Page images
PDF
EPUB

influential of the leaders in this group was Thomas Jefferson, and to a consideration of his doctrines

we now turn.

No name is more often or more intimately associated with American democracy than that of Thomas Jefferson. During his lifetime he was the American democrat par excellence; on his death he was politically canonized, and his words are still quoted with confidence and received with respect in the consideration of almost all political questions. Brought into prominence as the author of the Declaration of Independence, identified with the growth and triumph of the Republican party, inaugurated as its first President, framing its policies and providing its philosophy, Jefferson was undoubtedly the central figure in the early development of American democracy.1

Though regarded as the great advocate of democracy, Jefferson bequeathed to posterity no systematic treatise on the principles of politics.2 His Summary View (1774) and Notes on Virginia (1782) are the nearest approach to this, and they can scarcely be considered an approximation. Moreover, he was not a great orator, and there is no

1 For the life of Jefferson, see H. S. Randall's work in three volumes; also Morse's volume in the American Statesmen Series. 2 A useful classification of Jefferson's ideas on a great variety of subjects is made by J. P. Foley, in The Jeffersonian Cyclopædia. 3 See also his Autobiography (to 1790) and The Anas (17911806).

L

collection of addresses in which his ideas are embodied. He was, however, a great correspondent, and we have a large collection of his letters, written to such persons as Madison, John Adams, Lafayette, Dupont de Nemours, Taylor, Kercheval, Johnston, and others. From this extensive correspondence, in which topics of political theory frequently appear, together with some of his official papers, it is possible to reconstruct the theory of Jefferson, if not in minute detail, at least in general outline.1

The first important statement of Jefferson's political theory is contained in the Declaration of Independence. Here are eloquently expressed the now familiar doctrines of human equality, of the natural and inalienable rights of man, of the guaranty of these rights as the first cause of government, and of the right and duty of revolution when they are subverted. These doctrines, it is perhaps needless to say, were not original with the writer of the Declaration. They were the common property of his time, were on the lips of every patriot orator, and found copious expression in resolutions throughout the colonies. It was later charged that the substance of the Declaration had been "hack

1 References are to Ford's edition of Jefferson's writings (ten volumes), unless otherwise specified. The Washington edition contains some material not found in Ford, and vice versa. See also "The Jefferson Papers," in Collections of Massachusetts Historical Society, Seventh Series, Vol. I, edited by J. Franklin Jameson.

neyed in Congress for two years before."1 Jefferson himself was fully conscious that the originality of the statements lay in their form, rather than in their content, and his own explanation of his work is excellent: "Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular or previous writings, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion."2 Jefferson crystallized the common sentiment into a very effective form, but he could not and did not claim for himself the merit of presenting to the world a series of new or hitherto undiscovered truths. This is not to say, however, that the authorship of the Declaration was not a signal distinction; it merely changes the category in which the distinction lay.

Inquiring more closely into Jefferson's theory of inalienable rights, we find him protesting against the idea that we surrender any of our natural rights on entering into society. Jefferson argues that these rights are not given up, but, on the contrary, are rendered more secure. He holds that the

1 Works, X, 267. This was alleged by Pickering and Adams, who also charged that "its essence was contained in Otis's pamphlet." R. H. Lee maintained that it was copied from Locke.

2 Ibid. X, 343. Cf. X, 268: "I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before." — Letter to Madison. 3 Ibid. X (1816), 32 ff. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Govern

ment.

state should declare and enforce our rights, but should take none of them from us. Reasoning in this way, it is possible, he thinks, to mark out the proper sphere of state activity. Thus, as no man has a natural right to interfere with the rights of others, it is the duty of the law to restrain every one from such interference. Every man should contribute to the necessities of society; therefore the law should see that he does so. No man has a natural right to judge in his own cause; therefore the law must judge. Thus it appears that one does not lose his natural rights under government, but obtains a better guaranty of them.

Government is established, however, by the "consent of the governed," or at least a just government is so supported. What, then, is the nature of this consent, and how is it to be made effective amid constantly changing conditions? Jefferson was not satisfied with a contract made once and for all, like that of Hobbes, or with a merely hypothetical contract or even with a presumption of tacit consent from the fact of residence. He looked upon the contract as a necessary foundation for legitimate government, and he considered that the agreement should have historical as well as logical validity. The principle of the social contract must be sacredly preserved in the life of the people, and Jefferson proposed two ways of insuring this end: first, by revolution; second, by periodical renewal of the agreement.

Revolution, Jefferson did not regard with great horror, if principle were involved in the process. He did not believe in government as something so sacred in nature as to be above human criticism. He did not "look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched."1 Government appeared to him as an institution existing for the governed; and if it failed to serve this purpose, then it might be overthrown and another erected on its ruins. So far did he go in this direction that the beneficent elements in government were at times almost lost to view. He declared his dislike of energetic government because it is always oppressive.2 He was on one occasion doubtful whether the first state of man, without government, as he says, would not be the most desirable, if the society were not too large. He thought that republics should not be too severe in their treatment of rebellions, lest the free spirit of the people be suppressed.

Rebellion, he argued, is a medicine necessary to the health of government, and its use must not be denied. It is wholesome, though bitter; or, using another figure, it clears the air like a thunderstorm. Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts Jefferson regarded with great composure, even with complaisance. The motives of the rebels were good, he thought, though doubtless they were ill

1 Works, X, 42.
8 Ibid. IV, 362.

2 Ibid. IV, 479.
4 Ibid. IV, 362.

« PreviousContinue »