Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1790

Contents

PAGE

Foreword iii

Introduction ........ ix

Foreword

The Autobiography left by Thomas Jefferson belongs to the literature of the Nation. The important part played by the great Virginian in the organization of the Republic and in the leadership of affairs during the first three or four Administrations, the distinctive character of the man, his imagination, his intellectual force, and his patriotism, have served to make Thomas Jefferson a great figure in American history. Even his fiercest opponents in his own generation and of later years, those who believed that his theories would prove detrimental to the interests of the State, have been ready to admit that he had honestly at heart the welfare of his fellow-citizens and of mankind, and to admit further that he must take rank among the great Americans.

The peculiar value that is possessed by a narrative in autobiographical form does not rest on the probability that the statement of facts or the record of facts and the motives which influence action would be presented more accurately than in a narrative by another hand. It may easily be the case that the memory of a writer as to the events of his earlier life will not prove as trustworthy as records left by his contemporaries. The writer of an autobiography

iii

IV

Foreword will not only be confused in his memories, but these memories may themselves be affected by vanity, or by the natural human desire to put the best appearance upon one'sindividual actions and utterances, and to estimate at its full value any service that has been rendered to the community. Autobiographies must, of course, differ very materially in their trustworthiness, according to the character and the temperament of their several writers. No biographical record can, however, preserve the distinctive personality of a man in the way in which such personality is revealed in a diary or autobiographical subject. A man's character and nature are indicated as well by the matters in which he is reticent as by those concerning which he claims or believes himself to be making a full and candid presentation of the action and of the motive for the action.

An autobiographical sketch written in later life presents evidence also of changes in point of view, of the development of character, and of the acceptance of later beliefs, convictions, and ideals. The descriptions given by an old man of his own actions in youth, even when not accompanied by any express criticism or detailed analysis, possess interest and value as pictures of the double personality — that of youth and that of maturity.

It is very much to be regretted that the narrative of Jefferson, the writing of which was begun in 1821, in his seventy -seventh year, is brought down only to the 29th of July, 1790. His life extended from 1743 to 1826, a period which included the development of the colonies, the strenuous years of the War of the

Foreword v

Revolution, and the critical period of the organization and re-organization of the State. Jefferson's opinions of the events of the second Administration of Washington and of the Administration of Adams would have had a special interest. His own two Administrations covered the years 1 801-1809, but his opinions as to the management of affairs by his successor, James Madison, who had the mortification of being driven out of the Capitol by the British invader, and of the work done by James Monroe would have possessed historic value and personal interest.

There is much, however, both of value and of interest in the pages that were put into shape and that have fortunately been preserved. After presenting the data concerning the Jefferson family, the narrative proceeds with a record of the events preceding the Revolution, — events in which Jefferson's leadership was important. One of the first general statements made in behalf of the contentions of the colonists, was written in 1774 by Jefferson under the title of "A Summary View of the Rights of British America." The author tells us that the pamphlet found its way to England, and, with some additions, was utilized by Mr. Burke and his associates and ran through several editions.

Jefferson claims that the credit for initiating the committees of correspondence belongs not to Massachusetts but to Virginia. The first of such committee work was done under his direction in Virginia, as far back as 1773. The account of the placing in the hands of Jefferson the task of preparing the famous

VI

Foreword

Declaration of Independence is given in full, and is probably the chief authority on the matter.

In the later constitutional discussions, Jefferson placed himself with the group which contended that representation in Congress should be based upon population or on voters. He saw no reason why 10,000 people should, by calling themselves a state, secure as large a representative power in the Government as belonged to 50,000 people. The jealousy and apprehensions of the smaller states, such as Rhode Island and Delaware, that the Government might be entirely controlled by states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New York proved, as we know, sufficient to secure an equal state representation in the Upper House of Congress. It was supposed that the evil of this disproportioned representation would at least be restricted to the original group of states; but in comparatively recent history, we have seen a still greater inequity in the authority given to Nevada with 70,000 inhabitants to control through its two senators, a decision of the Senate and through the Senate of the whole Government, in regard to a financial policy to which the great states of the country were opposed.

Jefiferson was, in 1787, appointed U. S. Minister to Paris, and the latter portion of the Diary is taken up chiefly with his account of the beginnings of the French Revolution and his analysis of the causes and events.

The students of American history will not fail to bear in mind the long contest between the advocates of a strong, or at least a sufficiently strong,

Foreword vii

central government, of whom Hamilton was the leader, and those who, apprehensive of the tyranny of a central authority, preferred to maintain the full independence of the states, even at the sacrifice of National power and effectiveness — a group of which Jefferson was the acknowledged representative.

The constitution of 1789, carried through the influence of Hamilton, represented important concessions made to the views of the Jeffersonians, some of which had troublesome results in the later history of the Republic. I may mention, among others, the including of slaves in the proportion of three slaves to two white men in the basis of representation for the slave-holding states ; the acceptance of a site on the banks of the Potomac, that is to say, in Southern territory, for the new Capital. The power given to the slave holders in Congress through the counting of the slaves as if they were a part of their voting constituency, resulted in strengthening through the long series of years, the authority of the South in the House of Representatives, and delayed any effective action on the part of the Free states in bringing about the restriction of slavery. The position of Washington on the banks of the Potomac brought about no small difficulties later in the shaping of the campaigns of the Civil War. The necessity for the protection of the Capitol interfered materially with the action of the armies of the North and must have delayed for a long period of months the final decision of the contest.

The results of the Civil War brought the Nation to a substantial acceptance of the theories of Hamilton.

Vlll

Foreword

The Government as developed under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution, was made strong enough to control peace at home and to maintain the authority and dignity of the Nation abroad. The occasional difficulties arising from independent state action, such as that of Louisiana eighteen years back in its friction with Italy, and that of California during the past few years in its state laws affecting the interests of the Japanese, are examples of what is probably the last remnant of the Jeffersonian theories of state rights. The American citizen of to-day is unwilling to believe that any right of action should be left to the state that can interfere with obligations and international relations of the National Government. The fact, however, that certain, and probably the more important, of Jefferson's theories, having been fairly tested, have been put to one side, or have been fought to one side, does not prevent the citizen of to-day from holding in affectionate regard the author of the Declaration of Independence who, through his distinguished services, and his high ideals is to be ranked among the greatest of American citizens.

G. H. P.

New York, January 1914.

Introduction

The political theories and usages originated or adopted by Thomas Jefferson have shown such persistence and permanence in their value to our people and government as to demonstrate a far deeper and broader principle underlying them than is always recognized. In popular estimation, Jefferson stands as the founder of the Democratic party, and the developer of the theory of State Rights; and on these foundations are based the so called "Jeffersonian principles," and the respect and acceptance, as well as the criticism and contravention, accorded to them. That this basis was deemed sufficient during his life, is natural, for judgment of a living man must always be partial and superficial. That this limited view should during that time acquire prestige and momentum enough to project it into history, is not strange, the more that the logical conclusions of certain theories advanced by him suited the policy of one of our political parties. The acceptance of this limited view has enabled his antagonists and critics to charge him with hypocrisy, opportunism, and even lack of any political principles; and the contradictions and instability they have cited in his opinions and conduct have

X Introduction

embarrassed even his most devoted adherents. If this hmited view is still to be accepted as sufficient anc final, these criticisms must stand: — His advocacy of a weak national government ; with his complaints that it was "a rope of sand," and his far-reaching augmentations to its power. His advocacy of a strict construing of our constitution; and yet his so exceeding the implied powers granted by it, as to make it, in his own words, "waste paper." His support of the State governments as "sovereign"; and his dislike and attempted changes in and over.- riding of their constitutions. His arguments in favor of an absolutely independent jury and judiciary; and his attacks on both. His desire for a national navy; and his later opposition. His demands that the executive and legislative departments should be beyond reciprocal influence; yet, when president, his interference in the latter to an extent which led to a stinging rebuke on the floor of Congress in open debate. His dread of a partizan civil service as a means of influencing and defeasing free elections, and his oft repeated claim that public officers should be selected only on their merit ; while himself inaugurating the spoils system, sending his political friends commissions in blank, and retaining a federalist official "because of his connections." His disapproval of the re-eligibility of the president, and advocacy of rotation in office to prevent the creation of a bureaucracy ; with his subsequent willingness that the former should serve m.ore than two terms, and his writing to a superannuated appointee, "would it be a relief to transfer the office to your

Introduction xi

son, for your use, with the understanding that it should be afterwards continued with him for the benefit of the family ? ' ' His opposition to the alien act; and his framing of a bill directed against foreigners of far greater injustice than that enactment. His support of the passage of the funding and assumption act; and his unending opposition to its execution. His condemnation of the national bank, not merely on constitutional grounds, but because he believed it to be unduly influencing the national government; yet when himself at the head of that government advocating "a judicious distribution" of favors to that and other banks " to engage the individuals who belong to them in support" of his administration. His early opposition to national internal improvements, his later recommendation of this policy to Congress, and his final resolutions declaring it unconstitutional. His arguments and labors in opposition to slavery; while owning many negroes, and refusing to act as executor of a will because the testator freed his slaves^^And many other actions apparently implying so little principle, or views so shifting, as superficially to reduce them to nothing else than a mass of inconsistencies, each one notable only for its immediate results. Judged by these standards, the marvel of the Federalists and his later critics, that he should have been the chosen instrument of American democracy, is proper. The scholarly and reclusive nature of his tastes and studies; the retiring and limited character of his intercourse with the world; the influence of his social equals ; . his dislike of party and personal xii Introduction

antagonism ; and his sensitiveness to abuse and criticism, make his acceptance of that leadership, as strange a problem, as that the people should have chosen for their representative a man lacking nearly all of the personal qualities which are presumed to win popularity with the masses. And only explicable from the narrow view of his critics as the success of an ambitious and imprincipled self-seeking man, attained by astuteness and chicane so great as to deceive the masses.

But if the people embody the total of human thought and experience, as our political theories maintain, there are better reasons than these for his elevation, and for the political influence his name has carried for over one hundred years — better reasons than the leadership of a party, or a fine-spun theory of the respective powers of the state and national governments. The explanation of these apparent anomalies lies deeper than any mere matter of individuality, party success, or rigid political platform. To understand why Jefferson became "a man of the people," and for what reasons and purposes they made him their leader, we must study certain forces and tendencies then working in America.

In the never-ending struggle between the so called "classes" and "masses," not the least interesting phase is that which occurred in the revolutionary period in this country. Although the colonies were nominally royal appendages, legislated for by King and Parliament, the difficulties of governing at such distance and other conditions, had compelled the

Introduction xiii

granting to them, or an acquiescence in their exercising, a large degree of local self-government. In conceding this, the attempt had been made, and in most cases successfully, to place power in the hands of the classes; so as to build up a colonial aristocracy, subservient to the wishes of the mother country. And as the colonies grew and became objects of greater interest to Great Britain, this tendency became more and more marked. But the conditions of the country were not suited for class or centralized government. The wilderness made every man a land-holder, and the vast extent of territory and its sparse settlement rendered civil authority unable to exercise its force, and therefore hardly a factor in its influence on the people. Yet the lawlessness of the new settlements, and the Indians on the frontier, compelled the maintenance of some kind of authority, and so each settler, and each community, became largely the law-maker and administrator of their own affairs. Thus it was that local self-government, based solely on manhood, was tested and became the cardinal principle of American government.

Such was the trending development of the people, when the policy of England between 1764 and 1775, towards her American colonies, united them in opposition to her rule. That opposition, and the great movement towards democratic government, were by events so blended, that they have since stood as one in the public mind. Yet they were entirely different, most of our great revolutionary leaders deprecating the latter; and while events converted some xiv Introduction

few to the democratic theory of power, the majority never ceased to fear the people. Had it not been for the exigencies of the war, which compelled an appeal to the masses, to destroy the royal government, and to fight the mother country, it is probable that they would not have gained any political power from national independence. But in the interregnum between the destruction of the old and the creation of the new governments, much was gained, not merely in actual exercise of rights, but in experience; for the masses learned that self -organized bodies of men, acting under no legal authority, could rule a whole country by mere recommendations; that a dependent government is the strongest in the world, for it must accord with public opinion, and therefore meet with public support; that constitutions and laws are but ink and paper unless they approximate to that sole origin of force and authority; and that it is not the government which supports the people, but the people who support the goveiTiment.

The masses are by their nature and condition, however, negative rather than positive, and when constructive, rather than destructive or obstructive force is required, they are compelled to delegate a portion of their powers. Thus, in the re-building of government, the classes secured an influence far out of proportion to their numbers. In the State constitutions, they succeeded in somewhat cvirtailing and limiting the popular control ; and later, in the formation of our national constitution they sought still further to wrest powers from the people, both by grants, which interposed barriers to the direct dele-

Introduction xv

gation of power from the people to the executive, judiciary, and one of the legislative branches, and by clauses purposely worded so as to leave the question of the quantity of power granted to the decision of men who would almost certainly be drawn from the classes. And a resulting political party attempted to carry this policy still further. Had government been merely a matter of intellect and ability, the Federalists would have succeeded in controlling and fixing its character in this country. That when they had done their work of construction, they were excluded from office, without ever comprehending the reason, proves how little they understood the tendency, intelligence, and power of the forces they were attempting to circumscribe. Unlike the Federalists, Jefferson was willing to discard the tradition of ages — that the people must be protected against themselves by the brains, money, and better "elements" of the country^ — and for this reason American democracy made him its chosen agent and mouth-piece.

To understand why Jefferson was one of the few men of intellect of his time able to appreciate, sympathize with, and aid this popular movement, a retrospect of certain factors in his life and times is necessary. Inheriting unsettling tendencies of mind, he was from an early age a thorough skeptic of tradition and precedent. In his own words, he never "feared to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." Almost alone of the revolutionary leaders, he was born on the frontier, which, xvi Introduction

as already stated, was the ultimate of local self-government. Among those conditions he passed the formative period of his life, and as representative of this district he made his first essay in politics, naturally as an advocate and defender of the democratic mountaineers. In the Virginia Assembly, in which his earliest battles were fought, the strongest line of party division was between the aristocratic "planter" interest — great landed and slave-holding proprietors, with the prestige and inertia of favorable laws and offices — and the "settler" interest — inhabiting the frontier, far from the law or protection of government, but strong in numbers, independence, and necessities; — and in these conflicts he learned how absolutely selfish and grasping all class legislation is. Then came the Revolution, and Jefferson saw governments, deriving their authority from laws innumerable, and their force from the strongest nation of Europe, utterly destroyed, with hardly a blow, merely through their non-recognition by the masses. With the Committees of Safety and the Congresses which succeeded, he saw the experiment of " a government of the people, by the people, for the people," established and tested. Had he been in America between 1784 and 1788, he too might have become doubtful as to how far the masses could control themselves, for the reaction of the revolutionary struggle was severe, and strained democratic institutions almost to anarchy. But at this time he was in France, witnessing another great struggle between the privileged and unprivileged. So he returned to America, true to the influences and lessons

Introduction xvii

of his life, to find his theories in disfavor with the conservative, and government sHpping more and more from the control of the governed. And because he believed that only the people truly knew what the people needed; that those who could take care of themselves were wise and practical enough to help care for the nation; and that the only way of enforcing laws was that they should be made by those who are to obey them, he undertook, with reluctance and self-sacrifice, to be the instrument of popular action. That he was the founder of the Democratic party is a claim little less than absurd, for there always has been, and always will be, such a part}^ But he united the democratic elements on certain principles and objects, and proved himself such a leader as the party has seldom been able to obtain.

Recognition of what he endeavored to accomplish explains many of his apparent inconsistencies. The dominant principle of his creed was that all powers belonged to the people, and that governments, constitutions, laws, precedent, and all other artificial clogs and "protections," are entitled to respect and obedience only as they fulfilled their limited function of aiding— not curtailing — the greatest freedom to the individual. For this reason, he held that no power existed to bind the people or posterity, except by their own acts. For this reason, he was the strict construer of the national constitution, where he believed it destructive of personal freedom; and construed it liberally where it threatened to limit the development of the people. He was the defender of xviii Introduction

the State governments; for he regarded them as a necessary division for local self-government and as natural checks on the national power, and so a safeguard to the people. That he appealed to them in his resolutions of 1798, was because he believed the people for once unable to act for their own interest, and the theories of that paper are a radical and short-lived contradiction of his true beliefs. Because he believed the national judiciary and the national bank to be opposed to the will of the people, he attacked them. Because he believed he was furthering the popular will, he interfered in the legislative department and changed office-holders. Because he wished them free to think and act, he favored separation from England, abolition of slavery, free lands, free education, freedom of religion, and the largest degree of local self-government. His methods and results were not always good. His character and -conduct had many serious flaws. Yet in some subtle way the people understood him, and forgave in him weaknesses and defects they have seldom condoned. And eventually this judgment will universally obtain, as the fact becomes clearer and clearer, that neither national independence, nor state sovereignty, with the national and party rancors that attach to them, were the controlling aim and attempt of his life ; that no party or temporary advantage was the object of his endeavors, but that he fought for the ever enduring privilege of personal freedom.

***

Introduction xix

The proof for this view of Jefferson must be sought in such of his writings as are still preserved:

In the Journal of the House of Burgesses of Virginia for May 9, 1769, are a series of resolutions intended to serve as a basis for the reply of that body to the speech of their newly arrived governor. Remarkable here only for their intense obsequiousness and adulation, these resolutions merit notice as the first public paper drawn by Thomas Jefferson. As a lawyer, however, Jefferson was already known. Few of his arguments have been preserved, but these few give evidence that he was already out of spirit with his surroundings. The man who could argue that human servitude was ' ' a violation of the law of nature"; that under those laws, "all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will ' ' ; and that " Christianity neither is nor ever was a part of the common law," was clearly not in sympathy with a slave-holding community, living under an established church, and ruled by a royal governor.

His next public paper was of much the same form, though differing greatly in nature from his first. It was a series of resolutions intended for the guidance and adoption of the self - constituted convention which met in August, 1774, and the difference in tone almost tells the history of those intervening years. Then, the interests of England and America were "inseparably the same." Now, only by accepting the advice of these resolutions could the "reciprocal advantages of their connection" be

XX Introduction

preserved. The power of Parliament over the colonies was denied; the King instructed that he was "no more than the chief officer of the people, appointed by the laws, and circumscribed with definite powers, to assist in working the great machine of government erected for their use, and consequently subject to their superintendence"; and the assertion made that the American people possessed the sole power of self-government and could " exercise it to an unlimited extent." These opinions were too extreme for even a revolutionary convention, but they nevertheless formed one more stepping-stone in the direction of independence for the colonies.

A year later he wrote the reply of the Virginia House of Burgesses to the plan of reconciliation known as Lord North's " Motion, " and was the bearer of it to the Continental Congress, of which he had been elected a member. For this body, he likewise wrote a second reply to the "Motion," as well as a ' ' Declaration ' ' on the United Colonies taking up arms. But this latter did not meet with their approval, and one prepared by Dickinson was taken in its stead ; and a comparison of the two certainly justifies the Congress. He also drafted a number of minor papers for that body, and prepared a plan for an executive government by a committee of Congress — an attempt not then realized, but which was later in an elaborated form to be again proposed by Jefferson, to be tried, and to result in failure.

In the Congress of 1776 he drafted, for the committee of which he was a member, three reports dealing with Canadian affairs, which are now of interest

Introduction xxi

only from the light they throw on the attempt to conquer that country. While so occupied, he drafted a proposed constitution for his native state and forwarded it to the convention in hopes of their accepting it, which they failed to do. But it is for us a most interesting paper, as illustrating the development of his political theories, the most notable being his acquiescence in the limiting of the franchise to freeholders, well knowing as he did, the impossibility of gaining from the aristocratic party any extension of the ballot, but neutralizing this acquiescence by distributing the public lands so as to make a manhood suffrage ; his far-seeing method for dealing with western colonization, his proposed ending of primogeniture, test oaths, and the slave trade; and his guarantees of freedom of religion and press. He prepared a number of other reports and resolutions for Congress, the most worthy of notice being his rules for the government of that body, which was probably the first step towards his parliamentary manual. His greatest work, however, was the writing of a vindication of the resolution of independence, since popularly known as the " Declaration of Independence." Jefferson never forgave the alterations which the sectional interests, as also the better sense of the Congress, made in his draft, even though they were for the most part omissions of what lacked either truth or dignity. The fame of the paper, which is probably the best known that ever came from the pen of an individual, has led to much discussion as to its origin, and numerous charges of plagiarism have been made against the xxii Introduction

author. That the catalogue of wrongs and grievances which constitute the body of the declaration was hackneyed is beyond dispute, for these had formed the basis of nearly every address and petition put forth by the Continental Congress, or Provincial Assemblies, and had been as well the prevailing subject of written and verbal discussion. The preamble and exordium are however the important parts. A comparison of the former with the Virginia Declaration of Rights would seem to indicate the source from which Jefferson derived a most important and popular part. The latter was practically rewritten by Congress. But the unity and phrasing of such a paper constitute no small portion of its composition, and to embody the feelings and hopes of a new nation in a single paper, as Jefferson did with such marvellous success, makes it unique among the greatest writings of the world, and gives to him an honor that can never end. With the Declaration of Independence the Congress completed a change which had been slowly maturing. From being a scribe of petitions and declarations, it tended more and more to become a war executive, and Jefferson, who achieved reputation by his philosophic mind and pen, and who himself realized his lack of ability in administration, found himself of little use in such a body. Pleading family and other reasons, therefore, he retired from Congress and took his seat in the Virginia House of Delegates.