February 5: "The Republican Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republic"
Drawing from the primary sources, how would you characterize Thomas Jefferson, as planter, president, political theorist, etc.? How do the assessments of Appleby, McDonald, and Gordon-Reed compare to your characterization?
Thomas Jefferson confuses me quite frankly. Sometimes he seems like he knows exactly what he wants and believes and then the next minute it seems like he is thinking about switching his beliefs or teetering on the edge. I would characterizes Thomas Jefferson as a very smart intellectual with a heart for people but afraid to be different and stand up for what he believes in. Reading the primary sources I really believe that he may have had a lot of ideas that were never voiced publicly that could have had a very big impact on society had he voiced them. I think he was afraid to speak out because he was afraid of failure and disassociation. He is so confusing on his views of the Indians and slaves. In 1787 when he described Indians, Slaves, and Blacks, it felt like to me he was attempting to make sense of why it was morally right to treat them as they were treated during this time. During his description he brought up some similarities between those groups and whites and then talked about the differences. But the differences he talked about as an attempt to find a reason as to why they are viewed as unequal were mainly of physical differences. He talked about the differences of body hair and how blacks, Indians and whites all saw it differently. I think he realized that it was stupid to view these people as unequal’s just because of skin and physical differences. When he began to talk about their educations and how they spoke I really began to feel like Thomas Jefferson was really not racist based on color but based on how literate, educated, or how well someone spoke. He even said that the Indians had “sublime oratory” and that it surprised him greatly. He really shows how he feels when he say’s “ the whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other; Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.” I think deep down he feels like this needs to be stopped and believes it morally wrong but once again is afraid to voice any opinions out of fear of rejection. Appleby characterizes him as single minded and prejudiced of other races. I believe that is a correct characterization because there is really no evidence that Jefferson wanted justice for all. He may have thought that what the white people were doing to the other races was not morally right but he either did not care enough or have the guts to speak against it. I do feel like Appleby sort of idolized Jefferson in his writings and was sort of biased because he did not really talk about any of his failures and just talked about everything he did that had an impact of some sort of good. McDonald I think gets at what I was talking about with Jefferson’s views on race. He says Jefferson may have disagreed with the abuse of human’s rights but owned slaves anyways. Gordon-Reed made him seem like a pompous upper-class bastard with the Benjamin Banneker issue, which I have no doubt he probably was at sometimes. But then again he was the President. All together I think no one really knows what to think on Jefferson and race because of either conflicting stories or conflicting writings. Jefferson seems like he approached his politics very carefully but once he was set on something and he knew he had enough people to back him up, changing his mind on something was not going to be easy. Mostly, I am just confused by him because there are so many different perceptions of him. I did really enjoy reading his inaugural address as some parts were quite powerful and the way he words things makes it very impactful in a way.
Thomas Jefferson was a president in the sense that he was a capable leader eager to bring the nation to “unite with one heart and one mind.” He was eager to bring everyone into a new era in which people were free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement in a government that delivered “equal and exact justice to all men.” He promoted a peace and friendship with all nations while not getting involved in outside affairs. Jefferson spoke of civil over military authority and that these things were the “sum of good government.” By setting aside these standards for a government, he attempted to lead the civilians to these ideals by cutting down on government and promoting westward expansion. Yet, this does not mean that he was perfect, and in fact, we see in his writing that he certainly was not. One example of this is seen in Jefferson’s inaugural address, calling Republicans and Federalists alike to unite in one cause. Unfortunately, he alienates Federalists by stating that “a fraudulent use of the Constitution, which has made judges irremovable, they have multiplied useless judges merely to strengthen their phalanx.” Obviously, this statement was a direct attack on those Federalists he promised to unite. Furthermore, Jefferson promoted a strict adherence to the Constitution, but when the Constitution did not align with Jefferson’s policies, the president took on a different tone, striving that we needed to “go on perfecting it, by adding by way of amendment to the constitution, those powers which time and trial show are still wanting.” Finally, while Jefferson spoke of justice for all men and equal voting rights, just what did he mean? He certainly was not speaking of Indians or blacks. Originally, he describes the Indians in a favorable light, but then explains how the Europeans are somehow more superior to the Indians. Likewise, he is quoted as stating that blacks “are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.”
Appleby would agree to my interpretation of Jefferson because she realizes that Jefferson was a “foresighted leader” that brought together what is today common elements of public life. In addition, Applebee recognizes that in recognition of the coming of democracy, he would do everything in his power to hasten its coming. Likewise, Applebee agrees with my interpretation that Jefferson clearly did not unite the country politically, putting himself at odds with the Federalist Party. Appleby takes the interpretation of Jefferson a bit further, talking about his involvement with countries oversees and declaring war with Britain. This clearly was not establishing friendly relations with all countries as promoted in his inaugural address. While Jefferson also spoke out against slavery, he also recognized the evils of it, and passed a ban on the slave trade in 1808, even while thinking of them as inferior. McDonald makes the claim that Jefferson only acted in the manner that he did because he was a reactionary, wanting to rid America of the world of money, machines, cities, and big government. His actions were made only by a careful consideration of all of the consequences attributed to them. McDonald claims that Jefferson believed that it was by turning away from the new world of money and government takeover that liberty and independence could be maintained. This liberty would install a happiness that would come about due to people being designated into a natural, social order. It is in this sense that McDonald claims that Jefferson did not truly believe in equal rights for all men. Gordon-Reed realizes that American democracy was based on a desire to have liberty while maintaining white supremacy. She also agrees with my assertion that with the issue of race in America, Jefferson seems to contradict himself when “high-minded ideals clash with the reality of racial ambivalence.” One can see the beginnings of a personal and political tie that Jefferson had with the African Americans in various letters that the president wrote, and Gordon-Reed even mentions that Jefferson may have even been involved with affairs with a slave of his own, Sally Hemings. Gordon-Reed realizes in her assessment of the man as I do that there seem to be some contradictions in his statements and actions in regard to race.
Following my readings this week one question came to my mind: Who in the blue hell is the real Thomas Jefferson? This man seems to constantly preach one thing but act in a way contradictory to his speech. Yes, he is consistent with some of his policies, for example his avoidance of war with foreign nations, but to me the inconsistencies far outweigh these. Thomas Jefferson, as a president preached for an agrarian based nation, with entangling alliances with none. He wanted the national debt to be erased and the extinction of taxes on farmers. Quoting Jefferson, “[the government] shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. Jefferson himself was a farmer who preached the spread of liberty, while at the same time owning and trading slaves, another area that lacked credibility when he spoke. I believe the assessments of all the historians parallel that of my own in the respect that we all believe Jefferson to be quite inconsistent. It frustrates me to no end to speak about Jefferson now that I have read these works. Here is a man who preaches liberty for all mankind, and wrote the Declaration of Independence, all while owning several hundred human beings in his life and purchased at least eight more during his presidency, according to Forrest McDonald. I also find it disturbing that in his work describing Indians, Slaves, and Blacks he compares the minorities to animals. Stating that people breed animals that look better and perform so why is it wrong to say God did the same to humans. He says that blacks to not love as whites do, they perform no courtship, rather it is lust in which they operate. Well Mr. Jefferson, you speak of lust and how the African race is incapable of loving as whites do. Is this why you kept an African mistress, one Sally Hemings, for decades, avoiding other relations both white and black? Jefferson’s justification of this may parallel his one towards the Indians in that he was merely trying to teach and culture Ms. Hemings in the art of love and detach her from her barbaric ways. Another point in which Jefferson contradicts himself is in his embargo. Jefferson had previously abolished taxes towards farmers in an attempt to erase the countries debt. The debt would no longer be relinquished through internal taxes, but through foreign imports and the taxes placed on them. The embargo put in place seems to halt this plan immediately. How is a country, with no internal tax revenue, supposed to generate revenue when their only means was shutdown. Also one of the main pillars of Jefferson’s ideology was avoiding involvement with foreign nations. Why then would he abolish the current tax system and throw the nation’s fate to the foreign commercial market. My favorite part of the reading came Gordon-Reed’s piece when she mentions the astronomer Benjamin Banneker. It put a smile on my face when I heard the words of Mr. Banneker when he called out Thomas Jefferson on his acclaimed “Notes on the State of Virginia.” I would do anything to be a fly on the way to see the look on Jefferson’s face when he received the letter from the black Banneker who claimed that it was “pitiable” that he could write on equality of men, while at the same time finding himself guilty of the most criminal act of slavery. As Gordon-Reed points out, Jefferson’s response was an “artful dodge.” I do not mean to continually bash Thomas Jefferson but it is the fact that I held him in such high regard only to find out he was more similar to 19th century Americans than different.
Before this reading I thought I understood who Thomas Jefferson was, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the founder of the Republican Party (today it is the Democratic Party), wealthy Virginian plantation and slave owner, the 3rd President of the United States, and the man responsible for doubling the size of the United States, but after this reading I have learned so many disheartening things about who Thomas Jefferson really was through both the primary and secondary sources that at many points in this weeks reading I was shocked that I was reading the words of the Thomas Jefferson, the man who promoted “liberty,” “justice,” and “freedom” for “all.” Thomas Jefferson in my opinion and through the primary sources is indeed a hypocrite. In his first presidential inaugural address in 1801 Jefferson points out how the differences in Republican and Federalist ideals of what America should be in the future must be alleviated for the betterment of the Union. He writes, “But every difference in opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans- we are all federalists.” Here Thomas Jefferson endorses the idea that all Americans must unite in order to better America as a whole, but in the next document just one year after this address Jefferson writes a friend about the federalist and writes, “I shall take no other revenge… to sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection for it…” This drastic difference from what he said publicly to what he is doing privately really irritates me and this hypocrisy is evident throughout all of the primary sources. Another hypocritical aspect of Jefferson’s presidency is by far the best move he made in his presidency: the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson and Jeffersonian Republicans believed in limiting the power of the national government and the president and in many ways did, but Jefferson’s choice to purchase Louisiana was not found directly in the Constitution and by making the decision to purchase Louisiana, Jefferson actually increased the power of the President and the national government, another hypocritical action of Jefferson that went against his and his party’s “own principles.” Don’t get me wrong, Thomas Jefferson is and will always be one of the most important leaders in American history, but after reading this chapter I really have to question Jefferson’s hypocrisy not only in his policy, but also in his idealism. Jefferson was the man of liberty and justice for all, but what about slaves, are they not considered all? Appleby writes, “Jefferson raised his voice against slavery on several important occasions, but he died convinced that whites and free blacks could never prosper once slavery ended.” C’mon T.J., you can’t have it both ways and throughout your eight years as president it seemed like you thought you could preach one thing and practice another, and this point of view that I have is equally shared by Appleby and Gordon-Reed, that ideological Thomas Jefferson was the man of liberty, equality, freedom, for all, but in practice he was far from the man who created and developed the liberty and equality of American democracy.
This reading changed my viewpoint on Jefferson a lot. I didn’t realize certain things about his life and his presidency. As a non history major I go in to many of these readings with a misunderstanding of the leaders of America. Being taught only the basics and what high schools want you to think. I always knew about his quest for liberty and that he was a huge advocate of equal rights for all including Indians, or so I thought. I realize now after the readings Jefferson was a leader who seemed to favor certain things depending on whom he was addressing. One minute he would talk about how slaves are wrong, but yet he owned hundreds of slaves in his lifetime. He seems to be a great leader who did many things for this young country especially when it came to foreign affairs. He was however a great leader who tip toed the lines a perfect example of this is how in 1787 he describes the Indians. He describes them as being very close with their Indian families very strong and brave he goes on to compliment there artwork he seemed to almost have a fondness for the Indian, but yet he later talks about tricking the Indians taking their land and forcing them to conform to the White man’s ways. If he had such fondness for them and realized their good qualities they possessed why was he so quick to trick them and take their lands? I do not agree with the book and parts of the essays when they state that Jefferson was a fraud and or hypocrite. He was simply a smart leader he knew how to stay in perfect balance to be willing enough to question some of the attitudes of the day, but not go as far as to lose the faith of the majority, well atleast the majority of the people with power, which was all that mattered in that day. When reading the three essays the one I agreed with most was Appleby’s. I especially liked one sentence which I felt showed how Jefferson the man was. “ Jefferson raised his voice against slavery on several important occasions, but he died convinced that whites and free blacks could never prosper together once slavery ended. This was a perfect example of him teetering that thin line. He knew in his head what was right, but he also thought that the right thing would never work. I feel like Jefferson in his mind wanted a world where everyone was equal but deep down he knew it would never be possible with the way the majority of people of the time thought. One last thing is I didn’t realize before this class that Jefferson during his time was considered a dangerous social radical. After examining this statement with knowing what I know from class and from the readings I can see why he was called this. Also I can truly believe what I stated early that he knew what was right, he just didn’t think people of the time were ready to fully accept his viewpoint
After this weeks reading, it is clear to say that Thomas Jefferson to me, is somewhat all the above however more in some ways than others. With each of the primary sources, he proves that he is definitely a political theorist and waste no time in examining the nation’s citizens in his inaugural address in 1801. Clearly, his optimism shows throughout his presidency and of course he accomplished so much and transformed our nation but from all of his ideology about government, it seemed to come out in a very different way. He makes John Kerry’s flippy floppiness seem harmless. He was all for reducing the power of the national government and letting citizens become more democratic but yet his actions definitely speak louder than his words. He wanted more power for state legislation to make the right decisions that set our citizens up to what laws they have to abide by and yet he completely take the power away from the nation when he decides on the Louisiana Purchase which completely contradicts his promises and what Jeffersonian republican stood for. Thomas Jefferson’s plan of westward expansion relied on the Louisiana Purchase and it truly shows Jefferson’s selfishness in his ideologies. He had no concern with what the “people” wanted, he was only thinking of what was best for the nation in his eyes which completely opposes to what he supposedly believed in, and then comes the whole race thing. Being that this is my first upper level history class and I had always thought that Jefferson wanted believed in the equality of all people, I knew that he had owned slaves but I never knew what he actually thought about their inferiority. He absolutely talks about the slaves as if they were some type of pet. “They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them, a very strong and disagreeable odor.” Today, it is impossible to talk about Thomas Jefferson without Sally Hemings in the same sentence. It appears for modern Americans this has been Thomas Jefferson’s legacy. His views Indians with a question mark, meaning he didn’t understand their ways but that didn’t stop him from trying to force Native Americans off their lands when he supported westward expansion. As for the historians who wrote on Jefferson, Appleby would definitely relate to my comparison to Jefferson. In her essay, she constantly “calls out” Jefferson for his contradiction of character for instance, “he [Jefferson] dies convinced that whites and free blacks could never prosper together once slavery ended.” Before coming into this class, I never knew that Jefferson was so determined to erase national debt, of course every president wishes to do this, it seemed that Jefferson actually made progress during his presidency and from McDonald’s essay seemed to praise Jefferson for this act. He also criticizes Jefferson as with the embargo calling it the actions of a “domestic tyranny” which analyzing what Jefferson did with international trade, he definitely has a point. This action is TJ’s way of assuring that our nation could become independent of others financially. Annette Gordon-Reed’s piece is certainly the most passionate of the historians of this week. She constantly questions Jefferson’s character whit his relationships with slaves and that of race period by using Benjamin Banneker as accelerant to the fire that Jefferson was a complete hypocrite. He seems to have a natural sympathy for the slaves but it seems that a white man of his caliber and a slave woman like Sally Hemings could never be equal in his mind. This weeks reading truly opened my eyes to what Thomas Jefferson really stood for and what kind of a man he was.
Thomas Jefferson has proven to be a mystery to many historians, many of whom don’t know whether to be critical of his contradictory ideologies and political behaviors or praise him for his radical ideas; the primary sources themselves don’t offer a lot of clarity on these points. However, it can be safely assumed that Jefferson as a political figure was an idealist, an optimist, and an elitist in his own right. Primarily, his fervent belief that reason would triumph over madness fueled many of his political decisions and ideas; he even goes so far as to say that those who wished to “dissolve” the Union should not be disturbed in their thinking, in an effort to show that reason will always triumph over such “errors of opinion.” He also reassured a good friend of the infallibility of American judgment when he concedes that, even if his interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect, the “good sense” of the people will “reverse the evils.” As such an idealist, he believed very strongly in the virtues and superiority of a republican government and was willing to go to great lengths to ensure its survival. Before completing the Louisiana Purchase 1803, he asked a colleague to support or refute his view that the Constitution did not prohibit him from doing so. While his desire to purchase Louisiana was great, he also felt the need to stand by his political convictions concerning limited government. In fact, he justified his position on the issue by stating that he would prefer to ask for an “enlargement” of powers from the people than to assume such an enlargement based on a loose interpretation of his constitutional powers. However, Jefferson may have felt more comfortable making this idealistic claim considering that his decision to purchase the Louisiana territories was quite popular with the American people and would prove to be quite profitable for trade and security. Additionally, his decision to employ an embargo against Britain and France is an example of his idealism and optimism. While the thought of a total embargo seems outlandish and imprudent to Americans today, as Appleby points out it seemed politically wise at the time; an embargo would have kept American sailors safe and thus reduce the likelihood of war. Here, Jefferson’s idealism may have kept him from thinking about the long-term implications of the embargo. Not only was Jefferson an idealist and an optimist, but he was also an elitist in more ways than one. He believed that the “real America” could be found amongst the rural yeoman farmers and plantation owners of the South and not in the industrial manufacturing centers in New England. However, his elitism is most accurately shown in his writings on blacks and Indians. Interestingly, he gives much more credit to the Indians despite calling them “barbarous,” seemingly because they represent the self-sufficiency that the early Americans so prized. He does say that Indian women were “subject to drudgery” and that civilization alone provided women with their “natural equality;” once more, Jefferson’s idealism prevents him from seeing the realities of injustice amongst his own people.
(continued) Additionally, Jefferson wrote that blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to whites because they were enslaved, a fact that is once again clouded by Jefferson’s idealistic view that slavery should eventually be abolished, but only with the consent of the slaveowners. Appleby’s essay seems to support the view of Jefferson as an elitist and an idealist, but goes a step further by stating that this idealism was what enabled him to take a strong stance on foreign policy in regards to the embargo and the Louisiana Purchase. Gordon-Reed’s article concerning Jefferson and slavery was also supportive of the view of Jefferson as an elitist, particularly in regards to slavery; she even goes so far as to say that Jefferson serves as a symbol of the idealist yet contradictory America that black slaves experienced in the early republic.
Appleby characterizes Jefferson as a leader who made concessions to avoid war. Appleby excuses Jefferson’s failed embargo as an effort to avoid interfering with French and English conflicts. He seems to forgive Jefferson’s bias against the English and applaud him for avoiding sides in their conflicts. He also seems to forgive Jefferson’s contradictions concerning slavery by praising him for ending the slave trade, claiming he was a democratic revolutionary.
McDonald accuses Jefferson and his party of extreme hypocrisy. He is quick to point out Jefferson’s mistreatment of Slaves, and cites an incident where Jefferson provided slaves to ‘breed’ for the amusement of a French visitor. He accuses Republicans of misrepresenting their attitudes towards states-rights and limited government, and then abusing those principles once they held office. He calls the embargo “a program of domestic tyranny.” This essay is highly critical and suspect of Jefferson and his party, claiming that their actions did not align with their ideology and further claiming that neither their actions nor their principles were truly based in the interest of the nation. Gordon-Reed’s essay rides the fence on Jefferson’s reputation regarding the issue of slavery. She is careful to call attention to Jefferson’s shortcomings and she goes so far as to call point out that contemporary African-Americans challenged Jefferson and that he dodged their opposition without crediting the merit of their argument. But, in the end, Gordon-Reed is an apologist for Jefferson, quick to point out his contemporary social radicalism (though she does not substantiate this statement). She argues, in the end, that Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings must have been one based on consent and love. How this pertains to his political or social record I am not sure, and I might concede Jefferson’s love for Sally as easily as Gordon-Reed (for me this makes no difference) but I do not accept that this makes up for or tempers his lack of action towards the emancipation of slaves or his recorded racist sentiments. Slavery may not be the best measure of Jefferson’s tenure as president or his contributions to society, but Gordon-Reed’s argument does not sit well with me.
The primary sources that we have to read portray Jefferson as a pragmatist, not the idealist that we have come to worship him as. His Inaugural Address expresses the idealism that history seems to afford him: “ error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it,” and “equal and exact justice to all men” sound nice but they don’t actually reflect Jefferson’s attitudes as expressed throughout the rest of the primary sources we were provided.
Jefferson seems to have been as mired in the politics of his time as he could possibly have been. He was interested in sinking federalism and providing as many barriers as possible to fortify the stronghold of republicanism. He was upset that “Federalists...have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold.” While the Marshall court was establishing the precedence of judicial review, Jefferson was intent on only exceeding the exact limits of the constitution when it aided his interests the best (purchasing the Louisiana Territory) otherwise he was strictly against the strengthening of federal power.
This chapter portrays Jefferson as a racist (no less than his contemporaries), as a political strategist, and as a selfish user of his federal authority who wished to undermine the federal authority of his opponents.
In reality I perceive (based on this chapter) Jefferson as a middle of the road individual. Neither the idealist, righteous, humanitarian that American History wishes that he could be nor the evil, racist, strategist that revisionists might try to characterize him as. Jefferson maintained the republic , he expanded it’s borders while decreasing it’s debts, and he appreciated the democratic ideals (whether he reflected them in his policy or not). He neither ruined the economy nor instituted rampant populism.
I believe that his worst ideas failed, and that his best ideas succeeded...slavery eventually ended with or without his aid, and the American experiment continued specifically because he was president during some of the most turbulent years of this nation.
If I were to first categorize Thomas Jefferson I label him as an intellectual. Jefferson had stimulated his mind so much and demanded so much of himself that it seems to me he could have succeeded in whatever he did. This is shown by the various positions he held in his political career. As a politician, Jefferson held almost every seat one could think of at some point in his life, which proves his versatility. Because he was such a voracious reader and student of political history, Jefferson penned the eloquent Declaration of Independence as well. I can even see Jefferson's intellectual side in how he made decisions as a president, namely the Louisiana Purchase. Though the men who went were at the meeting had no intention of buying all of this land, the amount of land for the meager fifteen million dollars the U.S. was called to spend on it was a steal. However, Jefferson was hugely concerned over whether or not the Constitution would allow such a purchase. He was worried about this because the Constitution never expressly gave the federal government authority to buy land. Since the Constitution also stated that any right not given to the federal government belonged to the states, Jefferson was perplexed. Eventually, Jefferson was forced to side with practicality, but it was unique to note that he struggled with this decision, while many other leaders wouldn't have given the Constitutional issue much of a thought. Jefferson's actions always seemed thought over many times, such as his now famous version of the Bible. Jefferson's fashion sense also alluded itself to the "stereotypical nerd." Jefferson's dress was often aloof, with poof of red hair and close that is said resembled a servant's. Though I still believe he would have been successful, it would be interesting to see how Jefferson's career would have been in a more visual era with television cameras. Though I don't think he would necessarily disagree with me, I believe McDonald's assessment of Jefferson saw him as more of a leader and definer of a particular ideology. I do believe Jefferson was a revolutionary. His "common-man" mentality lent itself to a revolutionary mindset. It is also the reason that Jefferson sided with the French over England, unlike his rival Alexander Hamilton. McDonald rather seemed to emphasize the fruition of Jefferson's beliefs rather than what caused him to think this way. For example, McDonald labels Jefferson as an "apostle of abstract liberty" and doesn't explain why Jefferson came to these beliefs. I believe that he came to these beliefs because of his extensive travels, his knowledge, and his recognition of what a task was ahead of the fledgling republic. If I were to compare Jefferson to anyone in modern politics, it would most likely be Ted or Robert Kennedy. This is because of their wealth compared to common men, yet their "calling" to help people who are less fortunate. In all of his accomplishments, I believe that it was Jefferson's education and intellectual strength that made him who he was and caused him hold the political beliefs he did.
Throughout the majority of my education, my instructors and professors have tended to portray a relatively romanticized image of Thomas Jefferson and his other intellectual contemporaries. Thus, my ideas about Thomas Jefferson’s accomplishments in his many facets of life—as a planter, writer, intellectual, president, etc.—have centered around his accomplishments, not his shortcomings or his controversial politics or inner struggles and frustrations with himself over issues like slavery. Rather, when I hear Jefferson’s name I immediately think of the Louisiana Purchase, the Declaration of Independence, Monticello, and the third president of the United States. These issues are certainly worthy of discussion, and I do not think that Appleby, McDonald, or Gordon-Reed try to belittle these accomplishments in their assessments of Jefferson, but they do interpret historical evidence, like that provided in the primary sources of this chapter, to try to more accurately define Jefferson’s political ideologies.
The primary sources in this chapter describe Jefferson as a strict constitutionalist, determined to limit the power of the federal government as much as possible to prevent it from becoming to domineering over the state legislatures. This is why issues such as judicial review, which was established by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the lifetime sentences of Supreme Court justices, and the Louisiana Purchase vexed Jefferson immensely. He accused the Federalists of manipulating the construction of the Constitution to ensure the longevity of their party’s politics in the federal government, writing to John Dickinson in 1801 that, “On the Federalists part, they have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold. There the remains of federalism are to be preserved and fed from the treasury, and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased,” (Willentz 99). Though the divisions between the Federalists and Republicans had settled down somewhat since the anxiety ridden election of 1800, the two parties remained firm in their ideologies and wanted to maintain a presence in the national government. The second key issue that the primary sources bring up is Jefferson’s decision to purchase the Louisiana territory from France. Again, as a Republican, Jefferson was inclined to strictly interpret the Constitution: “When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise,” (Willentz 102). However, he decided that the benefits of the purchase were worth the risk to momentarily abandoning his traditional political stance. With the decision to purchase the territory, came other issues, too, like Indian removal policies, which Jefferson justified by monetarily “compensating” Native American tribes for their territorial losses.
The three secondary sources in this chapter reinforce many of the themes of Jefferson in the primary sources, but also freely criticize Jefferson’s administration, especially in regards to his foreign policy. Joyce Appleby criticizes Jefferson for his embargo policies which hurt American trade and foreign relations during his administration, but praises him at the very end of her article for doing “more to extend the realm of freedom than any deed of his contemporaries in the age of democratic revolution” by legally abolishing the slave trade before he left office (Willentz 117). Forrest McDonald’s characterization of Jefferson is by far the most critical, claiming that Jefferson’s views on liberty were “abstract” and that mere luck played into Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory and his administration’s ability to reduce the debt. He, like Appleby, bashes Jefferson for his embargo policy, describing it as “a bankrupt foreign policy” and “a reign of domestic oppression” (Willentz 120). Finally, Annette Gordon-Reed gives a brief and generally positive interpretation of Jefferson’s relationship with blacks and with his supposed black mistress, Sally Hemings, which she suggests he had real romantic attachments to. All of these secondary sources are, if nothing else, testaments to the fact that Jefferson’s multi-faceted life makes him a difficult person to pinpoint.
From the primary documents there are some major aspects of the Jefferson government that I find very interesting. He sees himself as a racial theorist in primary source document six. This document stood out to me the most among the primary ones. He analyzes in particular the positive, but mainly negative, details of Indians and blacks. He makes it obvious that both races are inferior to whites by describing what we see currently as racial stereotypes. In sharp contrast was the document concerning the origins of the Shawnee and how all other races of men were originally descended from the Shawnee (the contrast says something about the natural human mindset of group superiority). Jefferson's documents may seem racist in today's terms, but he paints a good picture of how prominent Southerners probably thought of both races at the time. I'm sure that his view of the black race as inferior concerning analytical thought probably outraged many of the progressive men in the North, like Pickering for example. In documents six and seven Jefferson makes his opinion clear on Indian removal, he knows that the expansion of agriculture is essential to the expansion of slavery, both of which are the driving forces in the Southern states' economies. The issue of the Louisiana Purchase was quite intriguing (even though it was so popular at the time, I believe it to be Jefferson's biggest flaw. He should have tried to amend the Constitution instead of going against his previous strict beliefs). We all know Jefferson to be a strict constructionist; but in his letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas he describes the Louisiana issue with a broad constructionist mindset. To many people at the time, these types of issues with slavery and him going against his beloved Constitution seemed to drive some to what I gather meant secession. Timothy Pickering's letter to Rufus King mentions the possibility of such an event as does the document ten on a Maine's town protest of the embargo. He believes that the South is gaining political power and will soon make policies that would force a separation (a separation started by the secession of the NORTH from the Union). He dreads consequences of what the Jefferson government might accomplish which is justifiable. Jefferson's presidency was riddled with positives and negatives and trials and errors. His strong desire for the federal government to be as weak as possible was a lasting effect. The national government's expansion slowed greatly after the Federalists lost power and (in my personal opinion) did not start to expand significantly again until the progressive period starting in the late 1890s. Democracy in a republican form began to flourish and I agree with Appleby that Jefferson encouraged this growth away from the nearly pro-monarchical upper class Federalist party that had no place in the American political realm. The country had just freed itself from just such a type in Great Britain. While Jefferson did make mistakes like the embargo, he did more good things for the progression of our republic than any President before him or for the next twenty years afterward. He and his contemporaries drove the concept of democracy down the throats of all Americans by defeating the Federalist party outright which would lead to its eventual disappearance. I can also relate to people like McDonald who see Jefferson as less beneficial to the country; he did make mistakes and his policies did benefit the Southern economy more than the Northern.
I do not think that it is completely fair to call Jefferson a hypocrite. Yes, Jefferson advocated for a limited government but Jefferson was preferential to an agrarian society. And is there a better way to expand an agrarian community then by buying a crap ton of land for a dirt cheap price? Here is the problem, progressives or liberals or whatever you want to call them have recently began to tear apart our founding fathers and find any reason to make them look bad or look like hypocrites. Jefferson was obviously concerned with the Constitutionality of purchasing Louisiana and did not want to overstep his bounds or inflate the powers of the national government. Jefferson, although it contradicted with his political ideology, felt like the Louisiana Purchase was too good to pass up. The main reason he felt like this was a great opportunity goes back to his love of an agrarian society. By buying Louisiana he doubled the size of the US, which means that his preferred type of society could flourish. Purchasing Louisiana also put us in control one of the most important port cities and provided a huge buffer zone from foreign invaders. But you also have to look at the flip side of the Louisiana Purchase. If Jefferson had not purchased Louisiana and the people had found out that he could have doubled the size of America for pennies per acre and didn’t, then Jefferson would have gone down in history as one of the most idiotic presidents in the history of America. It is a classic case of danged if you do, danged if you don’t. It is also easy to criticize Jefferson on the embargo act because the people criticizing Jefferson were not the president who was forced to make a decision that had effects on the lives of Americans. If Jefferson had done nothing about the British and French taking over our ships then more Americans would have died. If Jefferson had declared war on either of those countries then more Americans would have died. Jefferson wanted to spare the lives of Americans and the only way he thought he could do that was to enforce the embargo act. The embargo made sense; if we cut Brittan and France off from trade then they will lose money and eventually will do what they want. Jefferson unfortunately failed to realize that Brittan and France did not need to trade with America that badly. Jefferson also failed to see that the port cities would be economically damaged by the embargo… or did he? Maybe it is possible that Jefferson knew the port cities would suffer economically but did not think that Americans would rather line their pockets with profits instead of saving American lives. The embargo was just another case of danged if you do, danged if you don’t. Jefferson just simply chose to place more value on American lives then he did on profits. Also, this just came to mind, Jefferson could have been ignorant to the fact that the embargo would devastate the port cities because Jefferson was an agrarian person and did not fully understand the economic consequences of shutting down trade. Jefferson however did place profits over lives when it came to slaves and Indians.
The essay Jefferson wrote on Virginia was a sad document. Jefferson tried as best he could to justify the treatment of slaves and Indians so he and many other Americans could continue to make money. It is my feeling that Jefferson did feel sympathy toward the slaves and Indians but not enough to hurt his pocket book. To me, it is evident that Jefferson thought slavery was wrong because at the end of his essay he talks about how he fears God’s justice. Jefferson was caught in a place where countless people before and after him have been caught in which they have to make a decision between money and morals. Unfortunately in this world a lot of people choose to money over morals. Jefferson may have thought slavery was wrong but he was not willing to sacrifice his money, set his slaves free, and till the land himself. I believe that Jefferson did see the error in his was (referring back to his hear of God’s justice) and that is why he wanted America to develop into an agrarian culture with small family farms, small family farms that did not require the use of slaves so that the master could gain enormous profits. To his credit, Jefferson did react on his ability to stop the slave trade as soon as he could, but one still has to wonder why he would not set his slaves free before he died. I do not condone slavery at all but I can’t help but to wonder what Jefferson would have been like if he had not owned slaves; would he have had the leisure time to get an education or would he have ended up as a common farmer? If those slaves had not provided him with the money to be able to sit around and think about politics would America have become the country that it is today? On a side note, that is why I think that African-Americans have just as much right to call America their own as whites do. The majority of people fighting in the Revolutionary War may have been white but America would have never gotten into the position to fight for its independence if it was not for the slaves. Slaves made it possible for America to prosper economically, slaves made it possible for men like Jefferson to sit around on their butts and think about politics and creating a new nation and government, and it was the slaves that made America possible.
Jefferson was a clever politician and president because he reached out to the Federalists in his first inaugural address. Appealing to American nationalism he stated that they should all, “unite in common efforts for a common good.” This displays a political savvy from Jefferson because even though privately he wanted, ”to sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection for it,” he made a public plea for cooperation and putting aside partisan differences. Jefferson believed whole-heartedly in republican ideals and his presidency was aimed at reversing the work of the federalists. Jefferson was successful at doing this, but the judiciary, by a “fraudulent use of the Constitution” remained in federalist hands. Jefferson was able to limit government and use his ardent belief in democracy to steer the country for eight years. Jefferson’s views on race seem to contradict each other and he remained steadfast in his belief that southerners should have the right to own slaves. He does however, make distinctions he believes that Indians can be “civilized” and incorporated into the United States, while he believes that “blacks are inferior to whites in the endowments of both body and mind.” In other words, Indians could either incorporate or move further west, and blacks should accept their lot as slaves and the masters should decide when they are ready to become a part of this empire of liberty. Joyce Appleby would agree with much of my characterization of Jefferson because like Appleby I believe that “Jefferson sought political equality solely for ordinary white men,” and believed that the inferior races should not share in this empire of liberty. In other words I believe as Appleby does that Jefferson was a great president that ideas about race reflected his southern roots, and the time in which he lived. McDonald does share in some of my characterization of Jefferson but he differs because he believes that Jeffersonian Republicanism failed and failed miserably. I would disagree with McDonald because I believe Jefferson succeeded during his presidency in every area except foreign affairs. He was able to lower the debt and enlarge America by half for me that is a successful presidency. McDonald points to the embargo as a massive failure and on this point I agree with him, but you cannot point to one event and say that a presidency was a failure. Gordon-Reed makes an excellent point about how Jefferson was conflicted about the notion of race, but I find her evidence is not that persuasive. She asserts that Jefferson was deeply “emotionally attached to Sally Hemmings,” but I find that at odds with other statements that Jefferson made about race. How could a man, who thought blacks were inferior in everyway to whites suddenly, have an affectionate even loving relationship with a black slave? I find Mrs. Gordon Reed’s argument interesting and thought provoking, but I think she infers to much, in this document at least that Jefferson could have a loving relationship built on respect with a African-American women.
Chapter 4 explores both the state of affairs, as in certain debates, that were prevalent throughout the country at the outset of the nineteenth century as well as Thomas Jefferson’s reactions to them, in addition to his thoughts on other matters. One theme that is illustrated from a number of the primary sources such as Jefferson’s inaugural address, his letters to both Levi Lincoln and John Dickinson, and the lamentations in the writings of New England Federalists like Thomas Pickering, is not only the ideological divide between Republicans and Federalists but also their seeming unwillingness to compromise or indeed even converse. The aforementioned primary sources present Jefferson as a man who wished to extinguish Federalists from the face of the earth, and Federalists as longing to escape the Union. Without a doubt, the two most powerful sources within the collection presented by Wilentz and Earle are source 6 “Thomas Jefferson Describes Indians, Slaves, and Blacks, 1787” and source 7 “President Jefferson Displays Machiavellian Benevolence Toward the Indians, 1803.” Both sources lay out the fundamental contradiction that Annette Gordon-Reed struggled to come to terms with in the final essay from this chapter. In these two sources Jefferson from his own hand makes is clear that he regards blacks as biologically inferior to whites even when freed and he lays out his conniving plans to uproot Native Americans to west of the Mississippi. Coming from the same man who penned the phrase “all men are created equal” in the founding document of our country, to read such unabashed racism is at the very least disconcerting. The primary sources conclude with two examples of the debate over the Embargo and Enforcement Acts passed during the Jefferson Administration in response to the impressments of American shippers and seamen by the British Navy. The two sources, one pro one con, illustrate both the ability of a political party to control a press as well as the dire straits which New Englanders (the portion of the population in which Jefferson was perhaps most unpopular already) were put in as a result of the acts. The essays each present varying views on how we might understand Jefferson as both the man and the administrator. Joyce Appleby sees Jefferson as a man who displayed a high degree of liberal aforethought for a man of his time. Appleby is able to deflect the criticisms of many historians concerning the “fundamental contradiction” of Jefferson mention above by championing his quest to root out the last bastioned of European style monarchy which still resided in the nation during his time as president; primarily these men of monarchical sentiments were the wealthy, New England, merchant, Federalists. Forrest McDonald presents an overwhelmingly condemning view of Jefferson and his ideological principles. In McDonald’s view Jefferson and the Republicans’ successes during his terms in office were the result of luck and external factors out of their control. McDonald is even unable to bring himself to give Jefferson credit for seizing the opportunities that presented themselves. Jefferson’s commitment to his ideological values leads inevitably to the disastrous Embargo and Enforcement Acts, per McDonald. Finally, Annette Gordon-Reed offers a viable explanation for the “fundamental contradiction” by holding Jefferson’s writings up to his hidden relationship with his slave Sally Hemings. In Gordon-Reed’s view, Jefferson’s contradictions in his public writings mirrored his private contradictions in his love life.
Thomas Jefferson was part of the farmer’s aristocracy. He may have not been as well off as others during this time but we were still part of that group. That can be seen in his policies as a president. Most farmers would not want a controlling government but rather a limited one so as to protect their rights. In his inaugural address on page 98, he specifically says “encourage the agriculture with commerce as its handmaiden”. This can be interpreted as agriculture being the main staple while commerce is there just for the benefit of agriculture or the farmers. Also there is no denying that Jefferson was an intellectual of the highest sort. This may be were the ideals for his political and social practices come from. His ideas work in theory but not also as they play out. This can be seen in his use of an embargo during his second term against the English and French. The theory, which they would back out from their actions that caused the US to pick sides in selling goods, is just and plausible. However, the implications from enacting the embargo hurt the northern states and didn’t cause the warring countries to stop their actions. It almost lead to the secession of the northeastern states. The practice of the embargo also enhances the image of an agricultural man. The embargo affected the commerce states more than farming states. Back to the intellectual side, these facts are brought up by Appleby in her essay. She talks about how the embargo failed and the thoughts on it. McDonald’s essay also reinforces the idea of Jefferson’s intellectual theory not coinciding with the practical world. McDonald expresses the contradictory examples of Jefferson preaching for equality among all men while own slaves as well as the general rights of the people such as freedom of the press and judicial review but then exercising strong executive powers to limit the rights for the greater good. Jefferson continually preaches about the power of the constitution, however when the judicial review gets in his way, he calls the practice an excess “fraudulent use of the constitution”. The man seems to be a living contradiction most of the time. When talking about Indians and Slavery, he mentions that they are intelligent and are not deserving of receiving lesser credit in some areas but then goes on to say they are actually lesser in their intelligence then the white American. This shows a strong feeling of ethnocentrism in Jefferson. Also he talked about getting the Indians to assimilate but then to force them into debt so that more land could be received. Jefferson seems to like the ideals of liberty and equality but not the whole practices of it. So to describe Jefferson would be to say an aristocrat farmer who values high intellectual thought but is lacking on the actually action to enforce his thoughts. Also he was a president who wanted to protect farmer’s interest with a limited weak national government. This shows that although he was ahead of his time in thought but not in practice.
Thomas Jefferson was a politician who prided himself on a vast degree of knowledge. Despite this I find it interesting that his politics and philosophy was still deeply rooted in his native Virginia and the political background in which he had become immersed. Jefferson had an agrarian idealogy and had an inherent mistrust of his neighbors to the north who were beginning to move towards the new industrial, market economy.
His political conventions leaned towards this. He failed to understand the importance of government infrastructure and a strong central government which could provide it. This was particularly true with his trade policy in which he was neither willing to make an alliance with a European trading ally nor was he willing to raise the money to continue the Federalists' navy which might have been able to keep the ports open and protect American trade interests. As the Maine newspaper pointed out they had the right to liberty of commerce. Virginians weren't the only people whose rights needed to be protected.
Expansion was another difficult area for Jefferson. For years he had railed against the federal government expanding its powers and while he clearly wanted to purchase Louisiana, he had a difficult time rationalizing it given his political philosophy. The deal absolutely made sense, and he was right to make it. However it was inconsistent with his philosophy. Personally it would seen that in the end that sectionalism was the real reason he did it. Many southerners wanted more land for agriculture and he he realised it. Of course this expansion of power wasn't for New England business interests so he was willing to act on it. Of course it was good for the country, but as Jefferson himself described it in his letter to Willian Cary he was deeply troubled as to whether he had hte power to do it.
Jefferson clearly took great pains in observing the ways of Native Americans and African Americans. He seems to have had some respect for Native American culture and basically regarded them as noble. In his letter to Willian Henry Harrison he thought they would eventually be integrated into white society and be the better for it although his policy of getting them into debt was clearly underhanded and convenient. Of course his rationalization to Harrison sounded quite benevolent. I woudln't judge this by modern standards though. There were few who didn't think that way at the time, and the majority were less progressive. It just gives evidence that Jefferson was grounded in his own poitical aims and in expediency not in high minded political thought.
As to African Americans, this is a particularly difficult area to assess Jefferson's attitudes. He did have a long term affair with one, and he did at times seems to recognize the evils of slavery. He also took action to end the slave trade at teh end of his term. However he does refer to blacks as "inferior to the whites in matters of both body and mind." Perhaps this was a rationalization or perhaps he really believed it, but once again viewing Africans as inferior intellectually was convenient for a slave owner who seemed to be wrestling with the question of slavery.
My view of Jefferson is conflicted in some ways, but views of his idealogy fit in best with McDonald. The McDonald quote that "He saw widely but only from where he stood" is very telling. McDonald notes that he benefited greatly early on from European turmoil which allowed him to purchase Louisiana at a very good price. However he failed to make arrangements to protect New England business during the embargos and despite some talk he did little to end the institution of slavery, and he even profited from it.
I don't want to completely discredit Jefferson's accomplishments. He was a man of his time and origins, and it would be unfair to expect him to have modern progressive attitudes and a complete understanding of where the modern economy was headed. Undoubtedly he did a great deal for Democracy, which without he and his allies the Federalists would have greatly curtailed and we owe a great deal of debt to him in that regard. Also he did a great deal to support individual rights nad created some of the language which we hold dearly even today. However in the end he was a man limited by his world view. We should remember that.
It would be hard to characterize Thomas Jefferson in any accurate terms that would do this great man justice. As a politician and our president he greatly distrusted the judiciary branch that was, at the time, composed of Federalists. ”By a fraudulent use of the Constitution” to merely “strengthen their phalanx,” these same Federalists were eroding the great republican values this nation was founded on. Jefferson also believed the “sum of good government” was one which was frugal, wise, and unrestrictive. Distrustful of the Federalists and the previous administration would be an understatement in this case. Thomas Jefferson was a pragmatist at heart. He believed in a low impact approach to government that would not unduly burden the people of the new republic, one that not only protected citizens rights and liberties, but also respected the regional autonomy of the states to a certain degree. As a professional planter, Thomas Jefferson was very contradictory in his attitudes towards slaves, Indians, and blacks. Being greatly influenced by the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on thought, reason, and progress, Jefferson seemed to stray far from what would be expected of such a distinguished man. Comparing blacks and whites, Jefferson believed the former possessed a “dull reasoning and a lack of imagination”. He believed blacks were inferior to whites in both mind and body. Did reasoning of this type give slave owning men like Thomas Jefferson self-assurance in their actions? I believe that values such as these greatly dehumanized the black populations at this time in America, and made it easier for white society to gloss over the brutal truth of bondage and servitude. Towards Indians Jefferson’s methodical approach to the taking of their land can be admired not for its effects, but for the brilliant reasoning. “Run them into debt and they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands,” was an intelligent economical approach to the Indian problem. “They must see that we have only to shut our hand to crush them,” is another phrase said by Jefferson in relation to the Native Americans. As the primary source this documentation is drawn from, the “Machiavellian benevolence” that Jefferson shows towards the Indians could be either construed as shrewd political strategizing or a dehumanizing of a race similar to that of the blacks previously stated.
According to Appleby, Jefferson effectively “instilled the nation with his liberal convictions” by reducing the scope of government, protecting free trade between the citizenry, and “protecting the informal public realm” at a time when elitist attitudes ran rampant in America. This assessment largely agrees with the common held notions of Thomas Jefferson and his attitudes. I also believe Appleby hit the mark with her statement that “these repellant convictions jostled strangely with Jefferson’s generous conception of the human potential”. Gordon-Reed’s analysis of Thomas Jefferson’s enduring relationship with Sally Heming’s, his slave and legal property, is in direct contradiction to his thoughts on blacks and slavery. Why would a man, who held such disagreeable views on the African race, choose to spend intimate time over many years with a slave woman? Maybe Jefferson’s perceptions of blacks as being “inferior in both body and mind” only extended to their value as property and as a source of labor. Sally Heming’s might have been an object of affection for him only, but his long beliefs of black’s physical and mental shortcomings might have been just a politically expedient stance. Whatever views you hold on Thomas Jefferson, he is a self-contradicting man in many ways. At the same time he adored human liberty and freedom, he owned slaves. He held dehumanizing notions of blacks and Indians but at the same time was curious about their ways and customs. Thomas Jefferson without a doubt did a great service for this nation with his political liberal notions, but his views on non-whites were cruel and abhorrent.
The fact that Jefferson could use a phrase like "the empire of liberty" proves that he was capable of combining incompatible principles. He dreamed of a proud American republic of yeoman farmers, constructed by slaves over the graves of Native Americans. His own writings do far more than the essays of McDonald or Gordon-Reed to establish him as a massive hypocrite; he pretends to admire the Indians while secretly plotting with William Henry Harrison to trap them in debt and seize their lands, and kill any who resist; he asks for reconciliation in his inaugural address, but he sets up a damaging and foolish embargo for political reasons; he consistently attacks the expansion of national power during the Federalist government but transforms into a very loose constructionist in his letter to William Cary Nichols justifying the Louisiana Purchase. Joyce Appleby argues in her article "Thomas Jefferson: Liberal Democrat" that Jefferson was the catalyst for a sweeping social change, a massive culture shift in American politics. Appleby relies heavily on unjustified statements like "Jefferson aspired to set new standards for a world indifferent to transcendent values" (114) when in reality Jefferson's entire presidency was one long compromise between his lofty, weakly-held beliefs and the practical necessities of power. She ignores all of his domestic policies and instead focuses on the failed embargo as the defining event of Jefferson's presidency. It is a weak article because it attempts to make Jefferson a hero for his failures and gives his credit for ending the "cruelest of all commercial undertakings", the slave trade, when in reality the states of the Upper South continued the domestic slave trade until after the Civil War. McDonald's assessment of the Republic rise to power meshes more with my opinion. McDonald observes that the most successful Republican policies were accidents, like the Louisiana purchase and British trade concessions, while the least successful policies, like the embargo, sprang directly from their ideology. Gordon-Reed, like Banneker, attacks the myth of TJ's republican virtue. She points out the hypocrisy that lay behind Jefferson's correspondence with Benjamin Banneker (although she does not mention Jefferson's even more ridiculous equivocation with Phyllis Wheatley; hey Jefferson, if you say black people can't write poetry, and then a black woman writes poetry, then you can't get out of it by saying she's a bad poet). These efforts to remain a liberal reformer in name but a reactionary in truth make Jefferson a proud member of his planter class, a mediocre and lucky president, and still a brilliant political theorist. I can't take everything away from the man.
Jefferson was a complicated man to say the least, but one of his most defining characteristics was his faith in the new nation he lived in and helped create. Documents one and two show that he believed in the republican and democratic ideals based within the very foundations of the nation. He is all too happy to point out the faults of the Federalists in their clinging to a strong national government, which would strangle the freedoms out of the citizenry and the states. He seems wary of the new found powers Marshall helped the Supreme Court developed, as it could “subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions” if used improperly. Yet even with all his talk about the keeping the federal government relatively weak, he buys up the Louisiana Purchase, a huge government action. Document three delves into Jefferson’s rationale behind it, but I am not sure that he even buys his own spiel. Many of the documents show Jefferson as a heavy intellectual, able to clearly voice his own opinions, with a rational explanation to back them up, but the later documents about race explain that even with all his forward thinking, he was still a product of his time. He seemed to hold a certain reverence of the Indians, with all the talk about their bravery, but he makes it clear that whites in his mind are still superior to the barbarians. Document seven shows that even with his partial respect for their culture, he would rather have the Native Americans assimilate into white culture than keep their culture. Ultimately, he believes in the superiority of white culture over all else. He also reveals extreme racism towards blacks, claiming that he never heard a black slave “utter a thought above the level of plain narration”. This sounds kind of funny now today, since we know that he had relations with a slave of his. Appleby has a comparable view to mine when it comes to Jefferson’s political views. Both of us believe that Jefferson supported the will of the people and disagreed with the Federalists’ faith in status. Of course, by “the people”, I mean white property owning men. We are also in agreement with his thoughts on race and gender as being inline with the status quo. I do not agree with McDonald’s statement that everyone thought of Jefferson as “a champion of liberty”. Document five shows specific Federalists’ displeasure with what Jefferson’s government was doing. Jefferson, in their eyes was a champion of the unwashed, incompetent masses rather than for their brand of liberty. It was funny to me to see someone refer to Jefferson’s political ideology as naïve when most other frames of reference seem to revere it so. Gordon-Reed and I agree as well over Jefferson’s thoughts that white were far superior to blacks. His account of Banneker’s discussion with the president shows clear evidence of this, since a man of his intellectual caliber dodges an answer when Banneker’s position was so hardily backed up. Jefferson writing that “all men are created equal” seems much more hollow now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson confuses me quite frankly. Sometimes he seems like he knows exactly what he wants and believes and then the next minute it seems like he is thinking about switching his beliefs or teetering on the edge. I would characterizes Thomas Jefferson as a very smart intellectual with a heart for people but afraid to be different and stand up for what he believes in. Reading the primary sources I really believe that he may have had a lot of ideas that were never voiced publicly that could have had a very big impact on society had he voiced them. I think he was afraid to speak out because he was afraid of failure and disassociation. He is so confusing on his views of the Indians and slaves. In 1787 when he described Indians, Slaves, and Blacks, it felt like to me he was attempting to make sense of why it was morally right to treat them as they were treated during this time. During his description he brought up some similarities between those groups and whites and then talked about the differences. But the differences he talked about as an attempt to find a reason as to why they are viewed as unequal were mainly of physical differences. He talked about the differences of body hair and how blacks, Indians and whites all saw it differently. I think he realized that it was stupid to view these people as unequal’s just because of skin and physical differences. When he began to talk about their educations and how they spoke I really began to feel like Thomas Jefferson was really not racist based on color but based on how literate, educated, or how well someone spoke. He even said that the Indians had “sublime oratory” and that it surprised him greatly. He really shows how he feels when he say’s “ the whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other; Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.” I think deep down he feels like this needs to be stopped and believes it morally wrong but once again is afraid to voice any opinions out of fear of rejection. Appleby characterizes him as single minded and prejudiced of other races. I believe that is a correct characterization because there is really no evidence that Jefferson wanted justice for all. He may have thought that what the white people were doing to the other races was not morally right but he either did not care enough or have the guts to speak against it. I do feel like Appleby sort of idolized Jefferson in his writings and was sort of biased because he did not really talk about any of his failures and just talked about everything he did that had an impact of some sort of good. McDonald I think gets at what I was talking about with Jefferson’s views on race. He says Jefferson may have disagreed with the abuse of human’s rights but owned slaves anyways. Gordon-Reed made him seem like a pompous upper-class bastard with the Benjamin Banneker issue, which I have no doubt he probably was at sometimes. But then again he was the President. All together I think no one really knows what to think on Jefferson and race because of either conflicting stories or conflicting writings. Jefferson seems like he approached his politics very carefully but once he was set on something and he knew he had enough people to back him up, changing his mind on something was not going to be easy. Mostly, I am just confused by him because there are so many different perceptions of him. I did really enjoy reading his inaugural address as some parts were quite powerful and the way he words things makes it very impactful in a way.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson was a president in the sense that he was a capable leader eager to bring the nation to “unite with one heart and one mind.” He was eager to bring everyone into a new era in which people were free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement in a government that delivered “equal and exact justice to all men.” He promoted a peace and friendship with all nations while not getting involved in outside affairs. Jefferson spoke of civil over military authority and that these things were the “sum of good government.” By setting aside these standards for a government, he attempted to lead the civilians to these ideals by cutting down on government and promoting westward expansion. Yet, this does not mean that he was perfect, and in fact, we see in his writing that he certainly was not. One example of this is seen in Jefferson’s inaugural address, calling Republicans and Federalists alike to unite in one cause. Unfortunately, he alienates Federalists by stating that “a fraudulent use of the Constitution, which has made judges irremovable, they have multiplied useless judges merely to strengthen their phalanx.” Obviously, this statement was a direct attack on those Federalists he promised to unite. Furthermore, Jefferson promoted a strict adherence to the Constitution, but when the Constitution did not align with Jefferson’s policies, the president took on a different tone, striving that we needed to “go on perfecting it, by adding by way of amendment to the constitution, those powers which time and trial show are still wanting.” Finally, while Jefferson spoke of justice for all men and equal voting rights, just what did he mean? He certainly was not speaking of Indians or blacks. Originally, he describes the Indians in a favorable light, but then explains how the Europeans are somehow more superior to the Indians. Likewise, he is quoted as stating that blacks “are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.”
ReplyDeleteAppleby would agree to my interpretation of Jefferson because she realizes that Jefferson was a “foresighted leader” that brought together what is today common elements of public life. In addition, Applebee recognizes that in recognition of the coming of democracy, he would do everything in his power to hasten its coming. Likewise, Applebee agrees with my interpretation that Jefferson clearly did not unite the country politically, putting himself at odds with the Federalist Party. Appleby takes the interpretation of Jefferson a bit further, talking about his involvement with countries oversees and declaring war with Britain. This clearly was not establishing friendly relations with all countries as promoted in his inaugural address. While Jefferson also spoke out against slavery, he also recognized the evils of it, and passed a ban on the slave trade in 1808, even while thinking of them as inferior.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald makes the claim that Jefferson only acted in the manner that he did because he was a reactionary, wanting to rid America of the world of money, machines, cities, and big government. His actions were made only by a careful consideration of all of the consequences attributed to them. McDonald claims that Jefferson believed that it was by turning away from the new world of money and government takeover that liberty and independence could be maintained. This liberty would install a happiness that would come about due to people being designated into a natural, social order. It is in this sense that McDonald claims that Jefferson did not truly believe in equal rights for all men.
Gordon-Reed realizes that American democracy was based on a desire to have liberty while maintaining white supremacy. She also agrees with my assertion that with the issue of race in America, Jefferson seems to contradict himself when “high-minded ideals clash with the reality of racial ambivalence.” One can see the beginnings of a personal and political tie that Jefferson had with the African Americans in various letters that the president wrote, and Gordon-Reed even mentions that Jefferson may have even been involved with affairs with a slave of his own, Sally Hemings. Gordon-Reed realizes in her assessment of the man as I do that there seem to be some contradictions in his statements and actions in regard to race.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFollowing my readings this week one question came to my mind: Who in the blue hell is the real Thomas Jefferson? This man seems to constantly preach one thing but act in a way contradictory to his speech. Yes, he is consistent with some of his policies, for example his avoidance of war with foreign nations, but to me the inconsistencies far outweigh these. Thomas Jefferson, as a president preached for an agrarian based nation, with entangling alliances with none. He wanted the national debt to be erased and the extinction of taxes on farmers. Quoting Jefferson, “[the government] shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. Jefferson himself was a farmer who preached the spread of liberty, while at the same time owning and trading slaves, another area that lacked credibility when he spoke.
ReplyDeleteI believe the assessments of all the historians parallel that of my own in the respect that we all believe Jefferson to be quite inconsistent. It frustrates me to no end to speak about Jefferson now that I have read these works. Here is a man who preaches liberty for all mankind, and wrote the Declaration of Independence, all while owning several hundred human beings in his life and purchased at least eight more during his presidency, according to Forrest McDonald. I also find it disturbing that in his work describing Indians, Slaves, and Blacks he compares the minorities to animals. Stating that people breed animals that look better and perform so why is it wrong to say God did the same to humans. He says that blacks to not love as whites do, they perform no courtship, rather it is lust in which they operate. Well Mr. Jefferson, you speak of lust and how the African race is incapable of loving as whites do. Is this why you kept an African mistress, one Sally Hemings, for decades, avoiding other relations both white and black? Jefferson’s justification of this may parallel his one towards the Indians in that he was merely trying to teach and culture Ms. Hemings in the art of love and detach her from her barbaric ways.
Another point in which Jefferson contradicts himself is in his embargo. Jefferson had previously abolished taxes towards farmers in an attempt to erase the countries debt. The debt would no longer be relinquished through internal taxes, but through foreign imports and the taxes placed on them. The embargo put in place seems to halt this plan immediately. How is a country, with no internal tax revenue, supposed to generate revenue when their only means was shutdown. Also one of the main pillars of Jefferson’s ideology was avoiding involvement with foreign nations. Why then would he abolish the current tax system and throw the nation’s fate to the foreign commercial market.
My favorite part of the reading came Gordon-Reed’s piece when she mentions the astronomer Benjamin Banneker. It put a smile on my face when I heard the words of Mr. Banneker when he called out Thomas Jefferson on his acclaimed “Notes on the State of Virginia.” I would do anything to be a fly on the way to see the look on Jefferson’s face when he received the letter from the black Banneker who claimed that it was “pitiable” that he could write on equality of men, while at the same time finding himself guilty of the most criminal act of slavery. As Gordon-Reed points out, Jefferson’s response was an “artful dodge.” I do not mean to continually bash Thomas Jefferson but it is the fact that I held him in such high regard only to find out he was more similar to 19th century Americans than different.
Before this reading I thought I understood who Thomas Jefferson was, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the founder of the Republican Party (today it is the Democratic Party), wealthy Virginian plantation and slave owner, the 3rd President of the United States, and the man responsible for doubling the size of the United States, but after this reading I have learned so many disheartening things about who Thomas Jefferson really was through both the primary and secondary sources that at many points in this weeks reading I was shocked that I was reading the words of the Thomas Jefferson, the man who promoted “liberty,” “justice,” and “freedom” for “all.” Thomas Jefferson in my opinion and through the primary sources is indeed a hypocrite. In his first presidential inaugural address in 1801 Jefferson points out how the differences in Republican and Federalist ideals of what America should be in the future must be alleviated for the betterment of the Union. He writes, “But every difference in opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans- we are all federalists.” Here Thomas Jefferson endorses the idea that all Americans must unite in order to better America as a whole, but in the next document just one year after this address Jefferson writes a friend about the federalist and writes, “I shall take no other revenge… to sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection for it…” This drastic difference from what he said publicly to what he is doing privately really irritates me and this hypocrisy is evident throughout all of the primary sources. Another hypocritical aspect of Jefferson’s presidency is by far the best move he made in his presidency: the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson and Jeffersonian Republicans believed in limiting the power of the national government and the president and in many ways did, but Jefferson’s choice to purchase Louisiana was not found directly in the Constitution and by making the decision to purchase Louisiana, Jefferson actually increased the power of the President and the national government, another hypocritical action of Jefferson that went against his and his party’s “own principles.” Don’t get me wrong, Thomas Jefferson is and will always be one of the most important leaders in American history, but after reading this chapter I really have to question Jefferson’s hypocrisy not only in his policy, but also in his idealism. Jefferson was the man of liberty and justice for all, but what about slaves, are they not considered all? Appleby writes, “Jefferson raised his voice against slavery on several important occasions, but he died convinced that whites and free blacks could never prosper once slavery ended.” C’mon T.J., you can’t have it both ways and throughout your eight years as president it seemed like you thought you could preach one thing and practice another, and this point of view that I have is equally shared by Appleby and Gordon-Reed, that ideological Thomas Jefferson was the man of liberty, equality, freedom, for all, but in practice he was far from the man who created and developed the liberty and equality of American democracy.
ReplyDeleteThis reading changed my viewpoint on Jefferson a lot. I didn’t realize certain things about his life and his presidency. As a non history major I go in to many of these readings with a misunderstanding of the leaders of America. Being taught only the basics and what high schools want you to think. I always knew about his quest for liberty and that he was a huge advocate of equal rights for all including Indians, or so I thought. I realize now after the readings Jefferson was a leader who seemed to favor certain things depending on whom he was addressing. One minute he would talk about how slaves are wrong, but yet he owned hundreds of slaves in his lifetime. He seems to be a great leader who did many things for this young country especially when it came to foreign affairs. He was however a great leader who tip toed the lines a perfect example of this is how in 1787 he describes the Indians. He describes them as being very close with their Indian families very strong and brave he goes on to compliment there artwork he seemed to almost have a fondness for the Indian, but yet he later talks about tricking the Indians taking their land and forcing them to conform to the White man’s ways. If he had such fondness for them and realized their good qualities they possessed why was he so quick to trick them and take their lands? I do not agree with the book and parts of the essays when they state that Jefferson was a fraud and or hypocrite. He was simply a smart leader he knew how to stay in perfect balance to be willing enough to question some of the attitudes of the day, but not go as far as to lose the faith of the majority, well atleast the majority of the people with power, which was all that mattered in that day. When reading the three essays the one I agreed with most was Appleby’s. I especially liked one sentence which I felt showed how Jefferson the man was. “ Jefferson raised his voice against slavery on several important occasions, but he died convinced that whites and free blacks could never prosper together once slavery ended. This was a perfect example of him teetering that thin line. He knew in his head what was right, but he also thought that the right thing would never work. I feel like Jefferson in his mind wanted a world where everyone was equal but deep down he knew it would never be possible with the way the majority of people of the time thought. One last thing is I didn’t realize before this class that Jefferson during his time was considered a dangerous social radical. After examining this statement with knowing what I know from class and from the readings I can see why he was called this. Also I can truly believe what I stated early that he knew what was right, he just didn’t think people of the time were ready to fully accept his viewpoint
ReplyDeleteAfter this weeks reading, it is clear to say that Thomas Jefferson to me, is somewhat all the above however more in some ways than others. With each of the primary sources, he proves that he is definitely a political theorist and waste no time in examining the nation’s citizens in his inaugural address in 1801. Clearly, his optimism shows throughout his presidency and of course he accomplished so much and transformed our nation but from all of his ideology about government, it seemed to come out in a very different way. He makes John Kerry’s flippy floppiness seem harmless. He was all for reducing the power of the national government and letting citizens become more democratic but yet his actions definitely speak louder than his words. He wanted more power for state legislation to make the right decisions that set our citizens up to what laws they have to abide by and yet he completely take the power away from the nation when he decides on the Louisiana Purchase which completely contradicts his promises and what Jeffersonian republican stood for. Thomas Jefferson’s plan of westward expansion relied on the Louisiana Purchase and it truly shows Jefferson’s selfishness in his ideologies. He had no concern with what the “people” wanted, he was only thinking of what was best for the nation in his eyes which completely opposes to what he supposedly believed in, and then comes the whole race thing. Being that this is my first upper level history class and I had always thought that Jefferson wanted believed in the equality of all people, I knew that he had owned slaves but I never knew what he actually thought about their inferiority. He absolutely talks about the slaves as if they were some type of pet. “They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them, a very strong and disagreeable odor.” Today, it is impossible to talk about Thomas Jefferson without Sally Hemings in the same sentence. It appears for modern Americans this has been Thomas Jefferson’s legacy. His views Indians with a question mark, meaning he didn’t understand their ways but that didn’t stop him from trying to force Native Americans off their lands when he supported westward expansion. As for the historians who wrote on Jefferson, Appleby would definitely relate to my comparison to Jefferson. In her essay, she constantly “calls out” Jefferson for his contradiction of character for instance, “he [Jefferson] dies convinced that whites and free blacks could never prosper together once slavery ended.” Before coming into this class, I never knew that Jefferson was so determined to erase national debt, of course every president wishes to do this, it seemed that Jefferson actually made progress during his presidency and from McDonald’s essay seemed to praise Jefferson for this act. He also criticizes Jefferson as with the embargo calling it the actions of a “domestic tyranny” which analyzing what Jefferson did with international trade, he definitely has a point. This action is TJ’s way of assuring that our nation could become independent of others financially. Annette Gordon-Reed’s piece is certainly the most passionate of the historians of this week. She constantly questions Jefferson’s character whit his relationships with slaves and that of race period by using Benjamin Banneker as accelerant to the fire that Jefferson was a complete hypocrite. He seems to have a natural sympathy for the slaves but it seems that a white man of his caliber and a slave woman like Sally Hemings could never be equal in his mind. This weeks reading truly opened my eyes to what Thomas Jefferson really stood for and what kind of a man he was.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson has proven to be a mystery to many historians, many of whom don’t know whether to be critical of his contradictory ideologies and political behaviors or praise him for his radical ideas; the primary sources themselves don’t offer a lot of clarity on these points. However, it can be safely assumed that Jefferson as a political figure was an idealist, an optimist, and an elitist in his own right. Primarily, his fervent belief that reason would triumph over madness fueled many of his political decisions and ideas; he even goes so far as to say that those who wished to “dissolve” the Union should not be disturbed in their thinking, in an effort to show that reason will always triumph over such “errors of opinion.” He also reassured a good friend of the infallibility of American judgment when he concedes that, even if his interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect, the “good sense” of the people will “reverse the evils.” As such an idealist, he believed very strongly in the virtues and superiority of a republican government and was willing to go to great lengths to ensure its survival. Before completing the Louisiana Purchase 1803, he asked a colleague to support or refute his view that the Constitution did not prohibit him from doing so. While his desire to purchase Louisiana was great, he also felt the need to stand by his political convictions concerning limited government. In fact, he justified his position on the issue by stating that he would prefer to ask for an “enlargement” of powers from the people than to assume such an enlargement based on a loose interpretation of his constitutional powers. However, Jefferson may have felt more comfortable making this idealistic claim considering that his decision to purchase the Louisiana territories was quite popular with the American people and would prove to be quite profitable for trade and security. Additionally, his decision to employ an embargo against Britain and France is an example of his idealism and optimism. While the thought of a total embargo seems outlandish and imprudent to Americans today, as Appleby points out it seemed politically wise at the time; an embargo would have kept American sailors safe and thus reduce the likelihood of war. Here, Jefferson’s idealism may have kept him from thinking about the long-term implications of the embargo. Not only was Jefferson an idealist and an optimist, but he was also an elitist in more ways than one. He believed that the “real America” could be found amongst the rural yeoman farmers and plantation owners of the South and not in the industrial manufacturing centers in New England. However, his elitism is most accurately shown in his writings on blacks and Indians. Interestingly, he gives much more credit to the Indians despite calling them “barbarous,” seemingly because they represent the self-sufficiency that the early Americans so prized. He does say that Indian women were “subject to drudgery” and that civilization alone provided women with their “natural equality;” once more, Jefferson’s idealism prevents him from seeing the realities of injustice amongst his own people.
ReplyDelete(continued)
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Jefferson wrote that blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to whites because they were enslaved, a fact that is once again clouded by Jefferson’s idealistic view that slavery should eventually be abolished, but only with the consent of the slaveowners. Appleby’s essay seems to support the view of Jefferson as an elitist and an idealist, but goes a step further by stating that this idealism was what enabled him to take a strong stance on foreign policy in regards to the embargo and the Louisiana Purchase. Gordon-Reed’s article concerning Jefferson and slavery was also supportive of the view of Jefferson as an elitist, particularly in regards to slavery; she even goes so far as to say that Jefferson serves as a symbol of the idealist yet contradictory America that black slaves experienced in the early republic.
Appleby characterizes Jefferson as a leader who made concessions to avoid war. Appleby excuses Jefferson’s failed embargo as an effort to avoid interfering with French and English conflicts. He seems to forgive Jefferson’s bias against the English and applaud him for avoiding sides in their conflicts. He also seems to forgive Jefferson’s contradictions concerning slavery by praising him for ending the slave trade, claiming he was a democratic revolutionary.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald accuses Jefferson and his party of extreme hypocrisy. He is quick to point out Jefferson’s mistreatment of Slaves, and cites an incident where Jefferson provided slaves to ‘breed’ for the amusement of a French visitor. He accuses Republicans of misrepresenting their attitudes towards states-rights and limited government, and then abusing those principles once they held office. He calls the embargo “a program of domestic tyranny.” This essay is highly critical and suspect of Jefferson and his party, claiming that their actions did not align with their ideology and further claiming that neither their actions nor their principles were truly based in the interest of the nation.
Gordon-Reed’s essay rides the fence on Jefferson’s reputation regarding the issue of slavery. She is careful to call attention to Jefferson’s shortcomings and she goes so far as to call point out that contemporary African-Americans challenged Jefferson and that he dodged their opposition without crediting the merit of their argument. But, in the end, Gordon-Reed is an apologist for Jefferson, quick to point out his contemporary social radicalism (though she does not substantiate this statement). She argues, in the end, that Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings must have been one based on consent and love. How this pertains to his political or social record I am not sure, and I might concede Jefferson’s love for Sally as easily as Gordon-Reed (for me this makes no difference) but I do not accept that this makes up for or tempers his lack of action towards the emancipation of slaves or his recorded racist sentiments. Slavery may not be the best measure of Jefferson’s tenure as president or his contributions to society, but Gordon-Reed’s argument does not sit well with me.
The primary sources that we have to read portray Jefferson as a pragmatist, not the idealist that we have come to worship him as. His Inaugural Address expresses the idealism that history seems to afford him: “ error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it,” and “equal and exact justice to all men” sound nice but they don’t actually reflect Jefferson’s attitudes as expressed throughout the rest of the primary sources we were provided.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJefferson seems to have been as mired in the politics of his time as he could possibly have been. He was interested in sinking federalism and providing as many barriers as possible to fortify the stronghold of republicanism. He was upset that “Federalists...have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold.” While the Marshall court was establishing the precedence of judicial review, Jefferson was intent on only exceeding the exact limits of the constitution when it aided his interests the best (purchasing the Louisiana Territory) otherwise he was strictly against the strengthening of federal
ReplyDeletepower.
This chapter portrays Jefferson as a racist (no less than his contemporaries), as a political strategist, and as a selfish user of his federal authority who wished to undermine the federal authority of his opponents.
In reality I perceive (based on this chapter) Jefferson as a middle of the road individual. Neither the idealist, righteous, humanitarian that American History wishes that he could be nor the evil, racist, strategist that revisionists might try to characterize him as. Jefferson maintained the republic , he expanded it’s borders while decreasing it’s debts, and he appreciated the democratic ideals (whether he reflected them in his policy or not). He neither ruined the economy nor instituted rampant populism.
I believe that his worst ideas failed, and that his best ideas succeeded...slavery eventually ended with or without his aid, and the American experiment continued specifically because he was president during some of the most turbulent years of this nation.
If I were to first categorize Thomas Jefferson I label him as an intellectual. Jefferson had stimulated his mind so much and demanded so much of himself that it seems to me he could have succeeded in whatever he did. This is shown by the various positions he held in his political career. As a politician, Jefferson held almost every seat one could think of at some point in his life, which proves his versatility. Because he was such a voracious reader and student of political history, Jefferson penned the eloquent Declaration of Independence as well. I can even see Jefferson's intellectual side in how he made decisions as a president, namely the Louisiana Purchase. Though the men who went were at the meeting had no intention of buying all of this land, the amount of land for the meager fifteen million dollars the U.S. was called to spend on it was a steal. However, Jefferson was hugely concerned over whether or not the Constitution would allow such a purchase. He was worried about this because the Constitution never expressly gave the federal government authority to buy land. Since the Constitution also stated that any right not given to the federal government belonged to the states, Jefferson was perplexed. Eventually, Jefferson was forced to side with practicality, but it was unique to note that he struggled with this decision, while many other leaders wouldn't have given the Constitutional issue much of a thought. Jefferson's actions always seemed thought over many times, such as his now famous version of the Bible. Jefferson's fashion sense also alluded itself to the "stereotypical nerd." Jefferson's dress was often aloof, with poof of red hair and close that is said resembled a servant's. Though I still believe he would have been successful, it would be interesting to see how Jefferson's career would have been in a more visual era with television cameras. Though I don't think he would necessarily disagree with me, I believe McDonald's assessment of Jefferson saw him as more of a leader and definer of a particular ideology. I do believe Jefferson was a revolutionary. His "common-man" mentality lent itself to a revolutionary mindset. It is also the reason that Jefferson sided with the French over England, unlike his rival Alexander Hamilton. McDonald rather seemed to emphasize the fruition of Jefferson's beliefs rather than what caused him to think this way. For example, McDonald labels Jefferson as an "apostle of abstract liberty" and doesn't explain why Jefferson came to these beliefs. I believe that he came to these beliefs because of his extensive travels, his knowledge, and his recognition of what a task was ahead of the fledgling republic. If I were to compare Jefferson to anyone in modern politics, it would most likely be Ted or Robert Kennedy. This is because of their wealth compared to common men, yet their "calling" to help people who are less fortunate. In all of his accomplishments, I believe that it was Jefferson's education and intellectual strength that made him who he was and caused him hold the political beliefs he did.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the majority of my education, my instructors and professors have tended to portray a relatively romanticized image of Thomas Jefferson and his other intellectual contemporaries. Thus, my ideas about Thomas Jefferson’s accomplishments in his many facets of life—as a planter, writer, intellectual, president, etc.—have centered around his accomplishments, not his shortcomings or his controversial politics or inner struggles and frustrations with himself over issues like slavery. Rather, when I hear Jefferson’s name I immediately think of the Louisiana Purchase, the Declaration of Independence, Monticello, and the third president of the United States. These issues are certainly worthy of discussion, and I do not think that Appleby, McDonald, or Gordon-Reed try to belittle these accomplishments in their assessments of Jefferson, but they do interpret historical evidence, like that provided in the primary sources of this chapter, to try to more accurately define Jefferson’s political ideologies.
ReplyDeleteThe primary sources in this chapter describe Jefferson as a strict constitutionalist, determined to limit the power of the federal government as much as possible to prevent it from becoming to domineering over the state legislatures. This is why issues such as judicial review, which was established by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the lifetime sentences of Supreme Court justices, and the Louisiana Purchase vexed Jefferson immensely. He accused the Federalists of manipulating the construction of the Constitution to ensure the longevity of their party’s politics in the federal government, writing to John Dickinson in 1801 that, “On the Federalists part, they have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold. There the remains of federalism are to be preserved and fed from the treasury, and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased,” (Willentz 99). Though the divisions between the Federalists and Republicans had settled down somewhat since the anxiety ridden election of 1800, the two parties remained firm in their ideologies and wanted to maintain a presence in the national government. The second key issue that the primary sources bring up is Jefferson’s decision to purchase the Louisiana territory from France. Again, as a Republican, Jefferson was inclined to strictly interpret the Constitution: “When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise,” (Willentz 102). However, he decided that the benefits of the purchase were worth the risk to momentarily abandoning his traditional political stance. With the decision to purchase the territory, came other issues, too, like Indian removal policies, which Jefferson justified by monetarily “compensating” Native American tribes for their territorial losses.
The three secondary sources in this chapter reinforce many of the themes of Jefferson in the primary sources, but also freely criticize Jefferson’s administration, especially in regards to his foreign policy. Joyce Appleby criticizes Jefferson for his embargo policies which hurt American trade and foreign relations during his administration, but praises him at the very end of her article for doing “more to extend the realm of freedom than any deed of his contemporaries in the age of democratic revolution” by legally abolishing the slave trade before he left office (Willentz 117). Forrest McDonald’s characterization of Jefferson is by far the most critical, claiming that Jefferson’s views on liberty were “abstract” and that mere luck played into Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory and his administration’s ability to reduce the debt. He, like Appleby, bashes Jefferson for his embargo policy, describing it as “a bankrupt foreign policy” and “a reign of domestic oppression” (Willentz 120). Finally, Annette Gordon-Reed gives a brief and generally positive interpretation of Jefferson’s relationship with blacks and with his supposed black mistress, Sally Hemings, which she suggests he had real romantic attachments to. All of these secondary sources are, if nothing else, testaments to the fact that Jefferson’s multi-faceted life makes him a difficult person to pinpoint.
ReplyDeleteFrom the primary documents there are some major aspects of the Jefferson government that I find very interesting. He sees himself as a racial theorist in primary source document six. This document stood out to me the most among the primary ones. He analyzes in particular the positive, but mainly negative, details of Indians and blacks. He makes it obvious that both races are inferior to whites by describing what we see currently as racial stereotypes. In sharp contrast was the document concerning the origins of the Shawnee and how all other races of men were originally descended from the Shawnee (the contrast says something about the natural human mindset of group superiority). Jefferson's documents may seem racist in today's terms, but he paints a good picture of how prominent Southerners probably thought of both races at the time. I'm sure that his view of the black race as inferior concerning analytical thought probably outraged many of the progressive men in the North, like Pickering for example. In documents six and seven Jefferson makes his opinion clear on Indian removal, he knows that the expansion of agriculture is essential to the expansion of slavery, both of which are the driving forces in the Southern states' economies. The issue of the Louisiana Purchase was quite intriguing (even though it was so popular at the time, I believe it to be Jefferson's biggest flaw. He should have tried to amend the Constitution instead of going against his previous strict beliefs). We all know Jefferson to be a strict constructionist; but in his letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas he describes the Louisiana issue with a broad constructionist mindset. To many people at the time, these types of issues with slavery and him going against his beloved Constitution seemed to drive some to what I gather meant secession. Timothy Pickering's letter to Rufus King mentions the possibility of such an event as does the document ten on a Maine's town protest of the embargo. He believes that the South is gaining political power and will soon make policies that would force a separation (a separation started by the secession of the NORTH from the Union). He dreads consequences of what the Jefferson government might accomplish which is justifiable. Jefferson's presidency was riddled with positives and negatives and trials and errors. His strong desire for the federal government to be as weak as possible was a lasting effect. The national government's expansion slowed greatly after the Federalists lost power and (in my personal opinion) did not start to expand significantly again until the progressive period starting in the late 1890s. Democracy in a republican form began to flourish and I agree with Appleby that Jefferson encouraged this growth away from the nearly pro-monarchical upper class Federalist party that had no place in the American political realm. The country had just freed itself from just such a type in Great Britain. While Jefferson did make mistakes like the embargo, he did more good things for the progression of our republic than any President before him or for the next twenty years afterward. He and his contemporaries drove the concept of democracy down the throats of all Americans by defeating the Federalist party outright which would lead to its eventual disappearance. I can also relate to people like McDonald who see Jefferson as less beneficial to the country; he did make mistakes and his policies did benefit the Southern economy more than the Northern.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is completely fair to call Jefferson a hypocrite. Yes, Jefferson advocated for a limited government but Jefferson was preferential to an agrarian society. And is there a better way to expand an agrarian community then by buying a crap ton of land for a dirt cheap price? Here is the problem, progressives or liberals or whatever you want to call them have recently began to tear apart our founding fathers and find any reason to make them look bad or look like hypocrites. Jefferson was obviously concerned with the Constitutionality of purchasing Louisiana and did not want to overstep his bounds or inflate the powers of the national government. Jefferson, although it contradicted with his political ideology, felt like the Louisiana Purchase was too good to pass up. The main reason he felt like this was a great opportunity goes back to his love of an agrarian society. By buying Louisiana he doubled the size of the US, which means that his preferred type of society could flourish. Purchasing Louisiana also put us in control one of the most important port cities and provided a huge buffer zone from foreign invaders. But you also have to look at the flip side of the Louisiana Purchase. If Jefferson had not purchased Louisiana and the people had found out that he could have doubled the size of America for pennies per acre and didn’t, then Jefferson would have gone down in history as one of the most idiotic presidents in the history of America. It is a classic case of danged if you do, danged if you don’t. It is also easy to criticize Jefferson on the embargo act because the people criticizing Jefferson were not the president who was forced to make a decision that had effects on the lives of Americans. If Jefferson had done nothing about the British and French taking over our ships then more Americans would have died. If Jefferson had declared war on either of those countries then more Americans would have died. Jefferson wanted to spare the lives of Americans and the only way he thought he could do that was to enforce the embargo act. The embargo made sense; if we cut Brittan and France off from trade then they will lose money and eventually will do what they want. Jefferson unfortunately failed to realize that Brittan and France did not need to trade with America that badly. Jefferson also failed to see that the port cities would be economically damaged by the embargo… or did he? Maybe it is possible that Jefferson knew the port cities would suffer economically but did not think that Americans would rather line their pockets with profits instead of saving American lives. The embargo was just another case of danged if you do, danged if you don’t. Jefferson just simply chose to place more value on American lives then he did on profits. Also, this just came to mind, Jefferson could have been ignorant to the fact that the embargo would devastate the port cities because Jefferson was an agrarian person and did not fully understand the economic consequences of shutting down trade. Jefferson however did place profits over lives when it came to slaves and Indians.
ReplyDeleteThe essay Jefferson wrote on Virginia was a sad document. Jefferson tried as best he could to justify the treatment of slaves and Indians so he and many other Americans could continue to make money. It is my feeling that Jefferson did feel sympathy toward the slaves and Indians but not enough to hurt his pocket book. To me, it is evident that Jefferson thought slavery was wrong because at the end of his essay he talks about how he fears God’s justice. Jefferson was caught in a place where countless people before and after him have been caught in which they have to make a decision between money and morals. Unfortunately in this world a lot of people choose to money over morals. Jefferson may have thought slavery was wrong but he was not willing to sacrifice his money, set his slaves free, and till the land himself. I believe that Jefferson did see the error in his was (referring back to his hear of God’s justice) and that is why he wanted America to develop into an agrarian culture with small family farms, small family farms that did not require the use of slaves so that the master could gain enormous profits. To his credit, Jefferson did react on his ability to stop the slave trade as soon as he could, but one still has to wonder why he would not set his slaves free before he died. I do not condone slavery at all but I can’t help but to wonder what Jefferson would have been like if he had not owned slaves; would he have had the leisure time to get an education or would he have ended up as a common farmer? If those slaves had not provided him with the money to be able to sit around and think about politics would America have become the country that it is today? On a side note, that is why I think that African-Americans have just as much right to call America their own as whites do. The majority of people fighting in the Revolutionary War may have been white but America would have never gotten into the position to fight for its independence if it was not for the slaves. Slaves made it possible for America to prosper economically, slaves made it possible for men like Jefferson to sit around on their butts and think about politics and creating a new nation and government, and it was the slaves that made America possible.
ReplyDeleteJefferson was a clever politician and president because he reached out to the Federalists in his first inaugural address. Appealing to American nationalism he stated that they should all, “unite in common efforts for a common good.” This displays a political savvy from Jefferson because even though privately he wanted, ”to sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection for it,” he made a public plea for cooperation and putting aside partisan differences. Jefferson believed whole-heartedly in republican ideals and his presidency was aimed at reversing the work of the federalists. Jefferson was successful at doing this, but the judiciary, by a “fraudulent use of the Constitution” remained in federalist hands. Jefferson was able to limit government and use his ardent belief in democracy to steer the country for eight years.
ReplyDeleteJefferson’s views on race seem to contradict each other and he remained steadfast in his belief that southerners should have the right to own slaves. He does however, make distinctions he believes that Indians can be “civilized” and incorporated into the United States, while he believes that “blacks are inferior to whites in the endowments of both body and mind.” In other words, Indians could either incorporate or move further west, and blacks should accept their lot as slaves and the masters should decide when they are ready to become a part of this empire of liberty.
Joyce Appleby would agree with much of my characterization of Jefferson because like Appleby I believe that “Jefferson sought political equality solely for ordinary white men,” and believed that the inferior races should not share in this empire of liberty. In other words I believe as Appleby does that Jefferson was a great president that ideas about race reflected his southern roots, and the time in which he lived. McDonald does share in some of my characterization of Jefferson but he differs because he believes that Jeffersonian Republicanism failed and failed miserably. I would disagree with McDonald because I believe Jefferson succeeded during his presidency in every area except foreign affairs. He was able to lower the debt and enlarge America by half for me that is a successful presidency. McDonald points to the embargo as a massive failure and on this point I agree with him, but you cannot point to one event and say that a presidency was a failure. Gordon-Reed makes an excellent point about how Jefferson was conflicted about the notion of race, but I find her evidence is not that persuasive. She asserts that Jefferson was deeply “emotionally attached to Sally Hemmings,” but I find that at odds with other statements that Jefferson made about race. How could a man, who thought blacks were inferior in everyway to whites suddenly, have an affectionate even loving relationship with a black slave? I find Mrs. Gordon Reed’s argument interesting and thought provoking, but I think she infers to much, in this document at least that Jefferson could have a loving relationship built on respect with a African-American women.
Chapter 4 explores both the state of affairs, as in certain debates, that were prevalent throughout the country at the outset of the nineteenth century as well as Thomas Jefferson’s reactions to them, in addition to his thoughts on other matters. One theme that is illustrated from a number of the primary sources such as Jefferson’s inaugural address, his letters to both Levi Lincoln and John Dickinson, and the lamentations in the writings of New England Federalists like Thomas Pickering, is not only the ideological divide between Republicans and Federalists but also their seeming unwillingness to compromise or indeed even converse. The aforementioned primary sources present Jefferson as a man who wished to extinguish Federalists from the face of the earth, and Federalists as longing to escape the Union.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, the two most powerful sources within the collection presented by Wilentz and Earle are source 6 “Thomas Jefferson Describes Indians, Slaves, and Blacks, 1787” and source 7 “President Jefferson Displays Machiavellian Benevolence Toward the Indians, 1803.” Both sources lay out the fundamental contradiction that Annette Gordon-Reed struggled to come to terms with in the final essay from this chapter. In these two sources Jefferson from his own hand makes is clear that he regards blacks as biologically inferior to whites even when freed and he lays out his conniving plans to uproot Native Americans to west of the Mississippi. Coming from the same man who penned the phrase “all men are created equal” in the founding document of our country, to read such unabashed racism is at the very least disconcerting.
The primary sources conclude with two examples of the debate over the Embargo and Enforcement Acts passed during the Jefferson Administration in response to the impressments of American shippers and seamen by the British Navy. The two sources, one pro one con, illustrate both the ability of a political party to control a press as well as the dire straits which New Englanders (the portion of the population in which Jefferson was perhaps most unpopular already) were put in as a result of the acts.
The essays each present varying views on how we might understand Jefferson as both the man and the administrator. Joyce Appleby sees Jefferson as a man who displayed a high degree of liberal aforethought for a man of his time. Appleby is able to deflect the criticisms of many historians concerning the “fundamental contradiction” of Jefferson mention above by championing his quest to root out the last bastioned of European style monarchy which still resided in the nation during his time as president; primarily these men of monarchical sentiments were the wealthy, New England, merchant, Federalists. Forrest McDonald presents an overwhelmingly condemning view of Jefferson and his ideological principles. In McDonald’s view Jefferson and the Republicans’ successes during his terms in office were the result of luck and external factors out of their control. McDonald is even unable to bring himself to give Jefferson credit for seizing the opportunities that presented themselves. Jefferson’s commitment to his ideological values leads inevitably to the disastrous Embargo and Enforcement Acts, per McDonald. Finally, Annette Gordon-Reed offers a viable explanation for the “fundamental contradiction” by holding Jefferson’s writings up to his hidden relationship with his slave Sally Hemings. In Gordon-Reed’s view, Jefferson’s contradictions in his public writings mirrored his private contradictions in his love life.
Thomas Jefferson was part of the farmer’s aristocracy. He may have not been as well off as others during this time but we were still part of that group. That can be seen in his policies as a president. Most farmers would not want a controlling government but rather a limited one so as to protect their rights. In his inaugural address on page 98, he specifically says “encourage the agriculture with commerce as its handmaiden”. This can be interpreted as agriculture being the main staple while commerce is there just for the benefit of agriculture or the farmers. Also there is no denying that Jefferson was an intellectual of the highest sort. This may be were the ideals for his political and social practices come from. His ideas work in theory but not also as they play out. This can be seen in his use of an embargo during his second term against the English and French. The theory, which they would back out from their actions that caused the US to pick sides in selling goods, is just and plausible. However, the implications from enacting the embargo hurt the northern states and didn’t cause the warring countries to stop their actions. It almost lead to the secession of the northeastern states. The practice of the embargo also enhances the image of an agricultural man. The embargo affected the commerce states more than farming states. Back to the intellectual side, these facts are brought up by Appleby in her essay. She talks about how the embargo failed and the thoughts on it. McDonald’s essay also reinforces the idea of Jefferson’s intellectual theory not coinciding with the practical world. McDonald expresses the contradictory examples of Jefferson preaching for equality among all men while own slaves as well as the general rights of the people such as freedom of the press and judicial review but then exercising strong executive powers to limit the rights for the greater good. Jefferson continually preaches about the power of the constitution, however when the judicial review gets in his way, he calls the practice an excess “fraudulent use of the constitution”. The man seems to be a living contradiction most of the time. When talking about Indians and Slavery, he mentions that they are intelligent and are not deserving of receiving lesser credit in some areas but then goes on to say they are actually lesser in their intelligence then the white American. This shows a strong feeling of ethnocentrism in Jefferson. Also he talked about getting the Indians to assimilate but then to force them into debt so that more land could be received. Jefferson seems to like the ideals of liberty and equality but not the whole practices of it. So to describe Jefferson would be to say an aristocrat farmer who values high intellectual thought but is lacking on the actually action to enforce his thoughts. Also he was a president who wanted to protect farmer’s interest with a limited weak national government. This shows that although he was ahead of his time in thought but not in practice.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson was a politician who prided himself on a vast degree of knowledge. Despite this I find it interesting that his politics and philosophy was still deeply rooted in his native Virginia and the political background in which he had become immersed. Jefferson had an agrarian idealogy and had an inherent mistrust of his neighbors to the north who were beginning to move towards the new industrial, market economy.
ReplyDeleteHis political conventions leaned towards this. He failed to understand the importance of government infrastructure and a strong central government which could provide it. This was particularly true with his trade policy in which he was neither willing to make an alliance with a European trading ally nor was he willing to raise the money to continue the Federalists' navy which might have been able to keep the ports open and protect American trade interests. As the Maine newspaper pointed out they had the right to liberty of commerce. Virginians weren't the only people whose rights needed to be protected.
Expansion was another difficult area for Jefferson. For years he had railed against the federal government expanding its powers and while he clearly wanted to purchase Louisiana, he had a difficult time rationalizing it given his political philosophy. The deal absolutely made sense, and he was right to make it. However it was inconsistent with his philosophy. Personally it would seen that in the end that sectionalism was the real reason he did it. Many southerners wanted more land for agriculture and he he realised it. Of course this expansion of power wasn't for New England business interests so he was willing to act on it. Of course it was good for the country, but as Jefferson himself described it in his letter to Willian Cary he was deeply troubled as to whether he had hte power to do it.
Jefferson clearly took great pains in observing the ways of Native Americans and African Americans. He seems to have had some respect for Native American culture and basically regarded them as noble. In his letter to Willian Henry Harrison he thought they would eventually be integrated into white society and be the better for it although his policy of getting them into debt was clearly underhanded and convenient. Of course his rationalization to Harrison sounded quite benevolent. I woudln't judge this by modern standards though. There were few who didn't think that way at the time, and the majority were less progressive. It just gives evidence that Jefferson was grounded in his own poitical aims and in expediency not in high minded political thought.
As to African Americans, this is a particularly difficult area to assess Jefferson's attitudes. He did have a long term affair with one, and he did at times seems to recognize the evils of slavery. He also took action to end the slave trade at teh end of his term. However he does refer to blacks as "inferior to the whites in matters of both body and mind." Perhaps this was a rationalization or perhaps he really believed it, but once again viewing Africans as inferior intellectually was convenient for a slave owner who seemed to be wrestling with the question of slavery.
My view of Jefferson is conflicted in some ways, but views of his idealogy fit in best with McDonald. The McDonald quote that "He saw widely but only from where he stood" is very telling. McDonald notes that he benefited greatly early on from European turmoil which allowed him to purchase Louisiana at a very good price. However he failed to make arrangements to protect New England business during the embargos and despite some talk he did little to end the institution of slavery, and he even profited from it.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to completely discredit Jefferson's accomplishments. He was a man of his time and origins, and it would be unfair to expect him to have modern progressive attitudes and a complete understanding of where the modern economy was headed. Undoubtedly he did a great deal for Democracy, which without he and his allies the Federalists would have greatly curtailed and we owe a great deal of debt to him in that regard. Also he did a great deal to support individual rights nad created some of the language which we hold dearly even today. However in the end he was a man limited by his world view. We should remember that.
It would be hard to characterize Thomas Jefferson in any accurate terms that would do this great man justice. As a politician and our president he greatly distrusted the judiciary branch that was, at the time, composed of Federalists. ”By a fraudulent use of the Constitution” to merely “strengthen their phalanx,” these same Federalists were eroding the great republican values this nation was founded on. Jefferson also believed the “sum of good government” was one which was frugal, wise, and unrestrictive. Distrustful of the Federalists and the previous administration would be an understatement in this case. Thomas Jefferson was a pragmatist at heart. He believed in a low impact approach to government that would not unduly burden the people of the new republic, one that not only protected citizens rights and liberties, but also respected the regional autonomy of the states to a certain degree.
ReplyDeleteAs a professional planter, Thomas Jefferson was very contradictory in his attitudes towards slaves, Indians, and blacks. Being greatly influenced by the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on thought, reason, and progress, Jefferson seemed to stray far from what would be expected of such a distinguished man. Comparing blacks and whites, Jefferson believed the former possessed a “dull reasoning and a lack of imagination”. He believed blacks were inferior to whites in both mind and body. Did reasoning of this type give slave owning men like Thomas Jefferson self-assurance in their actions? I believe that values such as these greatly dehumanized the black populations at this time in America, and made it easier for white society to gloss over the brutal truth of bondage and servitude. Towards Indians Jefferson’s methodical approach to the taking of their land can be admired not for its effects, but for the brilliant reasoning. “Run them into debt and they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands,” was an intelligent economical approach to the Indian problem. “They must see that we have only to shut our hand to crush them,” is another phrase said by Jefferson in relation to the Native Americans. As the primary source this documentation is drawn from, the “Machiavellian benevolence” that Jefferson shows towards the Indians could be either construed as shrewd political strategizing or a dehumanizing of a race similar to that of the blacks previously stated.
According to Appleby, Jefferson effectively “instilled the nation with his liberal convictions” by reducing the scope of government, protecting free trade between the citizenry, and “protecting the informal public realm” at a time when elitist attitudes ran rampant in America. This assessment largely agrees with the common held notions of Thomas Jefferson and his attitudes. I also believe Appleby hit the mark with her statement that “these repellant convictions jostled strangely with Jefferson’s generous conception of the human potential”. Gordon-Reed’s analysis of Thomas Jefferson’s enduring relationship with Sally Heming’s, his slave and legal property, is in direct contradiction to his thoughts on blacks and slavery. Why would a man, who held such disagreeable views on the African race, choose to spend intimate time over many years with a slave woman? Maybe Jefferson’s perceptions of blacks as being “inferior in both body and mind” only extended to their value as property and as a source of labor. Sally Heming’s might have been an object of affection for him only, but his long beliefs of black’s physical and mental shortcomings might have been just a politically expedient stance. Whatever views you hold on Thomas Jefferson, he is a self-contradicting man in many ways. At the same time he adored human liberty and freedom, he owned slaves. He held dehumanizing notions of blacks and Indians but at the same time was curious about their ways and customs. Thomas Jefferson without a doubt did a great service for this nation with his political liberal notions, but his views on non-whites were cruel and abhorrent.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Jefferson could use a phrase like "the empire of liberty" proves that he was capable of combining incompatible principles. He dreamed of a proud American republic of yeoman farmers, constructed by slaves over the graves of Native Americans. His own writings do far more than the essays of McDonald or Gordon-Reed to establish him as a massive hypocrite; he pretends to admire the Indians while secretly plotting with William Henry Harrison to trap them in debt and seize their lands, and kill any who resist; he asks for reconciliation in his inaugural address, but he sets up a damaging and foolish embargo for political reasons; he consistently attacks the expansion of national power during the Federalist government but transforms into a very loose constructionist in his letter to William Cary Nichols justifying the Louisiana Purchase.
ReplyDeleteJoyce Appleby argues in her article "Thomas Jefferson: Liberal Democrat" that Jefferson was the catalyst for a sweeping social change, a massive culture shift in American politics. Appleby relies heavily on unjustified statements like "Jefferson aspired to set new standards for a world indifferent to transcendent values" (114) when in reality Jefferson's entire presidency was one long compromise between his lofty, weakly-held beliefs and the practical necessities of power. She ignores all of his domestic policies and instead focuses on the failed embargo as the defining event of Jefferson's presidency. It is a weak article because it attempts to make Jefferson a hero for his failures and gives his credit for ending the "cruelest of all commercial undertakings", the slave trade, when in reality the states of the Upper South continued the domestic slave trade until after the Civil War.
McDonald's assessment of the Republic rise to power meshes more with my opinion. McDonald observes that the most successful Republican policies were accidents, like the Louisiana purchase and British trade concessions, while the least successful policies, like the embargo, sprang directly from their ideology. Gordon-Reed, like Banneker, attacks the myth of TJ's republican virtue. She points out the hypocrisy that lay behind Jefferson's correspondence with Benjamin Banneker (although she does not mention Jefferson's even more ridiculous equivocation with Phyllis Wheatley; hey Jefferson, if you say black people can't write poetry, and then a black woman writes poetry, then you can't get out of it by saying she's a bad poet). These efforts to remain a liberal reformer in name but a reactionary in truth make Jefferson a proud member of his planter class, a mediocre and lucky president, and still a brilliant political theorist. I can't take everything away from the man.
Jefferson was a complicated man to say the least, but one of his most defining characteristics was his faith in the new nation he lived in and helped create. Documents one and two show that he believed in the republican and democratic ideals based within the very foundations of the nation. He is all too happy to point out the faults of the Federalists in their clinging to a strong national government, which would strangle the freedoms out of the citizenry and the states. He seems wary of the new found powers Marshall helped the Supreme Court developed, as it could “subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions” if used improperly.
ReplyDeleteYet even with all his talk about the keeping the federal government relatively weak, he buys up the Louisiana Purchase, a huge government action. Document three delves into Jefferson’s rationale behind it, but I am not sure that he even buys his own spiel. Many of the documents show Jefferson as a heavy intellectual, able to clearly voice his own opinions, with a rational explanation to back them up, but the later documents about race explain that even with all his forward thinking, he was still a product of his time. He seemed to hold a certain reverence of the Indians, with all the talk about their bravery, but he makes it clear that whites in his mind are still superior to the barbarians. Document seven shows that even with his partial respect for their culture, he would rather have the Native Americans assimilate into white culture than keep their culture. Ultimately, he believes in the superiority of white culture over all else. He also reveals extreme racism towards blacks, claiming that he never heard a black slave “utter a thought above the level of plain narration”. This sounds kind of funny now today, since we know that he had relations with a slave of his.
Appleby has a comparable view to mine when it comes to Jefferson’s political views. Both of us believe that Jefferson supported the will of the people and disagreed with the Federalists’ faith in status. Of course, by “the people”, I mean white property owning men. We are also in agreement with his thoughts on race and gender as being inline with the status quo. I do not agree with McDonald’s statement that everyone thought of Jefferson as “a champion of liberty”. Document five shows specific Federalists’ displeasure with what Jefferson’s government was doing. Jefferson, in their eyes was a champion of the unwashed, incompetent masses rather than for their brand of liberty. It was funny to me to see someone refer to Jefferson’s political ideology as naïve when most other frames of reference seem to revere it so. Gordon-Reed and I agree as well over Jefferson’s thoughts that white were far superior to blacks. His account of Banneker’s discussion with the president shows clear evidence of this, since a man of his intellectual caliber dodges an answer when Banneker’s position was so hardily backed up. Jefferson writing that “all men are created equal” seems much more hollow now.