom of the press,--"I hardly think the nation itself ripe to
accept it."[212] This was his prophecy at the beginning of 1789, and
during the first month of the year he had no occasion to express new
views, since everybody was in the provinces "electioneering, choosing or
being chosen." With his experience of Assemblies, however, he could not
help wondering how any result could be accomplished with a body which
was to include some twelve hundred persons and moreover to consist of
Frenchmen, among whom are always more speakers than listeners.[213] In a
letter to Thomas Paine we find the first intimation that Jefferson
began to be influenced by the political thinkers of France or rather to
discover in them a certain quality of thought and presentation that make
their work of some use for the American people. They were at any rate
much preferable to the Englishman, who "slumbering under a kind of half
reformation in politics and religion, is not excited by anything he sees
or feels, to question the remains of prejudice. The writers of this
country, now taking the field freely and unrestrained, or rather
involved by prejudice, will rouse us all from the errors in which we
have been hitherto rocked."[214] Taken in itself and without the context
this sentence would tend to indicate in Jefferson an almost unreserved
approval of the doctrines of the radical reformers and of the very
spirit of the French Revolution, but as is so often the case with him,
the real meaning is hidden in the last part. It was not so much in their
theoretical views he was interested as in the fact that "their logical
presentation, might be used in America to overcome the last resistance
to the establishment of a true republican regime free from any vestige
of monarchical order." But that he hoped that such radical reforms could
succeed in France is not indicated. His complete thought is far better
expressed in the letter written the next day to Humphreys:
The writings published on this occasion are, some of them, very
valuable; because, unfettered by the prejudices under which
Englishmen labor, they give a full scope to reason, and strike out
truths, as yet unperceived and unacknowledged on the other side of
the channel.... In fine, I believe this nation will, in the course of
the present year, have as full a portion of liberality dealt out to
them, as the nation can bear at present, considering how uninformed
the mass of their people is.[215]
On the other hand, to believe that they would be able to establish a
truly representative and free government was certainly inconceivable to
him at this date. To the last moment he hoped that some sort of an
agreement would be possible between the nobility and the Commons, for he
had decided very early that no confidence should be placed in the
clergy. He was looking forward to a close cooeperation between the
younger part of the nobility and the Commons, who, working together with
the king, would seek the support of the people and accomplish important
reforms. No fundamental change however could be expected, since the
French refused to show any interest in the most vital question of trial
by jury.
But as soon as the States-General were opened he realized that he had
been too optimistic. Since the "_Noblesse_" would not yield and wanted
their delegates to do their dirty work for them, the only manly stand to
take for a man like Lafayette, who although of liberal opinion had
solicited and obtained a mandate from the nobility, was to go over
wholly to the _tiers etat_. The opening of the States-General was as
imposing as an opera but it was poor business,[216] and even at that
time Jefferson placed his confidence in the king who grew astonishingly
in his estimation during this year: "Happy that he is an honest,
unambitious man who desires neither money nor power for himself; and
that his most operative minister (Necker), though he has appeared to
trim a little, is still, in the main, a friend to public liberty."[217]
As the deadlock continued, the three orders sitting separately without
being able to settle the "great parliamentary question whether they
would vote by orders or by persons", Jefferson favored more and more the
only solution which, in his opinion, could prevent complete failure,--a
triumph of despotism or a sort of civil war:
This third hypothesis which I shall develop, because I like it, and
wish it, and hope it, is that as soon as it shall be manifest that
the committees of conciliation, now appointed by the three chambers,
shall be able to agree in nothing, the Tiers will invite the other
two orders to come and take their seats in the common chamber. A
majority of the Clergy will come, and the minority of the Noblesse.
The chamber thus composed, will declare that the States General are
now constituted, will notify it to the King, and propose to do
business.[218]
At this juncture, Jefferson, in his anxiety to effect a satisfactory
compromise, broke all diplomatic precedence; he could not and did not
wish to write a French Declaration of Independence; but he could at
least propose some form of government which would recognize the
fundamental rights of the French citizen while preserving the appearance
of the old monarchy. He therefore drew up a "Charter of Rights for the
King and Nation" and sent it, not only to Lafayette, but also to Rabaud
de Saint Etienne, a prominent defender of the newly reinstated
Protestants. In view of the developments that took place later,
Jefferson's proposal does not seem revolutionary. At that time, however
(June 3, 1789), it went much farther than the Court was willing to go.
No appeal to abstract principle and no mention of rights was made. The
main provisions consisted of an annual meeting of the States-General,
which alone had the right to levy taxes and to appropriate money; the
abolishment of all privileges, a sort of _habeas corpus_, the
subordination of the military to the civil authority and liberty of the
press. In order to induce the king to accept these new charters, all
debts already contracted by him became the debts of the nation, and he
was to receive a sum of eighty million livres to be raised by a loan.
Thus Jefferson was attempting to put into effect the advice he had
several times given his French friends: to buy their liberty from the
king rather than bring about a revolution. I leave it to others to judge
of the morality of the expedient. Certainly it was not in accord with
the old battle cry of Patrick Henry. But once more Jefferson was
consistent in so much as he had always maintained that what was good for
America was not necessarily good for France. Moreover, he knew there was
no need to stir up the spirit of the Assembly by inflammatory
declarations. More than any incitement to take radical steps they needed
a dose of cool common sense.
Unfortunately the man at the helm (Necker) "had neither skill nor
courage; ambition was his first passion, virtue his second, his
judgement was not of the first order not even of the second", and the
ship continued to drift in the storm. On June 18, 1789, Jefferson wrote
a long letter to Madison, to indicate the situation of the different
parties after the Commons had proclaimed themselves the National
Assembly on the fifteenth. His characterization even to-day seems
remarkably clear and disinterested. He sided decidedly with the Commons
who had in their chamber almost all the talents of the nation;
They are firm, bold, yet moderate. There is, indeed, among them, a
number of very hot-headed members; but those of most influence are
cool, temperate and sagacious.... The Noblesse on the contrary, are
absolutely out of their senses. They are so furious, they can seldom
debate at all.... The Clergy are waiting to profit by every incident,
to secure themselves, and have no other object in view.
Jefferson, however, paid tribute to the _cures_ who, throughout the
kingdom, formed the mass of the clergy: "they are the only part
favorably known to the people, because solely charged with the duties of
baptism, burials, confession, visitation of the sick, instruction of the
children, and aiding the poor, they are themselves of the people, and
united with them."[219] The letter to Jay of June 24 is a day-by-day
recital of the succession of events, the suspension of the meetings of
the National Assembly, the _serment_ of Jeu de Paume on the twentieth,
the _seance royale_ of June 23 and the refusal of the _tiers etat_ to
deliberate separately.
Jefferson could not help admiring the tenacity of the Assemblee
Nationale, but at the same time estimated that they were going too far
and had formed projects that were decidedly too ambitious. "Instead of
being dismayed with what has passed, they seem to rise in their demands,
and some of them to consider the erasing of every vestige of a
difference of order as indispensable to the establishment and
preservation of a good constitution. I apprehend there is more courage
than calculation in this project."[220]
A letter of Lafayette to Jefferson dated Versailles, July 4, contains an
interesting postscriptum: "Will you send me the bill of Rights with your
notes." A subsequent letter is even more pressing: "To-morrow I propose
my bill of rights about the middle of the sitting; be pleased to
consider it again and make your observations." As Lafayette introduced
his "Declaration Europeenne des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" on July
11, 1789, the latter may be dated July 10. I had the good fortune to
find in the Jefferson papers not one text but two of the Declaration.
One of the versions probably antedated by several months the meeting of
the National Assembly. Jefferson had it in his hands as early as the
beginning of 1799 and he even sent a copy of it to Madison on January
12.[221] The second text, far more important, was annotated by Jefferson
in pencil. Although the handwriting is faint, it is perfectly legible.
The emendations and corrections he suggested are quite characteristic,
and are studied more in detail in the text I have published
elsewhere.[222]
Some of the modifications suggested by Jefferson do not require any
comment; they are mere verbal changes such as the substitution of "_tels
sont_" for "_tels que_". But as Lafayette had enumerated among the
essential rights of man "_le soin de son honneur_" and "_la propriete_",
Jefferson put both terms in brackets, thus indicating that they should
be taken out. The elimination of the first term is probably due to the
fact that Montesquieu had indicated that "_honneur_" is the main
principle on which rests monarchical government and is easily
understandable. The elimination of the "_droit de propriete_" can only
be explained if we refer to the document in which Jefferson had
"explained to himself" his theory of natural rights, and established a
distinction between the natural rights and the civil rights. Lafayette
accepted the first correction but not the second; he was too much under
the influence of his physiocratic friends even to understand the much
more advanced theory of Jefferson. The project he submitted to the
Assembly, as well as the three "Declarations des droits de l'homme",
consequently followed on this point the Virginia Bill of Rights rather
than the Declaration of Independence.
In a similar way, Lafayette had listed the powers constituting the
government in the following order: "_executif, legislatif et
judiciaire_", and refused to follow the order suggested by Jefferson's
"_legislatif, executif, judiciaire_". This was more than a mere question
of arrangement; there was evidently in the minds of both Jefferson and
his French friend a question of hierarchy and almost subordination; if
it is a mere nuance, the nuance was very significant. The last paragraph
deserves even more careful consideration. In the January version it
read: "_Et comme le progres des lumieres, et l'introduction des abus
necessitent de temps en temps une revision de la constitution_...." The
second edition annotated by Jefferson expressed the same idea in much
more definite terms: "_Et comme le progres des lumieres, l'introduction
des abus et le droit des generations qui se succedent necessitent la
revision de tout etablissement humain, il doit etre indique des moyens
constitutionnels qui assurent dans certain cas une convocation
extraordinaire de representants dont le seul objet soit d'examiner et
modifier, s'il le faut, la forme du Gouvernement_." This mention of the
"_droit des generations qui se succedent_" seems a typically
Jeffersonian idea. The same theory will be found fully developed in a
letter to Samuel Kercheval written in 1816 and dealing with the revision
of the Constitution of Virginia. It was expressed originally in a letter
to James Madison, written from Paris on September 9, 1789. Curiously
enough, Jefferson declared then that this theory had never been proposed
before: "The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind
another, seems never to have been started on this or on our side of the
water. Yet it is a question of such consequence as not only to merit
decision, but places also the fundamental principles of every
government."[223] It is true that this special point was not retained in
the "Declaration des droits de l'homme" as finally adopted by the
Assemblee Nationale in its sessions of August, 1789, although it was
proposed by Montmorency and reappeared as the last article of the
"Declaration" of the Convention Nationale of May 29, 1793. But one may
wonder how Jefferson could overlook the fact that the same principle was
embodied in Lafayette's "Declaration." It is very unlikely that he would
have claimed credit for the idea if it had been originated by his
friend. A more acceptable explanation would be to admit that having
suggested to Lafayette a theory which was not retained by the committee,
he felt perfectly free to state that "the question had never been
started."
The American plenipotentiary was not an eye-witness of the famous scenes
of the fourteenth of July, or as he calls it "the tumult of Paris", but
he learned about it fully from M. de Corny, and wrote to Jay a long and
interesting account (July 19) of the capture of La Bastille, the return
of the king to Paris and the presentation of the national cockade.[224]
In the meantime he was placed in a very embarrassing situation by his
French admirers. The prestige of the author of the Declaration of
Independence was such that the committee in charge of a plan of
constitution thought they could do no better than to call into
consultation the Minister of the United States. Champion de Cice,
Archbishop of Bordeaux and chairman of the committee, sent him an urgent
appeal to attend one of the first meetings, so that they might profit by
the light of his reason and experience.[225] Jefferson, after mentioning
the invitation, relates the incident in his "Autobiography" as follows:
"I excused myself on the obvious considerations that my mission was to
the King, as chief magistrate of the nation, that my duties were limited
to the concerns of my own country, and forbade me to intermeddle with
the internal transactions of that, in which I had been received under a
specific charter." This may be the sense he wished to convey to Champion
de Cice but the actual letter is far less categorical. Contrary to his
custom he wrote it himself, although it is in French, alleging that the
dispatches for America took all his time and adding that the committee
would lay themselves open to criticism if they invited to their
deliberations a foreigner accredited to the head of the nation, when the
very question under discussion was a modification and abridgement of his
powers. But he assured the archbishop of his most sincere and most
passionate wishes for the complete success of the undertaking, which was
certainly stretching diplomatic proprieties to the limit.
The deliberations of the committee went on without Jefferson's official
assistance; but shortly after the project of the constitution was
presented, the deputies came to a deadlock on the veto power to be
given to the king. After some stormy meetings, Lafayette conceived the
idea that the house of the Minister of the United States was the only
place near Versailles where some tranquillity could be obtained. He
consequently invited eight of his friends to take dinner at the house of
Jefferson, and having no time to consult him on the matter, scribbled a
note in great hurry to ask Jefferson to make the necessary preparations
for the unexpected guests: "Those gentlemen wish to consult with you and
me; they will dine to-morrow at your house, as mine is always
full."[226]
Jefferson has given a somewhat embellished account of the memorable
dinner in his "Autobiography." The mention of it in a letter to John Jay
a few weeks later is less florid and probably more accurate.[227] The
members of the committee discussed together their points of difference
for six hours, and in the course of the discussion agreed on mutual
sacrifices. Writing from memory, at the age of seventy-seven, Jefferson
added: "I was a silent witness to a coolness and candor of argument,
unusual in the conflicts of political opinion; to a logical reasoning,
and chaste eloquence, disfigured by no gaudy tinsel of rhetoric or
declamation, and truly worthy of being placed in parallel with the
finest dialogues of antiquity, as handed to us by Xenophon, by Plato and
Cicero."[228]
Whether Jefferson remained a silent witness during these six hours is
not so improbable as it would seem. It may well be doubted whether his
knowledge of French was sufficient to enable him to participate in an
animated discussion with eight Frenchmen. Under the circumstances
silence was as much a necessity as a virtue. But when the American
minister woke up the next morning he realized that it was impossible to
keep the thing secret and that the French Government had every right to
blame him for lending his house for a discussion of French internal
politics. Unpleasant as it was, the only thing to do was to make a clean
breast of it. He went at once to Montmorin to tell him "with truth and
candor how it happened that my house had been made the scene of
conferences of such a character."--"He told me," Jefferson continued,
"that he already knew everything which had passed," which is the stock
answer of the professional diplomat, whether he wishes to appear
well-informed or wants to draw some further information from his
interlocutor. Jefferson opened his heart, and if Montmorin did not know
everything before giving audience to the American minister, there was
little he did not know after hearing his account of the dinner.
With this curious incident, Jefferson ends his account of the French
Revolution. During the year, he had complained on several occasions that
his French friends seemed unable to realize the importance of insisting
on trial by jury in criminal cases. He finally persuaded one of the
"abbes" to study the question thoroughly and on that occasion indicated
exactly how he stood in matters of government. All told, his views had
not changed much, and at that time he would not have accepted without
reservations and qualifications the famous principle of "government by
the people." There was still in his mind, if not in all his formulas, a
tacit admission that all the people could not unreservedly participate
in all branches of government. Nothing could be clearer than the
distinctions he established and nothing could be less demagogical.
"We think, in America, that it is necessary to introduce the people into
every department of government, as far as they are capable of exercising
it; and that this is the only way to insure a long-continued and honest
administration of its power." Then he proceeded to define, point by
point, the extent to which the people could safely be allowed to
participate in the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the
government.
1. They are not qualified to exercise themselves the executive
department, but they are qualified to name the person who shall
exercise it. With us, therefore, they choose this officer every four
years. 2. They are not qualified to legislate. With us therefore,
they only choose the legislators. 3. They are not qualified to
_judge_ questions of _law_, but they are very capable of judging
questions of _fact_. In the form of juries, therefore, they determine
all matters of fact, leaving to the permanent judges to decide the
law resulting from those facts.[229]
Thus spoke the champion of democracy at the beginning of the French
Revolution, after spending five years in Paris and supposedly permeating
his mind with the wild theories of the French philosophers. And what he
said of the people on this occasion did not apply to the French people
alone, for he made it clear that it was the political theory applied "in
America." It was essentially the theory of government by experts which
he already had in mind when he proposed the reorganization of the
College of William and Mary. In 1778, as well as in 1789, Jefferson did
not hesitate to proclaim that if the source of all power was in the
people, the people could not exercise their power in all circumstances,
that they had to delegate their authority to men really qualified,
retaining only the right to select them. This may not be the common
acceptation of the term "Jeffersonian democracy", but I have a strong
suspicion that on the whole Jefferson never changed much in this
respect. He certainly never stood for mob rule, nor for direct
government by the masses, and he knew too much about the delicate and
complicated wheels of government to believe that the running of such a
tremendous machine could be intrusted to untrained hands.
As for the French, he trusted them even less, and never believed, as
long as he remained in France, that they were prepared for
self-government. He refused to consider that a real revolution had
started before his eyes or was even in sight. "Upon the whole," he wrote
to Madison shortly before his departure from Paris, "I do not see yet
probable that any actual commotion will take place; and if it does take
place, I have strong confidence that the patriotic party will hold
together, and their party in the nation be what I have ascribed it." Up
to the last moment he held the belief that the king, "the substantial
people of the whole country, the army, and the influential part of the
clergy, formed a firm phalanx which must prevail."[230] The analysis of
the situation sent to Jay just as he was about to leave Paris does not
indicate even the possibility of establishing a republic, since the only
parties he distinguished were:
... the aristocrats, comprehending the higher members of the clergy,
military, nobility, and the parliaments of the whole kingdom; the
moderate royalists who wish for a constitution nearly similar to that
of England; the republicans who are willing to let their first
magistracy be hereditary, but to make it very subordinate to the
legislature, and to have that legislature consist of a single
chamber.[231]
Jefferson was not the man to indulge in effusions even when he was
deeply moved and throughout his mission in France he deliberately
refrained from any expression of personal feelings. But the love and
friendship of the French for the United States was so general and so
genuine, it formed such a contrast with the cold and tenacious enmity of
Great Britain, that the American minister was won and conquered by it
and had to come to the conclusion that "nothing should be spared to
attach this country to us. It is the only one on which we can rely for
support, under every event. Its inhabitants love us more, I think, than
they do any other nation on earth. This is very much the effect of the
good dispositions with which the French officers returned."[232]
Everybody is familiar with the closing lines of Jefferson's account of
his mission to France: "So, ask the traveller inhabitant of any nation,
in what country would you rather live?--Certainly, in my own, where are
all my friends, my relations, and the earliest and sweetest affections
and recollections of my life. Which would be your second choice?
France."
These lines were written at the twilight of his life, when his memory
took him back to the wonderful days he had lived in Paris, while the old
regime was shedding the last rays of its evanescent glory. Less known,
but far more revealing of his true feelings at the time, is a passage in
one of his letters to James Madison. It is one of the very few times,
and as a matter of fact, the first time when he declared that the
nations of the world had to abandon their old code of selfishness and
that a new principle of international life had to be recognized. For
there is only one standard of morality, one code of conduct between
nations as between individuals.
It is impossible--he wrote--to desire better dispositions towards us
than prevail in this Assembly. Our proceedings have been viewed as a
model for them on every occasion; and though in the heat of debate,
men are generally disposed to contradict every authority urged by
their opponents, ours has been treated like that of the Bible, open
to explanation, but not to question. I am sorry that in the moment of
such a disposition, anything should come from us to check it. The
placing them on a mere footing with the English, will have this
effect. When of two nations, the one has engaged herself in a ruinous
war for us, has spent her blood and money to save us, has opened her
bosom to us in peace, and received us almost on the footing of her
own citizens, while the other has moved heaven, earth, and hell to
exterminate us in war, has insulted us in all her councils in peace,
shut her doors to us in every part where her interests would admit
it, libelled us in foreign nations, endeavoured to poison them
against the reception of our most precious commodities; to place
these two nations on a footing, is to give a great deal more to one
than to the other, if the maxim be true, that to make unequal
quantities equal, you must add more to one than the other. To say, in
excuse, that gratitude is never to enter into the motives of national
conduct, is to revive a principle which has been buried for centuries
with its kindred principles of the lawfulness of assassination,
poison, perjury, etc. All of these were legitimate principles in the
dark ages which intervened between ancient and modern civilization,
but exploded and held in just horror in the eighteenth century. I
know but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or
collectively.... Let us hope that our government will take some other
occasions to show, that they proscribe no virtue from the canons of
their conduct with other nations.[233]
BOOK FOUR
_Monocrats and Republicans_
CHAPTER I
THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON
For more than two years Jefferson had repeatedly expressed the wish to
be allowed to return to his native country, at least for a short visit.
When he finally received official notification that his request had been
granted, he departed from Paris rather abruptly and even without taking
leave of his best friends. "Adieus are painful," he wrote to Madame de
Corny, "therefore I left Paris without bidding one to you."[234] This is
a naive and quite significant confession of the difficulty he
experienced in maintaining his puritanical restraint and impassibility
at that time. He went with his two daughters from Le Havre to Cowes, and
waited there till October 14 for favorable winds. After a rapid crossing
on the _Montgomery_ they sighted the "Capes" on November 13, and barely
escaped being shipwrecked in the bay. Although damaged by fire and
stripped of part of her rigging, the ship was able to reach Norfolk, and
Jefferson promptly set out for Richmond and Monticello, stopping however
on the way at Eppington with the Eppes. It was there that he received
two letters from President Washington, one dated October 13, the other
November 30, asking him to accept the post of Secretary of State in the
newly formed cabinet. The President's letters were most flattering and
indicated that he had been "determined, as well by motives of private
regard, as a conviction of public propriety" to nominate him for the
office.
Jefferson at first experienced the natural repugnance of a man who had
put his heart into an important undertaking and was asked suddenly to
abandon it. He was better acquainted with the situation in Paris than
any man he could think of: it had taken him several years of constant
work and patient efforts to bring the French officials over to his
views. His best friends were in the new government and would help him to
obtain for the United States better commercial terms and a more
satisfactory debt settlement. Let us add that for a philosophical
observer France offered the most fascinating spectacle, and Jefferson
did not feel that life in Philadelphia could bring him the same social
and intellectual pleasures as Paris. Quite significantly he wrote to
Washington: "as far as my fears, my hopes, or my inclination enter into
this question, I confess that they would not lead me to prefer a
change." On the other hand, he did not make a categorical refusal, in
case he should be "drafted", and the President formally nominated him.
Nothing else was done in the matter until Madison visited him at
Monticello and acquainted him with the situation. But even Madison could
not win his consent,[235] and the President had to assure Jefferson that
the duties of his office would probably not be quite so complicated and
hard to execute as he might have been led at the first moment to
imagine.[236] It was not a command, but while the President left him
free to decide he expressed a strong hope and wish that Jefferson would
accept. So, on February 14 he sent his letter of acceptance.
In the meantime he had married Martha to Thomas Mann Randolph, Junior,
"a young gentleman of genius, science, and honorable mind", who
afterwards filled "a dignified station in the General Government, and
the most dignified in his own State."[237] Although Jefferson had wished
for such a marriage, he had left Martha free to make her own choice, as
he explained in a letter to Madame de Corny: "Tho' his talents,
disposition, connections, fortune, were such as would have made him my
first choice, yet according to the usage of my country, I scrupulously
suppressed my wishes, that my daughter might indulge in her own
sentiments freely."[238] The marriage took place on April 2, 1790, and
on the next day Jefferson set out for New York to take his place in the
Cabinet. He reached Philadelphia on the twelfth. There he stopped to pay
his respects to the man "he has succeeded but not replaced", old Doctor
Franklin then on the sick bed from which he never arose. "My recent
return from a country in which he had left so many friends, and the
perilous convulsions to which they had been exposed, revived all his
anxieties to know what part they had taken, what had been their course,
and what their fate. He went over all in succession with a rapidity and
animation almost too much for his strength." It was on this occasion
that Franklin put in his hands a paper containing an account of his
negotiations with Lord Howe to prevent a war between the colonies and
their mother country, papers which, unfortunately, Jefferson entrusted
later to William Temple Franklin, who "delayed the publication for more
than twenty years."[239] Jefferson arrived in New York on the
twenty-first, took his lodgings at the City Tavern, and finally rented a
small house in Maiden Lane.
Congress was in session and business had accumulated on the desk of the
new secretary: he plunged at once into work. All his colleagues had
already taken charge of their respective departments: Colonel Alexander
Hamilton was in charge of the Treasury, General Henry Knox of the War
Department, Edmund Randolph, Attorney-general. Those were the only
departments thus far created and among them the four secretaries divided
all the different attributions of the executive power. With them he was
to sit in Cabinet meetings presided over by Washington until his
retirement from office, in December, 1793.
The distinction usually established between domestic and foreign
politics is obviously an arbitrary one and does not correspond to
reality. This was particularly true of an age when the attributes of
the Secretary of State were far less specialized than in our day.
Even if he had been inclined to neglect the questions of internal
administration--to give himself entirely to foreign affairs--Jefferson
would have been constantly reminded of the existence of many other
problems of equal importance to the future of the nation by his
colleagues and the President himself. In addition, it was Washington's
ordinary practice not only to discuss all important measures in a
Cabinet council, but often to request each member of his official family
to give his opinion in writing on these questions. Such documents as
have been preserved constitute a most precious source of information for
the history of the period; they are usefully supplemented by the notes
that Jefferson took at the time and transcribed "twenty five years or
more" afterwards for the use of posterity. The three volumes "bound in
marbled paper" in which Jefferson copied these notes, taken on loose
scraps of paper, are the famous "Anas" which he collected to justify
himself against the accusations that biographers of Washington--such as
Marshall--had already launched against him. Although there is no reason
to believe that Jefferson deliberately altered the old records, it is
certain that they were edited, that many scraps of papers were
discarded, although not destroyed, and that a "critical" edition of the
"Anas" would not be without interest. They are preceded by an
introduction in which, more than twenty-five years later, Jefferson gave
an estimate of his former opponents, Hamilton and John Adams. This final
judgment can in no way be used in discussing events that took place
between 1790 and 1793, and it contains no indication worth retaining
about Jefferson's attitude at that time towards his colleagues and the
Vice President. The man who wrote this introduction in February, 1818,
was really another Jefferson. He may tell us that he arrived in the
midst of a bitter contest, "But a stranger to the ground, a stranger to
the actors on it, so long absent as to have lost all familiarity with
the subject, and as yet unaware of its object, I took no concern in
it."[240] It must be admitted at the outset that such is not the
impression one can gather from the correspondence.
That the financial structure of the Continental Congress had collapsed
and that immediate remedies were necessary Jefferson knew as well and
probably better than any other member of the Cabinet. He had not the
expert knowledge of Hamilton, but more than once he had had to deal with
financial questions, and when in Paris had displayed considerable skill
in dealing with the members of the Committee of Commerce. He had
prepared schedules for the payment of the French and Dutch loans and
discussed finances with Dutch bankers in Amsterdam. Furthermore, his
governorship of Virginia during the war had acquainted him with the
question of State debts. If he could be tricked and made to hold the
candle, as he said, there was no man who could resist the superior
genius and Machiavellism of the arch financier of the United States. As
a matter of fact, if he was hoodwinked, he was not at the beginning, at
least, a blind or an unwilling victim.
Following the financial reorganization defined by the Constitution and
the appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury, according to the Act of
1789, Hamilton prepared for the period under consideration four
documents: Report on Public Credit, January 9, 1790; Report on a
National Bank, December 5, 1790; Report on the Establishment of a Mint,
May 1, 1791; Report on Manufactures, December 5, 1791.
The first subject for consideration was the national debt. The foreign
debt was unquestionably a matter of national honor and had to be paid in
full, according to the terms of contract: with the arrears of interest
it amounted to $11,710,000. The domestic debt was estimated at
$27,383,000 for the principal, $13,030,000 for accrued interest and
$2,000,000 for unliquidated debt. After some opposition it was finally
decided that holders of certificates would receive their face value with
interest. But there remained the question of States debts which was
hopelessly confused and destined to lead to a bitter controversy. The
reorganization plan proposed that repayment could be made in a more
orderly way through some sort of a central organization rather than
through the States, and outlined the famous "Assumption" by which the
Federal Government would "assume", with a discount to be determined, the
debts incurred by the several States during the course of the war. It
naturally meant that additional revenue had to be raised by Federal
measures and consequently distributed between all the States, whose
debts varied in nature and amount from State to State, some of which
having already proceeded to a semi-reorganization, while others, having
not suffered from the war, were financially in good condition. The
opposition came naturally from the Southern States, whose population was
smaller in comparison with the Northern States.
The opponents of the measure objected very strenuously at first, arguing
that it would give an unfair advantage to those that had contracted
debts too freely during the war, and would penalize those who had
already set their financial house in order; and also that it would be a
usurpation of powers not conferred by the Constitution to the Federal
Government.
First defeated in Congress, the "Assumption" was finally adopted under
circumstances now to be related. Jefferson's unofficial representative
in Congress, Madison, had already strenuously opposed the measure
proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury. When Jefferson arrived in
New York to take possession of his office, the battle had been going on
for some time, and four days later he wrote to T. M. Randolph that
"Congress is principally occupied with the treasury report. The
assumption of the State debts has been voted affirmatively in the first
instance, but it is not certain that it will hold its ground through all
the changes of the bill when it shall be brought in."[241] There is
little doubt that Madison had already acquainted him with his views of
the situation, but it is also probable that Jefferson paid small heed to
them for the time being. He suffered for several weeks from severe
headaches, he had to write many letters of farewell to his French
friends, and the accumulation of reports and papers he found on his desk
required all his attention.
In June, however, he expressed to George Mason his doubts that the
"Assumption" would be finally adopted. But, far from siding with the
out-and-out opponents of the measure, he thought it would be wiser to
compromise, so he added, "my duties preventing me from mingling in these
questions, I do not pretend to be very competent to their decision. In
general, I think it necessary to give as well as take in a government
like ours."[242]
As a matter of fact, it was already patent that an almost irreconcilable
difference of opinion on the matter existed between Hamilton and the
Virginians, and, a week later, Jefferson himself invited the Secretary
of the Treasury to take dinner at his house with a few friends in order
to hold an informal conference; for he thought it impossible that
"reasonable men, consulting together coolly, could fail, by some mutual
sacrifices of opinion to form a compromise which was to save the Union."
Jefferson has related the scene in the "Anas", but a somewhat different
account is given in his letter to James Monroe, written June 20, 1790,
from New York, in which he outlined the compromise. He mentioned that
two considerations had impelled him to discuss it; first the fact that
if some funding bill were not agreed to, the credit of the United States
at Amsterdam would collapse and vanish and each State be left alone to
take care of itself. Although he was not enthusiastic about the means to
be employed and foresaw that the United States would have difficulties
in raising the necessary money by Federal taxation instead of letting
the States raise it themselves, he accepted the solution with open eyes:
"In the present instance, I see the necessity of yielding to cries of
the creditors in certain parts of the Union; for the sake of the Union,
and to save us from the greatest of all calamities, the total extinction
of our credit in Europe." More than any member of the Cabinet he was
aware of the imminence of this danger. On the other hand, and in order
to give some satisfaction to the Southern States, it would be agreed
that Congress would be transferred to Philadelphia for a period of
twelve to fifteen years, and thereafter, without further declaration, to
Georgetown. This was clearly a "deal", and Jefferson knew it so well
that he denied that it was one. "The Pennsylvania and Virginia delegates
have conducted themselves honorably, on the question of residence.
Without descending to talk about bargains, they have seen that their
true interests lay in not listening to the insidious propositions made,
to divide and defect them, and we have seen them at times voting against
their respective wishes rather than separate." Whether the word bargain
had been used or not is immaterial. Gentlemen sitting around a table
after the cloth has been removed and the punch bowl brought in can come
to an understanding "_a demi mot_."[243] Nothing official had been done
yet, but writing to Dumas, the financial agent at Amsterdam, Jefferson,
in order to maintain the credit of the country, put his best foot
forward and solemnly declared "that there is not one single individual
in the United States, whether in or out of office, who supposes they can
ever do anything which might impair their foreign contracts." With
respect to domestic paper, Dumas could rest assured that "justice would
be done" and, although the question was terribly complicated, it was
"possible that modifications may be proposed which may bring the
measure, yet into an acceptable form."[244]
With Gilmer, he was more frank and indicated clearly that among the
possible ways in which the conflict in Congress might yet terminate, the
best probably would be "a _bargain_ between the eastern members who have
it so much at heart, and the Middle members who are indifferent about
it, to adopt these debts without modification, on condition of removing
the seat of government to Philadelphia or Baltimore." The third
solution, which Jefferson preferred, would have proposed to divide the
total sum between all the States in proportion to their census, and to
establish the national capital first and temporarily at Philadelphia,
then, and permanently at Georgetown.[245] This was not an ideal
solution; it was a compromise which would at least present the advantage
of giving new life to the agriculture and commerce of the South. The
main objection, however, still remained, for the Federal Government
would have to raise the imposts and overburden that source of revenue,
but it seemed that "some sacrifice was necessary for the sake of
peace."[246] Once again, but not for the last time, Jefferson saw
himself in a dilemma. He was too far-sighted not to understand that the
individual States would have to abandon some of their rights and a
portion of their sovereignty in order to acquire more financial
stability, and that more power would be concentrated in the hands of the
Federal Government. On the other hand, he was no less firmly convinced
that a secession would unavoidably result from a rejection of the
"Assumption", and he was ready to sacrifice his most cherished
preferences on the altar of the Union.
On August 14, Jefferson could announce to Randolph that Congress had
separated
the day before yesterday, having reacquired the harmony which always
distinguished their proceedings before the two disagreeable questions
of assumption and residence were introduced.... It is not foreseen
that anything so generative of dissention can arise again, and
therefore the friends of the government hope that this difficulty
once surmounted in the States, everything will work well. I am
principally afraid that commerce will be over loaded by the
assumption, believing that it would be better that property should be
duly taxed.
He discussed for the first time the exact ways and means in a letter to
Gouverneur Morris on November 26, 1790, and indicated that additional
funds would be provided by a tax on spirituous liquors, foreign and
homemade, that the whole interest would be raised by taxes on
consumption.... "Add to this what may be done by throwing in the aid of
western lands and other articles as a sinking fund, and our prospect is
really a bright one."[247]
It is perfectly true that the letter to Morris was to a great extent for
publicity purposes, yet we do not find in it the slightest mark of
disapproval of the tax itself, nor do we find it in a letter written to
De Moustier[248] in which, on the contrary, Jefferson mentioned the
advantages of duties on consumption, which fall principally on the rich;
for it is "a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we
want, if possible." It was not until February that doubts began to
percolate into his mind, and he inquired from Colonel Mason "what was
said in our country (Virginia), of the fiscal arrangements now going
on." But he did not yet take the question really to heart:
Whether these measures be right or wrong abstractedly, more attention
should be paid to the general opinion. However, all will pass,--the
excise will pass--the bank will pass. The only corrective of what is
corrupt in our present form of government will be the augmentation of
the numbers in the lower House, so as to get more agricultural
representation, which may put that interest above that of the
stock-jobbers.[249]
This is the first indication of a rift between Jefferson and Hamilton.
Yet Jefferson was willing to yield more ground in order to avoid an open
break. The Bank Bill of Hamilton had passed the Senate without
difficulty; in the House it had been opposed on constitutional grounds
by Madison but had finally obtained a majority. When the bill was sent
to the President, Washington, unwilling to do anything unconstitutional,
asked both the Attorney-general Randolph and Jefferson to give their
opinion on the matter in writing. The report written on this occasion by
the Secretary of State is a psychological document both interesting and
revealing.
Jefferson started out by enumerating the different measures included in
the Bank Bill, pointing out _en passant_ that they were intended to
break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of several States, such
as those against mortmain, the laws of alienage, the rules of descent,
the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws
of monopoly. He then demonstrated to his own satisfaction that power to
establish such an institution was neither specifically declared nor
implied in any article of the Constitution. The only general statement
that could be construed as authorizing it was a mention "to make all
laws _necessary_ and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated
powers." Finally he undertook to prove that the bank might be
convenient but was in nowise necessary. The conclusion was obvious after
these very closely knitted pieces of legal reasoning: "Nothing but a
necessity inevitable by any other means can justify such a prostitution
of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of
jurisprudence." The President's veto could clearly be used in that case,
since that was the buckler provided by the Constitution to protect it
against the invasions of the legislature.
[Illustration: ALEXANDER HAMILTON
_From the painting by John Trumbull in the possession of the Essex
Institute, Salem, Mass._]
Jefferson could and perhaps should have stopped there. But he was far
from certain that Hamilton's views would not prevail, and in that case
he would have committed himself irrevocably. This he did not wish to do.
He consequently provided at the end a way of escape for himself as well
as for the President:
It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view
of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably
clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the
con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the
wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor
of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly
misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has
placed a check in the negative of the President.
This was very adroit, almost too adroit. It was the answer of a master
politician. Whether it was absolutely straightforward is a very
different question. Jefferson, who so often accused others of being
"trimmers", was undoubtedly open to such an accusation himself.
With the opinion of Randolph and Jefferson before him, the President
asked Hamilton, as sponsor of the bill, to present his rejoinder in
writing. On the twenty-third he submitted his famous "Opinion as to the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" in which he
developed the doctrine of "implied powers."
Now it appears--said Hamilton--to the Secretary of the Treasury
that this general principle is inherent in the very definition of
government and essential to every step of the progress to be made
by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a
government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the
term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable
to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not
precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the
Constitutions, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential
ends of political society.
As a matter of fact, the question at the bottom of the controversy was
the question of State rights; but, curiously enough, it is indicated
only incidentally in Jefferson's opinion. He was not ready to join
issues on that question, much more clearly brought forward by Madison in
his speeches before the House, when he said:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:
That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the United States, are reserved
to the States or to the people (XIIth amendment). To take a single
step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the power
of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no
longer susceptible of definition.[250]
This was exactly the question, for to accept Hamilton's theory was to
open the way to countless encroachments of the Federal Government on
State rights. Washington's administration had come to its most momentous
decision for the future of the government of the United States. This was
really the parting of the ways. Jefferson knew it and saw it; it was
obvious that, with a centralized financial organization, a central
political organization would develop. All sorts of practical
considerations may be brought in and nice legal points drawn, but the
fact remains that when the representatives of the different States not
only permitted but were eager to see the Federal Government assume the
responsibility of State debts, they sold their birthright for the not
unconsiderable sum of $21,500,000. Perhaps it was the only possible
solution at the time. Perhaps Jefferson showed wisdom and political
sense in not getting up and fighting to the last ditch. He registered as
strong a protest as he could without burning his bridges. He knew from
the temper of the House that there was no hope of making them accept any
other solution. He knew that against the strongly organized Federalists
he could not muster any well-disciplined troops. He feared the immediate
dissolution of the Union and temporized; but all the rest of his life
was to be spent in trying to recover the ground lost on that day.
Jefferson was soon to realize how poorly equipped and seconded he was
when he had to take up the battle practically single-handed.
In the spring of 1791 Madison had loaned him a copy of Thomas Paine's
pamphlet, "The Rights of Man", written in answer to Burke's denunciation
of the French Revolution. When the owner of the pamphlet requested that
it be returned, for it was the only copy at his disposal and he intended
to have it reprinted in Philadelphia, Jefferson courteously returned it,
and added a short note in which he expressed his satisfaction that such
a valuable work would appear in America: "I am extremely pleased to find
it will be reprinted here, and that something is at length to be
publicly said against the political heresies which have sprung up among
us. I have no doubt our citizens will rally a second time round the
standard of 'Common Sense.'" There is no indication whatever that
Jefferson intended the note for publication, but the printer thought it
would help the success of the pamphlet if Jefferson's letter were
printed as a preface. All the peaceful intentions of the Secretary of
State had come to naught. The word heresies could apply only to the
Federalists, and among the Federalists to John Adams, whose "Discourse
on Davila" had been appearing in Fenno's paper. Jefferson could declare
that nothing was further from his intentions than to appear as a
contradictor of Mr. Adams in public; very few men would believe it and
Jefferson himself realized it so well that he wrote at once to
Washington to explain his position:
Mr. Adams will unquestionably take to himself the charge of political
heresy, as conscious of his own views of drawing the present
government to the form of the English constitution, and, I fear, will
consider me as meaning to injure him in the public eye. I learnt that
some Anglomen have, censured it in another point of view, as a
sanction of Paine's principles tend to give offence to the British
government. Their real fear, however, is that this popular and
republican pamphlet, taking wonderfully, is likely at a single
stroke, to wipe out all the unconstitutional doctrines which their
bell wether Davila has been preaching for a twelvemonth. I certainly
never made a secret of my being anti-monarchical, and
anti-aristocratical; but I am sincerely mortified to be thus brought
forward on the public stage, where to remain, to advance or to
retire, will be equally against my love of silence and quiet and my
abhorrence of dispute.[251]
His abhorrence of dispute was so real that, at this juncture, he decided
to leave Philadelphia for a trip north, staying two days in New York,
visiting the battlefield of Saratoga, Lake George, Lake Champlain, and
coming back through the Connecticut valley. Madison accompanied him on
the trip, and Mr. Bowers has advanced the hypothesis that it was during
the long conversations the two friends had during a whole month alone
together that the plans were formulated for establishing a separate
party to defend the republican ideals. This may have been the result of
the journey, but I doubt very much that such was the purpose of
Jefferson when he set out from Philadelphia. A more simple explanation
is that, having written his letter to Washington and made, as he
thought, his position clear, he hoped that the President would not fail
to communicate its contents to Adams if any unpleasant situation should
develop; and he simply withdrew from the battlefield in order not to
enter into a public controversy. But he counted without Adams' temper.
The Vice President considered Jefferson's short sentence as a challenge
and proceeded promptly to have it answered. A series of articles signed
"Publicola" began to appear in the _Centinel_, denouncing not only
Paine, but Jefferson himself. "Brutus" took up the cudgels in favor of
Jefferson and the newspaper battle was on. The public, always eager to
identify anonymous writers, did not fail to attribute to Adams the
articles signed "Publicola", while to Jefferson were attributed the
answers written by Agricola, Brutus, and Philodemus. When Jefferson came
back from his trip the controversy was raging, and soon he began to
enjoy the conflict.
On July 10 he sent to Colonel Monroe a bundle of papers showing "what a
dust Paine's pamphlet has kicked up here", and he reiterated his
approval of the book:
A writer under the name of Publicola, in attacking Paine's
principles, is very desirous of involving me in the same censure with
the author. I certainly merit the same, for I profess the same
principles; but it is equally certain I never meant to have entered
as a volunteer into the cause. My occupations do not permit it. Some
persons here are insinuating that I am Brutus, that I am Agricola,
that I am Philodemus, etc., etc. I am none of them, being decided not
to write a word on the subject, unless any printed imputation should
call for a printed disavowal, to which I should put my name.
On the other hand he refused to take seriously the denial that Adams
"has no more concern in the publication of the writings of Publicola,
than the author of the 'Rights of Man' himself." But he saw with
satisfaction that Hamilton had taxed Adams with imprudence in stirring
up the question and agreed that "his business was done." What was far
more serious was the fury of gambling that had arisen at the opening of
the bank: "the land office, the federal town, certain schemes of
manufactures, are likely to be converted into aliment for that
rage."[252]
In a last effort to placate Adams, however, and chiefly in order to
avoid having his name dragged into a public controversy, he wrote to the
Vice President "from the conviction that truth, between candid minds can
never do harm." He assured him that he had not written "a line for the
newspapers." He declared "with truth in the presence of the Almighty
that nothing was further from his intention or his expectations than to
have either his own or Adams' name brought before the public on this
occasion." This was perfectly true, but at the same time he was
proposing to appoint Paine Postmaster, and on July 29 he wrote to
congratulate him, for, thanks to his little book, the general opinion
seemed to rally against a sect high in name but small in number. "They
are checked at least by your pamphlet, and the people confirmed in their
good old faith."[253] The fact that Adams accepted Jefferson's
explanation more gracefully than was to be expected did not prevent the
fight from going on. It had already been taken out of the hands of the
leaders and the controversy was raging in the papers. At this juncture
Jefferson realized that the republicans were very poorly armed in the
capital and that they had no paper in which their views could be
expressed so as to counteract the pernicious propaganda of Fenno's
paper. Thus the result brought about was the foundation of the _National
Gazette_, Philip Freneau's paper, in which Jefferson had a great part.
The story has never been told completely and deserves more than passing
attention, since Jefferson was soon to be attacked by his enemies for
the interest he took in the _Gazette_. Several documents heretofore
neglected allow us to reconstruct exactly the part played by Jefferson
in the undertaking, and particularly to settle a few questions of
chronology which are not without importance.
It does not appear that Jefferson had any ulterior motives when, on
February 28, 1791, he offered to Freneau, then living miserably in New
York, the clerkship for foreign languages in the Department of State.
"The salary indeed is very low," he wrote, "being but two hundred and
fifty dollars a year; but also it gives so little to do, as not to
interfere with any other calling the person may choose.... I was told a
few days ago that it might perhaps be convenient to you to accept it. If
so, it is at your service." Freneau answered promptly, on March 5, that,
having been for some time engaged in endeavouring to establish a Weekly
Gazette in Monmouth County and having at present a prospect of
succeeding in a tolerable subscription, he found himself under the
necessity of declining the acceptance of this "generous unsolicited
proposal." On May 15, 1791, Jefferson, writing to T. M. Randolph,
expressed his discontent at the attitude of the two leading papers of
Philadelphia and added:
We have been trying to get another weekly or half weekly paper set up
excluding advertisements so that it might go through the States and
furnish a right vehicle of intelligence. We hoped at one time to have
persuaded Freneau to set up here, but failed--in the meantime Bache's
paper, the principles of which were always republican improve it's
matter.
Not until August 4 did Freneau write to Jefferson that, after discussing
the matter with Madison and Colonel Lee, he had succeeded in making
arrangements with a printer in Philadelphia and would submit proposals
for the publication of a newspaper. Freneau moved to Philadelphia, was
appointed clerk for foreign languages on August 16, and took oath of
office the next day. There is consequently no doubt that Freneau was
induced to leave New York by the double prospect of working in
Jefferson's office and at the same time establishing a republican
newspaper. On November 20, Jefferson sent some sample copies to Randolph
and wrote again on January 22 to ask his son-in-law to find subscribers
to the _Gazette_. He sent to Freneau a list of subscribers from
Charlottesville (March 23, 1792) and wrote to his friends that it was
the best paper ever published in America. On November 16, 1792, he
announced to Randolph that Freneau's paper was getting into
Massachusetts under the patronage of "Hancock, Sam. Adams, Mr. Ames, the
colossus of the monocrats and paper men will either be left out or hard
run. The people of that State are republican; but hitherto they have
heard nothing but the hymns and lauds chaunted by Fenno."
When Freneau was vehemently accused by Hamilton of attacking members of
the government while in the pay of the government, Jefferson took up his
defense and wrote to the speaker of the House to point out that Freneau
received a nominal salary and had even "to pay himself special
translators for languages with which he was unacquainted."[254] Finally,
on October 11, Freneau sent in his resignation to date from October 1,
1793. Such are the bare facts and as Freneau's paper was to play an
important part in the quarrel with Hamilton, it is important to state
them exactly.
The battle did not begin in earnest until the first months of 1792. But
Jefferson's distaste for the financial structure erected by Hamilton
increased during the summer and fall of that year. To Carmichael he
grudgingly admitted that the domestic debt "funded at six per cent., is
twelve and a half per cent. above par." "But," he added, "a spirit of
gambling, in our public paper has seized too many of our citizens, and
we fear it will check our commerce, arts, manufactures, and agriculture
unless stopped."[255] To Gouverneur Morris he declared that the fever
of gambling on government funds has seized everybody, "has laid up our
ships at the wharves, as too slow instruments of profit, and has even
disarmed the hand of the tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the
evil will cure itself. I wish it may; but I have rarely seen a gamester
cured, even by the disasters of his vocation."[256]
One may wonder at this point what course of conduct was open to
Jefferson. He might have placed his views of the situation before
Washington and tried to open his eyes to the danger of the Republic. He
might have broken completely with Hamilton and declared to the President
that he had to decide between the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of State, but as a matter of fact his hands were tied since he
had accepted the "Assumption" and had not dared categorically to decide
against the Bank Bill. Apparently he had reached an impasse. But it was
not in Jefferson's temperament to try to overcome insuperable obstacles
or stay very long in a blind alley. Since experience had shown that the
general government "tended to monarchy" and this tendency strengthened
itself from day to day, the only remedy was for the States to erect
"such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either
by themselves or by the General Government."[257] An opportunity
presented itself to experiment with the idea in a proposed convocation
of a convention in Virginia to amend the Constitution. Jefferson,
consulted on this occasion, sent to Archibald Stuart his ideas on the
modifications desirable; to lengthen the term of the representatives and
diminish their number; to strengthen the Executive by making it more
independent of the legislature.
Responsibility is a tremendous engine in a free government. Let him
feel the whole weight of it then, by taking away the shelter of his
executive council. Experience both ways has already established the
superiority of this measure. Render the judiciary respectable by
every possible means, to wit, firm tenure in office, competent
salaries, and reduction of their numbers.
This was quite characteristic of Jefferson and of his extraordinary
tenacity. It was also very good strategy. Since the strengthening of the
Federal Government could not be avoided, the only way to avoid a rapid
absorption of local government by the Federal machine was to strengthen
in a parallel way the State governments. It was an unexpected
application of Montesquieu's theory of checks and balances.[258]
Soon afterwards, however, in February, 1792, Jefferson found a favorable
opportunity to reveal his ideas to Washington. The occasion that offered
itself was the post-office, just reorganized as an independent and
self-supporting branch of the government, thus removing it from the
tutelage of the Treasury Department. Jefferson at once claimed it for
the Department of State, not out of any appetite for power, "his real
wish" being to avail the public of every occasion, during the residue of
the President's period, to place things on a safe footing. By this he
meant that the usurpations of the Treasury Department should be brought
to a stop. In a long conversation the next morning after breakfast
Jefferson opened his heart, indicating that he would resign before long,
to which Washington answered that he could not resign when there were
certain signs of dissatisfaction among the public, and that none could
foresee what too great a change in the administration might bring about.
This was the opening awaited by Jefferson. No wonder the public was
dissatisfied, but whose fault was it! There was only one source of
discontent, the Department of the Treasury. Then he launched forth on a
passionate indictment of the system developed by Hamilton, contrived for
deluging the States with paper money instead of gold and silver, "for
withdrawing our citizens from the pursuits of commerce, manufactures,
buildings, and other branches of useful industry, to occupy themselves
and their capitals in a species of gambling, destructive of morality,
and which had introduced its poison in the government itself." He
indicated that members of Congress had been gambling in stocks and
consequently could no longer be depended upon to vote in a disinterested
way, for they had "feathered their nests with paper." Finally Jefferson
let the cat out of the bag and told the President that the public were
awaiting with anxiety his decision with respect to a certain
proposition, to find out whether they lived under a limited or an
unlimited government. The report on manufactures which had not
heretofore drawn particular attention meant to establish the doctrine
that the power given by the Constitution to collect taxes to provide for
the "_general welfare_ of the United States, permitted Congress to take
everything under their management which _they_ should deem _public
welfare_, and which is susceptible of the application of money." He
added that his decision was therefore expected with far greater anxiety
than that felt over the proposed establishment of the Bank of the United
States.[259]
On May 23, Jefferson had found it impossible to have again a
heart-to-heart talk with the President, and we may well imagine that
Washington rather avoided giving him another opportunity to express
himself again so freely with reference to the policy of the Treasury
Department. The object of the letter he wrote on that day was twofold;
first of all it was to persuade Washington that in spite of his so often
manifested intention to retire at the end of his first term, it was his
imperious duty to the nation to remain in office. There existed, in
Jefferson's opinion, a real emergency and he pointed out at length the
dissatisfaction of the South, the separatist tendencies appearing in
that quarter, upon seeing what they considered an unfair share of the
Federal taxes placed on their shoulders, not only in order to pay the
national debt, but also to encourage the Northern industries with
bounties. Rumors were circulating everywhere that new measures were on
foot to increase the mass of the debts; industry was encouraged at the
expense of agriculture; the legislature itself had been corrupted. The
only hope of salvation lay in the coming election and in an increase in
the number of representatives following the census. But everything would
be in question if the President did not run. "The confidence of the
whole Union is centered in you. Your being at the helm will be more than
an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm and lead the
people in any quarter, into violence and secession. North and South will
hang together if they have you to hang on."
This incidentally does not sound like a man who was trying to organize a
strong political party for his own benefit, and I cannot believe that
Jefferson was as deep a politician as Mr. Bowers has made him. He was
quite sincere in his desire to retire from office "after the first
periodical renovation of the government." He was tired and sick at
heart, and his one inclination was "bent irresistibly on the tranquil
enjoyment of his family, his farm and his books."[260] On the other
hand, he was firmly convinced that the coming elections might change
favorably the majority in Congress. They had no chance to be held
fairly, however, unless the people had an opportunity to select as
President a man who would be above all suspicion, a really national
figure enjoying the confidence of every man in every section of the
country, such as was Washington alone. Had Washington followed his
inclination at that time; had he withdrawn at the end of his first term
and left the field free to other candidates, there is no way of
surmising what the issue of the campaign of 1792 would have been. Truly
Jefferson was right: the fate of the republic was at stake.
Shortly after, Hamilton, who had not yet attacked Jefferson personally,
led an offensive against Freneau who was accused by the _Gazette of the
United States_ of using his salary for publications, "the design of
which is to villify those to whom the voice of the people has committed
the administration of our public affairs." But Freneau, in Hamilton's
opinion, was only the puppet whose strings were pulled by an arch
plotter, and soon the _Gazette_ started direct attacks against
Jefferson, asserting that while a member of the Cabinet he had
undertaken to undermine the government. Freneau, in an affidavit, denied
that Jefferson had any connection with his paper or had dictated or
written a single line in it, and at the same time hinted that, on the
contrary, the authorship of many articles published in Fenno's _Gazette_
could clearly be attributed to Hamilton. This denial had precisely the
value of any such statement issued during political campaigns. It was
literally true that Jefferson had never written a line in Freneau's
paper, but he had an opportunity to see Freneau every day, since "clerk
for foreign languages" had to report to him. He was requesting all his
friends to subscribe to Freneau's papers, he was following anxiously the
progress of the _Gazette_ in all parts of the Union, and one word from
him would have stopped all attacks against Hamilton. In fact, Freneau's
paper was just as much Jefferson's paper as if the Secretary of State
had written all the articles in it and had owned all the stock.
Hamilton's attacks, however, had a very important and unexpected result.
Whether Jefferson had serious political ambitions or not, he was not the
man to come out in the open and proclaim himself the leader of a new
party. Of a retiring disposition, fearful of public criticism although
thirsty for public praise, he was not ready at that time to assume the
part and the duties of a political chief. But the savage attacks of the
Federalists attracted public attention to him, he was represented so
often by them as the champion of republicanism, that discontented
republicans began to rally round him and Jefferson was thus invested
with the leadership of the new party as much by his enemies as by his
friends.
During the summer of 1792, when he was at Monticello, he received from
Washington a letter in which the President expressed his distress at the
dissensions that had taken place within the government, and once more
attempted to bring about a reconciliation between the two secretaries
(August 23). Jefferson answered in a long letter. This time his temper
had been thoroughly aroused. He had seen articles signed "An American"
in Fenno's _Gazette_, accusing him on three counts: "with having written
letters to his friends in Europe to oppose the present constitution;
with a desire of repudiating the public debt; with setting up a paper to
decry and slander the government." Jefferson had no difficulty in
proving the first two accusations absolutely untrue. On the third charge
he admitted and even boasted of having given a poet a miserable
appointment at a salary of $250 a year, while Hamilton had filled the
administration with his creatures. He protested in the name of Heaven
that "I never did, by myself, or any other, directly or indirectly,
write, dictate, or procure any one sentence of sentiment to be inserted
in _his_, or any other gazette, to which my name was not affixed or that
of my office." He confessed, however, that he had always taken it for
granted, from his knowledge of Freneau's character, "that he would give
free place to pieces written against the aristocratical and monarchical
principles these papers had inculcated." He again protested against
Hamilton's insinuation that Freneau had received his salary before
removing to Philadelphia, and on this point he is supported by the
evidence published above. In a very dignified way he assured Washington
that he would refrain from engaging in any controversy while in office
and that he wished to concentrate all his efforts on the last of his
official tasks. He added, however, that he reserved the right to answer
later, for, he said: "I will not suffer my retirement to be clouded by
the slanders of a man whose history, from the moment at which history
can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty
of the country which has not only received and given him bread, but
heaped honors on his head."
Jefferson has sometimes been reproached for having attacked in the
"Anas" a dead enemy, but this was no posthumous attack. In one sentence
he had expressed not only condemnation of Hamilton's policies but all
the scorn of a Virginian, of the old stock, for the immigrant of
doubtful birth, who was almost an alien. He knew full well the weight
that such a consideration might have on the mind of Washington; it was a
subtle but potent appeal to the solidarity of the old Americans against
the newcomer. Truly, Jefferson was no mean adversary, and the rapier may
be more deadly than the battle-ax. Having thus parried and thrust, he
expressed the pious wish that the coming elections would probably
vindicate his point of view and that it would not be necessary to make a
further appeal to public opinion. He was tired and wished to retire from
office at the earliest opportunity, and certainly no clique would
receive any support from him during the short space he had to remain in
Philadelphia. Monticello was calling him and his most earnest hope was
that he would be permitted to forget all political strife in a bucolic
retirement.[261]
On his way back to Philadelphia he stopped at Mount Vernon (October 1,
1792) and found Washington still undecided whether he would be a
candidate for a second term. The General was not certain that the
emergency was such that he must sacrifice his personal preferences. He
had consulted Lear about opinion in the North; Jefferson could tell him
something about the South. When he was assured that he alone could save
the Republic, it was his turn to argue that Jefferson ought to remain
in office as long as he himself would be President. Washington said that
until very recently he had been unaware that such personal differences
existed between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the
Treasury. The old General gently reminded Jefferson that the best way to
counteract the action of Hamilton was to remain in office, in order "to
keep things in their proper channel, and prevent them from going too
far." Finally the President refused to accept wholly the pessimistic
forecasts of Jefferson and declared: "That as to the idea of
transforming this Government into a monarchy, he did not believe there
were ten men in the United States whose opinions were worth attention,
who entertained such a thought." He refused to take seriously
Jefferson's accusation that Hamilton would have said that "this
Constitution was a shilly-shally thing, of mere milk and water, which
could not last, and was only good as a step to something better." That
as far as corruption in the legislature was concerned, the term was
probably too severe; it was simply a manifestation of "interested
spirit"; it was what could not be avoided in any government, unless we
were to exclude from all office particular descriptions of men, such as
the holders of the funds. "For the rest he only knew that before the
funding operations he had seen our affairs desperate and our credit
lost, and that this was in a sudden and extraordinary degree raised to
the highest pitch." With the common sense and poise that were his
outstanding qualities, Washington refused to inquire into the ultimate
motives of Hamilton. The Secretary of the Treasury had rescued the
finances of the country from bankruptcy; he was a good, efficient, and
personally honest administrator, and it was Washington's hope that he
would be able to keep with him two useful collaborators whom he could
not easily replace.
Shall I confess that, in my humble opinion, and in spite of the contrary
judgment of several American historians, Washington was probably right.
The quarrel between Hamilton and Jefferson is undoubtedly of
considerable importance in the history of political parties in the
United States. I am not so certain that it exerted so tremendous an
influence on the destinies of the nation. Whatever may have been the
ambitious schemes of Hamilton, the theoretical preferences of John
Adams, it is difficult to see how any one could have succeeded at that
time in establishing overnight an hereditary monarchy in the United
States. Such a _"coup d'etat"_ is always a possibility in the old
countries of Europe, all of them more or less centralized and controlled
from a national capital; but in 1793 there was no national capital in
America, loyalty to the Federal Government was scarcely nascent,
citizens had not been accustomed to look to Congress for bounties,
assistance, and subsidies. The vastness of the country would have
offered insuperable obstacles, even to the genius of a Bonaparte. No
real danger existed because, as Montesquieu would have said, a monarchy
was not in the nature of things, and both Hamilton and Jefferson would
have realized it, if they had not been caught in the maelstrom of
political and personal passions.
When Jefferson left Mount Vernon, Washington was still undecided whether
he would accept a second term, but Jefferson had determined that he
would not stay in office any longer than he could help; and on November
8, he wrote to Humphreys to send all further communications not to him
personally, but to the Secretary of State, by title and not by name.
News of election was coming slowly, winter had already begun in the
northern States. But the news that did arrive was reassuring and
Jefferson was able to write on November 16, "the event has been
generally in favor of republican, and against the aristocratical
candidates." By the beginning of December, the reelection of Washington
being conceded, it appeared that the election of the Vice President "had
been seized as a proper one for expressing the public sense on the
doctrine of the monocrats." It was already apparent that Adams would be
reelected in spite of a strong vote against him, but Jefferson
discounted the significance of the election and attributed it to "the
strength of his personal worth and his services, rather than to the
merits of his political creed."[262] It seemed that the anti-Federalists
had gained control of the lower House and this was a most significant
victory.
Then as more news of the election came, telling of the victory of the
republicans or, as they were called by derision, the Jacobins, other
news arrived from France. The army of the Duke of Brunswick had been
forced to retreat and had failed in crushing the republican army of
France. "This news," wrote Jefferson, "has given wry faces to our
monocrats here, but sincere joy to the great body of the citizens. It
arrived only in the afternoon of yesterday, and the bells were rung and
some illuminations took place in the evening."[263] Four days later the
conviction that a disaster had overcome Brunswick had made great
progress, although no other news had been received, and Jefferson had
anxiously awaited the arrival of ships from France. But the tide had
turned and he wrote to Mercer: "The monocrats here still affect to
disbelieve all this, while the republicans are rejoicing and taking to
themselves the name of Jacobins which two months ago was fixed on them
by way of stigma."[264] The first victory of the republicans coincided
with the first victory of the Revolution against the coalition of kings.
The French Revolution itself had become a domestic issue and was to
inject more passion into the strife between the monocrats and the
republicans.