* I give thfft Books
\-for the founding of a. College in this Ccloaf,

D

"Y^LIE^WJMWIEI^eilirY''

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
OF THE
Society of tlie Cincinnati
Fund

Columtiia ainiberjSitp %tttute0

PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
GEORGE BLUMENTHAL FOUNDATION
1912

COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY PRESS
SALES AGENTS
New York :
LEMCKE & BUECHNER
30-32 West 27th Street
London :
HENRY FROWDE
Amen Corner, E.C.
Toronto :
HENRY FROWDE
25 Richmond Street, W.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LECTURES

THOMAS JEFFERSON
HIS PERMANENT INFLUENCE
ON AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS

BY

JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

JBeto porfe
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1913
All rights reserved

Copyright, 1913
By Columbia Univbrsitt Press
Set up and eleotrotyped. Published April, 1913

L b 4 h 4-7

/

Press of
lit NIW EM PB.NTIUS C8«P»«,
t-AHCASTER, Pa.

DEDICATED TO
MY WIFE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW

PREFACE
I WROTE and delivered these lectures not only in
great haste, but under great pressure. At the time the
promise to deliver them was made, Congress was
expected to adjourn about the middle of June. It
adjourned about the first of September. This sub
tracted two and one-half months from my time.
I deemed it my duty later to devote two and one-half
weeks of the time remaining to campaign field work in
behalf of the election to the Presidency of one of Mr.
Jefferson's successors, Governor Woodi'ow Wilson.
The natural inference from all this is that the work
may, and probably does, contain errors.
I have sought as much as possible to bring the past
bodily into the present by quotations from dead actors.
The reader will find a very free use of italics. It is
not good taste; but the hearer was thereby spared
much hearing, and the reader will be spared much
reading. Italicizing the sahent point of a quotation
is my way of saving words of comment, which other
wise would be necessary.
No man can entirely divorce himself from his likings
and dislikings. I have tried to do it; but I have for
long loved world democracy and its apostles, and
disliked special privilege and its beneficiaries and
upholders. There is no American about whom more has been
written than Mr. Jefferson. In addition to the stand-

Vlll PREFACE
ard histories of the United States and what they record
concerning him, there is a distinct Jeffersonian bibli
ography. The fist below, under the heading "Bibli
ography," contains articles, pamphlets, and books,
especially appertaining to Mr. Jefferson, which I have
read either recently, or in times past.
John Shakp Williams.

CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. Introductory  1
II. Jefferson the Revolutionist
1. In America  7
2. In France  56
III. Jefferson the Democratizer of State
Institutions 1. A State Made Over  67
2. An Apostle of Local Self -Government . 96
IV. Jefferson's Influence as a Diplomat. . . 107
V. Jefferson the Democratizer of Federal
Institutions Stemming the Counter-Revolution . . . . 141
VI. The Influence of Jefferson as Presi
dent 1. "My Passion is Peace"  196
2. "An Empire for Liberty"  201
3. Jeffersonian Simplicity  225
Some Minor Matters  239
Summing up  242
VII. Jefferson's Influence on Freedom of
Religion in America  244
VIII. Jefferson's Influence on Our Edu
cational Institutions  266
Bibliography  308
Index  313

PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON
ON AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
In an article written by Andrew D. White, entitled,
"Jefferson and Slavery," in the Atlantic Monthly for
January, 1862, he says that "in the architecture" of
our democratic republic, we find "the agency mainly
of six men."
First, three men who "did most to found the Re
public: and these three men are Washington, Adams
and Jefferson."
"Secondly, two men who" . . . "did most to build
the Republic: and these two men are Jefferson and
Hamilton."
" Third, three men, who, having a clear theory in their
heads, and a deep conviction in their hearts . . . did
most to brace the Republic: and these three men are
Frankhn, Jefferson and Channing."
He continues : —
"So, rising above the dust raised in our old quarrels, and taking
a broad view of this Democracy, we see Jefferson placed firmly in
each of these groups.
2 1

2 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"If we search in Jefferson's writings and in the contemporary
records to ascertain what that power was which won Mm these
positions, we find that it was no personal skill in cajoling friends or
scaring enemies. . . .
"The real secret of his power was, first of all, that Jefferson saw
infinitely deeper into the principles of the rising democracy, and
infinitely farther into its future working, than any other man of Ms
time. Those who earnestly read Mm wiU often halt astounded at
proofs of a foresight in Mm almost miraculous."
The subject prescribed for me in these lectures is
the permanent influence of Thomas Jefferson on
American institutions. Who can say, with assurance,
what feature in a nation's institutions is permanent,
until its life has been lived out to its end? To delineate
the birth principles of the American confederation is
easy, but to tell how far these birth principles are
permanently life principles, is not so. What Solon said
to Croesus appUes. What features seemingly essential
to our institutions at any one particular time, are really
so, is a question whose answer is colored by the time at
which the question is asked. If such a question had
been asked during and immediately after the Revo
lution, when the love of freedom was at high tide, the
answer would have been one thing; if after Shay's
Rebellion in Massachusetts and the general anarchic
condition, leading to a great and general reaction
against the principles of the American Revolution, it
would have been another. If asked once more, after
four years of Jefferson's administration had allayed the
fear of democracy and of popular rule, the reply would
have been still different. Then put yourselves back in
the period of 1850-60, and again to the year 1866, and
yet again to 1876, and get a different reply in each case.

INTRODUCTORY 3
Imagine the question asked and answered during
reconstruction days, and again later on after sensible
men had concluded with Tourgee, who called himself
"One of the Fools," that reconstruction had been "A
Fool's Errand." Again how essentially different the
replies would be before and after we had "gone a
world-powering" in the Philippines; — before, when all
were agreed that we wanted no entanglements with the
old world by interference, or possession; that we de
sired only "friendly commerce with all and entangling
alliances with none," and after, when we stood amazed
to find that somehow we had sillily drifted into becom
ing an Asiatic power, with Asiatic territorial and polit
ical interests and anxieties.
Not knowing what all this has made pregnant in the
womb of the future, which of us can assert that any
particular feature of our system now deemed funda
mental, characteristic, permanent, shall be so ten years
from now — whether, in any particular case, "having
the wolf by the ears," we shall or shall not, or can or
can not, "turn him loose"? All of which concludes in
this; that for the purpose of the inquiry of these
lectures, that is permanent which the inquirer in his
horoscoping deems permanent, and, as the wish is so
much the father of the thought, it will be largely that
which he wishes and prays and hopes is so.
Next, in determining the scope of our work in these
lectures: what are the "institutions" of a people? Are
they simply constitutional forms? If so, these United
States and Mexico and the Central American republics
have the same institutions; and England and Italy and
Germany, all being "limited monarchies" with so-called

4 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"responsible parliamentary ministries," have the same
institutions. Can either of these statements be true?
No. Why not? Because just as a man has an out
ward body and an inner informing and directing soul,
so a nation has a body-politic, about which we hear so
much, and a soul-politic, about which we hear Httle, or
nothing, under that name. V Esprit des Lois — the
spirit of the institution — that is, the thing vitalizing
the words of constitutions and statutes — must be taken
into consideration. Buckle's unfinished pohtical novum
organum — his "History of Civilization" — is only a
historical analysis of the evolutionary development of
the soul-politic of the peoples.
All considered, I shall then treat the subject in this
full sense, and I shall exhibit the permanent, or thought-
to-be-permanent, influence of Mr. Jefferson, not only
on American visible institutions, but on American
vitahzing thought and practice.
But again, how can one tell a man's political influence,
without knowing at least enough of his heredity and
environment to explain his words, theories, and acts in
the Ught of them?
No man can escape altogether the impress of the
form and color of his time and place, nor altogether
ignore the blood which courses in his veins. Yet for
all this, I shall have neither time nor space. The man,
Jefferson, in his lovableness of disposition, his feminine
cleaimess of speech and thought and fife, his almost
infinite versatility, his noble optimism, his world-
vision, I would literally love to describe. But all that
I must ruthlessly forego, save for a sidelight here and
there, while correcting some errors of others.

INTRODUCTORY 5
What was his environment? First, he was a
Virginian and a planter. Secondly, he was a frontiers
man, because Albemarle County, when he was growing
up, was still a frontier country. The county settled
very rapidly, but still, during the formative period of
Thomas Jefferson's life, his environment was a frontier
environment. The fife he hved later was that of an
independent country gentleman. Thus from both
sources individuaUty was the first and necessary
product of his life and of the fives of those about him;
its chief and indispensable lesson being a reliance on
one's own intellect, initiative, and resources; from
which proceeded an absolute contempt for authority
and precedent — merely as such.
Much has been said about Jefferson's being influenced
by Rousseau's "Contrat Social." The idea of a social
contract being at the base of government — a compact
of the people amongst themselves — was ingrained in
his thought and in the thought of all those around him,
but it was not from reading. Jefferson never read
Rousseau until long after his own political opinions
had been formed. Indeed if he read him at ah, I can
find no trace of it. On the frontier people got this idea
of government resting on compact because it was a fact
of their lives. First one settler, then half a dozen,
then a score would move into a neighborhood beyond
the support of old settlements, and then naturally the
neighbors would some day gather, and after they had
chatted about the crops, about getting a teacher if
they could, and about a place for the itinerant preacher
to "hold forth" when he came, they would take up the
question of the establishment of a practical local

6 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
government; the selection of somebody before whom
neighborhood differences should be argued and by
whom they should be settled — by analogy of English
law, a "justice of the peace" — the selection of some
body who should pursue horse thieves, or other crimi
nals, arrest and bring them in for trial — by analogy
of EngUsh law, a "constable" — the selection of
somebody to correspond with the legislature to secure
the organization of a new county, so that they might
have a local board to lay out roads, designate ferries,
etc., and so that they might have representation in the
State legislative body; but preceding all, where and
how and under what leadership they should meet for
defence against the Indians, when needful. All of
these things were done in America in each neighborhood,
by a "compact" of the people with one another. This
each frontiersman's son learned, with his other A B Cs,
on his father's knee, as a part of the usual political
experience of the American people.

CHAPTER II
JEFFERSON THE REVOLUTIONIST
1. in AMERICA
I TAKE it that the influence of our independence has
permanently affected our institutions and that our
revolutionary principles are the informing spirit of
them; therefore, that Jefferson's acts and words as a
revolutionist come within the scope of this inquiry.
Jefferson became of age in 1764. Before that, he
had become attached to the cause of American freedom.
Soon, nobody was more decided, none more radical, in
opposition to the British pohcy towards the colonies
than he.
In a letter to William Wirt, with his good sense and
canny tact, he says: "Sensible, however, of the im
portance of unanimity among our constituents, although
we often wished to go faster, we slackened our pace that
our less ardent colleagues might keep up with us; and
they, on their part, differing nothing from us in prin
ciple, quickened their gait somewhat beyond that
which their prudence might of itself have advised, and
thus consolidated the phalanx, which breasted the
power of Britain. By this harmony of the bold with
the cautious, we advanced with our constituents in
undivided mass and with fewer examples" (in Virginia)
"of separation than perhaps existed in any other part of
the Union." 7

8 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
In his biography he uses this language, concerning
the origin of the committees of correspondence: —
"We were all sensible that the most urgent of all measures was
that of coming to an understanding with all the other colomes to
consider the British claims as a common cause to all and to produce
a unity of action; and for tMs purpose that a committee of corre
spondence in each colony would be the best instrument for inter
communication: and that their first measure would probably be to
propose a meeting of deputies for every colony, at some central
place, who should be charged with the direction of measures wMch
should be taken by all. I, therefore, drew up the resolutions wMch
may be seen in Wirt, page 67."
The resolutions to which he refers designate a
standing committee of intercolonial correspondence
and inquiry.
There has been some contention about which colony
first organized the committees of correspondence.
Bancroft has it about right when he says, "Massa
chusetts organized a province, Virginia promoted a
confederacy. Were the several committees but to
come together, the world would see an American
Congress." Senator Lodge, in the History of Nations Series,
Volume 23, is one of the few historians who gives due
weight to the committees of correspondence and
safety, as provisional governments. He calls them
very aptly, "a system of revolutionary machinery."
Much of this committee government was secret and
constitutes lost pages of our history.
The real truth is that a Union for the colonies was
effected with the inauguration of the intercolonial
correspondence committees. They constituted as
purely a revolutionary group of bodies as did the com-

THE REVOLUTIONIST 9
mitteesof pubhc safety and the other committees, formed
partially in imitation of them, during the French revo
lutionary period. It was the American committees of
safety, which suggested an example for the Ku Klux
Klan in the South later in its history — both acting
with a perfect secrecy, which thus far even has never
been fully unveiled. By virtue of this self-constituted
authority, men threw the tea overboard in Boston
harbor and persuaded, coerced, or intimidated con
signees in other American ports to refuse to receive
any such consignments.
A more perfectly enigmatic Ku Klux announcement
was never made than that of John Rowe, when — the
people of Boston having exliausted all peaceful and
legal means to prevent the Governor from granting
a pass, which would enable the ship laden with tea
to clear the harbor under the guns of tlie castle — he
asked: "Who knows how tea will mingle with salt
water?" Then, Fiske recites that, "amidst profound
stillness," Samuel Adams arose and said, quietly, but
distinctly, "This meeting can do nothing more to save
the country." This was the signal upon which the
Massachusetts committees ceased by 2)iihlic utterance
to direct the movement and when, in some agreed way,
there came about the secret movement by disguised
men. The "Mohawk Indians," hastening to the
wharf, taking possession of the ship, unloaded its cargo
into the sea.
Too much importance cannot be attached to the
Revolutionary committees of correspondence; first, for
making and keeping a united front between the towns
in Massachusetts, upon the motion of Samuel Adams,

10 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
and afterwards, for securing this same harmony of
action and unity of purpose between the several colonies,
upon the suggestion of Jefferson's resolution adopted
by the band of patriots met in the Apollo Room in
the Raleigh Tavern at WilUamsburg. During the
interregnum between recognized British authority and
the newly organized American authority, these com
mittees constituted the real government. Through
them the American people learned, in nearly all of the
colonies, the lesson of the capacity of the people to
govern themselves directly, even without regularly
constituted over-lords or governors. It is no wonder
that Daniel Leonard, the great Tory and British local
leader, said of these committees, "This is the foulest,
subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued from
the egg of sedition. It is the source of the rebelUon.
I saw the small seed when it was planted; it was a grain
of mustard. I have watched the plant until it has be
come a tree."
The resolution to make these committees of corre
spondence intercolonial was, at Jefferson's request,
offered in the Assembly by Dabney Carr, the friend
and later the brother-in-law of Jefferson, with whom
Jefferson had so often sat upon the "Little Mountain,"
in closest poUtical and intellectual communion, in a
sweetness of friendship seldom rivaled between men.
Now comes another meeting of the members of the
House of Burgesses at the Apollo Room in the Raleigh
Tavern and the formation of another association,
entered into by all of them, declaring it unpatriotic to
buy British East Indian tea or other commodities; that
"an attack upon one of the colonies was an attack upon

THE REVOLUTIONIST 11
all," and directing the Corresponding Committee of
the State to devise with the other committees of the
other colonies a general annual congress, and at the
same time calhng a Virginia convention to be held at
Williamsburg on August 1st, to appoint delegates to
this Congress. Thus was formally conceived our
Union, destined to grow and strengthen, in due process
of development, until it should become indissoluble.
Massachusetts, in this crisis of her history, would
probably have stood alone but for the committees of
correspondence — really revolutionary committees —
which were keeping in elbow touch with one another
from what is now Vermont down to what is now
Georgia. The action of the Government in closing the port of
Boston constituted a declaration of war upon all
America, although perhaps no man in the British min
istry, or in the confidence of the King, so understood it.
It is wonderful how everything goes back to this
Apollo Room in the Raleigh Tavern, where Jefferson
was one of the ruling spirits. For example, the move
ment towards a Continental Congress came first from
New York. Coming from that State, only partially
loyal to the American cause — perhaps not at that
time loyal by a majority vote — it would have died
still-born, had it not been taken up by the members of
the Legislature of Virginia — prorogued and ad
journed — but still sitting in solemn voluntary ses
sion — in the Raleigh Tavern.
It was on the 14th day of May, 1776, that the self-
reconstituted Legislature of Virginia unanimously
voted these instructions to its delegates: "To propose

12 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
to that respectable body" (meaning by that respectable
body, the Continental Congress) "to declare the
United Colonies free and independent States," and to
"give the assent of this Colony to measures to form
foreign aUiances and a confederation, provided the power
of forming government for the internal regulations of each
colony be left to the colonial legislatures." Here is the
germ of our dual system of government — federal in
foreign and inter-state matters, state in domestic
affairs. In all your study of American history, keep
this itaUcized proviso in your minds. It will explain
much. Revolutionary intimidation, it must be confessed,
reigned foot-loose throughout America. The bold,
patriotic and Hberty-loving were not everywhere in a
majority. The conditions were such, as Fiske says,
that "neither councillors, nor judges, neither sheriffs
nor jurymen, could be found to serve under the royal
commission" to "execute the Regulating Act in Massa
chusetts." He further adds that for nine months this
state of seeming anarchy continued, and that "yet
the affairs of every-day life had gone on without friction
or disturbance."
This too recalls the condition of affairs in the South in
'74 and '75, when, first in one place and then in another,
all carpet-bag authority had been intimidated into
flight or quiescence, and yet afterwards peace and law
and order reigned. Both conditions, as well as what
happened in the early history of California, are high
tributes to the capacity of the American people for
self-government. The instructions of Albemarle County to Mr. Thomas

THE REVOLUTIONIST 13
Jefferson and Mr. John Walker, their two members of
the House of Burgesses and their two deputies to the
convention, are worth regarding, especially as from the
style and the surroundings they were evidently written
by Mr. Jefferson. They are as follows: —
"Resolved, That the several inhabitants of the several States of
British America are suliject to t\w laws irliich they adopted at their
first settlement, and to such others as have been since vinde by their
respertive Legi dot arcs ^ duly constituted and op))t)inted with their own
conserd. That no other Legislature tcludnur can. rightly csircise
authority over than, and that these privileges they hold as common
rights of mankind, confirmed by political constitutions they have
respectfully assumed, and also by several charters of compact from
the Crown."
Notice he goes back to the "common rights of
mankind," which are "confirmed" — not created —
by charters and "political constitutions."
The language, "these privileges they hold as common
rights of mankind," is, so far as I can discover, the first
basing of the American cause upon " the rights of man,"
rather than upon the inherited legal rights of Enghsh-
men. This was to grow into an assertion of the inherent
right of self-government vested in every community, and
by logical consequence, into the claim of right upon
the part of any community to throw off any govern
ment, which, in its opinion, had ceased to subserve the
purpose of all government, to wit: securing and main
taining the happiness and the liberties of those governed.
Jefferson in his " Memoir " says, that these were his
views from the very first dawn of the dispute, but that
he had then "never been able to get anyone to agree
with him except Mr. Wythe."

14 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Patrick Henry, the controlhng genius in Hanover
County, and probably the dictator of its resolutions,
did not go so far. We find these resolutions asserting
only "the privileges and immunities of their fellow-
subjects in England," etc.
The resolutions from Fairfax County, where George
Washington presided over the meeting, used language
not so strong as that of Hanover.
The Virginia Convention met at the prescribed time.
Jefferson was prevented by illness from attending. He
had prepared, to be offered to the Convention, a draft
of instructions to the Virginia members of Congress.
He had forwarded a copy to Peyton Randolph and one
to Henry. The fate of these resolutions we will give
in Mr. Jefferson's own language: —
"They were written in haste, with some uncertainties and in
accuracies about Mstorical facts, wMch I neglected at the moment,
because I thought they could be readily corrected at the convention.
. . . Peyton Randolph informed the convention that he had re
ceived such a paper from a member, prevented by sickness from offer
ing it in Ms place, and he laid it on the table for perusal. It was read
generally by the members, approved by many, though thought too
bold for the present state of tMngs; but they printed it in pampMet
form, under the title of 'A Summary View of the Rights of British
America.' It found its way to England and was taken up by the
opposition, interpolated a little by Mr. Burke, so as to make it
answer opposition purposes" (in England) "and in that form ran
rapidly through several editions. ... I was informed afterwards
by Peyton Randolph, that it had procured me the honor of having
my name inserted in a long list of proscriptions, enrolled in a bill
of attainder, wMch was commenced in one of the Houses of Parlia
ment, but was suppressed in embryo by the hasty step of events,
wMch warned them to be a little cautious. . . . Tamer sentiments
were preferred, and, I beUeve, wisely preferred; the leap I proposed
being too long, as yet, for the mass of our citizens. The distance

THE REVOLUTIONIST 15
between these and the instructions actually adopted, is of some
curiosity, however, and it shows the inequahty of pace with wMch
we moved, and the prudence required to keep front and rear to
gether. My creed had been formed on unsheathing the sword at
Lexington." (Lexington here is a lapsus linguae, or ''pluinae";
Boston is meant.)
This "Summary View of the Rights of British Amer
ica" became the mine into which many delved for ideas
and phrases in presenting the American side of the
dispute. The Virginia State "Convention" is worthy of note
in this; that it is, as far as I know, the first of those
peculiarly characteristic American institutions. A
"Convention" with us is considered superior to an
ordinary representative assembly; so much so, that a
state convention can adopt a new constitution, without
even referring it back to the people for their approval,
as has been done in my State two or three times. It is
looked upon as "the body of the people representatively
assembled" and possesses full powers for state purposes,
as a national convention would have for the purpose of
completely altering the Constitution of the United
States. Jefferson's argument in the "Summary View" is based
very strongly upon the assertion of the right of expatri
ation. Hence his constant insistence through life on
that right. It was, according to his view, at the very
root of our contention in the Revolution. The right
of expatriation was not then admitted by any nation
of the earth. It is not admitted by Russia at all, nor
fully by Prussia, nor Austria, to this good day, and was
denied by Great Britain up to and even after the War
of 1812. It has not been very long since we abrogated

16 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
a treaty with Russia, growing out of differences between
that Government and ours, based upon antagonistic
views with regard to the doctrine of indefeasible
aUegiance. The " Summary View," however, takes the
position that the American colonies expatriated them
selves as fully as did the Angles and the Saxons from
their old country, when they settled in England, and
that except for their voluntary adhesion to the same
crown, the independence between the two countries
would have been as complete, as that between England
and the old home of the race.
Jefferson had gone back to the Greek Republican
conception of the status of colonies.
The assertion is made that Great Britain had ren
dered no assistance to the colonists until after they had
estabhshed themselves on a firm and permanent
footing, and had, therefore, become valuable as custo
mers to the mother country; that we had submitted to
trade regulations in our own interest, as long as they
were not too restrictive to our own rights and were
advantageous to the mother country, but that these
had now become unbearable and too oppressive to be
further permitted.
From the same instrument, I shall quote another
sentence characteristically Jeffersonian, because it is a
forerunner of what will later appear in the Declaration
of Independence: —
"Scarcely have our minds been able to emerge from the aston
ishment into wMch one stroke of Parhamentary thunder has involved
us, before another, more heavy and more alarming, is fallen on us.
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opimon
of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period

THE REVOLUTIONIST 17
and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too
plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to
slavery." It is not too much to say that the "Summary View
of the Rights of British America" contained most of
the essential ideas of the Declaration of Independence.
It antedated that document by nearly two years; it
complained of the same wrongs and set forth the same
inherent and natural rights, and, in some respects, was
more advanced in its views than the Declaration itself.
It was scarcely a subject of wonder that it led to Mr.
Jefferson's being placed upon the proscribed list. Here,
as elsewhere, the student of Jefferson's life will find him
always in advance, even of the progressive wing of the
party with which he is cooperating, and will also find
an illustration of his readiness to yield and concede
non-essentials in order that all might move along
together. One thing is most remarkable; the " Summary View "
goes out of its way to refer justifyingly to the execution
of Charles I. This was done in a paper proposed to be
adopted by a Virginia convention, where men sat whose
forefathers had resisted in the cause of the Stuart the
utmost power of Oliver Cromwell, until, indeed, a
formal treaty had been entered into between the great
Lord Protector and the Old Dominion. In that body
sat men, whose forefathers had been killed in the King's
service, or had left England for Virginia rather than
submit to the rule of the "Commonwealth."
A distinguished Ex-President speaks of IVIr. Jefferson
as being "timid" and "vacillating!" He was more
- nearly rash.
3

18 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
The reader of the " Summary View " will note the
groimd upon which Jefferson places his protest against
closing the port of Boston. It is the punishment of
the many innocent for the acts of the few guilty.
In this connection, it might be recalled that certain
people in a Southern town, having signed a petition to
a negro postmistress requesting her resignation, which
was regarded by the Administration as a species of
" intimidation," the post office was closed, by order of an
American President, and all of the people in the town
and adjacent territory put to the inconvenience and
expense of getting their mail from a place a dozen miles
or more away. The Federal Court was open, with
Federal judge, marshal, grand juries and petty juries,
and the federal law could have been vindicated by an
exercise of the ordinary powers of the court. Even a
Httle instance Uke this shows the importance of keeping
general principles of justice and right government
always in view, and illustrates the truth of the time-
honored maxim that "eternal vigilance is the price of
Uberty." Nobody in Virginia, or South Carolina, or New York,
would have objected, or would have had any right to
object, to the punishment by law of the men who
unlawfully seized and threw the tea into the harbor,
but the high-handed punishment of the whole people
showed an absolute disregard of accepted rules of
civihzed government, and "an intention not to punish
an act, but an opinion." Still more tyrannical was the
act of ParUament providing for the trial in England
for certain classes of offenders. The plea in both
cases and in the Southern post ofl&ce case, that "the

THE REVOLUTIONIST 19
juries will not convict," is one to which tyrants resort,
but one which ought never to be entertained in a free
country. It is only needful to add that the ideas expressed in the
" Summary View," in the latter part of which Jefferson
adjures George III, "no longer to persevere in sacrificing
the rights of one part of the empire to the inordinate
desires of another, but to deal out to all equal and
impartial right," and to "let no act be passed by one
legislature which may infringe upon the rights and
liberties of another," and reminds him that, "this is
the important post in which fortune has placed you,
holding the balance of a great, if a ivell-j)oisvd empire,"
now constitutes the principle underlying the practice
of the British empire towards her white colonies.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the mother
country are virtually held together only by the common
kingship — the sole tie binding Virginia and England
under Jefferson's theory. Each has its own admittedly
independent legislative assembly, and the Parliament
of Great Britain would no more think of legislating for
Canada, in any really Canadian concern, than the
Canadian Parliament would think of legislating for
England or Wales. If the British Empire has become
"a well-poised empire," with reciprocal advantages for
all its connections, it has been because of the wise
adoption of this salutary rule.
Again Jefferson says to the King: "Accept of every
commercial preference it is within our power to give,"
etc. Today, if Canada, or any of the British colonies
give trade preferences to Great Britain, it is because
they choose to give them, and not because of any ac-

20 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
knowledged right of the mother country to demand
them, under the guise of regulating commerce. Thus
this doctrine, which was thought to be too bold for
adoption by the Virginia convention, even in the
throes of a great revolution, is become the accepted
doctrine of the "great" and "well-poised" empire, to
whose king the propositions were addressed in reproof.
Jefferson was elected Chairman of the Albemarle
County Committee of Safety — such being, I presume,
the confidence of the boys, who had been raised with
him, in his "timidity" and "vacillation!"
Girardin, in his "History of Virginia," page 6, says,
that "the operations of these committees not being
definite, were almost unhmited." Perhaps from them
and Jefferson's recollection of them, the revolutionary
committee system in France may have had its birth,
though, of course, no man, who had experienced com
mittee government among the free, politically-trained,
and comparatively equal and well-to-do inhabitants of
America, could have foreseen its destructiveness and
folly in France.
Gnardm says of these committees that they ex
amined the books of merchants to see if they imported
the articles which were forbidden, or sold at higher
prices than they should; that they examined all sus
pected persons, disarmed, fined, and punished them,
and that, when necessary, they enUsted trained officers
and armed mdependent companies — (the "minute
men" of whom you read) —in each county, and that
from their decision there was no appeal. Randall says
that "it would be difficult to say where the power of
these local tribunals stopped, except that they did not

THE REVOLUTIONIST 21
exercise the death penalty and the power to confiscate
estates, which last powers were retained by the con
ventions of the colonies."
Jefferson was, throughout his life, radical in ends and
conservative in means. It is not surprising, then, to
find that the Committee of Safety in Albemarle County
was less proscriptive in its conduct — more cautious
and wise — than almost anywhere else.
Then Mr. Jefferson was chosen a member of the
Continental Congress.
Meanwhile, Lord North's "ConciUatory Proposal,"
as it was called, had been received in the colonies and
it was necessary that Virginia, among other colonies,
should make reply. Jefferson says : —
" The tenor of this proposition, being generally known, as having
been addressed to all the Governors, Peyton Randolph was anxious
that the answer of our Assembly, likely to be the fust, should har
monize with what he knew to be the sentiments and wishes of the
body he had recently left. He feared that I\lr. Nicholas, whose
mind was not yet up to the mark of the times, would imdertake
the answer, and, therefore, presseil me to prepare it. I did so, and
with his aid, carried it through the House, with long and doubtful
scruples from Mr. Nicholas and James Mercer, and a dash of cold
water on it here and there, enfeebling it somewhat, but finally mth
unanimity, or a vote approaching it."
The sahent points of this document were, that the
British Parhament, not being an American legislative
assembly, had no right to interfere with civil govern
ment in any of the colonies; that Lord North's propo
sition involved the idea that the colonies, "in order to
secure exemption from an unjust tax, must saddle
themselves with a self-inflicted perpetual tax," "ade
quate to the expectations and subject to the disposal

22 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
of Parhament alone;" that "many of the American
grievances previously stated were taken no note of in
the proposal, because the ministry were then making
disposition to invade the colonies;" that the ministry
did not propose to lay open to them "a free trade with
all the world;" and significantly that the proposition
made to Virginia involved the interest of all the other
colonies, and that all the colonies were represented in a
general congress, and that "no partial obligation should
produce a disunion from the common cause;" that Vir
ginia considered herself in honor boimd to "share what
ever general fate might betide her sister colonies." Thus
Virginia acknowledged and emphasized our Union.
The conclusion was the expression of a final deter
mination to leave the question to the disposition of the
general Congress, before whom the House of Burgesses
would lay the papers. Then speaking for Virginia
alone occurs this language:
"For ourselves, we have exhausted every mode of application,
wMch our invention could suggest as proper and promising. We
have decently remonstrated with Parhament — they have added
new injuries to the old; we have wearied our king with supplica
tions — he has not dared to answer us; we have appealed to the
native honor and justice of the British nation — their efforts in
oiu- behalf have Mtherto been ineffectual; what then remains to be
done? That we commit our injuries to the even-handed justice
of that Being, who doeth no wrong, earnestly beseecMng Him to
illuminate the councils and prosper the endeavors of those to whom
America hath confided her hopes, that tMough their wise discretion
we may again see reumted the blessings of liberty, prosperity and
harmony with Great Britain."
A sunilar arraignment of the justice of the British
people, in the original draft of the Declaration of

THE REVOLUTIONIST 23
Independence, was stricken out by the Continental
Congress! Jefferson carried Virginia's reply to Lord North with
him to the Congress at Philadelphia, where we now
take up the thread of our story.
John Adams afterwards said that, although Jefferson
was not a public speaker, owing to his voice (or rather
lack of voice), he (Adams) found that, "though a silent
member of Congress, he was so prompt, frank, exphcit
and decisive upon committees and in conversation (not
even Samuel Adams was more so), that he soon seized
upon my heart."
This language of a contemporary is recommended
to the perusal of so-called historians, rough-riding over
facts. He never "vacillated," nor was "timid," nor
showed "a sluggish mind" in "the times that tried
men's souls," nor in the face of any crisis at any time,
though in non-essentials he was always the most
yielding of all sweet natures.
Virginia's answer to Lord North's " Concihatory
Proposal," as drawn by Jefferson, "met the views of
the more advanced members of the Whig party in
Congress," and "the importance of it was fully meas
ured by all," because, if adopted, it would have the
effect of "closing the door to argument with the mother
country." It was adopted by Congress. It left us
two alternatives; a successful redress of grievances by
arms on the one hand, or subjugation on the other.
Five days after he took his seat in Congress, Jefferson
was placed on an existing committee to make a state
ment, or declaration, of "the causes of the colonies
taking up arms." The conmiittee had already made a

24 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
report, of which the Congress had disapproved; there
fore the two new members — Mr. Jefferson of Virginia,
and Mr. Dickinson of Pennsylvania. Jefferson's pen
was again called into requisition. He prepared a draft
for the declaration, but it was too strong for Mr.
Dickinson, who still retained the hope of reconciliation.
Jefferson says that Dickinson was "so honest a man
and so able," that he "was requested to take the paper
and put it into a form that he could approve;" that
Dickinson did it, preserving of Jefferson's declaration
"only the last four paragraphs and a half;" that the
committee approved and reported the declaration, as
thus framed, to Congress, which accepted it.
Mr. Dickinson belonged to that class of people to
which Alexander Stephens belonged in the South, at
the outbreak of the War between the States; men who
wanted to hang back, who saw the brink before them,
who feared the jump, but who were so loyal and true
to their neighbors and friends and states, that when
the latter once took a stand, they moved up, in shoulder
to shoulder touch, to stand, until success, or defeat, or
death should come.
There was about Jefferson no vanity of authorship.
This was an illustration of it. It was years after
Dickinson's "Address on the Cause of Taking up
Arms" had been welcomed with the huzzahs of the
American people, before anybody, outside of Congress,
knew that Jefferson had had any hand in it — indeed, it
was only after Jefferson's death that his original draft
was found, and the knowledge became general that the
last four and a haff paragraphs of Dickinson's paper
were Jefferson's. TMs address owed its popularity
chiefly to the last four and a half paragraphs.

THE REVOLUTIONIST 25
I will now quote some extracts from Jefferson's para
graphs. Remember, it was an address to be read at
pubhc gatherings and to our armies in the field, and it
was written with a view to the uses which it should
serve. I do not know whether you will agree with me
or not, but I deem these to be noble words, eloquently
and worthily clothing manly thought: —
"We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional
submission to the tyranny of irritable ministers, or resistance by
force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of tMs
contest, and find notliing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor,
justice, and Iiuinanity, forbid us Itunehj to surrender that freedom
which we received from our gallant ancestors, ami which our innocent
posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy
of resigning succeeding generations to the wretchedness, wliich
inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon
them. Our cause is just. Our union is perfect — our internal
resources are great, and, if necessary , foreign assistance is undoubtedly
attainable. . . . With hearts fortified with these animating rcjleetions,
we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting
the utmost energy of those powers wliich our beneficent Creator
hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled
by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with
unabated firmness and perseverance, cnvploy for the preservation of
our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men, rather than
to live as slaves.
"Lest this declaration shall disquiet the minds of our friends
and fellow subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them, that
we mean not to chssolve that union wliich has so long and so happily
subsisted between us, and wMch we sincerely wish to see restored.
Necessity has not yet driven mjs into that desperate measure, or induced
us to excite any other nation to war against them. . . . We fight
not for glory or for conquest. . . .
"In our oivn native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth
right, and which we ever enjoyed until the late \'i()lation of it; for
the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest in-

26 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
dustry of our forefathers and ourselves, and against violence actually
offered, we have taken up arms. We shaU lay them down when
hostiUty shall cease on the part of our aggressors and aU danger of
their being renewed shall be removed, and not before."
These resolutions were submitted to the Continental
Congress on the 6th day of July, 1775, a year, lacking
two days, prior to the Declaration of Independence.
Sixteen days later. Congress selected as usual by
ballot — the members selected taking priority in
accordance with the number of votes received — a
committee to consider and report on Lord North's
" ConciUatory Proposal." Jefferson was second on the
committee, the septuagenarian Benjamin Frankhn
alone receiving a higher vote. Mr. Jefferson was
selected by the committee when it met, to draw up this
paper. In his Memoir he says: "The answer of the
Virginia Assembly on that subject having been ap
proved, I was requested by the committee to prepare
this report, which will account for the similarity of
features in the two documents." Yes, they were nearly
alike, but the instrument had broadened and the
words "walked statelier," to suit the new and broader
stage. John T. Morse, in his "Thomas Jefferson," says of
this paper as it passed the Virginia Convention, being
substantially as it passed Congress later: —
"TMs was laying the axe at the very root of the tree with toler
able force; and more blows of the same sort followed.
"These were revolutionary words, and fell short by ever so
little of that direct declaration of independence wMch they antici
pated by less than two years. They would have cost Jefferson Us
head had it been less inconvement to bring Mm to Westminster

THE REVOLUTIONIST 27
Hall, and even that inconvemence would probably have been over
come had forcible opposition been a little longer deferred in the
colomes." That Jefferson had not surrendered all hope of a
satisfactory reconcihation with Great Britain, although
he had gone much further towards planting himself
upon the solid ground of independency than three-
fourths of his colleagues, is witnessed by the language
contained in a letter written by him to John Randolph
(not he of Roanoke — "John The Eccentric" — of
course, but an earher and a nobler one), who, finding it
impossible to take up arms against the King, and
unthinkable to take up arms against his neighbors,
had sacrificed everything he had in Virginia and gone
to England — not to fight with her, but to five in
peace — one of those noble souls wilhng and able to
stand and suffer all things alone, rather than take a
choice between two wrongs, as he saw them. That his
conduct was mistaken, few can doubt. That it was
noble and unselfish, his own sacrifices witness. Jef
ferson wrote to him a letter from Monticello, dated
August 25, 1775. In this case, as in all others, Jeffer
son never permits his hatred of a course to ahenate him
from a friend. The letter to John Randolph, uncom
promisingly, even aggressively patriotic, in every line
of it, was also uncompromisingly friendly to the
recipient of it.
I want you to read that letter. If you are both
manly and kindly, it will do you good. It aims to get
Randolph to use his influence to bring about in the
mother country a juster appreciation of the rights and
of the earnestness of the colonies.

28 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Later, on November 25th, he wrote to the same
Mr. Randolph, then in England, another letter, from
which it appears that he had meantime gone several
steps further towards irrevocable independency. In
part it reads : —
"In the early part of tMs contest, our petitions told Mm that
from our King there was but one appeal. The admomtion was
despised, and that appeal forced on us. To undo his empire, he
has hut one truth more to learn; that after colonies have drawn the
sword, there is hut one step more they can take. That step is now
pressed upon us by the measures adopted, as if they were afraid
we would not take it. BeUeve me, dear sir, there is not in the
British empire, a man who more cordially loves a imion with Great
Britain, than I do. But by the God that made me, I will cease to
exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British
Parliament proposes; and in tMs, I tMnk I speak the sentiments of
America. We want neither inducement nor power, to declare and
assert a separation. It is will, alone, which is wanting, and that is
growing apace under the fostering hand of our King."
Fiske adds as a comment upon this: "Observe the
historical accuracy of this wording. It was not a
question of throwing off a yoke, but of refusing to
yield to a connection on newfangled and degrading
terms." Jefferson, in his "Notes on Virginia," says, "It is
well known that in July, 1775, a separation from Great
Britain and establishment of republican government
had never yet entered into any person's mind. If
any period can be fixed, when the idea of independence
became any more than a thought, or ceased to become
a mere thought and became in some fines a poUcy, it
probably would be the date upon which the com
munication from Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, who

THE REVOLUTIONIST 29
had been sent to Great Britain to dehver the second
petition to the King, was received and read in
Congress." This communication from Penn and Lee stated that
the reply of the King was, that "no answer would be
given." This high-handed and contemptuous ignoring
of a respectfully, even humbly, worded address, caused
anger and resulted in the conclusion on the part of the
bolder natures, that the step forward to independence
must at once be taken.
Jefferson had long considered the possibihty, as his
pregnant "as yets" and very many other phrases
demonstrate. But there is always a step, long or
short, between considering a thing as a dernier resort,
and embracing it as a present measure of redress.
Mr. Adams is simply mistaken when, writing in his
old age, he says that he had been determined "from the
first assembling of the Congress in 1775 upon inde
pendence," and that "this was no secret in or out of
Congress." Old men are apt to get dates wrong.
Adams and Jefferson both did it, when writing in their
old age about things which occurred in their early
manhood. Adams' letters, like those of Jefferson,
which I have quoted, show that, except in so far as it
was a possibility to be contemplated, if the worst came
to the worst, independence was not yet urged by any.
John Jay's and Benjamin Frankhn's memories accord
with Jefferson's.
The truth is that Americans, as a rule, were almost
as unwiUing to tear themselves from governmental
connection with the British Isles, as were the "Jackson
Democrats" and the "Old Line Whigs" in the South,

30 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
at the beginning of The War between the States to
"dissolve the bonds that bound" them to the Union,
and in each case there was an idea of fighting, even if
bloodshed came, "under the old flag," as abused
subjects, or citizens, of the old government, rather than
as citizens of an independent coimtry.
Indeed, on November 29, 1775, the date of Jefferson's
second letter to Randolph, Congress itself used this
language; "that they should rely to the last on heaven
and their own virtues for security against the abusive
system pressed by the administration for the ruin of
America," and that "there is nothing more ardently
desired by North America than a lasting union with
Great Britain, on terms of justice and equal liberty."
As late as December, 1775, the Continental Congress
speaks of the British constitution as "our best inherit
ance." Remember all this, when we come to discuss the
American Counter-Revolution, in the lecture, "Jeffer
son the Democratizer of National Administration."
What Adams in his old age wrote about the circum
stances attending the writing of the Declaration of
Independence was equally inaccurate.
On August 30, 1823, what Adams wrote having been
printed, Mr. Jefferson made the following correction: —
"Mr. Adams' memory has led Mm into unquestionable error.
At the age of eighty-eight, and forty-seven years after the trans
actions of independence, tMs is not wonderful. Nor should I, at
the age of eighty, on the small advantage of that difference only,
venture to oppose my memory to Ms, were it not supported by
written notes taken by myseff at the moment and on the spot. . . .
Now these details are quite incorrect. The Committee of Five met;
no such thing as a subcommittee was proposed, but they unani-

THE REVOLUTIONIST 31
mously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draft. I con
sented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee, I
commumcated it separately to Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams,
requesting their corrections, because they were the two members
of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the
benefit, before presenting it to the Committee; and you have seen
the original paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Doctor
Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in their own handwritings.
Their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal. I
then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the Committee, and from
them, unaltered, to Congress. TMs personal commumcation and
consultation with Mr. Adams he has misremembered into the
actings of a sub-committee."
Jefferson gratefully says that Adams was "the
colossus of that debate."
From November, 1775, on, the number of those, who
had decided upon independence, as the only satis
factory issue out of the contest, increased. It is
wonderful even then how few of our people based their
contention upon anything more than English statutes
and customs and traditions — all of doubtful appli
cation. Few of them, except Jefferson, went as far as
Johan Derk van Capellen went in his reply to George
III, who, having asked the states of Overyssel for
troops, was answered that Johan Derk thought, "the
Americans worthy of every man's esteem," and looked
upon them as " a brave people, defending in a becoming,
manly, and religious manner those rights, which, as men,
they derived from God; not from the legislature of Great
Britain." Thus, though Mr. Jefferson had a hard tune at
home in keeping his phrases "natural rights," and
"inherent rights," and "rights derived from God,"
and all that, from being stricken out of his pubhc

32 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
papers as too rhetorical, or too abstract, old Johan
Derk van Capellen, away over in Overyssel, had the
American idea and expressed it.
On May 15, 1776, Virginia, where the King's name
had been already legislated out of the prayer book and
the Continental Congress substituted for it, adopted
her resolutions instructing her representatives in the
Continental Congress to take the initiative and to
move independence. Moreover, the House of Bur
gesses passed a "declaration of rights," and ordered
"a plan of government" to be prepared; in other words,
a written constitution for Virginia. Significantly Amer
ican this written Constitution! The thing had gone
out of use since the times of the Greek Republics.
Mr. Jefferson's absence early in May from Phila
delphia and his stay in Virginia for nearly four months
were due to a desire to prepare the public mind in
Virginia for this step. He remained in Virginia nearly
four months, at any rate, and then immediately upon his
return to Congress, was made chairman of the committee
to consider and report a declaration of independence.
Richard Henry Lee, on Friday, June 7th, being
"Dean of the Virginia Delegation in Congress," called
up the resolutions, which the Virginia House of Bur
gesses had instructed the delegates from Virginia to
present. Their consideration was postponed until the
next day. They were debated in committee of the
whole, throughout Saturday and the succeeding Mon
day, and then this resolution was passed: —
"Resolved, That the consideration of the first resolution be
postponed to Monday, the first of July next; and in the meanwMle,
in order that no time be lost, in case the Congress agree thereto,

THE REVOLUTIONIST 33
that a committee be appointed to prepare a declaration to the
effect of the first resolution, wMch is in these words: that these
colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states;
that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and
that all poUtical connection between them and the state of Great
Britain is, and ought to be, totaUy dissolved."
The delay was because Congress, like the old Virginia
House of Burgesses, was trying "to keep front and
rear together."
It was on the 11th of June, that the committee for
preparing and reporting a declaration of independence,
consisting of five members, was chosen, as usual, by
ballot (the members, by the parliamentary usage of the
Continental Congress, taking their places upon the
committee list according to the number of votes cast
for them, the one receiving the highest vote being ipso
facto chairman). The committee thus selected con
sisted of Thomas Jefferson, first, John Adams, second,
Benjamin Franklin, third, Roger Sherman, fourth, and
Robert R. Livingston, fifth. Thus fell to Jefferson the
glorious task so memorably performed.
During the last session of the last Congress of the
United States — such is the legacy of class hatred of
Jefferson, deceiving good men — a Senator arose in all
a grave Senator's solemnity — wholly unconscious of
revamped Federalistic prejudices — and amusingly
denied that Thomas Jefferson was the author of the
Declaration of Independence, putting him down as a
sort of amanuensis or "secretary" to the committee.
He also denied that he was "one of the founders of the
Government." It is not worth while to dwell on his
first denial. Not only Jefferson's own testimony, but
that of Franklin and that of Adams, settle in his favor
4

34 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
exclusively the authorship of the Declaration of
Independence. There is more plausibiUty in the denial,
that Jefferson was "one of the founders of our Govern
ment," if the word "Government" be taken to mean
the American Government, under the present Con
stitution. Of course, Jefferson was, at the time of the
formation of the present Constitution, in France.
But it is also true, as aU of us know, that he had a
great deal of correspondence, especially with Madison,
and with other Virginians, in favor of the adoption of
the Constitution, conditioned upon the enactment by
way of amendment of what now constitute the first
ten amendments — containing, for the most part, the
guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
of assembly, and freedom of reUgion, etc. — in short,
a bill of rights, and also the vital declaration, that
"powers not delegated" were "reserved to the states
or the people." His opposition, added to that of
Henry, Mason and Lee in Virginia, would have defeated
its adoption there, and prevented the formation of the
new Government. This was appreciated by Madison
at the time. His name, authority and letters in favor
of adoption were invoked and used. Thus, even in
this sense, Jefferson was one of the "founders" of the
Government under the present Constitution. It is a *
mistake, however, to say that our Government was
foimded with the present Constitution. The present
was an "amendment in the nature of a substitute,"
to the old Constitution of our Union. If not founded
when the first Continental Congress convened, or even
earher as a result of the work of the committees of
correspondence, then "our Government" was founded

THE REVOLUTIONIST 35
with the passage of the resolution offered in the name
and under the instructions of Virginia, by Richard
Henry Lee.
This resolution, taken up for consideration by the
Continental Congress on the 8th of June, was passed,
as a part of the Declaration of Independence, upon
July 4, 1776, so that, in a broader sense, Thomas
Jefferson was not only one of the founders of this
Government, but was the designer and architect of its
foundation. After that date, there was an authorized legal
government of these "United States" — however in
efficient, however incongruous, and however pregnant
with the seed of future dissolution.
This great Declaration was drawn by Thomas
Jefferson, when he was thirty-three years of age. But,
notwithstanding his comparative youth, John Fiske,
one of the wisest and greatest of American historians,
says that "of all the men of that time, there was
perhaps none of wider culture, or keener pohtical
instincts. ... He had always been passionately fond
of study for its own sake, and to a very wide reading in
history and in ancient and modern literature, he added
no mean proficiency in mathematics and in physical
science. ... He was deeply interested in aU the
generous theories of the eighteenth century, concerning
the rights of man and the perfectibihty of human
nature; and, like most of the contemporary philosophers,
whom he admired, he was a sturdy foe to intolerance
and priestcraft. He was, in his way, a much more
profound thinker than Hamilton, though he had not
such a constructive genius as the latter; as a political

36 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
leader he was superior to any other man of his age; and
his warm sympathies, his almost feminine tact, his
mastery of the dominant poUtical ideas of the time, and,
above all, his unbounded faith in the common sense of
the people and in their essential rectitude of purpose,
served to give him one of the greatest and most com
manding positions ever held by any personage in
American history."
I do not think that Mr. Fiske had any basis of
historical fact for the statement that Jefferson was not
such "a constructive genius," as Hamilton. As far
as I know, or have thus far in my life been able to
learn, Hamilton never constructed anything, except a
scheme for tying the monied classes to the Govern
ment, and the government to them — a wedding knot
that we have ever since been trying to undo. He
attempted to construct a constitution, pecuharly un-
American, and alien, then and now, to all the habits
and thoughts of Americans. In this he totally failed.
He did not construct even a financial system, but imi
tated, as nearly as anyone could dare, a system long
before constructed in England. He did construct a
system of bookkeeping in the Treasury Department,
which has partially remained, as an involved curse,
though Jefferson and Gallatin managed to rid us of
much of it, by a process of simpUfication. But Fiske is
exactly right when he emphasizes Jefferson's unbounded
faith in the common sense of the people and in their
"essential rectitude of purpose," as his great and sahent
characteristic. It is through this characteristic that his
influence upon American pohtical institutions, adminis
trations, and thought has been effectively permanent.

THE REVOLUTIONIST 37
In a certain sense, neither Jefferson nor any other
one man was the author of the Declaration of Inde
pendence. Jefferson was its draftsman, selected for the
reasons which Fiske states, and selected moreover for
the reason that the state papers drawn by him in
Virginia had challenged admiration. But the Declara
tion of Independence itself was an evolution of revo
lutionary thought and expressed in language, certainly
not mysterious to its readers, but consonant with their
ripened convictions — the slow fruition of an intense
struggle. Jefferson sought to express ideas, which in
his mind and in the minds of his contemporaries were
true and sound, in justification to the world of our
action, and the more he confined himself to generally
accepted ideas, the more wisely written — because the
more influential — the document would be. The task
was to "give the thought wings." This he did — such
wings as no other man of his day could have given it —
such wings as no other political thing has ever yet had.
Those, who would try to trace back the so-called
"gUttering generalities" of the Declaration of Inde
pendence to French theorists and all that, are not
people who are particularly learned, but are, on this
subject, particularly ignorant. The Enghsh-speaking
race, in that species of political philosophy, did not
follow, but preceded France. If any doubter wants to
satisfy himself upon that subject, let him read John
Locke's "Treatises of Government," Sidney's "Dis
courses on Government," and John Milton's "Tenure
of Kings and Magistrates," and his "Defense of the
English People."
Moreover, the fact remains, that if the EngUsh

38 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
sources had not existed, these convictions would have
developed themselves necessarily from our conditions.
Our institutions and our constitutions are the product
of American experience, buttressed by such written
authority and historical examples as we could find ia
the world. A part of that experience was, of course,
our experience as a part of the EngUsh-speaking race,
before we landed on these shores.
Jefferson here and always diametricaUy opposed
Rousseau's central principle, that men on coming under
government "voluntarily surrender" to "majorities"
their "natural rights. " Jefferson's'view was that these
natural rights were inalienable, and therefore could not
be parted with, even voluntarily, by any generation of
men. Each generation was born to them. He as
serted that government was formed to protect those
rights, and, if need be, even against majorities, whose
"rule to be right must be just." (See First Inaugural.)
It may be true that in other places, there was no
where an actual, historically-recorded social contract, as
the source of government. But there was in America.
Yet the theory, that men are equal as regards their
"natural rights," and that the basis of all just govern
ment is voluntary, and contractual, was not all original
with our English or American forefathers. It went
back to the Roman law; being expressed in so many
words in the Roman Digest (L. 17, 32), pubUshed three
and a quarter centuries after Christ, and is asserted by
Professor Otto Gierke to have been "an axiom of
pohtical theory from the end of the thirteenth century."
All this is found abundantly amphfied in Mr. Merriam's
"American PoUtical Theories."

THE REVOLUTIONIST 39
What was new in America was not the doctrine, nor
theory as a basis for reasoning, but the object lesson of
it. I cannot too often emphasize the thought, that
this was due to the fact that we had our beginnings in
the woods.
Merwin says of the Declaration of Independence that
"both as a poUtical and a Uterary document, it has
stood the test of time. It has all the classic quahties
of an oration by Demosthenes; and even in that passage
in which it has been criticized — that, namely, which
pronounced all men to be created equal — is true in a
sense, the truth of which it will take a century or two
yet to develop."
In fact, a peculiar excellence of this and many other
utterances of Mr. Jefferson is, that in them he thoughts
in advance of his time — germs destined to multiply
and take possession. Here and there he puts in "a
Uttle leaven," which, at the time, is hardly noticed, but
will later "leaven the whole lump."
It remained for Lincoln later on to take up what
were called the "glittering generalities" of the Decla
ration of Independence, to muster them into practical
poUtical service, saying that they were meant "to
declare the right, so that enforcement of it might follow,
as soon as circumstances should permit," and that their
expression had been "constantly looked to, constantly
labored for, and even though never perfectly attained,
constantly approximated, and thereby constantly
spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting
the happiness and value of Uf e to aU people of all colors
everywhere." As we have seen, Mr. Jefferson, before submitting his

40 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
draft of the Declaration of Independence to the full
comnuttee, communicated it separately to Franklin and
Adams. They made two or three suggestions, merely
verbal, and these were adopted.
The original paper in Jefferson's handwriting, with
Adams's and Franklin's interUneations, is in Washing
ton. It has been frequently pubhshed in /ac simile and
is a thing of common knowledge. Mr. Adams is thus
mistaken in saying that he himself did not make or
suggest a single alteration. He and Franklin each
suggested some purely verbal changes, which Jefferson
at once accepted. With regard to matters of which he
had personal knowledge, Jefferson's memory was
almost invariably accurate. A man hunting incon
sistencies of opinion wherewith to charge him would
find his labors somewhat rewarded, as he would con
cerning any other man possessed of a growing inteUect
and a progressive character.
When the draft reached Congress, those passages
which censured the people of England were stricken
out, and the clause which censured the King for acts en
slaving inhabitants of Africa and bringing them to the
shores of America was also stricken out. Jefferson
says, that this was done "in complaisance to South
CaroUna and Georgia," adding: "Our northern brethren
also, I beUeve, felt a httle tender under these censures;
for though their people had very few slaves themselves,
yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them
to others."
Whatever may be said of the poUcy of Congress in
striking out that part of the Declaration which censured
the people of England, it cannot be said, that it made

THE REVOLUTIONIST 41
the Declaration to accord better with the facts of
history. As it is, George III and Parliament alone
are held up to blame. There is no doubt about the
fact that, at the beginning, at any rate, and until very
near the end of the struggle, the people of England were
in accord with their King and Parliament.
Lord John RusseU, in his "Life of Fox," Volume 1,
page 134, makes this clear. Jefferson, as usual, was
right, and his correctors wrong. He was right, too,
with regard to that part of the draft, which referred
to the slave trade. Whatever may have been the case
in other colonies, in Virginia, at any rate, the utmost
effort had been made to stop it; a half score or more of
acts had been passed, only to be vetoed by royal
governors under royal instructions.
Conceriung the Declaration itself, Adams later, in a
letter to Pickering, in the year 1822, says: "As you
justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had
been hackneyed in Congress for two years before."
He adds: "The substance of it is contained in the
declaration of rights, ... in the Journals of Congress
in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a
pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston,
before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis,
as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned
and polished by Samuel Adams."
Mr. Jefferson, on seeing this — which had been
greedily pubUshed by Pickering — with a forbearance
characteristic of him, when dealing with Mr. Adams,
except for a few brief months of his life, when he was
provoked into retaUatory utterances — nobly and
modestly said: —

42 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
\i' Pickering's observations, and Mr. Adams's in addition, 'that
it contained no new ideas, that it is a commonplace compilation,
its sentiments hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its
essence contained in Otis's pampMet,' may all be true. Of that I
am not to be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it, as copied
from Locke's 'Treatise on Government.' . . . Otis's pampMet I
never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or
reflection, I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither
book nor pampMet, wMle writing it. I did not consider it, as any
part of my charge, to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no
sentiment wMch had ever been expressed before. . . . Whether,
also, the sentiments of independence, and the reasons for declaring
it, wMch made so great a portion of the instrument, had been hack
neyed in Congress for two years before the 4th of July, '76, or this
dictum also of Mr. Adams be another sUp of memory, let Mstory
sayj TMs, however, I wiU say for Mr. Adams, that he supported
the Declaration with zeal and abiUty, fighting fearlessly for every
word of it."
The curious reader may consult the pamphlet of
James Otis, the Declaration of Rights and the Journals
of Congress, and determine for himself how far Mr.
Adams's afterthought was well founded. He will find
it in no true sense justified. If any pubUcation fur
nished more than another foundation for the Decla
ration, it was Jefferson's own "Summary View of the
Rights of British America," and his "Reply to Lord
North's Conciliatory Proposal." Another truth is
that the Committee on Rights and Grievances, whose
report was drawn by John Adams, in September, 1774,
contained substantially much that was in Jefferson's
"Summary View." The "Summary View" was pre
sented to the Convention of Virginia before the Congress
of 1774 met, and the Committee of Rights and Griev
ances had access to that paper. Thus the borrowing, if

THE REVOLUTIONIST 43
there were any conscious borrowing, was a borrowing by
Adams from Jefferson, and not the other way. There
is, however, no plagiarism in either. Jefferson had
neither paper, book, nor pamphlet before him when he
wrote the Declaration, and it is presumbably also a fact
that Mr. Adams had none when he wrote the Report on
Rights and Grievances, though both had in their minds
many fixed and popular ideas, which had become trite,
and, many of them, ideas advanced and rendered popu
lar by Jefferson in his " Summary View," so widely
disseminated not only in America but in England.
The Declaration accomplished its end. It went to
the comprehension of the average man with over
whelming force. It was full of "keynote phrases."
It was "quotable" — began at once to be quoted and
has been ever since. Every American became a Dick
Swiveller of its phrases. It gave unity of expression
to the American people. It was received everywhere
with enthusiasm; ordered to be read at the head of the
armed forces; people, after hearing it, tore down
statues and pictures of the king and of colonial gover
nors. They also welcomed it in churches with prayers
and sermons.
We have seen that when the Virginia Convention
instructed their delegates in Congress to introduce a
resolution declaring American independence, they
also appointed a committee to draw up a "decla
ration of rights," as they called it, and a "plan of
government" for Virginia. Mr. Jefferson prepared
and forwarded from Philadelphia the outline of a plan.
It reached Virginia too late, because the Bill of Rights
and the Constitution of Virginia had been agreed to,

44 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
but the lofty preamble of Mr. Jefferson's plan pleased
the committee so much, that they prefaced it to the
great work of George Mason — the first Constitution
of Virginia, and the first in America to be written by
the representatives of the people — which was passed
on June 20, 1776, the day after the draft of the Decla
ration of Independence was reported to the Continental
Congress. This preamble was drawn by Jefferson,
therefore, prior to his composition of the Declaration.
He says, after dwelling upon that fact: "Both having
the same object, of justifying our separation from
Great Britain, they used necessarily the same materials
of justification, and hence their simiUtude."
I mention this, because in the constant efforts of
those who hated and hate democracy to write Jefferson
down in his lifetime and after his death, every Uttle
thing has been taken advantage of, in the attempt to
decrease his credit, and among other things, he was
accused of having plagiarized parts of the Declaration
from the Preamble of The Constitution of Virginia; m
other words, from himself.
The opening sentences of the Declaration of Inde
pendence are frequently referred to as a part of some
sort of French infection. In the first place, the French
revolution had not begun, and, in the second place, there
is not an idea contained in it, that is not purely Jeffer
sonian. By the way, I love very much a phrase which Fiske
uses as the caption of one of his chapters: "Thomas
Jefferson, The Conservative Reformer."
This quotation from it, I recommend to all readers: —

THE REVOLUTIONIST 45
"Because in later years Jefferson came to be the head of a party
wMch sympatMzed with revolutionary France, there has come into
existence a legendary view of Mm as a sort of French doctrinaire
poUtician and disciple of Rousseau. Nothing could be more
grotesquely absurd. Jefferson was broad enough to learn lessons
from France, but he was no Frenchman in Ms poUtics; and we shall
not understand Mm until we see in Mm simply the earnest, but cool-
headed, representative of the rural EngUsh freeholders, that won
Magna Charta and overthrew the usurpations of the Stuarts."
Cornelius de Witt, after analyzing much of the
historical and legal parts of the Declaration, says: —
"The other principle was that of the rights of man. The
Declaration of Independence contained a Ust of rights, such as were
familiar to the colonists of England, but were only theories elsewhere.
The success of the Revolution was, therefore, a shock to the system
of privilege and of class exemptions from the common burdens,
wMch had lasted since feudal times. The French Revolution of
1789 was an attempt to apply upon alien ground the principles of the
American Revolution." (ItaUcs mine here and always.)
If there was any drawing of ideas either way, the
French revolutionists drew from America and from the
Declaration of Independence. Many of the French
officers and soldiers went back to France with ideas,
which, perhaps, would have been altogether unfamiUar
to them — except for their sojourn in America. It
may be a "gUttering generality" — I don't know — ¦
but I rather regard it as a golden actuality, founded
upon everlasting truth, that men are "endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among
which are Ufe, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
if only the last be honest, pure, peaceable and fair.
Nor do I regard the latter part of that clause in the
Constitution, which says that aU powers not delegated

46 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
to the federal government are reserved to the states
respectively "and to the people," as a "glittering
generaUty." I do understand this clause reserving
certain rights "to the people," to mean just this class
of natural and inaUenable rights — antedating and
superior to all governmental authority. In this class
are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of
association, the right of petition, freedom from un
reasonable search and arrest — in fact, everything in
that vast realm where the individual is his own governor,
and responsible only to God — a realm whose bound
aries are located just where the exercise of his freedom
begins to interfere with the right of others to preserve
their Ufe, or limb, or property honestly acquired. I
count it a great happiness for the American people, that
they did not base their claims altogether upon the
rights of British subjects and upon the black-letter of
the law books, but, fundamentally, upon the natural
rights of man, and especially upon the right of any
community, for a reason seeming necessary to that
community, to change the form, or set aside the
substance of a government, unjust and oppressive, and
to estabUsh in its stead one concordant with the
pubUc welfare, with human freedom, with equahty of
rights and opportunities, and equal administration of
justice; a new government, "deriving its just powers
from the consent of the governed." As Merriam well
says: this theory that governments derive then- just
powers from the consent of the governed "could hardly
be caUed a theory at aU." It is the American " workiag
hypothesis." Not only did the individual have under it certain

THE REVOLUTIONIST 47
rights, that were inherent and inalienable, but out of
this grew e converso the fundamental principle, that the
sovereignty of the people is inherent and inalienable,
with regard to things not fundamentally individual, or,
as Roger WilUams said, things not "of the first table."
Many people wonder why it was that so many people
in the South, and especially in the border States, denied
"the right of peaceful secession," and said that there
was no law for it, either statutory or constitutional, yet
"went with their States." They stood upon "the
right of revolution" — the right of a people of a State,
if in their opinion the federal government became sec
tional, oppressive or unjust — or threatened to become
so — to throw it off; to "dissolve the ties that bound
them to it," as the phrase went, and, if opposed in this,
to take the field in armed assertion of their right to be
permitted "to go in peace," as Sweden of late permitted
Norway to go. This was the view of my own father.
It is easily explicable, if you will remember, that these
people, perhaps more than any other, were permeated
with the political theory of the revolutionary period,
although perhaps the most radical utterances of this
theory earlier in our history had come from New
England. Practically, of course, this sort of right
rests ultimately on the acquiescence of others, or else
upon the power of the community to assert it success
fully with arms in its hands. But it is not too much
to say that the more moderate expression of the idea —
still radical, but not so extremely radical — contained
in Jefferson's ringing words in the Declaration of Inde
pendence — was almost universally entertained in
America in his time. In fact, most Revolution-time

48 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Tories denied only that the exigency had come to
justify the exercise of "the right of revolution," and
either denied the grievances, or else asserted that
grievances could be redressed more certainly and
safely without resorting to so extreme a revolution as
independence. A Uke opinion was that of many
Union men in the South — some 300,000 of them in
the Union armies — who fought and some died —
acknowledging the right, and denying that the occasion
justified its invocation. This more moderate expres
sion contained in the Declaration is, in these words,
famihar to all: "Whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new
government, laying its foundations on such principles,
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Pennsylvania, in her first constitution, asserted that
"the community hath an indubitable, inalienable and
indefeasible right to alter, reform or abohsh govern
ment in such manner as shall by that community be
judged most conducive to the common weal." By
the way, I Uke that old expression, "the common
weal." I once used it in the draft of a plank in a
Democratic national platform and the "finishers,"
supposing that I had made a sUp of the pen, changed it
to "commonwealth!"
This very theory grew out of the doctrine of delegated
powers — the doctrine that all governmental power is
delegated by the people, in whom it ultimately resides; that
there are rightfuUy no inherent governmental powers;
that government is the grantee of powers, and not the

THE REVOLUTIONIST 49
grantor of rights; that it is merely the agent, or servant,
of the people; a trustee acting (if acting rightly) for
the people, and not for itself. Our forefathers knew
the danger of excess of government and were bent
upon so simpUfying, limiting and checking it, that it
must forever remain a servant and could never become
a master. My reading of history convinces me that
most bad government has grown out of too much
government. It is a sort of inherent characteristic
of all government, as of all conscious organisms, yearly
and almost daily, to take to itself more and more
jurisdiction, to increase the force and weight and
numbers of officialdom, until, after a while, the structure
becomes topheavy, and must fall by its own weight;
or else, upon the other hand — remaining administra
tively efficient — it holds the people in servile sub
jection. I know of no government, which has ever
once been strong and then fallen (except where it has
been conquered by outside force), that did not go to
its ruin because it had become gradually, even insidi
ously, cumbersome, topheavy, unwieldy, comphcated,
almost incomprehensible; in a word, had assumed to
itself more powers than could possibly be wisely
administered by fallible men. Tom Jefferson did not ,
attach a particle too much importance to the simpli- ^
fication of official Ufe and governmental machinery.
In him, as has been well said, was "crystalUzed the
common American sentiment."
The main difference between Jefferson and his
opponents — as well as between him and the other
extreme, Rousseau and his school — is this; both
schools opposed by him contended that we gave up
5

50 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
certain "natural rights," when we formed our govern
ment — one to "government" and . the other to
majorities. He contended that the business of govern
ment was to make these natural rights more secure;
that its chief business was to be a fence around them
and a bulwark of protection for them. In his view,
government is not an end, but a means — a means to
defend and increase the Uberty and happiness of the
men and women Uving in the country governed, who,
however, are the safest, and the only rightful guardians
of their own private concerns; that government is
good in proportion as it is responsible to and super-
visable by the people.
Jefferson maintained truthfully, too, I think, that
men were divided politically into two classes; those
who fear and distrust the people, and those who
identify themselves with the people, as a part of them.
I heard Governor Woodrow Wilson once express it
very well in designating the first class as men, who
spoke of "the people" as something outside — beyond
themselves. There is nothing more significant than
one's way of looking upon the people; one man looks at
them as an alien thing, and another sees himself in
them, or perhaps better, sees them glassed in himself.
In a letter to Du Pont de Nemours, which may be
found in Jefferson's "Works," Volume 10, page 23
(Washington edition), we find this language: "We both
love the people, but you love them as infants, whom
you are afraid to trust without nurses, and I as adults,
whom I freely leave to self-government."
Of course, no sincere man ever professed perfect
confidence in the people doing the right thing at all

THE REVOLUTIONIST 51
times, but the difference is one of degrees of approxi
mation to perfect and perpetual confidence. Men Uke
Hamilton habitually distrusted the masses, because
they sincerely did not believe that the masses had
brains enough to understand things, and to do them.
They wanted strong government to restrain the people.
Men Uke Jefferson wanted a strong people, to restrain
the government, and knew that the moral sense, inborn
in men, has as much to do with right government as
intellect or any other one thing.
The fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence, the day upon which he and John Adams
were destined each to draw his last breath, was ap
proaching. The Mayor of the city of Washington,
in the name of its citizens, had invited Jefferson to be
present at its celebration in that city. On June 24,
1826, he wrote a letter to the Mayor, a Mr. Weightman.
In that letter, speaking of the Declaration of Inde
pendence, he says: —
"May it be to the world, what I beUeve it wiU be (to some parts
sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men
to burst the chains under wMch monkish ignorance and superstition
had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings
and security of seK-govemment. That form wMch we have sub
stituted restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason
and freedom of opimon. AU eyes are opened, or opemng, to the
rights of man. The general spread of the Ught of science has already
laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind
have not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few
booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, and by the
grace of God. There are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves,
let the annual return of tMs day forever refresh our recoUections
of these rights, and inspire an imdimimshed devotion to them."

52 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Note: It is the "Rights of Man" yet, as in his youth.
It is no "glittering generaUty" to him. God grant
that it may never be so to us!
This again indicates how Jefferson's mind inevitably
refused to confine its vision, when contemplating the
blessings of liberty and democracy, to American
territory, and how invariably it wandered out to the
utmost confines of the earth, wherever there were men
with rights to assert and with duties to perform. His
was, in the broadest and finest sense, a world-democ
racy. He appreciated, too, what few men appreciated,
when he wrote them, that the broad abstract expres
sions of the Declaration constituted a logos; a word to
go out, a germ to grow rather than a statute presently
to demark.
Like so many old men, when dying, his mind went
back to the scenes of activity in which he had been
engaged in his early manhood. Partially arising in the
bed, and using his right hand, as if writing upon a
tablet held in his left, he exclaimed: "Warn the com
mittee to be on the alert ! " It was like StonewaU Jack
son's exclamation, "Order A. P. Hill to prepare for
action!" "Warn the committee to be on the alert!"
What committee? Doubtless, one of the old committees
of safety of the revolutionary day, who not only con
stituted a provisional government, but exercised
disciplinary authority over the disaffected and the
disloyal, and whose duty it was to defeat any counter
revolutionary movements or combinations. "The rul
ing passion was strong in death," and we may be
sure that Jefferson's right hand had written many a
message similar to this last exclamation.

THE REVOLUTIONIST 53
Mr. Merriam informs us that "by the later thinkers
the idea that men possess inherent and inaUenable
rights of a poUtical or quasi-pohtical character, which
are independent of the state, has been generally given
up." Pity it is, if true! He adds in another place that
"the present tendency in American political theory is
to disregard the once dominant ideas of natural rights
and of the social contract, although it must be admitted
that the political scientists are more agreed upon this
point than is the general public." I should hope so!
I would hate to see the idea prevail among the people
that liberties are a grant of government, instead of
government being a delegation of power by the people,
and I predict it never will until the downfall of this
"Republic of Lesser Republics."
Some of the latter-day political "scientists" seem
to want the world governed by experts. One of them
speaks of a "central academy of science, which shaU
stand in the same relation to the control of men, in
which a polytechnic institute stands to the control of
nature!" In other words, individual rights and
Uberties are to count for nothing in comparison with
scientific efficiency of bureaucratic administration.
One of them does admit that "social interference"
(that is, governmental interference) "should not be so
paternal, as to check the self-extinction of the morally
ill-constituted; . . . nor should it so limit the struggle
for existence, as to nullify the selective process."
Thank God for small favors! The right of self-
extinguishment at least is still left us by college govern
mental scientists!
These people, it seems to me, forget the two great-

54 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
est of facts — God and The Man. They forget the
Individual, who is born and comes into the world, and
who dies and goes out of it alone, with no company
save the Divine Individuahty. However, I suppose a
reference to that is "unscientific."
There is an American poUtical theory, right or wrong,
and it is Jefferson's theory. When he overcame the
Counter-Revolution, he made it ours by a new birth —
a regeneration. It is a curious thing that no new party has broken
away from the old ones without founding itself aUegedly
upon the views of Thomas Jefferson and the doctrines
of the Declaration of Independence, and that just in
the measure that old parties desert them, just in that
measure can you forecast their defeat. This was the
case, of course, with Democratic-Republicans — the
party founded by Jefferson. It was the pretention of
the early Whigs. It was the assertion of the early
RepubUcans, and notably of Abraham Lincoln; and it
is curious that in the so-called "Bull Moose" Con
vention — during this year, Jefferson's portrait was
hung conspicuously high, and the party pretended
to draw faith from him, notwithstanding all the
sneering and unjust things that had been written about
Jefferson by Mr. Roosevelt, its candidate. This
Declaration of Independence was a summary expres
sion, in Jefferson's words and manner, of what had
become the common and characteristic thought of a
majority of the American people, and was intensely
his own. It remains the common thought of the
American people, and constitutes the Soul-PoUtic,
which dweUs within and animates and energizes our
Body-Politic.

THE REVOLUTIONIST 55
The salient points of this theory are: first, natural,
inalienable, God-given individual rights — "the things
of the first table;" secondly, local self-government,
with most numerous and important powers conferred
upon that part of the government, which is nearest the
individual citizen — with less and less power delegated
to each other government which controls him, in pro
portion as it is further away; until finally, the least of
all jurisdiction is delegated to that government, which
is most distant from him and which he can watch least
well, and which can know least well his wants and
interests. The Jeffersonian theory involves a distinct demar
cation between state and national powers. It involves,
yes, necessitates, an educational system to inform a
public opinion, which shall thereby become fit to rule
and govern. To this I shall refer later.
None of the attacks upon democracy, based upon the
errors and impulses and the wild passions of revolution
ists in France, South America, or elsewhere, has ever
for long shaken the American people's confidence in
their doctrine.
It is curious that, while American writers have
deceived themselves so much about the source of the
principles which actuated Thomas Jefferson, referring
many of his opinions back to the French philosophers,
etc., the French writers, as a rule, make no such mistake.
Cornelius de Witt, who had made some study of our
revolutionary period, says: —
"Sauf Montesquieu, nos ^crivains y ^taient peu lus et peu cit^s.
Coke, Milton, Locke, Grotius, et surtout la Bible, la grande charte,
le common law, I'Mstoire d'Angleterre, les chartes et les Mstoires

56 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
locales, telles furent les autorit^s qu' invoquferent les tribuns, les
pr^dicateurs et les pampM^taires qui excitferent le peuple americaina
combattre pour ses droits. Je n'ai j amais recontr^ dans leur bouche,
m le nom de Rousseau, ni I'expression du souverainet^ du peuple."
2. IN FRANCE
How much influence Jefferson had upon the actors
in the early stages of the French Revolution nobody will
ever know. Both the modesty of the man and his
delicate situation as Minister to France prevented his
telUng it. But on July 9, 1789, the Duke of Dorset,
British Ambassador at Paris, wrote to the Prune
Minister: "Mr. Jefferson, the American Ambassador
at this court, has been a great deal consulted by the
principal leaders of the Tiers Etat; and I have great
reason to think that it is owing to his advice that the
order caUed itself L'Assembl^e Nationale." If so,
this was the initial step, without taking which the
Third Estate and democracy were lost. It was
the sine qua non of all that came after.
In a letter to Madison in 1789, Jefferson speaks of the
French revolutionists regarding us as "a model for
their imitation," and says: "Our [authority] has been
treated like that of the Bible, open to explanation, but
not to question."
The American Revolution had been in a double sense
one of the causes of the French Revolution. First, it
sent back to France besides private soldiers, who had
opened wide their eyes at the spectacle of a country
without nobility or peasants, also young captains and
colonels and majors and a few generals even — gen
erally of the poorer nobility — who had caught the
American spirit and found it incompatible with the

THE REVOLUTIONIST 57
ancien rSgime and preferable to it. But it was a cause
of the French Revolution in another and sadder sense.
The American war had cost the court of France a great
deal of money, had contributed to the consumption of
its funds on hand, almost to the destruction of its
credit. We may imagine how Jefferson, whose Declaration
of Independence, whose " Summary View," whose pre
amble to the Virginia Constitution, whose statute of
Religious Freedom, and, finally, whose liberal senti
ments scattered here and there in the " Notes on Vir
ginia " had made him a forerunner in the expression and
advocacy of "the rights of man," became the con-
sultee and counsellor of the so-called patriotic party.
His habit of arriving at political principles by deduction,
while also relying on legal and historical authority, was
a habit which he carried to France and did not bring
away from there, except in the shape in which he had
carried it. The former is a Celtic trait. Jefferson was
Welsh — a Celt. But it did not turn his head. In fact,
his advice to the French revolutionists — to Lafayette
especially — was upon much more conservative lines
than any declaration of policy ever made by him in
America, than any political act of his in America.
In France, as in America, he reasoned that the best
attainable should be procured, and he realized that
the best attainable in France at that time was far, far,
behind the best attainable in America. Cornelius de
Witt says that "it was in Paris Jefferson learned to
abhor the whole social orgaruzation of Europe and
everything appertaining to it stiU existing in America;
it was in Paris that he learned to hate the power both

58 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OP JEFFERSON
of the aristocracy and clergy, which till then he had
opposed without any irritation." And Hazen, in his
"Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution," says
that, after his stay in France, his utterances became
"not the sober thought of a judge, but rather the war
cry of the repubUcan militant."
Through it aU, he seems to have seen clearly that for
which the French people were "ripe," to use his favorite
word. Jefferson knew the great truth, that a given
thing may be a bad thing for one place and time, and a
good thing for another. Hence he advised the British
model as a working initiative government for the
French, whUe he afterwards in America spent his whole
life denouncing the same model, as a thoroughly unfit
thing for the American people, who had long since
passed the stage of growth, when that suit of clothes
could fit them. I find no more inconsistency in this
than in a physician's giving a delirium tremens patient
moderate doses of whiskey, that he may not die from
shock to his system, by sudden change.
Those who dwell upon the failure of the French
Revolution to accomplish step-by-step progress without
violence, and call Jefferson a doctrinaire, because he
hoped it, forget that the experiment was tried under
more unfavorable circumstances than perhaps a similar
experiment was ever tried anywhere else. In a bread
famine, during an unprecedented cold winter, amidst
the clash of arms, with desperate and reckless traitors
to be put down at home, it would have been a miracle,
if an untrained crew upon the ship "Institutional
Reform" had been held in discipline.
Up to the time that Jefferson left France, there was

THE REVOLUTIONIST 59
doubt, of course, and apprehension of faUure, which he
himself expressed, but there was no reason to despau- of
a successful issue.
Hazen concludes that Jefferson "sailed for home with
the conviction that within a year one of the greatest of
recorded revolutions would have been effected without
bloodshed." This is inaccurate. Had he said, "with
the hope," instead of "with the conviction," he would
have been right, for Jefferson's letters from France are
full of expressions of uneasiness and apprehension.
Hazen adds: "And when the bloodshed began in grim
earnest, he refused to see its significance, minimized its
importance, and was reluctant to beUeve that a beautiful
dream might become a hideous, repulsive monstrosity."
If all this were true, it would not be to Jefferson's
discredit. But it is not true. He did see its sig
nificance; he did regret its necessary bearing; he did see
the present "hideous, repulsive monstrosity," but he
saw something behind it, or rather ahead of it. He
saw the ultimate issue — liberty and a new era — not
only for France, but for the European race. He
minimized the "present hideousness" only in the
sense that he thought the ultimate result was worth
purchasing, even at the cost of such days of terror, as
seemed in the providence of God necessary to be
endured, in order to topple over despotism, special
privilege, priestcraft, and all forms of rule by the
"booted and spurred," trained to beUeve that the
masses of mankind are "bridled and saddled." Most
of us see now what Jefferson saw then, and what Burke
did not, and Adams did not, and Hamilton did not see.
He was one of the very few well-born, wealthy and

60 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
respected men in America to see it then. Not as many
Uves were lost by the guiUotine as in many a single
battle, fought about next to nothing and in some few
battles fought to maintain the amour propre of a king's
mistress. Nor were there as many lives lost by the
guillotine, probably, as many a single generation of
kings and nobles and priests had snuffed out, in an
equal length of time, as the result of poverty, neglect,
insanitation, and overtaxation, caused by general mis-
government. Jefferson saw all this — all honor to him for having
seen it, and for having refused to permit himself and
his followers in America to be dragged into a senseless
American counter-revolution, because a people bhndly
and brutally striving for liberty in France had tempo
rarily failed, and had failed no more by their own
ignorance and cruelty, than by the hostile coalescence
of kings, and of beneficiaries of special privilege, all
over Europe. It must never be forgotten that the
domestic violence in France was but a protest — bUnd,
unreasoning, barbarous — but still a protest, against
this coalescence between privileged enemies of popular
right at home and the beneficiaries of monarchical,
aristocratic, and plutocratic privilege abroad — kings,
nobles, ecclesiastics, and fund-holders. Truly Jefferson
came back from France "a republican militant."
Happy for us that he was in France, so to come back!
A letter to Mr. Short, dated January 3, 1793, shows
how Jefferson, unlike so many other intelligent men in
America and in England, saw, beyond the struggle and
the bloodshed, to the hoped-for issue itself — saw the
things that were to be permanent and not temporary.

THE REVOLUTIONIST 61
After describing how the French people had become
Jacobins by the almost necessary stress and drive of
circumstance, he says: —
"In the struggle, wMch was necessary, many guilty persons
feU without the forms of trial, and with them some iimocent.
These I deplore as much as anybody, and shall deplore some of
them to the day of my death. But I deplore them, as I should
have done had they faUen in battle. It was necessary to use the
arm of the people — a macMne not quite so bUnd as baUs and
bombs — but bUnd to a certain degree. A few of their cordial
friends met at their hands the fate of enemies. But time and truth
wUl rescue and embalm their memory, wMle their posterity will
be enjoying that very Uberty for wMch they would never have
hesitated to offer up their Uves. The liberty of the whole earth was
depending upon the issu£ of that contest. Was ever such a prize won
with so Uttle innocent blood?"
By this time Gouverneur Morris was in Paris and was
becoming very "properly" "disgusted" with the fact
that "booksellers and venders of skins and grocers"
were being placed in civil office! It was not to be
long before John Adams would in America voice this
same high-flown contempt for common folks. We
find Mr. Morris about this time — at least his Memoir
says so — urging Lafayette "to preserve, if possible,
some constitutional authority to the body of the
nobles, as the one means of preserving any Uberty for
the people." Isn't that "going some" for an Ameri
can, who almost thus far had been getting on very well
without having ever met a nobleman, except of the
God-made sort? We find him commenting unfavorably
upon the fact that "Jefferson, with all the leaders of
Uberty here, is desirous of annihilatmg distmctions of

62 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
order"! This was not quite true, as a matter of fact,
because Jefferson had not yet thought it wise to go that
far in France. He was emphatically urging, however,
the withdrawal of the hurtful special privileges of the
clergy and nobihty, which exempted them from taxation
and made aU the heavy services and taxes fall upon the
poor. Jefferson did not confide in Morris, who knew nothing
of what he wanted. At that very time and up to the
day he left France he believed that France was not
yet ready for anything more than a limited consti
tutional monarchy. As late as November 18, 1788, he
says, in a letter to Mr. Madison speaking of the French
people: "The misfortune is that they are not yet ripe
to receive the blessings to which they are entitled."
He, nearly first of all EngUsh-speaking great men,
saw the immense influence of the example of France
upon the civiUzation of the world. He writes: "I con
sidered a successful reformation of government in
France as insuring a general reformation through
Europe, and the resurrection to new life of their people
now ground to dust by the abuses of the governing
powers." Long afterwards it came to be a generally
recognized fact that convulsions in France were always
followed by convulsions all over Europe — as in 1830
and 1848.
It was doubtful if, in advising an understanding with
the court, on the limited monarchy basis, Jefferson was
wise. The fight had by now gone too far. It had
recently become evident that the sincerity of the
court and of the courtiers sunply could not be reUed

THE REVOLUTIONIST 63
upon. The people were compelled to do one of two
things, and they soon realized the fact — either desist
from their struggle for Uberty, or else intimidate the
aristocracy. The charter which, at the request of some of the
patriotic party, he drew up, can be found in his works,
either edition. It was an immense step forward for the
French people.
Gouverneur Morris and Jefferson never did each other
justice. They were men so far apart in temperament
and in political creed that it was well nigh impossible.
Morris was cynical, sneering, distrustful of every sort
of elevating sentiment — the hard, practical man of
affairs; — fond of speculation, withal — yet acute; —
honest, but utterly incapable of believing that anybody
professing a faith in the rule of the masses of the people
could be otherwise than hypocritical. Jefferson was
as we know him to be.
Jefferson saw clearly the real causes of the French
Revolution — saw too that its excesses were not to be
charged solely to the passions and cruel vengeance and
ignorance of the people, but in just proportion also to
the long oppression which had preceded and produced
their ignorance, and to the almost fiendish contempt
for the people, which had had its result in arousing
avenging passions against the noblesse who enter
tained it. Carlyle afterwards, partiaUy, and Charles
Dickens, very clearly, saw what Jefferson did, but
neither quite as sympathetically. How clearly he saw
it all would be, if I had space or time, worth demon
strating at the risk of tediousness.

64 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
When, on the 4th of August, the National Assembly
aboUshed all class privileges, Jefferson says: "Thus
there went down at one sweeping blow all titles of
rank, all the abusive privileges of feudalism, the tithes
and casuals of the clergy, all provincial privileges."
Then the Declaration of Rights was adopted, and then
a committee appointed to draft a constitution, and then
that most extraordinary compliment paid to Mr.
Jefferson, when the chairman of this committee wrote
him a letter, dated July 20th, requesting him to "assist"
at their deliberations. Of course, Jefferson knew
better the duties of an ambassador than to take any
such open and public part in the formation of the
constitution of a country, to the court of which he was
accredited. It shows, nevertheless, the remarkable
influence of the man, which was demonstrated through
out his Ufe, wherever he happened to be.
Here Jefferson ceased to be a spectator of the great
European drama. It will be noted that it was before
the great excesses which shocked the civiUzed world
had occurred.
Parton says, in his "Jefferson's Return From France"
— Atlantic Monthly, 1872 — and I am glad to find
somebody who agrees with me about that: —
"The narrative of events written by Jefferson in extreme old
age, brief, cold and colorless as it is, taken in coimection with Ha
numerous letters, official and private, written at the time, will be
prized by the individual, who wiU, at length, evolve the French
Revolution from the chaos of material in wMch it is now involved.
Unfortunately, Jefferson went too far in extirpating Ms egotism.
He was not vain enough; he was curiously reticent concermng his
own part ia important events; he instinctively veiled them and his

THE REVOLUTIONIST 65
personaUty. But for tMs, he might have found time in Ms busy
retirement, to compose a Mstory of the Revolution down to the
taking of the BastiUe, wMch would have been of imperishable interest.
It was not merely that he knew the men and witnessed the events,
but he preserved Ms increduUty, accepted notMng upon mere rumor,
and personally investigated occurrences. If a rumor reached Mm
that 'three thousand people had fallen in the streets,' he and Ms
secretary, Mr. Short, would go to the spot, and, after minute inquiry,
reduce the number to 'three.' He was unwearied in sifting out the
interminable sessions of the various assembUes, and thought Uttle
of riding to Versailles ' to satisfy myself of what has passed there,
for notMng can be beUeved ("here") but what one sees or has
from an eye witness.' "
Jefferson had been in constant association with the
chief spirits, who constituted the moderate monarchical,
and the moderate republican, membership of the
French legislative body. He supplied them with books
and literature, wrote for them a discourse on the jury
system, recommending it because it gave an "infusion
of the people in the transaction of affairs," which was
"necessary to the preservation of purity."
In connection with Jefferson's views of the French
Revolution, it must be remembered that he had studied
and understood the condition of the French people as well
as the follies of their government; that he had "felt of
their beds to see how they slept;" that he had "looked
into their pots" to see if there were soup or fowl in
them; that he was in a better position, than any other
American of his day, to make due allowance for the
excesses which after his departure ran riot amongst a
sorely provoked people — a people, who, in addition
to the drawback of inexperience in self-government, had
had the hot iron of contempt and oppression thrust
6

66 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
into them and turned around in the wound, until their
hearts were aflame with a spirit of revenge, as well as
with a desire for their share of the earth's freedom and
happiness. Most Americans put the French in their
own positions and judged them accordingly. Jefferson
tried to put himself in their place, and did it very well —
considering that he was philosophe and they were
enra^ees.

CHAPTER III
JEFFERSON THE DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE
INSTITUTIONS
1. A STATE MADE OVER
I DOUBT if there is anything sweeter in Mr. Jefferson's
life than what he says in his Autobiography in the
following modest way: —
"I have sometimes asked myself whether my country is better
for my having Uved at aU. I do not know that it is; I have been
the instrument of doing the following tMngs; but they would have
been done by others, some of them, perhaps, a Uttle better."
Then there follows a reference to four great measures
— three of which were afterwards inscribed on his
tomb, the other being the abolition of primogeniture
and entail.
Note that the things he took most pride in were all,
save one — the authorship of the Declaration — state,
not federal, acts. Note the same fact in the inscription
chosen by him for his tomb: "Author of the Declara
tion of Independence and of the Virginia Statute for
Freedom of Religion and Father of the University of
Virginia." It has been a sort of fashion to speak of Thomas
Jefferson as a "theorist," "doctrinaire," and aU that.
Very few people know how great he was as a con
structive statesman — a legislator. In the first place,
Mr. Jefferson was an excellent lawyer — not a great
67

68 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
advocate, because he was never an orator, nor even a
very great debater. His vocal defects, as noted else
where, prevented this.
He was only thirty-three, when he resigned from
Congress and went back to Virginia, there to begin his
wonderful work of political and social and industrial
reconstruction. His reason for it is best given in his
own language: —
"When I left Congress in 1776, it was in the persuasion that our
whole code must be revised, adapted to our repubUcan form of
government, and, now that we had no negations of councils, gover
nors and kings to restrain us from doing right, that it should be
corrected in aU its parts, with a single eye to reason, and the good
of those for whose government it was formed."
Every law that he introduced was in itself a refor
mation, far reaching in its ends, conservative in its
methods. Let us run over, rapidly, the acts of con
structive legislation, of which he was the author, leaving
details as to their bearing, effect, origin, or date of
passage to later comment : An act defining treason, and
abolishing corruption of blood as a part of its punish
ment, thus refraining from visiting upon the heads of
the innocent the guilt of the offender; one defining
citizenship, being the first legislative assertion in the
world of the right of expatriation, the first denial of the
doctrine of indefeasible allegiance, under which kings
claimed men's bodies and services for life and defied
the natural right of the individual to adopt a new
country. This has since become an American principEx
His acts abolishing estates tail; abolishing primo
geniture; establishing freedom of religion; his bill,
which failed to be fully enacted, estabUshing a thorough

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 69
system of education; the magnificent preamble to the
first constitution of the State of Virginia; the biU of
1784 for the government of the Northwest Territory,
the precedent for our territorial system of government;
his bills, which became law, for the simplification of the
court system of Virginia; his act prohibiting the
importation of slaves into Virginia; his amendment for
the emancipation and deportation of slaves, which
failed, it is true, but barely failed; the laws for the
establishment of a State University, all of which he
drafted; his bills reforming the criminal laws of the
State of Virginia, and abolishing the barbarous practice
of drawing and quartering; his protest against the
revolting feature of the lex talionis; the removal, under
his recodification, from the Virginia criminal laws
of the death penalty in twenty-seven cases -r- in all
cases except treason and murder — a third of a century
or more before the great English law reformers, amongst
whom Romilly stood first, succeeded in reaching a Uke
result in Great Britain. All of these things were not
the promises of a theorist, but the accomplishments of
a practical constructive statesman. The multifari
ousness of his work is equalled in credit to him by the
lucidity of the language in which it was dressed. How
many of them were the first examples of their kind?
The act defining citizenship, I have mentioned; his
amelioration of brutal penalties, the first example of
that sort of legislative humaneness perhaps anywhere,
certainly in the English-speaking world; his act of '78
was the first American law to aboUsh the foreign slave
trade, and became a legislative fact, as R. G. H. Kean,
m "'Thomas Jefferson as a Legislator," says, "when

70 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Thomas Clarkson was a school boy." His statute of
reUgious liberty I shall dwell upon in a subsequent
lecture. It was the first example in a Christian country
of absolute freedom of public worship, not only for all
Christians, but for aU religionists of every sort —
guaranteeing freedom of belief and freedom of worship
— cutting off all possible forms of legal persecution, and
all control by the State of either religious conviction or
religious observance. He worked a reformation in his
tools, too, the law language, with its "saids" and "afore-
saids" and its endless tautologies and repetitions. He
himself gives a very fair resum^ of the most important
of the legislative reforms he introduced in Virginia,
and with accustomed self-abnegation and lack of desire
to glorify self, never once mentioning that he — the
youngest of them — was chairman of the committee
composed of himself, Edmund Pendleton, George
Wythe, George Mason and Thomas Lightfoot Lee, and
that upon him as chairman fell the main burden of the
work. The fact is that he and George Wythe sub
stantially did it aU. Mr. Pendleton's part was recast
and reformed by the two, owing partially to the fact
that Mr. Pendleton misunderstood the program, and
stiU more, perhaps, to the fact that he was called away
by sickness.
Randall calls attention to the fact that many, actu
ated by the undying class hatred of Jefferson and the
chronic desire to cheapen him in the public estimate,
afterwards were heard to say, that "that part of the
revision performed by Pendleton could be distinguished
by its superior precision." The humor of this lies in
the fact that Pendleton did not perform any part of
the revision.

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 71
In the distribution made of the work, aU of the com
mon law and the British statutes down to the fourth
year of James I (1607) — the year of the settlement
of Jamestown — ^ including all the subjects I have
mentioned, were committed to Mr. Jefferson alone.
The brevity and conciseness and succinctness, as weU
as the clearness of expression of this codification, is
remarkable. The whole thing occupied only ninety
folio pages. Much of what was contained in the report
of recodification was not enacted until later, but that
was the size of it, if it had all been enacted at once.
Some parts of it, notably the aboUtion of slavery and
some features of the slave code, were never enacted at
all, and of his superb educational code, establishing a
complete system from the A B Cs to the crowning
result in a State University, only the elementary school
part of the last chapter was then actually transferred to
the statute books, and it so amended as to mar its
working for years. The criminal code, as reported by
Mr. Jefferson, entitled, "A bill for proportioning crimes
and punishments in cases heretofore capital," etc.,
occupied only six pages octavo, or, with all the copious
notes and references and the embodiment of the Anglo-
Saxon laws, written in that language and accompanied
by his own translation, took up only thirteen pages.
The following language in the preamble of Mr.
Jefferson's bill "for proportioning crimes and punish
ments heretofore capital" is characteristic of the man
and of his legal style: —
"And forasmuch as the experience of all ages and countries
hath shown, that cruel and sanguinary laws defeat their own pur
pose, by engaging the benevolence of mankind to withhold prose-

72 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
cutions, to smother testimony, or to Usten to it with bias, when, if
the pumshment were only proportioned to the injury, men would
feel it their incUnation, as well as their duty, to see the laws ob
served. For rendering crimes and punishments, therefore, more
proportionate to each other, Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that no crimes shall be henceforth pumshed by deprivation of Ufe
or Umb, except those hereinafter ordained to be so punished."
Jefferson places the defence of capital punishment
upon the only sensible ground that it can rest on, if
on any, to wit: that certain criminals are capitally
punished for the reason that their existence has become
inconsistent with the safety of society. There is no
defence for capital punishment on the ground that it
reforms. There is little on the ground that it deters
others. It is very doubtful if it does. But there is
such a thing as a criminal, whose very existence and
the propagation of whose kind are inconsistent with
the welfare of society. In the Code of Virginia, as he
revised it, there was to be no conviction for treason,
except upon an overt act.
All this might weU be called "The Jeff erson Code. "
I know of no higher tribute to him as a successful
legislator than the following, which I shaU quote from
Mr. Kean's book, "Thomas Jefferson as a Legislator."
He says: —
"Some of the changes were so radical, so novel in the experience
of mankind, so far reacMng in their effects upon society, so difficult
to embody in statutes at once concise, simple and clear, that only
those who have had experience either in drafting important laws,
or in watching the effects in their admimstration of important stat
utory changes, can reaUze the difficulty of the undertaking and
the marveUous skiU and foresight with wMch Mr. Jefferson wrought
as a legislator. As an iUustration of tMs, it is worth wMle, even

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 73
to readers who have no acquaintance with technical law, to consider
the Virginia 'statute of descents.' TMs biU became a law in
October, 1785. . . . These rules are (briefly stated) the common
law ' canons of descent,' by wMch EngUsh inheritances were governed,
and largely are stiU.
"Now, by Mr. Jefferson's act in Virginia, every one of them at
one stroke was swept away. The estate was required to pass in
parcenary (that is, in equal shares where a class of heirs come in),
first, to the cMldren and their descendants. TMs rooted up both
the preference of males over females and of the oldest male over
the other cMldren of both sexes. If there be no cMld nor the
descendant of any, to the father, and if no father, to the mother,
brothers and sisters and their descendants. If these aU be wanting,
the estate is divided into two moieties, one going to the paternal
and the other to the maternal kindred," etc.
"Thus every shred of pre-existing (EngUsh) law of descents was
demoUshed, and a scheme based on new principles, contradictory
to it, was substituted in its place. The act as adopted (and it
was adopted precisely as Mr. Jefferson drew it), consists of eighteen
clauses and occupies a Uttle over a single page in the Statute Book.''
"Now it has not been without defimte purpose that so much of
the substance of the act has been stated, even at the peril of dis
gusting the lay-reader. It was needful to iUustrate what now
foUows. Under the provisions of tMs new act, wMch subverted and
reversed aU the rules wMch had previously existed in the State,
all the real estate wMch has descended in Virgima to the heirs of
the generations of a hundred years, has passed to those entitled by
these provisions. So precise, so comprehensive and exhaustive,
so simple and clear, were the terms in wMch they were expressed,
that in the experience of a completed century but one single doubt as
to the construction and effect of any part of it has arisen. That single
doubt was resolved by the case of Davis vs. Rowe, 6 Randolph, 355."
Mr. Kean says that as one consequence of the wonder
ful fairness and clearness of Mr. Jefferson's "statute of
descents": "It is much less the rule for persons (in

74 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Virginia) to make Wills, than (as I beUeve) is the case
generaUy elsewhere." " It is a common remark of men,
in whose fanuUes no special cause for special provision
in case of death exists, that " "the law makes as good a
will as they care to have."
Most of these reforms in the direction of adapting
laws to republican and democratic institutions were
foUowed, more or less awkwardly, by the other states,
though some of the abuses that were aboUshed in
Virginia lingered for years in some of the other states.
Jefferson's purpose in abolishing entail and primo
geniture is beautifully expressed by him: —
"To annul tMs privilege, and, instead of an aristocracy of wealth,
of more harm and danger than benefit to society, to make an opening
for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, wMch nature has wisely
provided for the direction of the interests of society, and scattered
with equal hand through aU its conditions, was deemed essential
to a weU ordered repubUc."
Jefferson sought to democratize not only poUtical
and social, but industrial conditions. He wanted free
labor, as much as free worship, or free land, or equal
justice or equahty in the family and among citizens.
Thus it came about that slavery was not compatible
with his doctrine. Throughout his entire Ufe he was
consistently and persistently opposed to it. It crops
out in his " Summary View of the Rights of British
America," pubUshed in 1775, in his " Notes on Virginia,"
again in the arraignment of the King for encouraging
the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, as
originally drawn by him, and still again in the Decla
ration, in that assertion — which escaped contempo
raneous opposition, because it was regarded by super-

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 75
ficial and cynical critics as "a glittering generality" —
of the "self evident truth" that "all men are created
equal," and "endowed by their Creator with . . .
liberty." With what force Abraham Lincoln used the
Declaration of Independence in his fight against the
spread of slavery is well known, and this too after the
Continental Congress had struck out of the Declaration
every word which was regarded by its members as
bearing directly on the subject.
Lincoln said: "All honor to Jefferson — to the man
who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national
independence by a single people, had the coolness,
forecast and capacity to introduce into a mere revo
lutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all
men in all times, and so to embalm it there that today
and in all days to come it shall be a rebuke and a
stumbling block to the very harbinger of reappearing
tyranny and oppression."
It has been sometimes urged that Jefferson was not
altogether consistent because he did not emancipate
his own slaves. Jefferson was in debt — the debt had
come to him with his wife's estate — and neither in his
lifetime, nor afterwards, could he have freed his or her
slaves from the claims of his creditors. He did set
free, by will, his household servants — three or four or
five of them, I have forgotten — and in order to do this,
he had to beg in his testament of the Legislature of
Virginia the ratification of the act.
Jefferson in one of his letters said: "The laws do not
permit us to turn them loose, . . . and to commute
them for other property [that is, plainly to sell them]
is to commit them to those whose usage of them we
cannot control."

76 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
What Jefferson meant by saying "the laws do not
permit us to turn them loose," in view of Randolph's
emancipation of his slaves by will, of young Edward
Cole's carrying his off to lUinois and setting them free
there, and Professor Wythe and many others setting
theirs free, is obviously that the law did not permit an
indebted man to deprive his creditors of an assured
security for the payment of their debts.
Jefferson was the author of the bill which passed the
Virginia Assembly permitting slave owners — when
out of debt — to emancipate their slaves. He was also
the author of the Virginia bill forbidding further
importation of slaves into that State. One of his very
last acts while President was a message sent to Congress
recommending the enactment of a law prohibiting their
importation into any port of the United States, so that
the law could take effect upon the first moment that
was possible under the Constitution, the Constitution
itself having forbidden Congress to make any law upon
the subject prior to the year 1808, and not having re
quired it to stop importation of slaves even then. He
had tried in the Continental Congress in 1784 to exclude
slavery not merely from the Northwest Territory as was
later done, but from all the territories of the United
States, "ceded or to be ceded," had lost his motion by
the vote of a single State, and when the matter is fuUy
analyzed, really by the vote of a single delegate of a
single State, who, if he had been present instead of
absent, would have carried the decision the other way.
I have never seen it myself, but his bill, or ordinance,
by which slavery was to be prohibited in all the terri
tories is said to be in the archives of the National Capitol

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 77
in Jefferson's handwriting. The language used by him
on this subject in 1784, was repeated in the ordinance
of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory,
and part of it is carried down in the Thirteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States.
I haven't space to give it here, but I would ask the
reader to peruse Jefferson's letter to Edward Coles,
dated August 25, 1814. It expresses more nearly than
any other one document his views on slavery, and
exhibits that singular melange of radicaUsm as to aim,
and conservatism as to means, which characterized the
man. One part of it, I must quote: "My opinion has
ever been that until more can be done for them, we
should endeavor with those whom fortune has thrown
in our hands, to feed and clothe them well, to protect
them from ill-usage, require such reasonable labor only
as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by
no repugnances to abdicate them, and our duties to
them." Then follows the language which I have
already quoted: "The laws do not permit us to turn
them loose, etc." It was harder to be a good master
then, than it was to emancipate a lot of ignorant,
and for the most part foolish creatures — welcome
nowhere — unable to take care of themselves and with
nobody under obligations to take care of them. With
an emancipation universal — as it was when it finally
came — these difficulties were for the most part obviated,
but to turn a whole race free, under conditions such that
their labor must be sought and paid for, is a different
thing from turning a few free to be unwelcome every
where as men and impossible as laborers — to be ob
jects of suspicion as "free niggers" and possibly victuns

78 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
of kidnapping by rough men and of sale into slavery a
half of a thousand miles or more away.
Most of the free states forbade their residence; they
did not fit into the system in the slave states.
As Jefferson said later: "We have the wolf by the
ears. It is equally difficult to hold him and to turn him
loose." I think one of the best pictures of the difficulties of
those whose "consciences bore witness against slavery,"
but who still owned slaves, and who attempted to relieve
themselves of the problem by setting them free, is to
be found in Helen Gardener's dehghtful book, "An
Unofficial Patriot." By the way, it contains the best
portrayal of Lincoln in our literature.
Jefferson did the best he could, as a practical man.
He was one of the kindest masters that ever lived, too
lenient for the good of his slaves — so lenient as to
put and leave his private business in a deplorable
condition — for, after all is said and done, his unwiUing-
ness to make his slaves do good work accounts more
than any other one thing for the fact that his child
was left without a shelter for her head, and that the
negroes themselves finally had to be sold, some of them
perhaps to bad masters.
Jefferson's ever-initiatory mind, when he had what
he thought a beneficent pubhc object in view, is illus
trated in a long letter to Jared Sparks, dated February
4, 1824, in which he suggests the consecration of the
proceeds of the pubUc lands to the emancipation and
deportation of the slaves. In after years, however,
after the cotton gin came into general use, any voluntary
aboUtion of slavery became impossible; that is impos-

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 79
sible, unless human nature itself could be changed —
and this very thing of changing human nature is the
only thing impossible for the statesman. It must come
of itself, after long reaches of time.
It is to be said for the slaveholders of the South, and
for the non-slaveholding classes of the South, who were
just as intense in their devotion to the Southern cause,
that, although there was slavery among them, it was,
as a system, the least onerous, the least cruel, and the
kindliest slavery the earth ever witnessed.
My early boyhood was spent on a plantation of 150
slaves. I was eleven years of age when the war closed.
I remember only three plantation punishments : One a
man whipped for stealing, one a woman whipped for
general and dangerous prostitution, and the other was
that of a man, who was kept on bread and water for
two weeks, because he had in a mutual fray killed his
brother. The last finally met with the penalty —
unprecedented on that place — which he dreaded most,
and tearfully attempted to escape — sale.
I leave this plain narrative without comment. Nor
do I pretend that there were no exceptions to the
almost universal kindly usage — • almost patriarchal
in its character — on which I have slightly raised the
curtain. But, in the Chancel of God, where all acts
and all motives are known, the slaveholders of the South
will not stand least prepared amongst men to receive
Divine justice, or Divine mercy. Much of their
heroism upon the battle-field, indeed, grew out of the
fact that they had been held up to the world's hatred,
as cruel and selfish and autocratic, when they knew
that they were none of these. They were fighting

80 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
personal insult as much as anything else. Certainly no
class enjoying by law special caste privilege, or any class
subjected by their situation to such grave temptations,
ever behaved so weU.
The first sentence of Jefferson's biU "Concerning
Slaves" — that is, the bill abolishing the importation
of slaves into Virginia, was in these words : —
"That no persons shall henceforth be slaves witMn tMs Common
wealth, except such as were so on the first day of tMs present session
of Assembly, and the descendants of the females of them. Slaves
wMch shaU hereafter be brought into tMs Commonwealth, and kept
therein one year, or so long at different times as shall amount to
one year, shaU be free."
If each State had imitated this statute, slavery must
have died out in the border States, and the race problem,
even in the cotton States, owing to the consequent com
parative paucity in numbers of Africans, would never
have been the stupendous thing it now is.
Professor Andrew D. White, "Jefferson and Slavery,"
in the Atlantic Monthly of January, 1862, says: —
"Logic forced Mm to pass from the attack on aristocracy to the
attack on slavery, just as logic forces the Confederate oUgarchs of
today to pass from the defence of slavery to the defence of aris
tocracy." Remember, this was written in 1862, and therefore
considering the heated feeUngs of war times, the son of
a Confederate soldier can forgive Professor White for
referring to his forefathers as "oUgarchs"; which they
by no means were. But it is none the less true that the
defence of slavery did logically compel to a certain
extent the defence of caste, for it was itself a form of

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 81
caste and class privilege. But as Thomas Carlyle
said: "I thank God men are not logical."
Professor White quotes these utterances from Jeffer
son, which I shaU re-quote. Remember, Jefferson is
addressing his brother slaveholders of Vnginia: —
"When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as fundamental,
that laws, to be just, must give reciprocation of right — that
without tMs, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in
force, and not in conscience; and it is a problem wMch I give to the
master to solve, whether the reUgious precepts against the violation
of property were not framed for Mm as weU as Ms slave — and
whether the slave may not as justifiably take a Uttle from one who
has taken all from Mm as a man may slay one who would slay Mm."
"Can the Uberties of a nation be thought secure, when we
have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds
of the people that their Uberties are the gifts of God, that they are
not to be violated but with His wrath? . . . The Almighty has no
attribute, which can take side with its in such a contest."
"What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible macMne is
man — who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, and
death itself, in vindication of Ms own Uberty, and, in the next mo
ment, be deaf to all those motives whose power supported Mm
tMough Ms trial, and inflict on Ms feUow men a bondage one hour
of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose
in rebellion to oppose? "
"The hour of emancipation is advancing in the march of time.
It wiU come; and whether brought on by the generous energy of our
own minds or by the bloody process of St. Domingo, ... is a leaf
of our Mstory not yet turned over."
If the war had not come, and the slaves been freed as a
"war measure," and if — there being no power under
the Constitution for Congress to interfere with slavery
7

82 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
in the States — slavery had continued for another half
century or so, the negro population growing in com
parison with the whites, as it did under slavery con
ditions — so favorable to their birth rate and un
favorable to their death rate — would not the scenes
of San Domingo have been some day necessarily re-
' enacted in the Southern cotton States?
Jefferson's enduring influence in every word he
uttered is shown by the fact that during the War
Between the States, Andrew D. White, in this very
article, quoted in favor of the abolition of slavery,
a^ a "war measure," what Jefferson said, when Corn-
wallis had carried his negroes off to die of smallpox and
then deserted them stricken and dying: "Had this
been to give them their freedom, he would have done
right." This is quoted against Jefferson's own kith
and kin, against the South that he loved so dearly,
against Virginia that he almost worshipped. But it
must be confessed that what Jefferson said was a logos,
just as is the phrase of the Declaration of Independence,
"All men are created equal and endowed," etc. In the
latter case, I have no doubt that Jefferson intended it
to be as a leaven, and that he saw, long down the aisle
of time, the day when that leaven must work.
Jefferson's own words in connection with his desire
to procure the emancipation and deportation of slaves,
better express his view than any explanation of them: —
"It is still in our power to direct the progress of emancipation
and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the
evil wiU wear off insensibly, and their place be, pari passu, fiUed up
by free wMte laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself
on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 83
Later, Mr. Jefferson in his "Memoir" uses this
language in connection with the same subject: —
"But it was found that the pubUc mind would not yet bear the
proposition, nor will it bear it even at tMs day. Yet the day is
not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow.
Nothing is more certainly written in the hook of fate than that these
people are to he free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally
free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion,
have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."
If our Southern ancestry could have "borne" the
proposition early enough, what a deluge of blood, what
a wealth of women's tears, what devastations of the land,
and what waste in treasures had been spared us! And
if your Northern forefathers had only remembered the
balance of what Jefferson wrote and knew so well, or
if they could, in the nature of things, have known it;
namely, that the two races cannot live equals politically
and socially, in the same government, because "nature,
habit and opinion have drawn indelible lines of dis
tinction between them," how much of the criminalities,
follies, mad saturnalia and corruption of reconstruction,
how much of the great "Fool's Errand," as it is so well
designated by one who calls himself "one of the fools,"
would have been spared us as a nation!
I know of nothing showing the prescient wisdom of
one man, more than these few lines just quoted from
Mr. Jefferson show his. In this, as in many other
instances, it has seemed to me that the man had an
intuitive, and not merely a reasoned, insight into the
future. What would we not have been by now had we
never been cursed with slavery, with the irrepressible,
bloody and wasteful conflict growing out of it, and with

84 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
the almost unavoidable pendente bello and post bellum
federal and industrial consolidation, all leading to the
casting off of the ship for so long a time from the old
Jeffersonian moorings! It must be confessed that the
running together of partisan interest and of slave
interest made the party which Jefferson founded to
cease for a time to be Jeffersonian — made it a de
fender of aristocracy, as well as of slavery in the South.
It seems restored to its old course again. God grant
that the verisimilitude prove a verity!
The plan of emancipation and deportation, which
Jefferson drew up — intended to be offered as an
amendment to the slave code — as reported by the
law revisers, contemplated not only the freedom of all
slaves born after a certain date, but their apprentice
ship to some trade, until reaching a certain age, and
then their deportation to some territory to be bought
for them, and an advancement of tools of husbandry
and of provisions sufficient for them to support them
selves, until a crop had been made on land given them.
Lincoln, like Jefferson, recognized inherent differ
ences between the two races, and regarded the blacks
as essentially inferior. In other words, neither was
ever free of that which most people call "race preju
dice," but which I think ought to be called "race
knowledge." It will be remembered that when Jefferson resigned
from the Continental Congress to go to Virginia in
order to make sure of democratic reforms, one reason
he gave for undertaking it at that tune was this: "The
shackles which shall not be knocked off at the con
clusion of this war wiU remain on us long, wiU be made

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 85
heavier and heavier, till our rights shaU revive or expire
in a convulsion." Thus early he foresaw the great
American Counter Revolution.
He was so convinced that this great work of "adapt
ing the laws to repubUcan institutions," was needful, if
the fruit of our war for independence was to be any
thing more than a mere change of buntings, that the
trappings of office on the one side could not tempt, nor
the hatred of the beneficiaries of special privilege, on the
other hand, deter him.
Speaking of the purpose of his revision work, he says
in his "Memoir": —
"I considered four of these bills passed or reported, as forming a
system by wMch every fibre would be eradicated of ancient or future
aristocracy, and a foundation laid for a government truly repubUcan.
(1) The repeal of the laws of entail would prevent the accumulation
and perpetuation of wealth in select famiUes, and preserve the soil
of the country from being daily more and more absorbed in mort
main. (2) The abolition of primogemture, and the equal partition
of inheritances, removed the feudal and unnatural distinctions
wMch made one member of every family rich and aU the rest poor.
(3) The restoration of the rights of conscience, reUeved the people
from taxation for the support of a reUgion not theirs; for the estab-
Ushment was truly the reUgion of the rich, the dissenting sects being
entirely composed of the less wealthy people; and (4) These, by
the biU for general education, would be quaUfied to understand
their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelUgence
their parts in self-government. And aU tMs would be effected
without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual
citizen." The last sentence is especially characteristic of the
"Conservative Reformer." A reformer, yes, that is the
substantive — the main thing ¦ — but conservative in
method — almost noiseless in approach. Later Jeffer-

86 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
son had reason to believe that reformation would have
to go yet deeper at some future time in order to prevent
that undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of a
few people — so destructive of the spirit of free insti
tutions — and in one of his letters — I do not recall to
whom — he said that when that day should come, the
aboUtion of primogeniture and entail would have to be
followed by "a limitation of the statutory privilege"
of bequest, devise and inheritance, as to the amounts
which could be left by any one person, to any one per
son, or purpose. He was prescient and far-seeing in
this, too, and to it we must come. It will also be only
the limitation of "a statutory privilege," not "the
violation of a single natural right" of a single citizen.
Jefferson well says, that it is intolerable that the
skeleton fingers of the dead shall forever reach from
their graves to control the destinies of the living to their
detriment. And yet further, in a letter he wrote from
France, being, as he designated it, a "train of reflec
tions" on "the unequal division of property," caused
by finding people "without land to work or work to
do" in a part of France, where "enormous holdings,"
in the hands of great lords, "some of them" waited on
by "200 domestics," were "devoted to game" — thus
placing the proprietors there above the necessity or
incentive of improving, or even of cultivating the land
— he says — after recognizing that equal division is
impracticable and undesirable: "but legislators cannot
invent too many devices for subdividing property, only
taking care to let those subdivisions go hand in hand
with the natural affections of the human mind." Then
he recommends as a first step for France what she sub-

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 87
sequently adopted, and what he had already partially
accomplished in Virginia: Descent to all the children —
if none, to all the brothers and sisters — or in default
of those to "other relatives in an equal degree." "An
other means of a fairer distribution," he suggests, "is
to exempt all real property below a certain value from
taxation and graduate the tax on the rest in proportion
to the magnitude of the holding in geometrical pro
gression." He adds: "The earth is given as common
stock for man to live and labor on. It is too soon yet
in our country to say that every man, who cannot find
employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall
be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent,"
but "not too soon" to make it a point, that "as few
families as possible shall be without a little portion of
land" — "Small landholders are the most precious
part of the State."
Leicester Ford finds in all this a demonstration of
"French influence," and, I presume, much "horrid
radicalism" ! I confess I see nothing French in it,
except a protest against French conditions and the
fact that it happened to be written in France, after a
Laurence-Sterne-sort of a meeting with a poor old
French woman. I confess, too, that, if the recom
mendations reached at the end of this "train of reflec
tions" be radical, they seem to me none the less wise.
But to return to our sheep: He took his seat in the
Virginia House of Delegates on October 7th. Five
days after that, in such a hurry was he to strike while
the iron was hot, he took his first steps towards effecting
the gigantic reforms to which I have referred. To
use his own language, he thought it weU, first to try

88 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"the strength of the general pulse of reformation," by
attacking the sahent "vicious points," "prominent in
character and principle."
On October 12th, he moved and received leave to
bring in a biU entitled, a bill "To enable tenants in
taille to convey their lands in fee simple," and on the
same day received leave to bring in a bill "For a
revision of the laws." He was doing his work quickly,
because on the 14th he reported back the first bill.
The enormity of this revolution and its influence upon
the economic condition and the social life of Virginia,
can scarcely be exaggerated. All over the State, but
preeminently on "The Eastern Shore" and in the lower
counties, the land had been gathered into great estates,
held by the law of entail from generation to generation
in the same family. Moreover, by the law of primo
geniture, they descended to the oldest son of the
family. These two laws together had produced the
same result, which may be now viewed in Great
Britain, only the result in Virginia was still more pro
nounced, if anything, because the law of entail there
carried slaves as well as land. As a consequence, the
social structure was essentially aristocratic, produciag,
on the one hand, a class of great landlords, Uving in
luxury, sometimes in idleness, though, be it said to
their credit, for the most part, usefully, and in the
spirit of noblesse oblige. But The Few controUed in
poUtics, in society, and in every other way. No
worthier aristocracy, upon the whole, than that of
Colonial Virginia, ever existed, none ever devoted
itself more unseffishly to the pubUc service, none ever
cared less about pelf; but it was none the less an aris-

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 89
tocracy, and, as such, was antagonistic to every poUtical
theory of young Jefferson, middle-aged Jefferson, and
old Jefferson. A class like this must, in the nature of
things, exercise more influence than any equal number
of equally able men not possessing their artificial
advantages — of station, education, social life, wealth;
and must in the nature of things exercise it as a class.
The governmental structure necessarily rests upon the
social and family structure.
The Lees, the Randolphs, the Pendletons, the Nel
sons, the Pages, the Carters, the Careys; a hundred
names will suggest themselves at once, illustrating the
justice of any possible tribute to the old Virginia
aristocracy, but the contemplation of them and their
services is the bright side of the shield.
Jefferson's doctrines, as Randall says, were "hard
and unpalatable" to many of this class, whom Jeffer
son, in a pet, once called "the nurselings of luxury,"
and some of whom he designated as being "mono
maniacs on the subject of family importance." For
years afterwards it was fashionable to dwell senti
mentally upon "the decadence of Virginia," and to
attribute this to "the decadence of the great famiUes,"
and this, in turn, to Thomas Jefferson's "leveling
principles." Randolph of Roanoke, after he became
sour, indulged in much of this sort of drivelling.
It was not the abolition of special privileges, which
held Virginia back; it was the failure to go far enough
with the good work and aboUsh slavery and deport the
slaves, just as it is the presence of an aUen, unassimilable
and improvident race, constituting industrially an
inefficient labor, and socially a constant irritant, which
is today the South's sole drawback.

90 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
We can all now reaUze what an effect the equality
of inheritance has upon the framework of society; how
it tears down an artificial and superficial, though fair-
appearing structure, and substitutes for it another more
enduring, and in every way better adapted to secure
the Uberty and happiness and independence of man.
In his own State, and in the South generally, the
aboUtion of primogeniture and entail has thus far
secured a fair distribution of wealth, but a worse thing
than primogeniture is taking its place in some of the
Northern States — especially in New York — where
it has become a fad with some of the rich famihes to
leave by will nearly all of their stupendous estates, not
to the oldest son, who might possibly feel that he had
enough money and "go in for" something else, but to
that one of the sons, who comes nearest resembling
the founder of the family fortune in his greed for
money, and in his capacity for making it — in short,
to the best "money-grubber" in the stock.
The peculiar thing is that Jefferson procured the
passage of these "laws striking at the ascendency and
domination of great, respectable and respected classes"
by an appeal to the reason of a body in which those
classes themselves were numerously represented, and of
which classes Jefferson himself was a member, for he
was a holder of extensive lands and an owner of very
many slaves, and in his own family an eldest son. But
he did not secure their passage without a fight — a fight
not as acrimonious as it would have been, if anybody
but Jefferson had been the advocate of the reforms,
nor if the struggle had taken place elsewhere than in
Virginia, where it was a tradition that political oppo-

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 91
nents, however divergent their views, must in pubhc
be personally courteous to one another. Men of more
than respectable talents, however — among them the
Pendletons and Nicholases — met him in the breach.
When frontal attack failed, they resorted to attacks on
the flank. For example, when the law to abolish entails
was proposed, Mr. Pendleton, desiring to emasculate
it, moved an amendment that the holders of such
property might convey it in fee simple, "if they chose
to do so," and came within a few votes of securing the
passage of the amendment!
Proceeding with his work of reformation, on October
14th, he procured leave to bring in a bill for the natural
ization of foreigners, and reported the bill upon this
subject on the same day. This bill is remarkable, not
only because it outUnes an American pohcy towards
those seeking our shores, which became afterwards
permanent, except for a short interruption by the
Federalists during aUen and sedition law times and a
brief menace during Know-Nothing days, but it is
remarkable as being the first pubhc legislative denial
of the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance. To this I
have referred. Both these, it may be safely asserted,
have become for us permanent and irrevocable national
policies. Among other then notable and far-reaching things,
he subjected land, just like other property, to the pay
ment of debts. He made it a fluid asset. This was
, very important in connection with the work of demo-
\ cratizing. You cannot completely free the man, unless
you free the land. Man — the worker, land — the
'fulcrum — these two, in ultimate analysis, are all.

92 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Against the proposed aboUtion of prunogeniture,
Pendleton made a strong stand in committee in behalf
of his class, and when he found a majority against
him, resorted to a ruse, by proposing to adopt "the
Hebrew principle," that is, to give the oldest son a
double portion. Jefferson, quaintly, but decisively,
answered, that "if the eldest son could eat twice as
much, or do double work, it might be a natural evi
dence of his right to inherit a double portion; but being
on a par in his powers and wants, with his brothers and
sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of
the patrimony." The committee agreed with him.
These laws exerted for aU time their democratizing
influence over the people of Virginia, and, by their
example which was imitated elsewhere, a beneficent
influence over aU America, but especially in the new
States created out of the old Territory of Virginia,
where he and his ideas were all his life intensely popular.
John Esten Cooke, in his "History of Virginia,"
says: —
"After 1800, Virginia gradually assumed a new physiognomy.
Dress and manners underwent a change. The aristocratic planter,
with Ms powder and sUk stockings, gave place to the democratic
citizen, with Ms plain clothes and plain maimers. The theories of
Jefferson were adopted as the rule of society. . . . Class distinctions
were ignored as a remnant of social superstition."
On the 13th of August, 1777, Jefferson wrote to
Frankhn as follows: —
"With respect to the State of Virginia, . . . the people seem
to have laid aside the monarcMcal and taken up the repubUcan
government, with as much ease as would have attended their
throwing off an old and putting on a new suit of clothes. Not a

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 93
single throe has attended tMs important transformation. A
half-dozen aristocratical gentlemen, agomzing under the loss of
preeminence, have sometimes ventured their sarcasms on our
poUtical metamorphosis."
In one graphic sentence, Thomas E. Watson, in his
"Life and Times of Jefferson," gives the effect of Jeffer
son's work in democratizing Virginia institutions: "He
unfettered the land, changed the tenure from fee tail
to fee simple, made the soU democratic , and made
the law to correspond. . . . Mind and tongue were
unfettered. Religious liberty came to aU." Truly
"a State made over," and virtually by one man, whom
shallow-pates have called a "doctrinaire!" That old
quotation comes to my mind: "They said he was a
dreamer, but his dreams came true."
What is a doctrinaire?
Burke, the prince of rhetoricians, says of Chatham,
the elder Pitt: "For a wise man he seemed to me at
that time to be too much governed by general maxims."
But history records practically nothing left by Burke to
mark his impress on institutions and history, while she
records Chatham as an empire builder.
Yet, let us not give Jefferson all the credit. Old
Virginia had the heart and head to foUow him in every
respect, except concerning slavery; to embrace a democ
racy of equal rights, equal opportunities without legal
or artificial privileges, and thus democratic has she
remained — "so shedding Ught" that aU good States
may imitate her example.
Jefferson always contended that despite its admirable
town-government system, the governing spirit of
FederaUst New England was not genuinely democratic.

94 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
This has "amused" some of the late writers, who
assume to wear the old Federahst mantle, under the
Impression that it sets them aside as something "su
perior!" Mr. C. Edward Merriam, of the University of
Chicago, has written a very interesting book entitled,
"American PoUtical Theories," pubUshed by the
MacmiUan Company in 1903, the perusal of which,
under this head, I recommend to the reader. Among
other things which he makes perfectly plain is the fact
that the system of government advocated by the early
Puritans was based upon neither equality nor democ
racy; it was a theocratic government, with pretty
nearly aU the power directedly or indirectly wielded
by the clergy — so much so that only church members
could become "freemen;" that is, a part of the govern
ing community. This was the case by law in Massa
chusetts and New Haven, and by actual practice in
Plymouth and Connecticut. As he says, it was Roger
WilUams, not the Puritans, who stood for democracy,
in New England. He taught limiting the activity of
the state to what were called "breaches of the second
table," a new phrase to me, when I struck it. The first
four commandments were called the first table, because
they related to the duty of man to God, and the last
six were caUed the second table, because they related
to the duties of man to man. In essential basic
character, Roger WiUiams' view of the limits of the
state in the affairs of men is not unlike that of Thomas
Jefferson. Merriam cites that John Cotton in 1644 denounced
democracy as "the meanest and worst of aU forms of

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 95
government," and that as late as 1764 in Massa
chusetts Bay the proposition to establish aristocracy,
as a form of government, was rejected, only because it
involved "the abandonment of the requirement of church
membership for the exercise of suffrage!" (Italics
always mine.)
Merriam adds that the "Puritans did not preach or
practice religious toleration, nor did they become
enthusiastic about the inherent rights of man." The
equality which they believed in was spiritual equality;
that is, equality among the saints — the elect. Of
course, in this connection, the distinction between the
Pilgrim Fathers and the Puritans must be kept in
mind; they are generally confused. The practice and
theory of the former were perfectly democratic and
much more conducive to equality of citizens in the
state. The political ideas of the Quakers were much
more nearly those which were finally stamped as Ameri
can and national by the adoption of the Declaration of
Independence, and much more nearly like those which
were advocated by Roger Williams and Jefferson, than
were those of the early settlers in New England.
WiUiam Penn's definition of free government is not a
bad one. It is this: "Any government is free to the
people under it . . . where the laws rule and the people
are a party to those laws." Compare this with Jeffer
son's definition of a "Pure Republic," which see later.
The two constitute not a bad definition of the theory of
the true, not the play-acting, "progressives" of today.
Mr. Jefferson, when he left Congress and went home
to be elected to the House of Burgesses, had said, that
he did it because the "laboring oar was reaUy at home."

96 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
It was eminently in keeping with all of his opinions and
all of his future Ufe, that he should have begun the
work of democratizing American institutions, edu
cationally and sociaUy and industrially, in the State —
raising a standard for the other States — because the
State was, as he later expressed it, the "surest safe
guard of repubUcan institutions."
2. AN APOSTLE OF LOCAL SELF-GOVEENMENT
Jefferson has long been regarded as the apostle of
local self-government. In his first inaugural address,
in all his state papers, and in aU of his letters, where
there was any relevancy to the question, and in the
Kentucky Resolutions, his apostleship is displayed;
but for the most part, people have only the idea of
States' Rights in their minds in connection with his
position. Jefferson went further than that. Notwith
standing the Kentucky Resolutions, which were in
content mainly, and in intent altogether, a State
protest only, two men were never in all history really
further apart than he and John C. Calhoun. He was
very much enamoured with the old Saxon Communal
Government, and he became early in life, and continued
to his death, enamoured with the New England Town
ship System, a system which brings the direct govern
ment of the people, upon a small scale, into more
perfect operation than any other institution in America.
On May 26, 1810, after he had retired from the
Presidency, he said in a letter to Governor Tyler: —
"I have indeed two great measures at heart, without wMch no
repubUc can maintain itself in strength. 1. That of general educar
tion, to enable every man to judge for Mmself what will secure or
endanger Ms freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds,

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 97
of such size that aU the cMldren of each wiU be witMn a central
school in it. . . . These Uttle repubUcs would be the main strength
of the great one. We owe to them the vigor given to our revolu
tion in its commencement in the Eastern States."
To Joseph C. Cabell, on January 31, 1814, he writes: —
"There are two subjects, indeed, wMch I claim a right to further
as long as I breathe — the pubUc education and the subdivision
of counties into wards. 7 consider the continuance of republican
government, as absolutely hanging on these two hooks."
In another letter he says, to the same correspondent:
"My friend, the way to have good and safe govern
ment is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among
the many, distributing to every one exactly the func
tions he is competent to." Then follows his sub
division, beginning with the national government and
its proper functions, continuing through the state
governments and a general description of what should
concern them, to the counties, and then the "wards,"
as he called them, or "townships," as they were caUed
in New England. Of them he says: —
"The elementary repubUcs of these wards, the county repubUcs,
the State repubUcs, and the repubUc of the Umon, would form a
gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding
every one its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a
system of fundamental balances and checks. . . . Where every man
is a sharer in the direction of Ms ward repubUc, or of some of the
Mgher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of
affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day;
... he will let the heart be torn out of Ms body sooner than Ms
power be wrested from Mm by a Caesar or a Bonaparte.'J
Then he exclaims: —
"How powerfully did we feel the energy of tMs orgamzation in
the case of the Embargo? I felt the foundations of the government
8

98 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
shaken under my feet by the New England townsMp . . . and,
although the whole of the other States were known to be in favor
of the measure, yet, the orgamzation of tMs Uttle selfish minority
enabled it to override the Umon. ... As Cato once concluded
every speech with the words, 'Carthago delenda est,' so do I every
opimon with the injunction, 'divide the counties into wards.'
Begin them only for a single purpose, they will soon show for what
others they are the best instruments."
Again, to Samuel Kercheval, on July 12, 1816: —
"These wards, caUed townsMps in New England, are the vital
principle of their government, and have proved themselves the
wisest invention ever devised by the wit of men, for the perfect exercise
of self-government, and for its preservation."
Jefferson's definition of "a pure repubUc" is this: "A
government by the citizens in mass, acting directly and
personally, according to the rules established by the
majority." (See Penn's definition on a previous page.)
He acknowledges that these "pure republics" can
exist only on areas so small that all citizens may
readily meet together.
With regard to local self-government, in another
place, he says: —
"Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a
single government. PubUc servants at such a distance, and from
under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of
distance, be imable to adnoimster and overlook aU the details neces
sary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circum
stance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will
invite the pubUc servants to corruption, plunder and waste. . . .
You have seen the practices by wMch the pubUc servants have been
able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, the de
lusions by wMch they have varmshed it for the eye of their constit
uents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating,

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 99
plundering, office building and office hunting would be produced by
an assumption of aU the state powers into the hands of the general
government." Whether the States are to remain indestructible and
whether the precious blessing of local self-government
upon smaller areas is to be perpetuated, depends upon
the degree of concentration of governmental power at
Washington. If it is carried too far, of course, the
cords some day must snap, and if they do, one of "the
two hooks" upon which our destinies hang will have
disappeared, "the balance" will be lost, and no man is
wise enough to foresee the ultimate result. The real
balance in this Government is that between the States
and the counties and the townships, on one side, and
the Federal Government, on the other. These "lesser
republics" have jurisdiction over nine-tenths of the
questions which concern the individual in his daily Ufe.
It is even of more importance that the government of
them should be wise and pure and free and enhghtened,
than it is that the National Government should be so.
It is their not being so, which gives pretext for Federal
usurpation. The ship has thus far weathered the gale,
though with some broken spars and shredded sails.
Montesquieu had written — and Montesquieu was a
name held in high reverence in that day by all except
Thomas Jefferson — that a republic was adapted only
for a small territory, but Jefferson's conviction was
precisely the contrary, if only it were a Federal Republic
of limited, delegated powers. "A Republic of Repub
Ucs!" That is the name which Sage, of New Orleans,
in a book by that title gave to our dual government.

100 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
If it had gone further and read, "A RepubUc of Repub
Ucs and of Lesser RepubUcs" — carrying the mind
down to the county and township repubUcs, with their
direct participation by all the people in democratic
assembhes — it would have been thoroughly descrip
tive of Jefferson's ideal.
Vu-ginia had adopted a written constitution in 1776.
It was adopted at a time when patriots were trying to
get together, and when the main object in view was to
put some sort of State government upon a legal footing,
to take the place of the patriotic but irresponsible
revolutionary committees. There were some un
democratic features in it needing revision. Long
afterwards, Samuel Kercheval wrote some letters on
the subject and enclosed them to Jefferson, asking his
advice. There is much of Jeffersonianism in Jefferson's
reply, and of the sort which has exerted a permanent
influence on our State institutions. In many respects,
it is worthy to stand side by side with "The Summary
View," the great "Declaration of Independence," the
platform letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1800, and the
"First Inaugural," as an exponent of Americanism.
This letter appears in full as Appendix 29 to be found
in the third volume of Randall's "Life of Jefferson,"
page 647. It was dated July 12, 1816. Excerpts from
which are as follows: —
"In truth, the abuses of monarchy had so much filled all the
space of our poUtical contemplation, that we imagined everything
repubUcan, wMch was not monarchy. We had not yet penetrated
to the mother principle thai 'governments are republican only in
proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'
Hence, our first constitutions had reaUy no leading principle in
them. But experience and reflection have but more and more

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 101
confirmed me in the particular importance of the equal representa
tion then proposed.
"In the Legislature" (of Virginia) "the House of Representatives
is chosen by less than half the people, and not at aU in proportion
to those who do choose. The Senators are stiU more dispropor
tionate, and for long terms of irresponsibiUty. In the Executive,
the Governor is entirely independent of the choice of the people, and
of their control; Ms council equaUy so, and at best but a fifth wheel
to a wagon. In the Judiciary the judges of the Mghest courts are
dependent on none but themselves. In England, where judges were
named and removable at the will of an hereditary executive, from
wMch branch most misrule was feared and has flowed, it was a
great point gained, by fixing them for Ufe, to make them inde
pendent of the executive. But in a government founded on the
pubUc will, tMs principle operates in an opposite direction, and
against that will. There, too, they were stiU removable on a
concurrence of the executive and legislative branches. But we
have made them independent of the nation itself."
This utterance, and what follows about judges, with
its cool, limpid reasoning, was and is of far-reaching
influence. In Jefferson's day all State judges, as far as I have
learned, except in Connecticut, were appointed. In
the twenties he urged their election for fixed terms in
Virginia, and cited the success of the experiment in
Cormecticut. By the time the Democracy had de
veloped itself further under Jackson, they were nearly
everywhere elected, and life tenure was abolished
everywhere, except with the Federal Judiciary. Thus
aU three branches of the government became democ
ratized. Of the Revolutionary constitutions, very few, if any,
were submitted to the people, they being adopted by
conventions alone.

102 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Beginning with "the word" — under Jefferson, and
culminating with the deed under Jackson, constitutions
began everjr^vhere to be submitted to the people for their
ratification; that is, nearly everywhere. Some few
very conservative States never did submit them. No
constitution of Mississippi, for example, except one,
was ever submitted to the people, the people seeming
to think that they can get a wiser, better fundamental
law, if they elect the very best men to constitute a
constitutional convention, and leave them with plenary
power. This was all a growth out of Mr. Jefferson's
doctrine that he wanted "frequent recurrence to
fundamental principles."
Recurring in this letter to his favorite scheme for
the complete democratization of Virginia — dividing
the counties into wards and giving them direct self-
government to a certain extent similar to the New
England township system — he says : —
"The organization of our county admimstrations may be
thought more difficult. But foUow principle, and the knot unties
itself. Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every
citizen can attend when caUed on, and act in person. Ascribe
to them the government of their wards in all tMngs relating to
themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen by themselves, in each;
a constable, a miUtary company, a patrol, a school; the care of their
own poor, their own portion of the pubUc roads, etc. . . . These
wards, caUed townsMps in New England, are the vital principles
of their governments, and have proved themselves the wisest irwention
ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government,
and for its preservation. We should thus marshal out government
into, 1. The general federal repubUc, for all concerns foreign and
federal; 2. That of the state, for what relates to our own citizens ex
clusively; 3. The county repubUcs, for the duties and concerns of the
county; and, 4. The ward repubUcs, for the small, and yet numerous

DEMOCRATIZER OF STATE INSTITUTIONS 103
and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government,
as weU as in every other business of Ufe, it is by division and sub
division of duties alone, that all matters, great and smaU, can be
managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to
every citizen, personaUy, a part in the admimstration of the pubUc
affairs." After this, he sums up the whole situation and
expresses the philosophy underlying it: —
"The sum of these amendments is: 1. General suffrage; 2. Equal
representation in the Legislature; 3. Judges elected or amovable;
5. Justices, jurors" (evidently grand jurors) "and sheriffs elective;
6. Ward divisions; and, 7. Periodical amendments of the Consti
tution. "I have tMown out those, as loose heads of amendment for con
sideration and correction; and their object is to secure self-govern
ment by the repubUcamsm of our constitution, as well as by the
spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I
am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich,
are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their
independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual
debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty,
or profusion and servitude."
In this last sentence is the doctrine of "Jeffersonian
simplicity." Note the summing up and remember how — gradu
ally beginning the work then and substantially com
pleting it under Andrew Jackson — his poUtical dis
ciples pursued his instructions in nearly all the States,
and in every case (except the election of grand jurors
and (7), the last), to a successful consummation. He
came afterwards, as I shall show later in my lecture on
Educational Influence, to modify his views on the
suffrage, to the extent, of desiring an educational, or
reading and writing, qualification. This is being
gradually adopted, and wiU be universally.

104 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Dr. Grigsby says in his discourses on the Virginia
Convention of 1776: —
"The first Constitution of Virgima withstood, for nearly forty
years, Ms (Jefferson's) attacks in the Notes; but when he tMew his
thoughts into the shape of a letter to Kercheval, the fate of that
instrument was sealed. The phrases of that letter were at once
stereotyped in the pubUc voice; and it was amusing to observe on
the court green, and in debate, how these phrases passed current
with men, who had never seen or heard of the letter, and who
beUeved that they were clotMng their own thoughts in their own
words." And this summary, too, by Watson is weU worth
reading and well worth remembering: —
"The ink of the Declaration of Independence was hardly dry
when tMs same 'timid' Jefferson hurried to Virgima, challenged the
proud, strong aristocracy of the Old Domimon to the field, and
unhorsed it in fair fight. Then he accompUshed what French
Revolutionists found it hard to do, and what Mr. Gladstone found
it so hard to do in Ireland, and what no man has been able to do
in England to tMs day — he disestabUshed the State church.
"Not only that ! He told the wMtes they ought to free the blacks;
and told the rich they ought to tax themselves to educate the
poor." . . .
"Yet so scholarly a writer as Henry Cabot Lodge, makes
'timidity' a sahent feature of Jefferson's character; and Mr. Roose
velt continually repeats that he was ' weak and vaciUating.' "
What I am now about to quote from Jefferson, I select
to repeat and emphasize that it was not alone the state
governments, but the county and town governments,
within their several spheres, for the fuU vigor of which
he always contended: —

DEMOCRATIZER OP STATE INSTITUTIONS 105
"But the true barriers of Uberty in tMs country are our state
governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived
by man is that of wMch our revolution and present government
found us possessed. Seventeen distinct states, amalgamated into
one, as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to
their internal admimstration, regularly organized with a legislature
and governor resting on the choice of the people, and enlightened
by a free press, can never be so fascinated by the arts of one man,
as to submit voluntarily to Ms usurpation. Nor can they be con
strained to it by any force he can possess. WMle they may paralyze
the single state in which it happens to be encamped, sixteen others,
spread over a country of two thousand nailes diameter, rise up on
every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional
legislature, and for action by their governor, constitutionally the
commander of the miUtia of the state — that is to say, of every
man in it able to bear arms — and that miUtia, too, regularly formed
into regiments and battaUons, into infantry, cavalry and artillery,
trained under officers, general and subordinate, legaUy appointed,
always in readiness, and to whom they are already in habits of
obedience. The repubUcan government of France was lost without
a struggle, because the party of 'un et indivisible' had prevailed,
no provincial organizations existed to wMch the people might rally,
under authority of the laws, the seats of the directory were virtually
vacant, and a small force was sufficient to turn the legislature out
of their chamber, and to salute its leader cMef of the nation."
In "Jefferson and His PoUtical Philosophy," by Mary
Plate Parmelee, she says of Jefferson's great and rest
less mind, that "it was a laboratory and not a store
house," and that, "He beUeved that the ideal govern
ment should be framed not so much to restrain the
popular will as to express it; not to obstruct, but to
execute it."
We can only wonder that the hatred of Jefferson was
not greater. He offended in turn each entrenched
class. Take that one expression of his: "I tremble for

106 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
my country when I think of the negro and know that
God is just." These are words uttered by Thomas
Jefferson in Virginia — by a slaveholder in the midst of
slaveholders — and not by Lincoln in IlUnois, nor by
Garrison or Sumner in Massachusetts, where they
would have been popular!

CHAPTER rV
JEFFERSON'S INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT
There is no use for my purpose in detaiUng dates and
circumstances of Jefferson's being sent to France.
He is there first with two colleagues, John Adams and
Benjamin Frankhn, as Envoys Extraordinary, and
subsequently alone as Minister to France. He was
not only lucky in having succeeded Mr. Frankhn as
Minister, but he was lucky in this: that America was
then itself, as Frankhn was, a sort of fad in Paris with
litterateurs, and even with courtiers.
There was not much for Jefferson to do in France of
weighty concern to our prosperity. He did obtain the
admission of our products on favorable terms, as com
pared with those of other nations, and a mitigation of
the Government tobacco monopoly. In fact, con
sidering how the ghost of the mercantile theory stiU
had its fingers around the throats of all the ruling
spirits in nearly every nation, he did a good deal. He
gave a sensible stimulus to our pohcy of Reciprocity.
In his diplomatic correspondence he shows himself
fully in possession of those economical principles the
soundness of which Adam Smith was demonstrating.
He writes to the French Premier that France "could
not expect America to come to her to purchase, when
she did not take American commodities in return,"
thus impressing the great economical truth, that, after
107

108 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
all, commodities are somehow, somewhere, paid for
with other commodities.
Finally, before he left he had a battle royal with the
protective system, which was shutting the ports of
France against food when Frenchmen were dying for
the lack of it; "and spent his last days, even his last
hours, in Paris, in trying to persuade the Ministry to
permit the importation of galted provisions from the
United States," and failed! Parton epitomizes the
interview deUghtf ully . "Salt beef, ' ' obj ected the Count
de Montmorin, "will give the people scurvy." "No,"
repUed Jefferson, "we eat it in America and we don't
have the scurvy." "The salt tax will fall off," said the
Minister. Jefferson could not deny that it might a
Uttle; but, on the other hand, "it would reheve the
Government from the necessity of keeping the price of
bread below its value." "But," resumed the Count,
"the people of France will not buy salt meat."
"Then," rephed Jefferson, "the merchants won't
import it, and no harm will be done." "And you
cannot make a good soup out of it," urged the Count.
"True," said Jefferson, "but it gives a delightful flavor
to vegetables. Besides it wiU cost only half the price
of fresh meat."
Ridiculous, isn't it? But this last year our people
were paying three prices for Irish potatoes, and yet
Congress could not be prevailed upon to suspend the
import duty!
Nothing, however, done by Jefferson in France as
Envoy or as Minister can be said to have permanently
affected our International Relations unless it be the
so-called Model Treaty, which Franklin, Adams and

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 109
he put in shape to be proffered by us to aU nations.
James Parton says of this celebrated "model draft of
a treaty": "What an amiable, harmless, useless docu
ment it seems! But it was the first serious attempt
ever made to conduct the intercourse of nations on
Christian principles; and it was made by three men to
whom ignorance has sometimes denied the name of
Christians." This is a partial error. The instructions
to our Ministers abroad, drawn by Jefferson, when he
was a member of the Continental Congress, was the
"first attempt" of this sort, and "the model treaty"
and it are so much alike that plainly the latter is based
on the former. I expect, if I five to the Scriptural
Umit of age, to see the main provisions of that treaty
adopted by the civilized nations of the earth in their
intercourse with one another, thereby confining the
evils of war — always unnecessary and barbarous —
within as narrow limits as possible. Already priva
teering has been abolished, which was one of the things
the authors of "the model treaty" sought. The whole
world admits, that there ought to be no confiscation of
neutral property — another thing they sought. I hope
the day is not far distant, when war will bring "no
molestation to fishermen, farmers," and other non-
combatants, and "no useless ravaging of the enemy's
coast at a point where the enemy has no ships or
arms," which constituted another of their aims.
Another of their objects was that there should be, "no
crowding of prisoners of war into unwholesome places."
Already this example had been set by Jefferson's advice
and active aid among "the sweet hills of Albemarle,"
where nearly a whole county and the open air had

110 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
constituted the only prison of our British and Hessian
captives. Some day a nation will not call itself respect
able which does not obey the precept of the Model
Treaty on this head. And why should we not hope to
see the day when Article XVII shaU be in effect? That
Article read: —
"If the citizens or subjects of either party, in danger from
tempests, pirates, or other accidents, shall take refuge with their
vessels witMn the harbors or jurisdiction of the other, they shall
be received, protected, and treated with humanity and kmdness,
and shaU be permitted to furnish themselves at reasonable prices,
with aU the refreshments, provisions, and other tMngs necessary
for their subsistence, health, and accommodation, and for the repairs
of their vessels."
Are not people anyhow somewhat too prone to call
humanly attainable things "visionary"? Was not old
George Washington practical? He said of that draft
of a treaty that it "marks a new era in negotiation,"
and "old Frederick of Prussia," as Jefferson caUs him,
was a right hard-headed old fellow, and he entered into
a treaty with us containing substantially these things.
Let us not take for granted that people, who want to
improve the world and make nations treat one another
just as civihzed gentlemen treat one another, are
necessarily vision-seeers. May be, it might be wiser to
drop one e, and call them seers instead?
Parton says, and I cannot make up my mind whether
he says it in derision or in earnest: —
"In short, the commission to negotiate commercial treaties
had but one important result, namely, the composition of the draft
of the treaty and its preservation in the Diplomatic Correspondence
of the Umted States against the time when nations shaU want it."

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 111
May God speed the coming of the time, and may
God equally speed the cessation of talk about such a
time as "impracticable" and "visionary!" If, as he
says, the treaty "remains only as an admonition and a
prophecy," it is at least an admonition Godward,
because Peaceward; and a prophecy which will be ful
filled, if the world grows from mere civilization to that
enlightenment, where "the common sense of most"
can "hold a fretful realm in awe."
Jefferson had made an excellent foreign minister.
In the transaction of his official duties and of those
extra official duties, which consume so much of a
foreign minister's time, he had been patient, tactful,
courteous and wise. His dispatches home are among
the greatest state papers which we have. He had
shown himself in France, as earher in Virginia and later
at Philadelphia and Washington, an excellent judge of
men. Even Judge Marshall, who hated him, says:
"and in that situation" (that is, as Minister to France)
"he acquitted himself much to the pubhc satisfac
tion." Later Webster, who had no great use for Jefferson,
speaking of his services abroad, says: "No court in
Europe had at that time in Paris a representative
commanding or enjoying higher regard, for poUtical
knowledge, or for general attainments, than the
minister of this then infant repubhc."
The contemporaneous Edinburgh Review referred to
his "watchfulness on every subject," his perseverance,
his skiU and knowledge, as not suffering in comparison
even with Frankhn's diplomatic talents, and to his
public letters as "excelUng in excellence an equal

112 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
twelve month's letters from any British Ambassa
dor." But it was as Secretary of State and President that
Jefferson left a lasting impress on this Government's
International Relations.
On his way from Norfolk to Monticello after he had
landed in America, he received the letter from General
Washington offering him the place of Secretary of
State, really then, as now, the Cabinet Premiership.
Jefferson reluctantly forewent his desire to remain in
the diplomatic service and accepted. He arrived in
New York, after a visit on the way to his old friend
Benjamin Franklin, and immediately took up the three
months arrears of work in the Department of State.
As almost the first thing, the reader may compare,
certainly with credit to Jefferson, not only in point of
patriotism, but in point of prescience, his words, as
Secretary of State, asserting the right of navigation of
the Mississippi River — with its subsequent tame
surrender for twenty-five years by Jay, as Foreign
Minister, and by Washington, as President, in the
memorable Jay Treaty.
Jefferson's letters of instruction to Carmichael and
Short on this' subject are instructive and interesting,
especially in this: that he based our claim not only on
the Treaty of Paris of '63 and the Treaty of 1782-83,
but characteristically upon the announcement of an
"abstract proposition," to wit: that "the right to a
thing gives a right to the means without which the thing
can not be used." He calls this a "still broader and
more unquestionable ground," than the treaty grounds,
and adds that, "if the right of the upper inhabitants to

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 113
descend a stream is in any case obstructed, it is but an
act of force by a stronger society against a weaker, and
is condemned by the judgment of mankind."
Anticipating that Spain might make the argument,
that, if she granted the navigation of the Mississippi
to the United States, she must likewise, under the
"most favored nation" clause of her treaties, grant it
to others, he denies that the most favored nation clause
could be invoked, because "Spain does not grant us the
navigation of the river; we have an inherent right to it."
On the 24th of April the first Federal precedent of
our position to be taken in matters of extradition was
settled, and our time-honored pohcy with regard to
political offenses was initiated. An extract from
Jefferson's instructions will explain itself. The reader
will see from reading it that this, too, was the beginning
of a permanent policy on the part of our Government : —
"Treason. TMs, when real, merits the highest pumshment.
But most codes extend their defimtions of treason to acts not
really against one's country. They do not distinguish between
acts against the government and acts against the oppressions of
the government; the latter are virtues; yet they have furmshed more
victims to the executioner than the former; because real treasons
are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against
tyraimy, have been the cMef martyrs of treason laws of aU countries.
"Reformation of government with our neighbors, being as much
wanted now as reformation of religion is, or ever was ansrwhere,
we should not wish, then, to give up to the executioner, the patriot
who fails, and flees to us. Treasons, then — taking the simulated
with the real — are sufficiently punished by exile."
Soon after, Jefferson had to meet, for the first time in
our history, another troublesome question: the question
of how far the dual character of our repubUc must be
9

114 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
considered by foreign nations in the interpretation of
treaties with the United States. The United States
had undertaken to secure that there should be no legal
obstructions to the collections of debts due to British
subjects. The British had cause to complain, because
there were obstructions in the State Statutes, and they
were holding our frontier forts until we had comphed
with the treaty, in the way that they construed it.
Upon this question Jefferson and Hamilton came iato
clash. Jefferson was requested to put his views in
writing and hand them to the President, which was
done. In this paper he took the position that the
British Government must have understood beforehand
the dual nature of our institutions; what would be the
force and extent of a Federal power; and that any inter
ference with the States by the United States, as a
Government, must be, to use his own language, "not a
matter of obhgation, or coercion, but of persuasion and
influence merely," as the United States Government
under our system had not power to control State Legis
latures or State Courts, and could not be taken to have
stipulated in the treaty to do what it could not do; that
the Government had observed the treaty to the
extent of its power by making recommendations and
by using all its influence. This precedent, too, all
intelhgent Presidents and Secretaries of State have
since foUowed.
Jefferson, being our first Secretary of State, his acts
and utterances, have had a more permanent effect upon
our history with regard to international affahs than
those of any other man. In many matters he was
overridden by the Cabinet, but not with regard to

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 115
foreign affairs. In fact, in some instances, the Presi
dent supported him against all the balance of the
Cabinet — a very, very rare thing for Washington to
do — so rare that I have no knowledge of his having
done it with regard to any of his other Secretaries.
Early in November, America heard with astonish
ment of the dethronement and imprisonment of the
King of France, and a Cabinet consultation was held
upon the subject — whether we should suspend our
payment of the French debt. Jefferson thus sums up
what occurred: —
"I admitted that the late Constitution was dissolved by the
detMonement of the King; and the management of affairs surviving
to the National Assembly only, that tMs was not an integral legis
lature, and therefore not competent to give a legitimate discharge
for our payment; that I thought consequently that none should be
made until some legitimate body came into place; that I should
consider the National Convention called, but not yet met, to be a
legitimate body. Hamilton doubted whether it would be a legiti
mate body, and whether, if the King should be re-estabUshed, he
might not disaUow such payments, on good grounds."
The Cabinet meeting ended by an agreement that
Jefferson was to write to Gouverneur Morris to suspend
payment "till further orders." These further orders
were sent, when the National Convention " came into
place," to the effect that we acknowledge the obligation
of the debt and were ready to pay what was due.
The pohcy here outhned, as Jefferson's opinion, became !
a permanent policy in our Government. Foreign debts ;
ever since have been regarded by us as International,
not Inter-dynastic.
On September 19th, in a letter to our Minister in
England, Jefferson outlined what he called the "Cath-

116 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
oUc Principle of RepubUcanism," as regards recogni
tion of governments. It is this: —
"We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle,
whereon our own government is founded; that every nation has a
right to govern itself intemaUy, under what form it pleases, and to
change these forms, at its own wiU; and, extemaUy, to transact
business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses,
whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, Presi
dent, or whatever it be. The only tMng essential is, the wiU of the
nation. Taking tMs as your polar star, you can hardly err."
He had already said: "Principles being understood
their appUcation will be less embarrassing."
This "CathoUc Principle of Republicanism" was not
only a "polar star" to guide our then Minister to St.
James, but all American Ministers everywhere ever
since, and all Secretaries of State. We have never
arrogated to ourselves the right, which the coahtion of
Kings then, and the Holy AlUance later, arrogated to
themselves, to sit in judgment upon the form of govern
ment and the administration of domestic affairs in any
country on the ground that its "principles are danger
ous." The only question with us is the truly repubUcan
and democratic one: Is the actual government that
which the people of the country in question have
drawn over themselves?
I think it is well enough here, in view of coining
events, then already casting their shadows before
them, to treat the question of our treaties with France.
France had given us money; lent us money; furnished
fleets and armies, to gain our independence, and all
the compensation she ever demanded was the fulfill
ment, not of all, but of some, of the promises contained

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 117
in these treaties, which, in many material aspects,
became later broken promises. I am not saying that
some of the promises ought not to have been broken.
Without deciding the question, I am not prepared to
take the stand that a nation must abide indissolubly
by the written language of treaties, even to its own
probable destruction, or very great hurt. Certainly,
the first duty of a nation, as well as its most natural
desire, is self-preservation. At any rate Washington,
a very just man, thought so. And Jefferson, as his
Secretary of State, in spite of his love for the French
people, and of republican institutions, went with him,
in the course of a strict neutrality, which necessarily
violated some of the provisions of the French Treaty.
We ought to have paid the French debt, because we
owed the money, and we owed much more than the
accounts showed; but we could afford to do what
Jefferson recommended with regard to the guarantee —
hold it in abeyance until expressly called upon to make it
good. Thomas E. Watson says that this neutral position
"kept us from deriving any benefits from the victories
of Napoleon." But it must be remembered that the
victories of Napoleon could have done us no good. His
victories were on land, and the victories to save us,
must have been on sea, where Napoleon could no more
have helped us, than he proved able to help Denmark,
or Holland, or Spain.
On this point read Jefferson's letter to President
Washington, giving his opinion concerning the French
treaties, and concerning how the French Minister
should be received. It is perhaps the ablest of his

118 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
papers treating international affairs. It is dated April
28th, 1793. It is one of the most forceful and lucid
statements of the principle, which binds nations to
their phghted word, that has ever been penned, and
Washington yielded to the reasoning, notwithstanding
the special and specious pleading contained in Hamil
ton's letter supporting the contrary view. He decided
that the treaties with France remained in fuU force,
and that the Minister from the French Repubhc
should be received in the usual way and without the
qualifications which Hamilton suggested. Ever since
it has been our pohcy to treat Ministers also as National
and not as Dynastic agents.
The FederaUsts immediately began to oppose our
observing the French treaties upon two grounds. The
first ground, or pretext, was puerile in its character, to
wit, that the treaty was "not made with France, but
with Louis XVI," or "Louis Capet," as they called
him in their arguments, who, being dethroned, left us,
as they contended, under no international obUgations
to France, "except those which flowed from the general
principles of international law." The excuses which
Aesop's wolf gave for eating up Aesop's lamb are the
only precedents which I know, which could justify this
bare-faced pretext to breach a solemn covenant. The
second reason was that our guarantee came into force
only in case of "a defensive war." The reply to that
is that the language of the treaty of alUance, in Articles
XI and XII, does not bear it out, but expressly declares
the opposite.
Clearly, if language be given to express, and not to
conceal ideas. Article XVII of the Treaty of Amity

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 119
and Commerce gave to French ships of war and pri
vateers the right to enter and harbor themselves in
any of our ports, carrying with them their prizes. We
surrendered even the right of making examination, as
to the lawfulness of the prize. That is not all; there
was a clear and distinct promise, on our part, that we
would not give shelter, or refuge, to the ships of war
and privateers of a nation at war with France, and that
even if stress of weather forced them to take temporary
refuge with us, they must go out, as soon as possible.
On this head two things were afterward contended:
first, that France had no right to bring prizes within
our ports, and secondly, that permitting her, out of
our grace, to exercise such a privilege, we not only had
the right, but it was our duty as a neutral nation, to
extend the same privileges to England. Both of these
contentions were in the very teeth of the express pro
visions of Article XXII of the Treaty of Amity and
Commerce. Whatever reasoning, good or specious, may be used
to justify or excuse our Government for the violation
of these special provisions of the two treaties, it is
weU, in the interest of candor and truth, that every
body should cease to deny that they were violated.
The fact ought to be admitted simply because it is a
fact, and not be glossed over. The material results of
the violation were happy for us, and, it may be, for the
entire world; happy for us, because our States were
perhaps then too loosely united to have withstood the
convulsions of a foreign war, which would have been
accompanied undoubtedly by internal dissensions.
New England would have taken, had we stood by our

120 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
alUance with France, against Great Britain, under
Washington's administration, the same position which
she afterwards took under Madison's, and pubhcly
advertised, while resisting the embargo, that she would
take under Jefferson's, if he dared to go to war with
England. Her position became less dangerous to the
Union just in proportion as meeting it was postponed,
while the West grew. There was no man then, who
entertained a doubt of the right of a State to withdraw
from the Union. At any rate, Washington would have
felt, as Jefferson afterwards confessed that he felt,
"the foundations of the government shaken under
his feet by the action of the New England Townships."
Moreover, even if we had gone through the war suc
cessfully and unitedly, we were then so hampered in
our finances, that we would have emerged temporarily
bankrupt, or if not that, at least after the issue and
depreciation of another immense mass of paper money.
The results were happy for the civilized world, too,
because, if, at that early date, before England —
always, like ourselves, "an unready nation" — had
organized her fighting strength, we had kept a part of
her navy busy on this side of the Atlantic, it is possible,
though not certain, that the great Napoleon might have
reahzed his dream of world-empire. Notwithstanding
all this, however, it will be seen that those, who denied
the right of the Executive to issue a declaration of
neutraUty, forestalhng the action of Congress and
violating the written provisions of the French treaties,
were not nearly so clearly wrong, as the respect and
the reverence of the American people for the character
and memory of George Washington have led them easily

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 121
to beUeve. The argument that France had done aU she
did for us, not really out of love for us, but out of
hatred of Great Britain, although an argument founded
on fact, is not a vaUd one. We accepted her assist
ance — knowing her motive — accepted her guarantees
in the treaty, as the reciprocals of ours and as safe
guards of our national existence and independence, when
we were in our very infancy, and thought that we needed
safeguards, whether we did or not. However, we were
reUeved from the awkwardness of our situation very
much by the fact that Genet, who succeeded Ternant,
when officially presented, said to Jefferson, Secretary
of State: "we know, that, under present circum
stances, we have a right to call upon you for the
guarantee of our islands. But we do not desire it.
We will wish you to do nothing but what is for your own
good, and we will do all in our power to promote it.
Cherish your own peace and prosperity."
It was at this time, and not later — when Genet had
turned fool — that Jefferson expressed to Madison his
oft-quoted appreciation in these words: "It is impossible
for anything to be more affectionate, more mag
nanimous, than the purport of his [Genet's] mission,"
and added in another part of the letter: "In short he
offers everything and asks nothing."
Jefferson was all the more gratified at Genet's high-
flown, though short-lived, magnanimity, because he
had evidently expected him to caU upon us to comply
at once with our treaty obUgations. This is my
inference, but I hazard it, because at the very begin
ning of Genet's queer doings in America, while he was
being welcomed in Philadelphia with enthusiasm, after

122 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
his equally enthusiastic welcome at Charleston, Jeffer
son wrote to Monroe: "I wish that we may be able to
repress the people within the limits of a fair neutraUty,"
This shows that he was that early determined on
neutraUty, and afraid that the hand of the administra
tion Eoight be forced by the popular enthusiasm for
France, with which he then sympathized.
Mr. Foster, in his "Century of American Diplo
macy," writes with a distinct FederaUstic and anti-
Jeff ersonian bias — "leads up" — as Mark Twain said
he did to one of his poetical quotations — to injurious
things he wants to say about Jefferson. Many of
them are purely personal, hke his laborious lugging in
of Tom Moore's false couplet, which had naught to do
with a history of "Diplomacy."
It will be noted that Jefferson, to whom the real
credit is due for setting forth, in the ablest State
paper ever written — in a way so masterly that it
has never been improved on — the whole doctrine of
neutraUty and its special advantages to us, is not
given the credit by Mr. Foster. The truth is that, as
far as our foreign relations under Washington are
concerned, they were, for the most part, an expression
of Jefferson's policies.
In proof of what I say here, read the unequalled state
ment by Mr. Jefferson as President of the duties of a
neutral: —
" Let it be our endeavor, as it is our interest and desire, to culti
vate the friendsMp of the belligerent nations by every act of justice
and of iimocent Mndness; to receive their armed vessels with hospi-
taUty, from the distresses of the sea, but to admimster the means
of annoyance to none; to estabUsh in our harbors such a poUoe as
may maintain law and order; to restrain our citizens from embarking

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 123
individuaUy in a war in wMch their country takes no part; to punish
severely those persons, citizens or aUens, who shall usurp the cover
of our flag for vessels not entitled to it, infecting thereby with
suspicion those of real Americans, and committing us into contro
versies for the redress of wrongs not our own; to exact from every
nation the observance, towards our vessels and citizens, of those
principles and practices wMch aU civiUzed nations acknowledge;
to merit the character of a just nation, and maintain that of an
independent one, preferring every consequence to insult and
habitual wrong."
And these further lines, where he tells how neutral
conduct especially redounds to the interest of this
country and its people: —
"Separated by a wide ocean from the nations of Europe, and
from the poUtical interests wMch entangle them together, with pro
ductions and wants wMch render our commerce and friendsMp
useful to them, and theirs to us, it cannot be the interest of any to
assail us, nor ours to disturb them. We should be most unwise,
indeed, were we to cast away the singular blessings of the position
in wMch nature has placed us, the opportumty she has endowed us
with, of pursuing, at a distance from foreign contentions, the paths
of industry, peace and happiness; of cultivating general friendsMp;
and of bringing colUsions of interest to the umpirage of reason rather
than of force. How desirable, then, must it be, in a government
Uke ours, to see its citizens adopt, individuaUy, the views, the in
terests, and the conduct, wMch their country should pursue, divest
ing themselves of those passions and partiaUties wMch tend to
lessen useful friendsMps, and to embarras and embroil us in the
calamitous scenes of Europe. Confldent, fellow citizens, that you
wiU duly estimate the importance of neutral dispositions towards
the observance of neutral conduct, that you wiU be sensible how
much it is our duty to look on the bloody arena spread before us,
with commiseration, indeed, but with no other wish than to see it
closed, I am persuaded that you wiU certainly cherish those dis
positions in all discussions among yourselves, and in all commu
nications with your constituents."

124 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
And yet, "history-writers," as the children call
them, of the Federahstic type, represent him as having
been "forced to a system of neutraUty by the Presi
dent." The truth is that, although the bulk of Jeffer
son's party were carried off their feet temporarily by
sympathy with France and though her people had his
heart-felt good wishes, he never permitted his gaze to
be deflected from the interests of his own country.
When Genet carried things entirely too far and threat
ened to "appeal from the President to the people,"
and all that, the question arose in the Cabinet, as to
what should be done, and here again Jefferson kept his
head. Knox wanted to send Genet out of the country
"by a pubhc order without ceremony." Hamilton,
who was an astute party manager, wanted to pubhsh
the correspondence on both sides, accompanied by a
statement on the part of the Government of its pro
ceedings, in order to arouse popular feehng against
France — rightly counting that the people would not,
in their anger at Genet's treatment of Washington,
distinguish between France and her Minister. Jeffer
son coolly advised that the usual course be pursued,
which was that we send an accoimt of the affair to the
French Government, and demand the recall of Genet.
George Washington, cool-headed himself on this oc
casion, and on most occasions — though not on all —
sided with Jefferson. The complaint and the demand
were made. They were acceded to. Genet was
recalled, and that tempest in a tea-pot becarhe com
paratively a calm.
In Jefferson's communication to the American
Commissioners at Madrid, on June 30th, he uses this

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 125
language, which should, if it does not, constitute
permanently a part of the very soul of our relations with
foreign nations: —
"We love and we value peace; we know its blessings from ex
perience; we abhor the folUes of war, and are not untried in its
distresses and calamities. UnmeddUng with the affairs of other
nations, we have hoped that our distance and our disposition would
have left us free in the example and indulgence of peace with aU the
world. . . . We confide in our strength without boasting of it; we
respect that of others without fearing it."
That is crisp and lofty. Its style is Demosthenic.
The two wise heads in the Cabinet were determined,
if they could help it, not to have war with anybody,
although our relations with Great Britain and France
both, as well as with Spain, were becoming daily more
and more embarrassing. In addition, the people of
the United States, as some foreigner, then visiting us,
reported, "were all either Englishmen, or Frenchmen,
and none Americans." Washington was standing firm
and prudent. His critics said, as others said a dozen
years later of Jefferson, that his course was "over
cautious" and "pusillanimous."
Jefferson's request for the recall of Genet was dated
August 16th. In his dispatch he uses this language:
"If our citizens here have not already been shedding
each other's blood, it is not owing to the moderation of
Mr. Genet." This from Jefferson had greater effect
in France than if written by any man in the world, not
a Frenchman. Genet was not only recaUed, but in
such spirit, that he was afraid to return to France, and
settled in America.
While Secretary of State, in a letter to Chancellor

126 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Livingston, who was on the eve of departing for
France, to be our Minister there, he wrote, on Sep
tember 9th, a letter upon the question as to whether
neutral ships should make free goods, in which he
touched upon the question of blockade. The letter
has, upon the whole, constituted the American doctrine
upon these subjects, though some of the reasons given
are in themselves curious, starting out, as Jefferson
always Uked to start, from grounds of natural and
abstract right. This letter is well worth close study.
To some extent, his doctrine concerning contraband is
in advance even of the present European practice, but
has constituted since, in the main, the American con
tention. For reasons unconnected with Diplomatic affairs
Jefferson had determined to retire from the Cabinet.
Washington had thus far kept him in office by appeahng
to him on the ground that it was not the part of a
"general officer" to resign upon the anticipated out
break of war. Madison and his friends had added their
voices for a far different reason. They wanted his
party leadership on the spot. But on July 31, 1793, in
spite of the solicitations of both President and friends—
the ship of state being seemingly in safe harbor, so
far as international billows could threaten her — he
sent in his letter of resignation to take effect the 1st
of September.
On August 6th, after the receipt of this letter, the
President called upon him. I think there was some
thing pathetic in George Washington's being chained
to office, as a post of duty, and trying to chain Jefferson
to it, at a time when both were tired nigh unto death

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 127
of it all, and were yearning for the large and restful
spaces of the plantation. He seems, even after all
the warning he had had, to have taken Jefferson's
letter in a hurt sort of way, because, upon this visit,
he expressed his repentance at not having resigned
himself, and said that that repentance was "increased
by seeing that he was to be deserted by those on whose
aid he had counted."
Finally, the President said, that if Jefferson could
"only stay to the end of another quarter," which would
be tiU the last of December, instead of the 1st of Sep
tember, the date fixed in Jefferson's note, "it would get
us through the difficulties of this year," because he was
"satisfied that the affairs of Europe would be settled
at the end of the pending campaign — either France
being overwhelmed, or the coahtion retiring from the
contest." Jefferson's party friends had begged him
to do this too. He had positively refused them, but
a few days afterwards he conceded that postponement
to Washington, which he had refused to them. The
President, in a letter, dated the 12th of August, puts
in another plea to extend further the period for the
resignation "until the close of the next session of
Congress," for which he proffers many weighty reasons,
relating to foreign powers, Indian disturbances, and
internal policies. This persistency is touching. Wash
ington concludes his letter: "If this cannot be, my
next wish is that your absence from the seat of Govern
ment in autumn may be as short as you can conven
iently make it." All this, notwithstanding the fact
that many months had elapsed since Washington had
lost his temper and sworn about Freneau, since Jeffer-

128 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
son had entered in his diary that it was plain that he
wanted him to dismiss Freneau, and then had added
these measured words: "but I wiU not do it," and did
not; thereby giving Washington his choice of dis
missing both Freneau and him, or neither. Washington
seems to have understood. FederaUst "history
writers" and their pohtical descendants are so dense!
On December 21st, the President, who was untiring
in his persistency, made another effort by letter to get
Jefferson to postpone his resignation yet further, but
this time without effect, and on December 31st, the
last day of the quarter, as previously determined,
Jefferson sent it in. Read that letter, following it with
the perusal of Washington's reply. I think the reader
must agree with me that the insinuations and charges
of historians with Federahstic leanings — some of
them writing not umecently — that Washington "had
grown to distrust Jefferson," and was "glad to get
him out of the Cabinet," that Jefferson "was compelled
to resign," are sufficiently refuted by the history of
their relations up to this moment; in fact, proven to
be stupendous ignorance, or else stupendous hes. If
not, they are conclusively refuted by these two letters,
unless the reader be prepared to consider both men
thorough-paced hypocrites. Jefferson's was dated
December 31, 1793. Washington's reply was dated
the next day, January 1, 1794, at the same place.
The message to the next Congress concerning our
international relations, which was sent in on the fourth
Monday in December, was prepared and left by Mr.
Jefferson and signed by President Washington. A
draft of it in his handwriting was among his hterary

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 129
remains, as was also the Presidential confidential
message containing our diplomatic correspondence
with Spain, which was sent in by the President on the
16th of December. On this same day, in response to
a resolution of the House, passed February 23, 1791,
Jefferson's celebrated "Report on the Privileges and
Restrictions of the Commerce of the United States in
Foreign Countries" was sent in.
When Jefferson's diplomatic state papers were sent
to Congress their tone, their total want of any foreign
bias, their felicity, facility and lucidness of expression,
their "sweet reasonableness," their dignity and firm
ness, their lack of either bullying or cringing, were the
causes of spontaneous and irrestrainable pubhc and
private applause.
Daniel Webster writes of Jefferson as Secretary of
State as follows: —
"Immediately upon Ms return to Ms native country ... Ms
talents and experience recommended Mm to President Wa.sMngton
for the first office in Ms gift. He was placed at the head of the
Department of State. In tMs situation, also, he mamfested con
spicuous abiUty. His correspondence with the mimsters of other
powers residing here, and Ms instructions to our diplomatic agents
abroad, are among our ablest State papers. A thorough knowledge
of the laws and usages of nations, perfect acquaintance with the
immediate subjects before him, great feUcity, and still greater faciUty
in writing, show themselves in whatever effort Ms official situation
called on Mm to make."
Senator Vest, of Missouri, in an address at Columbia,
Missouri, on June 4, 1885, expressed himself yet more
glowingly. Even Judge Marshall writes grudgingly: "This
gentleman withdrew from public station in a moment,
10

130 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
when he stood particularly high in the estimation of
his countrymen," and then goes on to behttle his
grudging concession by explanations, which do not
reduce it, but do reduce MarshaU.
If Jefferson was fortunate in the time of his retire
ment, as MarshaU intimated, credit is due solely to Jef
ferson, because, except for his acts and efforts, we could
not have emerged with peace and honor from oiu
labyrinth of international difficulties, and the only
fortunate thing about it, as far as Jefferson's fortunes
were concerned, to wit, the universal applause which
foUowed him, could not have existed. It is not too
much to say that Jefferson had for these years virtuaUy
controUed the foreign pohcy of the United States.
In no single case, that I can find, were his suggestions
and propositions concerning foreign affairs in any
essential overruled. He went reluctantly, it is true,
into the violation of the French treaties, behoving that
State necessity alone justified it, but he saw as fuUy as
Washington did the necessity of "standing out from
under" in every possibly honorable way. He never
did, however, dishonor himseff by denying the obU
gations of the treaties. He did not add hypocrisy to
bad faith. He simply accepted the bad faith as the
necessity of the situation, the less of two evils. A man
has no right to sacrifice his honor to save his own life.
But a public servant may perhaps sacrifice the word of
a nation to save a nation's life, or to save its people
great hurt — miUtarily and institutionaUy.
Washington made one more effort early in Sep
tember, 1794, to get Jefferson to resume his place in
the Cabinet. This was after the latter had been for

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 131
some time in retirement at Monticello. He did this
through Randolph, temporarily Secretary of State.
Jefferson's reply to Randolph is worth reading.
After retirement Jefferson, in a letter to Edward
Rutledge, on November 30th, lays down, in connection
with the Jay Treaty, a diplomatic principle that may
be fairly considered as having gone permanently into
the working of our institutions; a principle that where
a treaty is made, and contains in it some promise or
undertaking (like the payment of money, for ex
ample), jurisdiction over which is vested in Congress,
Congress being a free and independent and coordinate
branch, it can, within its sound discretion, comply
with, or refuse to comply with, the provisions of the
treaty by making, or refusing to make, the appropri
ation. This depends, too, upon the principle that
foreign nations are affected with the knowledge of the
nature of our Government. Jefferson expresses it in
these words: "Both negotiators must have understood
that, as there were articles in it, which could not be
carried into execution without the aid of the Legis
latures on both sides, therefore, it must be referred to
them," and that, "these Legislatures being free agents
would not give it their support, if they disapproved of
it." Subsequently, in the treaty acquiring Louisiana,
he as President obeyed strictly the precept here laid
down for others. He submitted the Louisiana Treaty
to both Houses, "because," he said, "both have
important functions to exercise respecting it."
So much for the Jeffersonian view of the rights of
the House of Representatives concerning treaties.
Now for the Jeffersonian view of the President's
rights respecting treaties: —

132 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
On the 19th of February, 1807, President Jefferson
announced to Congress that a treaty of peace had been
agreed on with England. Soon after that the treaty
which had been negotiated by Monroe came over. He
found to his surprise that it did not touch upon the
question of impressment of our sailors; that Great
Britain did not disclaim this aUeged right. He, there
fore, took the responsibiUty of not sending the treaty
to the Senate. He was much, even bitterly criticised
for this at the time. He acted within his right; because,
if he were not going to sign the treaty and had made up
his mind that he would not, it was "love's labor lost"
for the Senate to discuss it. The precedent set by him
here has been acknowledged ever since, and has become
engrafted upon our working institutions. It will be
remembered that the Jay Treaty, under General
Washington's administration, was also silent on this
head of impressment, and yet Washington signed it.
Jefferson had criticised him for it. His own conduct
in and out of office was therefore consistent.
Jefferson took the position that signing a treaty
that was silent upon the subject was an acquiescence
in, and therefore a quasi-recognition of, the British
claim to the right of impressment, and that it was
better, to use his characteristic language, "to let the
negotiation take a friendly nap, and endeavor in the
meantime to practice on such of its principles, as are
mutually acceptable."
Jefferson's reason for rejecting (by not submitting
to the Senate for their action), this treaty effected by
Monroe with Great Britain on December 31, 1806, is

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 133
expressed more happily by Henry Adams than I could
express it myself. I therefore quote from him : —
"That a people Uke an individual, should for a time choose
to accept a wrong, Uke impressment or robbery, without forcible
resistance, implied no necessary discredit. Every nation at one
time or another had submitted to treatment it disUked and to
theories of international law wMch it rejected. The Umted States
might go on indefinitely protesting against belligerent aggressions,
while submitting to them, and no permanent evil need result.
Yet a treaty was a compromise wMch made precedent; it recorded
rules of law wMch could not be again discarded; and, above all,
it abandoned protest against wrong. TMs was doubtless the
reason why Jefferson wished for no treaties in the actual state of
the world; he was not ready to enforce Ms rights, and he was not
wiUing to comproEQise them."
In April, 1794, in this same letter to Madison, to
which I have once referred, appears the first inkling of
the central idea of the Monroe Doctrine. He expresses
the view that "we ought at the proper time to declare
to both France and to England, that the French West
India Islands were to rest with France, and that we
should make a common cause with her for that object."
This seems to preclude the idea of France's voluntarily
transferring, as well as of England's forcibly acquiring
them, and this is virtually our present attitude towards
the West India Islands: "those who have, can keep;
those who have not may not acquire," whether by war
or purchase.
On October 29, 1808, Jefferson wrote a letter to the
Governor of Louisiana, in which is to be found a plain
expression of the principle of the Monroe Doctrine,
and, as far as I know, the last sentence in the quotation
which I am about to make, is the first absolutely dis
tinct expression of it ever made by anybody: —

134 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"The patriots of Spain have no warmer friends than the adminis
tration of the United States, but it is our duty to say notMng and
to do notMng for or against either. If they succeed, we shaU be
well satisfied to see Cuba and Mexico remain in their present de
pendence; but very unwilUng to see them in that of either France
or England, poUticaUy or commerciaUy. We consider their interests
and ours as the same, and that the object of both must be to exclude aU
European influence from this hemisphere."
In a letter to Short, dated August 4, 1820, is another
anticipation of the Monroe Doctrine: —
"From many conversations with Mm" (Mr. Correa, appointed
Mimster to Brazil by the Govemment of Portugal), " I hope he sees,
and wiU promote in Ms new situation, the advantages of a cordial
fraternization among aU the American nations, and the importance
of their coalescing in an American system or policy, totally independ
ent of and unconnected with that of Europe. The day is not distant,
when we may formally require a meridian of partition through the
ocean wMch separates the two hemispheres, on the Mther side of
wMch no European gun shall ever be heard, nor an American on
the other; and when, during the rage of the eternal wars of Europe,
the Uon and the lamb, witMn our regions, shall Ue down together in
peace." In another letter to Short, dated August 20, 1820, he
speaks of the "essential policy of interdicting in the
seas and territories of both Americas the ferocious and
sanguinary contests of Europe." This is very much
Uke the language he wrote to Monroe in 1823, to wit:
"Our first and fundamental maxims should be never to
entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second,
never to suffer Europe to interfere in Cis-Atlantic
affairs." In the Fortnightly Review, No. 5, Vol. 70, pages 357
to 368, may be found an interesting and authoritative
article by Theodore A. Cook on "The Original Intention

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 135
of the Monroe Doctrine," as evinced by the correspond
ence of Monroe with Jefferson and Madison. Mr. Cook
shows clearly that it was Jefferson's position, clear and
decisive, rather than the more cautious one of Madison,
or that of John Quincy Adams, that was taken by the
President. By the tune then that, under Momoe's admin
istration, it had become necessary for us to decide on
our attitude, if the Holy Alliance should undertake to
interfere in Spain's behalf against her South American
colonies, which had declared and partially effected their
independence, Jefferson was prepared in set opinion for
the event. Monroe, who generally met Jefferson every
Spring and consulted with him verbally, but had not
been able to do so this year, wrote him two letters upon
this subject. Jefferson's replies are memorable, since
his suggestions make the very soul of the subsequent
declaration, which came to be known as "the Monroe
Doctrine," and for which Monroe deserved the credit
because his was the responsibility. Jefferson goes
somewhat further than the President and his Cabinet
thought prudent to foUow.
Meantime Canning made his proposition, which was,
in substance, that America should declare that she
would regard the intervention of the powers consti
tuting the Holy Alliance, as an unfriendly act, and
intimated that Great Britain would stand with us
behind the announcement. The President thereupon
had written to Mr. Jefferson his second letter and, on
October 24th, Jefferson wrote him a reply, in which|the
Monroe Doctrine stands full born: —

136 PERMANENT ESTFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"Dear Sir:
"The question presented by the letters you have sent me is
the most momentous wMch has ever been offered to my contempla
tion since that of Independence. That made us a nation, this sets
our compass and points the course which we are to steer tMough the
ocean of time opening upon us. And never could we embark on it
under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and fundamental
maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe.
Our second — never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis- Atlantic
affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct
from those of Europe, and pecuharly her own. She should there
fore have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe.
WMle the last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism,
our endeavor should surely be, to make our hemisphere that of freedom.
One nation, most of aU, could disturb us in tMs pursuit; she now
offers to lead, aid and accompany us in it. . . . Not that I would
purchase even her amity at the price of taking part in her wars.
But the war in wMch the present proposition might engage us,
should that be its consequence, is not her war, but ours. Its object
is to introduce and establish the American system, of keeping out of
our land all foreign powers, of never permitting those of Europe to
intermeddle with the affairs of our nations. It is to maintain our
own principle, not to depart from it. . . . But I am clearly of Mr.
Canmng's opimon, that it wiU prevent instead of provoking war.
With Great Britain withdrawn from their scale and shifted into
that of our two continents, aU Europe combined would not imder
take such a war. For how would they propose to get at either enemy
without superior fleets? ... I could honestly, therefore, join in
the declaration proposed, that we aim not at the acquisition of any
of these possessions; that we wiU not stand in the way of any amic
able arrangement between them and the mother country; but that
we will oppose, with all our means, the forcible interposition of any
other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or under any other form or
pretext, and most especially their transfer to any other power by con
quest, cession, or acquisition in any other way.
Note especially the last paragraph. It is broader,
more far-reaching and clearer than the doctrine as

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 137
announced officially by Monroe, though Jefferson's
suggestion contains every word of the Monroe decla
ration and even all that we have since changed it to
mean. Jefferson set the precedent while Secretary of State
for the forms now obtaining in the Department. They
are of the utmost simphcity and thoroughly democratic.
A Secretary of State is not properly addressed even as
an, "Honorable," as are Senators and Representatives
and other Department officials. He is "Mr. John
Smith, Secretary of State," or "John Smith, Esquire,
Secretary of State." We have in our State Depart
ment no bureau of ceremonials and etiquette and
precedents. Such bureaus exist in other countries,
even in the Republic of France, as well as in the Mon
archy of Great Britain. In France there is a man
whose special business it is to introduce Ambassadors,
and act as master of ceremonies at the Elys4e. A good
many snobs regret our simphcity; some of them engaged
in the service of the State Department at Washington,
and some elsewhere writing or talking. It has also
been regretted that we have not imitated the British
in some other respects. The British Foreign Office,
for example, requires its clerks to know German and
French, and the degree of knowledge of French required
is very great. This cuts the British Foreign Office off
from very much talent. Some of the best clerks in
our State Department, if such a rule existed there,
would have to go. Of course, a knowledge of foreign
languages is needed in the translating department, but
there is no sense in requiring that aU clerks should be
acquainted with these two, or any foreign languages.

138 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
There exists a very general impression that other
countries have the advantage of us in diplomatic
affairs, because they have greater secrecy. It is a
mistake. There is no country anywhere, where the
pubhc knows less of the negotiations going on in the
Department of Foreign Affairs, until they are ready to
be announced or communicated to the Senate. First
as Secretary and later as President, Jefferson insisted
on and practiced this secrecy in preliminary negoti
ations. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs — which is what our
Secretary of State's title really ought to be — has one
embarrassment that his colleagues in other countries
do not have. The Senate has always asserted the
right to amend a treaty, as well as to ratify or reject it.
At first this caused a good deal of friction. Canning,
when Prime Minister, read us a regular lecture upon the
subject, as if we had been school children and he school
master. The custom grows out of that clause of the
Constitution which says that the President, "with
the advice and consent of the Senate," shall conclude
treaties. The Senate has construed the authority to
"advise" to be an authority to amend. It "advises
the ratffication" "with the following amendments" etc.
Jefferson stoutly maintained the right of the Senate.
Mr. Jefferson followed the British example of using
Enghsh, as the official language of diplomacy in
Washington, and by our Ministers and Ambassadors
abroad. Neither our Government, nor that of Great
Britain, has ever conceded the point, that "French is
the language of diplomacy."
He early adopted the rule, which existed in some

INFLUENCE AS A DIPLOMAT 139
other countries, of "first come, first served," when
Ambassadors and Ministers came to confer with the
Secretary of State. In Jefferson's day, however, we
neither sent nor received Ambassadors. "Minister
Plenipotentiary" or "Envoy Extraordinary" were the
highest titles of our Diplomatic Corps. Here, as
always elsewhere, he displayed genuine democratic
simplicity — Jeffersonian simplicity — no mystery —
no airs — no set forms. Common sense and kindly
feeUng and courteous treatment, constituted an all-
sufficient etiquette for foreign and official, as for do
mestic and private affairs.
The letters exchanged between Jefferson, as Secretary
of State, and Hammond, as British Minister, are weU
worth attention, especially Jefferson's dispatch to Ham
mond dated May 29, 1792. In it are many things of
permanent value, besides, it is one of the most care
fully and convincingly written even of Jefferson's great
papers touching international law and international
relations. During these negotiations at one time Hammond
suggested the idea of both parties giving up all fortified
posts along the Canadian border, having no "posts,"
except for trading. Jefferson rephed that this "ac
corded well with two favorites of mine, of leaving com
merce free, and of never keeping an unnecessary
soldier." Since then, this policy of disarmament on
the border and on the Great Lakes became a settled
and mutual policy of both nations, and I doubt not
that it accounts for the fact that we are soon to cele
brate the centennial anniversary of uninterrupted peace
with Great Britain.

140 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
I have elsewhere referred to the repeal of the Feder
alist naturaUzation law and the reenactment of the
more Uberal one. The effect of this treatment of
foreigners and this encouragement of unassisted immi
gration, upon our growth and upon the amicableness
of our relations with other nations and upon the
material welfare of mankind, here and abroad, cannot
be overestimated. Mr. Jefferson elsewhere expressed
his opposition to assisted immigration. The restric
tions which we have since put upon immigration would
undoubtedly have been favored by him, as they only
relate to the health and character and intelligence of
the immigrants, or else to the preservation of the Cau
casian race from the infiltration of Oriental bloods —
to the maintenance of a homogeneous population.
We ought to have in our midst no alien races, un
assimilable in lawful wedlock. Our prohibition of
Mongohan immigration ought to be extended to
Africans. I attempted to secure this in the last
Congress, but failed. Pohtical reasons — or Repub
Ucan party reasons — the fear of the defection of the
negro vote in the doubtful Northern States — account
for the failure.
Of course, the grandest diplomatic achievement of
Mr. Jefferson, and that affecting most permanently aU
our institutions and our destiny, was the acquisition of
Louisiana, and the foundations laid by him, and later
built upon successfully to acquire Florida. For the
latter I shall have no space at all. The former I hope
to treat in another lecture.

CHAPTER V
JEFFERSON THE DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL
INSTITUTIONS
STEMMIHG THE COUNTER-BEVOLUTION
Jefferson, once back in America, as soon as he could
get his bearings, took up in earnest the greatest and most
successful work of his life — that of turning back the i
tide of counter-revolution. His stay in France had
had but one political effect — to teach him by contrast
the value of democratic forms and a democratic spirit.
His every act and word after his return was a call:
"Back to the principles of the American Revolution."
Of all the services he rendered his countrymen, this is
that for which they owe him most.
But he began his work before his return, as his letters
show. Already while in France he feared the reaction
which had set in at home, as a result of Shay's Rebellion
in Massachusetts, emphasized later by the natural
effect of the excesses in France.
It is notable that Shay's RebeUion, as it was called,
which was put down by the people themselves, did not
result in the death by the act of the civil government of
a single man engaged in it — but it did discourage —
in fact, carried dismay — to the hearts of many men,
who had theretofore been stalwart supporters of popular
government. Jefferson's insistence upon simplifying and democ-
141

142 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
ratizing the federal government at home, in the very
teeth of the excesses soon occurring in Paris and of the
dangerous reaction in England and America — in
Austria — everywhere — showed him to be not a
visionary, but a practical man. It was the other
people, who were visionaries, who did not know how to
adapt the blanket to the weather, who wanted to limit
our liberty, because the French had shown themselves
not yet fit for it.
Parton rather humorously describes, in an article
entitled, "Meeting of Jefferson and Hamilton," in the
Atlantic Monthly of December, 1872, the situation in
which Jefferson found himself, when he reached New
York: —
"The faitMul beUever was now at Mecca. But he did not find
the magnates of the temple so enthusiastic for the Prophet and the
Koran, as more distant worsMppers. He was in the situation of
a person who had left Ms native village full of ardent Methodists,
Mmself the most ardent of them aU, and returmng after five years'
absence, during wMch he had become even more glowing, finds
half the people turned RituaUsts."
Parton says, that it was then in New York "the mode
to extol strong and imposing governments, to regret
that people were so attached to the town meeting
methods of conducting pubhc business, and to antici
pate the day when America would be ripe for a govem
ment 'not essentially different from that which they had
recently discarded.' "
Concerning the celebrated passage in Jefferson's
Ana, in which he describes the character of the "dinner
table conversations," where "pohtics were the chief
topic, and a preference of kingly over repubhcan

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 143
government was evidently the favorite sentiment."
Parton says: "No man can glance over the memorials
of the time without meeting on every side confirmation
of this passage."
The proof of this assertion I am about to unfold.
Powell calls all this "A Suppressed Chapter of Amer
ican History," and says there was "a long contest
between the principles of monarchy and democracy."
It is true, and our difficulty in reaUzing it now is
found only in the fact that we have passed so far away
from it. To Jefferson chiefly we owe the fact of having
passed so far away from it.
It was in the spring of 1790, soon after Jefferson
arrived, that there appeared in the Gazette a series of
articles, entitled, "The Discourses of Davila." The
newsboys of the day poked it and more like it under
Jefferson's nose, and John Adams, the Vice-President
of the United States, had written it. One of the
sentences in the "Discourses of Davila" was this: —
" Nations, perceiving that the still small voice of merit was
drowned in the insolent roar of the dupes of impudence and
knavery in national elections, without a possibihty of remedy, have
sought for sometMng more permanent than the popular voice to
designate honor."
Another sentence is additionaUy to be noted: —
"All projects of government, formed upon a supposition of con
tinual vigilance, sagacity, virtue, and firmness of the people, when
possessed of the exercise of supreme power, are cheats and
delusions." Such was the strength of this great reaction, that the
old time radical — Adams, who had written these
sentences, had become "not averse to a life tenure for

144 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
the President," or even an hereditary tenure, holding
that the terms of office might be extended, "until they
reached the hfe limit," and that if this was not found
sufficient, they should be made hereditary. (Mer
riam's "PoUtical Theories," page 134.)
To quote Adams further: —
" The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their
own Uberties, is not trae; they are the worst conceivable; they are
no keepers at aU; they can neither judge, act, think, nor wiU, as a
poUtical body."
This is the man, who, in Revolutionary times, had
said: "Where annual elections end, tyranny begins."
The point I am making is that words Uke these were
not only being spoken at "dinner tables," as Jefferson
said they were, but were being deUberately written in
books, and not by irresponsible people, but by great
statesmen, some of whom had been, as Jefferson later
said, "Solomons in coimcil and Samsons in the field,"
during the Revolution, but who had since "had their
heads shorn."
I beheve I love the man John Adams too much to
quote further from him, but you can find more hke it
in his book, "The Defense of American Constitutions,"
and in his articles, "Discourses on Davila."
I have selected Mr. Adams as the chief illustration of
how far the "Solomons in council," as weU as the
"Samsons in fight" — like Hamilton and Knox —
had retreated from their old positions, because in my
opiiuon, he was the most disinterested, the most
patriotic, the sincerest, and the least designing of aU
the great reactionaries. Much more extreme utter
ances are to be found in the letters and pubUc addresses

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 145
of other reactionary leaders, and in the contemporary
newspapers. For the first eight years after, as well as for some time
before the foundation of the new government, these
reactionary views were popular even among the people,
and for ten or eleven years, were predominant with most
of the educated, and nearly all the wealthy classes —
especially merchants, bankers, importers, fundholders,
and most of the clergy, in states where the church was
not yet disestabhshed and separated from the state.
It is paltry to say that Mr. Jefferson was "over
credulous," "frightened by shadows," or "suspicious,"
when American public sentiment had reached the
point, where a man publishing Adams' views could be
elected Vice-President twice and even President once,
and where men professing, without concealment,
Hamilton's and Knox's views, were given cabinet
positions, and where later. Alien and Sedition laws
could be passed by both Houses and signed by the
President, and where the hold of "the system" upon
the country grew so strong that it could be shaken
by nothing less than the veiled threats of the Virginia
and Kentucky Resolutions. This reaction against
the principles of the Revolution was especially notable
in New York, the first temporary seat of government.
Lorenzo Sabine, in his "American Loyahsts," asserts
that " beyond all doubt " the royaUst party had con
tained a majority of the people of the entire State of
New York. Many of those, who had been loyahsts
during the Revolution, were, at the time of Jefferson's
return, amongst the ultra-fashionable society of New
York city. The women of this same fashionable society
11

146 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
had, during our war, welcomed and fraternized with the
British officers. Moreover, as RandaU says, "Every
well informed man understands, that the American
Revolution began as a war against the aggressions, and
not against the form, of the British Government."
Thus many honest Revolutionary Whigs remained at
heart "monocrats" — a word invented by Jefferson to
describe a class.
To some extent everywhere the reaction had set in
and was flowing along with a full current. Even at
the meeting at Annapolis, although it was conceded
that the sentiment of "the populace" in America was
so strongly in favor of repubUcan institutions, that a
monarchical model could hardly be expected to be set
up successfully, there was no lack of talk in favor of it.
Indeed, even before the Revolution was well over,
American officers had entertained the idea of making
Washington king.
John Jay, in a letter of January 7, 1787, directed to
General Washington himself, propounds the inquiry:
"Shall we have a king? " And answers it with a quaU
fied negative: "Not in my opinion, while other expedients
remain untried."
General Washington wrote to Mr. Madison on
March 31st, recognizing the situation, in these sig
nificant words: "I am fully of the opinion that those,
who lean to a monarchical government, have either not
consulted the pubhc mind, or that they hve in a
region" (meaning New England) "which (the leveUng
principles in which they were bred being enthely
eradicated) is much more productive of monarchical
ideas, than is the case in the Southern States." He

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 147
adds: "I am also clear that, even admitting the utility,
nay, necessity of the form, the period is not arrived for
adopting the change, without shaking the peace of this
country to its foundation." Even this is, you will note,
a barely qualified negative. Thus it was not unpatri
otic, even in Washington's opinion, to hold monarchy
in ultimate contemplation — en arriere-pensee.
Madison's report, in the third person, of Hamilton's
speech to the Constitutional Convention, exhibits an
advocacy of as near an approach as possible to mon
archy on the English model. Read it. This much of it,
I excerpt: "He hoped gentlemen of different opinions
would bear with him in this," and then this language,
significant of my contention, follows: "and he begged
them to recollect the change of opinion on this subject which
had taken place, and was still going on." Madison con
tinues the report of Hamilton's speech: —
"The members most tenacious of repubUcamsm, he observed,
were as loud as any in declaiming against the vices of democracy.
TMs progress of the pubUc mind led Mm to anticipate the time when
others, as well as Mmself, would join in the praise bestowed by
Mr. Necker on the British Constitution, namely, that it is the only
govemment in the world wMch 'umted pubUc strength with in
dividual security.'"
But this was not all. In this speech he paid a high
tribute to the British House of Lords as "A most noble
institution." But this wasn't enough; he had proceeded: "The
hereditary interest of the King" (in England) "was so
interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal
emolument so great, that he was placed above the

148 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
danger of being corrupted from abroad, and was at
the same time both sufficiently independent and
sufficiently controlled to answer the purpose of the
institution at home."
Madison, whose truthfulness, as far as I know, has
never been elsewhere denied, says that his report of
this speech, "as above taken down and written out,
was submitted to Hamilton, who approved of its cor
rectness, with one or two verbal changes, which were
made." Mr. John C. Hamilton, son and biographer of Hamil
ton, as a part of the general attempt to suppress this
chapter of American history, does question his veracity
in a roundabout way by calling his report "a very
imperfect report of the speech," etc. This statement
he attempts to support by comparing the speech with a
brief of it, or a brief of some undated speech, found
among Hamilton's manuscripts in his handwriting.
Here are a few lines from the brief itself, if properly it
can be called a brief. It is rather "head-notes" of this
or some other old speech, just like head-notes that any
one would make upon the back of an envelope, when
he had a few minutes and wanted to outhne the scope
of an extemporaneous argument. See how these head-
notes in Hanoilton's handwriting demonstrate the
wonderful accuracy of Madison's long-hand report.
They read: —
"Here I shaU give my sentiments of the best form of government
— not as a tMng attainable by us, but as a model, wMch we ought
to approach as near as possible."
"British Constitution best form."

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 149
Then he puts down the names of "Aristotle, Cicero,
Montesquieu, and Necker," evidently as supporting
authorities, from whom he proposes to fortify his argu
ment. Then these head-Unes: —
"Society naturally divides itself into two poUtical divisions —
the few and the many, who have distinct interests. . . .
"If government is in the hands of the few, they wUl tyrarmize
over the many. . . .
"If (in) the hands of the many, they wiU tjTaimize over the
few. It ought to be in the hands of both; and they should he sepor
rated. . . . (That is, two Houses)
"TMs separation must be permanent. . . .
"Representation alone wiU not do. ..."
The next — and this is the milk in the cocoanut : —
"And if separated, they wiU need a mutual check."
And clinching the nail: —
" This check is a monarch."
From the next we learn that this monarch ought to
be "hereditary." From the next that the advantage
of a monarch is that he is "above corruption," and is
"not subject to foreign influence."
I do not want to quote all the head-notes of the
speech, but letting escape a few that are non-essential
to the argument right here, there follow these two : —
"It is said a repubUcan government does not admit a vigorous
execution. "It is therefore bad; for the goodness of a government consists
in vigorous execution."^
Hamilton here made a mistake, which so many people
— Pope, among others — make, of regarding efficiency
iSee "Life of HamHton," by John C. Hamilton, Vol. 3, page 280
et seq.

150 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
of administration as the main end of government.
It is a thing that ought to be had, as far as can be,
consonantly with liberty and local self-government,
but it is not the only, nor is it the chief, nor anywhere
near the chief, end of government. That government
is "not" "best, which is best administered."
Thus Madison's report of the speech made from these
notes, while it was not verbatim — Madison not being
a shorthand reporter — was evidently faithful, and was
a report which Hamilton could not have quarreled
with. An examination of Yates's Minutes in ElUott's
Debates, shows that his report of Hamilton's remarks
agrees substantially with Madison's and with the notes.
It wUl be noted that these head-notes are replete with
Hamilton's distrust of anything like democratic insti
tutions, and endorse a House of Lords and a King as
things to be approximated, and are pregnant with the
thought that aU government must be maintained by
tying to its purposes the self-interest of those, who con
stitute its governors. They must be so "highly
rewarded," as to be "above corruption"; the assump
tion being, that, if not, they necessarily wUl be cor
rupted. Now, of course, Hamilton's plan did not prevail in
the Constitutional Convention. Every material propo
sition made by him was voted down. But I am demon
strating his reactionary and counter-revolutionary
desire, which is always one step from a design.
In Hamilton's plan, offered to the Constitutional
Convention, the Senators were not to be elected by the
people at aU, but by electors, and these electors each
had to have at least a life estate in land, or a leasehold

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 151
estate for fourteen years. Senators were to hold their
seats for Ufe, unless impeached, and it was the Senate,
which was to declare war, as well as ratify treaties, and
control appointments. If any man of the utmost
audacity could have had audacity enough to propose
to the plain American people a plan more essentially
aristocratic than that, it would be curious to hear it.
His President was to be elected only by such part of
the people as had an inherited estate in fee simple, or
for a tenure of three Uves, or a clear personal estate of a
thousand Spanish dollars, and even these were not to
vote for the President, but for electors, and the electors,
by sealed baUot, for the President. Then the electors
of each State were to select second electors, and these
second electors were to carry the ballots to the Chief
Justice, and, in his presence, open them.
The only advantage about the scheme was that this
complicated process, with which the people had so Uttle
to do, was not to trouble them very often, for Hamil
ton's President was to hold his office for life, unless
impeached. Besides having the powers which our
President has as chief executive of the nation, Hamil
ton's President was to appoint all the governors of the
States. His Federal Government was to designate all
the State judges, or rather Federal judges in the States,
vested with substantially the entire judicial power of
the country. Then, in order that his House of Re
presentatives might not be troublesome, it was left to
the President to convene and prorogue Congress!
Jefferson has been accused of being unjust to Hamil
ton because he said the latter "favored a king, lords
and commons." If this plan was not substantially

152 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
and reaUy one for not only a king, but a PoUsh or
elective life king at that, and a substantial house of
lords, except that the king and lords were not caUed by
those names, and were not as yet hereditary — only
holding at first for Ufe — it would be hard to find
anything that is. Moreover, there was virtually no
"commons" at all.
Notwithstanding the fact of the defeat of his plan of
government, he still advocated the adoption of the
Constitution, as submitted, because, although it was
not in accord with his design, it was the best attain
able for him — much nearer his model than the old
confederacy — and, although "an experiment," was
worthy of a trial. Moreover, it was elastic, and could
be stretched in the working. Nor did his view, bent,
or design cease with the adoption of the Constitution.
If so, when?
His friend, Morris, wrote to Robert Walsh in a letter
dated as late as February 5, 1811: —
"General Hamilton had Uttle share in forming the Constitution.
He disliked it, believing all republican government to he radically
defective. He heartUy assented, nevertheless, to the Constitution,
because he considered it a band, wMch might hold us together for
some time, and he knew that national sentiment is the condition of
national existence."
Wise and far-seeing sentence this. Then Morris
adds, speaking stiU of Hamilton: "He trusted, moreover,
that in the changes and chances of time, we should be
involved in some war, which might strengthen our union
and nerve the executive."
From his standpoint, of course, some "temporary
band," which was "to hold us together," had to be

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 153
adopted. No union could become consoUdated, nor
be "strengthened" and rendered more "stable,"
either in peace, or "if involved in some war," unless it
first existed.
In a letter to Gouverneur Morris, dated February 2,
1802, Hamilton says: —
"Mine is an odd destiny. Perhaps no man in the Umted States
has sacrificed or done more for the present Constitution than myself;
and, contrary to all my anticipations of its fate, as you know, from the
very beginning, I am still laboring to prop the frail and worthless
fabric. . . . Every day proves to me more and more, that tMs
American world was not made for me. . . . You, friend Morris,
are by birth a native of tMs country, but by gemus an exotic.
You mistake, if you fancy that you are more of a favorite than
myself, or that you are in any sort upon a theatre suited to you.'J
"Your people, sir," exclaimed Alexander Hamilton at
a pubhc dinner in New York, smiting the table with his
fist, "Your people, sir, is a great beast!" He was not
the only one of the reactionaries, who held and con
tinued to hold that opinion.
In the letter from Morris to Walsh, dated February 5,
1811, already partially quoted, Morris says: "One
marked trait of the General's character was his perti
nacious adherence to opinions he had once formed.
, . . He never failed on every occasion to advocate
the excellence of, and to avow his attachment to,
monarchical government." Morris adds: "By this
course he not only cut himself off from all chance of
rising into office, but singularly promoted the views of
his opponents," etc. (He means, of course, elective
office.) "Singularly promoted the views of his opponents."

154 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
How? By estabUshing the truth, which they asserted
most openly always, and which many FederaUsts
denied then, and aU later, that there was "a mon
archical party;" that is, a party anxious to instiU a
monarchical spirit into the American frame of govern
ment, even though (which would itself become doubt
ful after a while) its outward repubUcan frame were
to be maintained. And this same Morris, in a letter
to Aaron Ogden, dated December 28, 1804, says: —
"Our poor friend Hamilton bestrode Ms hobby to the great
annoyance of Ms friends, and not without injury to himself. More
a theoretic than a practical man, he was not sufficiently convinced
that a system may be good in itself, and bad in relation to particular
circumstances. He well knew that Ms favorite form was inad-
rmssible, unless as the result of civil war; and I suppose that Ms
beUef in that, wMch he caUed an approacMng crisis, arose from a
conviction, that the kind of government most suitable, in his opinion,
to this extensive country, could be established in no other way."
Then Morris, a reactionary too, and partially sym
pathetic with these views, adds : —
" Experience alone can incUne the people to such an institution.
That a man should he born a legislator is now, among unfledged witlings,
the frequent subject of ridicule. But experience . . . will teU us
that men destined from the cradle to act an important part wiU not,
in general, be so unfit as those who are objects of popular choice."
"But," it is said, "these were theoretical views."
Yes, after the holders of them were whipped out of the
political arena. Where a man's real faith is, there are
his works. What the heart wills, the head will find it
hard not to have the hand try to do. A bad theory and
an imitative practice dwell in a double room, with shding
doors between.

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 155
Men entertaining such "theoretical" opinions were
not at all apt to keep a repubhcan spirit in republican
institutions, much less to go further and put a demo
cratic soul-politic into a republican body-politic, and
Jefferson knew it. He wanted not only to republi-
canize, but to democratize, and he did it, and his
election in 1800 deserves to be mentioned in history
as our second revolution.
Jefferson used to say, that if "the hoards of letters
now in private keeping" should ever be pubhshed, they
would justify his suspicions and prove that his con
tentions were not ill founded. I think the student wiU
conclude from what have already been published, that
he was not lacking in foresight. How many have been
suppressed? God alone knows! Hamilton's own son,
in his "Life of Hamilton," seemingly without appreci
ating it fully, published many of the letters which
establish it. Fisher Ames has left letters behind that
speak loudly; so has Plumer, so has George Cabot;
also Christopher Gore, and Timothy Pickering; and
Thomas and Theodore Dwight, not only letters, but
pubhc documents. Fisher Ames says, that the Ameri
can people trying to govern themselves "without
separate orders" reminded him of "free negroes!"
See this delightful specimen of the antique in Ames's
"Works," Volume 1, page 393, and another letter on the
next page to Timothy Pickering, the last dated
February 4, 1807. Then read the private letters of
Theodore Sedgwick, sometime Federahst "Leader" on
the floor of the House of Representatives, chosen to
lead by his fellow reactionaries — especially a letter
to Hamilton of January 27, 1803 — "Hamilton's

156 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Works," vol. 6, page 552. Then, do not forget that
pussy-footed old Counter-Revolutionist, OUver Walcott.
Much has been said about the conversation which
Jefferson in his Ana recorded as having occurred
between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, from
which Jefferson drew the inference that Hamilton was
not only in favor of a monarchy, but of a "monarchy
bottomed on corruption." I beheve that the report of
the conversation is almost Uterally accurate, although
there is, of course, a distance, long or short, between a
man's praising a thing and his wanting to put that thing
into operation at a given time, or in a given place.
The conversation was this : Mr. Adams said, speaking of
the British Constitution: "Purge that Constitution of
its corruption and it would be the most perfect consti
tution ever devised by the wit of man." Now a man,
who wiU read Adams' work, " Davila, ". his "Defense
of the American Constitution," and his letters, and wiU
not arrive at the conclusion that at one time Mr.
Adams not only entertained, but actually printed,
just the view here attributed to him, is much lacking in
impartiaUty or perspicacity, or intellectual integrity —
one or aU of the three. And Mr. Adams is not the only
man, who entertained then, or entertains now, that
opinion. Probably twenty per cent at least of my
readers do. I entertained it once. In fact, I remember
going further, and, enraptured with the glowing rhetoric
of Edmund Burke, coming by an eloquent, if not a wise
route, to the conclusion that even the rotten borough
system in England was a blessmg — a sort of fortress
for conservatism.
Now what is it that Jefferson reports Hamilton as

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 157
replying? "Hanulton paused, and said: 'Purge it of
its corruption and give to its popular branch equality
of representation, and it would become an impracticable
government.'" The word Jefferson used was "im
practicable." It was the giving to "its popular
branch equality of representation," which was the thing
that would make it "impracticable." Remember at
the same time that as the British Government was then
practically administered, it was the unequal repre
sentation illustrated by "rotten boroughs," Uke the
"Chiltern Hundred," that furnished the means of
"management" and control by the British executive.
The "conservative classes" always — the ministry
nearly always — controlled these boroughs.
Then Hamilton continued in these words: "As it
stands at present, with all of its supposed defects, it is
the most perfect government which ever existed."
Now Jefferson has been charged with "attributing evil
motives" because he recorded this expression of
Hamilton's, when, with the debated exception of our
own government, everybody will assert that the
English Government, "just as it stood" in Hamilton's
day, with all its admitted corruption, was "the most
perfect government" in its "practical" workings,
"which had ever existed " up to that time. No man was
guilty of a crime, or treason, or an "evil motive," be
cause he believed, what so many then beUeved, including
Montesquieu and Necker. I am as certain that Hamil
ton said it, as I am that Edmund Burke, if seated at the
same table, would have said the same thing, and I
draw no inference of personal corruption in either case.
Go back and study your Burke, and then study the

158 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Uterature of the opposition to the English reform bill.
"Whatever is old in years, to man is Godlike."
Hamilton, having in his mind that the House of
Commons had to be "managed," as the ministers of
Great Britain called it, would have been wiser than
he, with his distrust of this "great beast" — "the
people" — with his lack of imagination and original
constructiveness, could have been expected at that day
to be, if he had not likewise thought, that our House of
Representatives would have to be "managed" in order
to keep our new government from being "impractic
able." Now remember that, in this quotation, Jeffer
son does not accuse Hamilton of being personally
corrupt, or of any other vice, or crime, or fault, save
that of opinion. Jefferson wrote of him in these same
memoirs; "Hamilton was indeed a singular character.
Of acute understanding, disinterested, honest and honor
able in all private transactions, amiable in society, and
duly valuing virtue in private life, yet so bewitched and
perverted by the British example, as to be under
thorough conviction, that corruption was essential to
the government of a nation." Old Sir Robert Walpole,
a thoroughly honest man personally, was under pre
cisely the same "thorough conviction," and Hamilton's
whole policy convinces me that he was too, with this
difference: that Hamilton would perhaps not have
bought a man's vote outright, as Sir Robert made no
bones of doing. But he counted it a pubhc gain when,
by giving a position in the Treasury to a man here, or
interesting a man there, as a director or stockholder of
the United States Bank, or as a holder of pubhc funds,
he had secured in the representative assembly an

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL
adherent of "government," as he caUed it. The chief
aim of his pohcy was to marry interests to the government,
and it was to be done by management and legislation.
He deemed it necessary and wise ; Jefferson did not. The
latter saw corruption in its effect, whatever its intent.
Hamilton deemed Jefferson a hypocrite, when he
professed that he wanted to "bottom government" on
reason and the popular will alone. Indeed, half the
politicians today, though they profess — as Hamilton
did not — allegiance to Jefferson's principles, do not
entertain them, and being conscious hypocrites them
selves, conclude that those, who do not only profess,
but believe them, are in the same class with themselves.
Hamilton became the idol of the monied class. It
was no wonder that Fisher Ames, who understood him
and his policy, wrote to him on July 31, 1791, a letter
which can be found in Hamilton's "Works," Volume 5,
page 473, containing these words : —
"AU the influence of the moneyed men ought to be wrapped up
in the union and in one bank. . . . The success of the govemment
of the Umted States, and especially measures proceeding from your
department has astonished the multitude."
Poor old multitude! As usual, all it got out of it
was astonishment! Nearly, or quite, half of us have
come by now to know, that the very A B C of pohtical
reform must consist in the divorce of government from
"big business" and of "big business" from "big
politics," and, therefore, it looks corruptive, if not
corrupt, to us, as it did to Jefferson, so far in advance of
us, that a man should pursue a persistent plan of marry
ing them together. But it was different then. We are
to remember that in Hamilton's and Jefferson's day

160 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
even the proud Earl of Chatham — the elder Pitt — in
his somewhat contemptuous way, to be sure, but none
the less actually — cooperated with the Duke of
Newcastle, in "carrying on His Majesty's Govern
ment." Pitt, the Empire-builder, uttered day by day
words of eloquent wisdom and initiated great measures
of statesmanship. Newcastle, day by day, "managed"
the House, in a notoriously corrupt way, to which Chat
ham could not have been bUnd. He despised the system
and Newcastle both; but he accepted both as "some
thing that was and is and must be," in order that he
and the soldiers and sailors of Great Britain might Uft
up her Empire, enlarge her trade, and even extend the
empire of liberty for the human race. He had to have
a fulcrum on which to rest his lever — a parhamentary
majority. There is no doubt about the fact that General
Washington believed that the monarchical party had
quit struggling, after the adoption of the new Consti
tution. There is equally no doubt that, as to a great
many of them, he was, as Jefferson told him, mistaken.
Designs, or desires, like these seem so absurd from
our present viewpoint, that it is hard for anyone to put
himself back in history to the place, where they were
not only actual, but natural.
The reader is better prepared now, I hope, to under
stand the situation of things in Washington's Cabinet,
and to understand Jefferson's purpose, and how he
came, Uttle by Uttle, to be the head of a great de
mocratizing party — "The Democratic-Repubhcan"
Party — not RepubUcan alone.
Hamilton intended that the "Treasury Measiures"

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 161
should have another effect besides that of "strength
ening the public credit." They were to tie vast monied
interests to "government" (and remember that the
word "Government" was then much used in the
English sense — of administration) . In this connection,
I recommend the following utterances from Senator
Lodge's "History of the United States" in the "History
of Nations" series, which occur in comment upon Hamil
ton's scheme for Federal assumption of the State debts:
"This final proposition, not only was wise financially,
as it was intended to be, but was also a powerful instru
ment of consolidating the government." Note that this is
just what Jefferson said it was intended to be.
Hamilton was watchful of the government itself,
lest it be weak enough to chance being overthrown by
the people, and was anxious to buttress it strongly —
invoicing to its aid every "influence" and "interest"
possible. From Jefferson's viewpoint, the things to
be buttressed were the elemental and natural rights of
the people as individuals and the great safeguarding
right of local self-government — and the chief peril
against which these were to be defended was the
government itself.
On page 353, from the same book, by Senator Lodge —
a thorough Hamiltonian, by the way — occurs this
language in connection with Hamilton's scheme for a
national bank: "In this connection it ought to be
repeated that aside from financial consideration,
Hamilton had ulterior motives in wishing the national
government to engage in the banking business and to
assume the State debts. He saw clearly that both
would strengthen the national government, by rallying
12

162 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
to its support the monied interests of the country," etc.
If he had added right here, "and of getting members of
Congress and Senators, who held or bought up pubhc
securities, interested in governmental measures," he
would have made a full statement of the case.
No FederaUst, or modern RepubUcan, ever regarded
such a motive as the one stated by Senator Lodge to
be an evil. From their standpoint, it is a wise and
statesmanlike motive. From Jefferson's viewpoint, it
necessarily tended towards plutocracy, or corruption,
or both. Nor did Jefferson think such measures
necessary to "strengthen the pubhc credit."
Even Foster, in his "Century of American Diplo
macy," page 149, says: "In September, 1789, Mr.
Jefferson reported from Paris to Secretary Jay that the
credit of the United States at Amsterdam had become
the first on that exchange; . . . that our bonds had
risen to 99." Note that date and how soon after the
establishment of our government. What did Hamil
ton's treasury schemes, yet unborn, have to do with
that? As far as foreign and domestic evidences of the
United States debt were concerned, domestic tran-
quifity, an established and stable government, with
power to tax individuals, so as to have a treasury with
money in it, the consequent ability to pay, and the
immediate illustration of that ability, by promptly
meeting interest and arrears, would have brought them
to par anyhow.
In one of his anonymous newspaper articles, Hamil
ton charged that Jefferson was "originally and con
tinuously an opponent of the adoption of the present
Constitution of the United States." How absolutely

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 163
untrue this accusation is we shaU now see — the inquiry
being pertinent to the democratization of our Federal
Institutions. Jefferson objected that the Constitution
did not sufficiently guarantee the preservation of indi
vidual rights — "the inherent and inahenable rights
of the people" — which had been protected in Great
Britain by a BiU of Rights, and that a Bill of Rights
ought to be embodied in our Constitution. This was
done. Jefferson also desired to have engrafted upon
the Constitution a provision declaring that the Federal
Government had no powers except those granted it
(either expressly or by necessary implication), and that
aU other powers were "reserved." This was done.
Now the chief business of a bill of rights is to protect
the individual against unjust governmental action.
The authors of the Federalist do not seem to have
reahzed very intensely the importance of that, and
yet, in so far as the judiciary has found in the Consti
tution a bulwark of protection for the people against
the despotism of the Government, or of popular
majorities, as in the case of the civil rights bill and some
other Reconstruction legislation, and many other
enactments violative of natural, or property, or labor
rights, this bulwark has consisted mainly in the amend
ments to the instrument, secured by Jefferson and
others of his school, and not in the original instrument,
as presented for adoption in the first instance.
In Number 84 of the Federalist, bills of right are
referred to as "aphorisms!" One may imagine how
this sort of expression would grate on the feelings of a
man like Jefferson, who had not been influenced by the
American counter-revolution. In the same number of

164 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
the Federalist, it is argued that under our government
"the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every
thing, they have no need of particular reservations."
The fact that we still hear so much about the "inherent
powers" of the federal government, even after the
adoption of the amendment declaring that "powers not
delegated are reserved to the States, or to the people,"
proves that the author of Number 84 of the Federalist
was wrong and Jefferson right.
In answer to much that I have said of the Hamil
tonian views and desires, or designs, his articles in the
Federalist might be quoted, but in these articles, one
finds not the pohtical philosophy of Hamilton, but an
advocate's plea for the adoption of the Constitution.
That Hamilton gave it even this support is a tribute to
his devotion to the central and primordial necessity of
a union, and is a manifestation of intellectual ability
seldom excelled.
Still, the papers in the Federalist show that what he
and Jay most dreaded were popular movements. They
would have been surprised, if they could have known
that a hundred and thirty years afterwards our Federal
Government would be, in its actual working and legis
lative results, the least responsive of all governments
over EngUsh-speaking peoples to the result of a
popular election. They would have been stiff more
surprised, if they could have known that the Enghsh
Government and all the EngUsh colonies, at the end of
that time, would furnish systems, where the executive
itself would be merely the mouthpiece of a committee
of a majority of the legislative representatives of the
people; that within that time the House of Commons in

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 165
England itself, and its imitation parliamentary bodies
in all British colonies, would wield not only full legis
lative power, unchecked by executive veto, but full
executive power, and that perhaps the most remarkable
movement in the United States of the present day
might be characterized as a reaction from the realization
of the fact that this is far from being the case with us —
a reaction so violent, as to cause many patriotic men to
advocate the absurdity of government by popular ple
biscite; so true it is always that "the best cure for the
evils of democracy is more democracy;" only it must
be democracy, developing of itself gradually and
sincerely, through the free play of representative insti
tutions; and, even then, it can find its only secure basis
in popular education and the general diffusion of
information. Jefferson also at first wanted an amendment to
prevent the Executive from being indefinitely self-
successive. I think few of us in this year of our Lord's
grace will challenge his position in this regard. He
at first wanted one term of seven years. Then later
he writes: "Indeed, since the thing is estabhshed, I
would wish it not to be altered during the life of our
great leader [that is, Washington], whose executive
talents are superior to those, I believe, of any man in
the world, and who, alone, by the authority of his
name and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity,
is fully qualified to put the new government so under
way, as to secure it against the efforts of opposition.
But, having derived from our error all the good there
is in it, I hope we shall correct it, the moment we can
no longer have the same name at the hehn." The

166 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
itahcs here, as always in these lectures, are mine and in
dicate what I beUeve to be the truth; that not only in
Mr. Jefferson's mind, but in the minds of many others,
the indefinite reeligibiUty of the President owed its place
in our Constitution to the certainty that the first Presi
dent would be George Washington, and that no term
ought to be fixed for him, until he had taught the
Government "how to march." In his older age, after
retirement, Jefferson congratulated himself upon the
fact that Washington's example in refusing a third term,
and his own imitation of this example and the reasons
which he gave for it, would constitute a sort of unwritten
law. This it has thus far been throughout all of our
history, no President ever having sought reelection
beyond the second term, except Grant, who was
rebuked by his own party, and Roosevelt, who was
rebuked by both parties.
As usual, however, Jefferson's own language best
expresses his position and motives. In a letter to John
Taylor of Carolina, he says : —
"My opimon originaUy was that the President of the Umted
States should have been elected for seven years, and forever ineUgible
afterwards. I have since become sensible that seven years is too
long to be irremovable, and that there should be a peaceable way of
withdrawing a man in noidway who is doing wrong. The service
for eight years, with a power to remove at the end of the first four,
comes nearer to my principle as corrected by experience; and it is
in adherence to that, that I deteraoine to withdraw at the end of
my second term. The danger is that the indulgence and attach
ments of the people wiU keep a man in the chair after he becomes a
dotard, and that re-election tMough Ufe shall become habitual, and
election for Ufe foUow that. General WasMngton set the example
of voluntary retirement after eight years. I shaU foUow it. And
a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to any one who

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 167
after awhile shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget
a disposition to estabUsh it by an amendment to the Constitution."
Also these words by Jefferson ought to be remembered
by everybody in connection with the Presidential
tenure: "If some period be not fixed, either by the
Constitution, or by practice, the office will, though
nominally elective, become for hfe and then hereditary."
This doesn't seem so "timid" to those of us, who have
just actually witnessed an attempt to be elected to
what he himself has publicly counted as a third
term, made by a man, very popular and able, who
has never answered the question, whether, at the end of
that time, he would be a candidate for a fourth term,
nor whether at the end of the fourth, he would be a
candidate for a fifth. People who laugh at Jefferson's
"suspicions" and "fears" and "creduhty," etc., only
have to wait long enough for their posterity to laugh
at them. Our office of President would probably be
as Jefferson at first feared it would be "but a poor
edition of a Pohsh king," save for the example set by
Washington and the reinforcement of this example by
imitation and the clear statement of the reasons for it
given by Thomas Jefferson. If we had begun by
electing any one — even Washington — as long as he
lived — even if this had been for only one more term —
he dying during the period of a third — the precedent
of electing men indefinitely would doubtless have been
followed in the case of every popular man; undoubtedly
in Jefferson's case, if he had permitted it, and later on
in the case of Andrew Jackson, stiU later in the case of
Grant, and stiU later in the case of Roosevelt; if these
men had ever gotten to be Presidents at aU; a question-

168 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
able thing but for the contrary precedent. How long
it would have taken reelections to become mere matters
of form, is, of course, a matter of speculation, but that,
sooner or later, they would have become so, is a matter
of certainty.
An indefinitely self-successive executive, easily turned
into a dictatorship, has been the rock upon which the
so-called South and Central American "repubUcs"
have spht, and the good sense of the American people
in taking the advice of Washington and Jefferson has
saved our institutions from a hke death of the spirit.
They will never be safe, until a constitutional amend
ment shall be passed, confiiung the Presidential term
preferably to a term of eight years, with the right of
recaU by the people in the middle of the period; that is,
two four-year terms, or else to one term of six or seven
years. Thus far the people have said: "Washington
would not, Jefferson would not. Grant could not, and
nobody else shall," but the danger is ever present, as
long as there are adventurous and ambitious and able
men, conjoining to their courage and ambition and
ability great popularity, in a word " men of the hour "
— dangerous in a " crisis." Unpopular men, of course,
have never been dangerous to free institutions any
where. Institutions are what practice makes them. Wash
ington and Jefferson never performed a greater service
for the permanency of American institutions than this.
In Jefferson's time our institutions were still subject to
this danger. The people seemed not fully awakened to
it. Eight State Legislatures had passed resolutions
endorsing Jefferson for a third term. More would

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 169
have followed, if Jefferson had not discouraged it.
Even Senator Lodge says there is no doubt he could
have had it. Washington's precedent and Jefferson's
ratification of it have constituted what has frequently
been caUed a part of "the unwritten constitution of the
Republic," like the Monroe Doctrine. The words in
which Jefferson clothed his declination are wise and
patriotic beyond measure: —
"That I should lay down my charge at a proper period, is as
much a duty as to have home it faitMuUy. If some termination
to the services of the cMef magistrate be not fixed by the Consti
tution, or suppUed by practice, Ms office, noimnally for years, will,
in fact, become for Ufe; and Mstory shows how easily that degen
erates into an inheritance. BeUeving that a representative govern
ment, responsible at short periods of election, is that wMch produces
the greatest sum of happiness to mankind, I feel it a duty to do no
act wMch shall essentially impair that principle; and I should un-
wiUingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set
by an illustrious predecessor, should furmsh the first example of
prolongation beyond the second term of office."
However, already in Washington's time, the third
term, with its indefinite tenure of executive office had
failed the counter-revolutionists, as a political recourse.
They could no longer shield themselves behind the
great name and character of George Washington. He
had retired in spite of all solicitation and protest.
The Federalists must now fight their battles in the open.
John Adams became their candidate — a man, who
whatever his faults, was, as Jefferson once said of him,
"as disinterested as the Being who made him." No
other leader on the other side was thought of but
Jefferson. Adams defeated him by three votes in the
electoral coUege. Even at that, three electors from

170 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
States, whose people had voted for Jefferson, voted for
Adams. He never uttered a complaint. Jefferson
feared nothing actively counter-revolutionary in the
way of overturning our government by force from
Adams personally. His confidence was justified.
Jefferson was elected Vice-President. He carried
with him to Washington a commonplace book of
memoranda of parhamentary rules and practices. Out
of it he constructed what we caU "Jefferson's Manual"
— a manual of parliamentary rules and practice, yet
the guide of the Senate and one of the guides for the
House. It has permanently affected our parhamentary
practice, and thus the practical working of our insti
tutions. Meanwhile the war of ideas went on. Francis
Walker says very advisedly: —
"The blunder of the FederaUsts in enacting the sedition law was
not an accidental one. On the contrary, it was thorougMy character
istic. It sprang out of a distrust of the masses; a beUef that the
people must always be led or repressed; a reliance on powers, estates
and vested interests; a readiness to use force — all of wMch were of
the very essence of the aristocratic poUcies of the last quarter of the
Eighteenth Century."
At another place in Mr. Walker's very readable
book, referring to Jefferson's final victory, occurs this
language: —
"The reliance upon estates and powers witMn the common
wealth, wMch was of the very essence of Hamilton's pMlosophy of
govemment, and in wMch even WasMngton and John Adams shared;
the disposition to resort on one side to the influence of wealth, and
on the other to intimidation and repression for checking the violence
of poUtical discussion: these things were to disappear and disappear

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL
forever from American pubUe Ufe, for good or for evil, but altogether,
as we may well beUeve, for good, in the large and long result."
"Whom the gods would ruin, they first make mad."
The FederaUsts helped Jefferson in his fight. They
travelled at a reckless pace in their reaction against
democracy. Alien and Sedition laws were working to
a result contrary to their intent. As usual, unless
accompanied by overwhelming force — so great as to
cower men — governmental tyranny stimulated the
love of hberty. French aliens fled from the country.
The Irish — nearly all republicans and specially perse
cuted — had no country to flee to. It hadn't been
long since Emmett was executed.
I have already referred to the Freneau incident. A
part of Secretary of State Jefferson's letter to Washing
ton concerning Freneau, is pertinent to the later
Federalist attacks upon the Uberty of the press. In
it he administers this mild reproof: —
"As to the merits or demerits of Ms [Freneau's] paper, they
certainly concern me not. He and Fenno are rivals for the pubUc
favor. . . . No government ought to be without censors; and where
the press is free, no one ever wiU [be]. If virtuous, it need not fear
the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man
no other means of sifting out the truth, either in reUgion, law, or
poUtics. I think it is as honorable to the Government neither to know,
nor notice, its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and
criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter."
I think this last sentence is one of the grandest
ever penned, and if it contained a suggestive admonition
to the Father of His Country himself, I do not the less
value it for that. Even "fathers of their countries," if
sincere repubUcans, must put up with free speech and

172 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
free printing, subject only to the restraints of the
ordinary laws of slander and libel.
The ahen law gave authority to the President to
banish from the country "all such aUens as he should
judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United
States!" Jefferson can never receive sufficient praise for having
fought these measures, and measures like them,
through his friends upon the floor of the two Houses,
and, finaUy, by calhng into action the protestant powers
of the States.
A part of the permanent influence which he has
exercised upon American institutions consists in the
fact that, after he had completed his work of antagonism
to this legislation, nothing hke it has ever since been
attempted, except once in a smaller way, during Presi
dent Roosevelt's administration, when it was sought to
revive the spirit of the sedition laws by invoking the
aid of the judicial power of the United States to
punish certain newspapers for having printed so-called
malicious things against the national administration
and pubhc officials, and against the go-betweens inter
ested in the French Canal-Bond-Sale. A just judge
refused to be used. There is happily no such thing
known as yet to our institutions as "libelling the
Government." As to the alien laws, the Chauvinism which consti
tuted the spirit of them was revived by the Whig
leaders of the so-called "Know-Nothing" movement,
but though it looked for a while like a prairie fire, fated
to sweep all before it, the party of Jefferson remembered,
even then, enough of his teaching to extinguish the
flames.

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 173
The most fortunate thing for the country that
happened in Adams' administration was that the war
with France, for which we had made such great prepara
tions, did not occur. General Washington was ap
pointed commander in chief and Hamilton second in
command. If the war had come, the work of de
mocratization would have been halted, perhaps for a
time, perhaps for all time. But there is Uttle doubt in
my mind of the fact that it would have made Hamilton's
choice the next President of the United States and
himself virtually poUtical dictator. There is equally
little doubt of the fact that Hamilton would have used
his great power, as the glorified commander of a suc
cessful army, for the purpose of rendering the govern
ment stronger, or "more stable," as he would have
expressed it. He would have led our army against the
Spanish colonies in Florida, or Mexico, as the Miranda
correspondence and negotiations prove. In fact, it is
hard to see what we wanted with an army, if our only
purpose were to fight France. As long as she was at
war with Great Britain, she could not land a regiment
upon the American continent, nor did we want to land
one in Europe. There was and could be hteraUy
nothing French in America to fight on land.
H. C. Merwin, a very moderate man and a very fair
one, speaking of the time of our anticipated war with
France under Adams' administration, writes: —
"Hamilton was not the man to overturn the govenment out of
personal ambition, nor even in order to set up a monarchy in place
of a repubUc. But he had convinced Mmself that the repubUc
must some day fall of its own weight. He was always anticipating
a 'crisis,' and tMs word is repeated over and over again in Ms cor-

174 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
respondence. It even occurs in the crucial sentence of that pathetic
document wMch he wrote on the eve of Ms fatal duel. When the
fatal 'crisis' came, Hamilton meant to be on hand; and, if possible,
at the head of an army."
Nothing can account for the fanatical hatred visited
upon Adams' head by Hamilton and the other chief
FederaUsts, because of his wise and patriotic act, unless
it be, that it balked deeper and further designs.
Nothing was left to fight France about. The amende
honorable had been made, our demands upon her had
been acceded to. Adams was glad of it. The country
was glad of it. Peace ensued.
Meantime there had appeared upon the scene —
flitting ghost-hke, in and out, first on one and then
on the other side of the Atlantic, conferring with the
younger Pitt and with Rufus King, our Hamiltonian
Ambassador in London, and corresponding unrebuked,
indirectly, and then directly, with Hamilton, and later
with President Adams, who, in his honesty and patri
otism, sat down on him extinguishingly — one Miranda
- — a Spanish- American of Caracas. For all of which see
Hamilton's, King's, and Pickering's letters, but above
all the Edinburgh Review, Volume 13, pages 287, 289,
et seq., and study Miranda's subsequent connection
with Aaron Burr.
But for this peace with France, there would have
been effected the British alliance proposed by Hamilton
in Washington's Cabinet, and of which Washington had
said, "the remedy is worse than the disease"; a large
army would have been put on foot, with Hamilton at
the head of it, and probably the "crisis" might have
happened!

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 175
Meanwhile, what John Randolph called the "Ameri
can reign of terror" was arousing more and more
indignation, and the project of raising an army, when
taken in connection with the ahen and sedition laws,
was arousing fears. The Repubhcans knew that the
counter-revolutionary alarm about "a French in
vasion" was manufactured to furnish a reason for
raising an army, and that the army might be used, in
a way dangerous, at any rate, to the Repubhcans — if
not to the Repubhc. The officering of the army did
not decrease this excitement. It was known that
Washington could be only nominal chief, if active opera
tions in the field had to take place; that Hamilton would
be the real chief in command, and that his assistant
officers — every one of them — were Federalists. Free
speech and free printing had been already attacked,
judges on the federal bench were already making po
litical harangues against "democracy" to grand juries
and petty juries, so that you may imagine the situation.
None of this distrust and anxiety was lessened by the
fact that Hamilton was not a popular man — did not,
in fact, dare to run for an elective office — was "gen
erally beaten in his own State," and, therefore, was
popularly supposed to be willing to make an attack
upon the elective system.
The country was at white heat. The Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions, as State protests, were flung
into the ring. The repetition in them of the thoughts
of the Declaration of Independence had an admonitory,
if not an ominous sound.
That Hamilton contemplated the use of force is
inferrible at least from his letter of advice to his

176 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
followers in Congress at the beginning of the Con
gressional session of 1798-1799. Read this: "Our
mihtary force should be kept upon its actual footing;
making provision for a reinlistment of men for five years,
in the event of a settlement of differences with France.
. . . The laws respecting volunteer companies and the
eventual army should be rendered permanent, and the
Executive should proceed without delay to organize
the latter."
His scheme went still further. He advised legis
lation, or amendments, whereby the large states should
be subdivided by Congress into two or more states
each. This was aimed at Virginia and Pennsylvania —
both democratic and strategically situated to oppose
an armed administration at Washington.
This is significant and is a tribute to Hamilton's
foresightedness, in view of what afterwards occurred,
because it looked, for a little while, after Jefferson's
election by the people, as if unconstitutional methods
might be adopted to seat a Federahst and to keep either
hun or Burr from being seated. The Governors of
Virginia and Pennsylvania, therefore, began to mobihze
their armed forces with the view of protecting a con
vention of the States to be called, in such an event, by
the President and the Vice-President elect, as proposed
by Jefferson, and of enforcing whatever measure of
settlement of the issue it might decree.
If Hamilton's scheme of having Congress subdivide
the large States could have been acted upon, the two
great middle states might have been rendered harm
less to the FederaUst party and helpless for the
defence of popular liberty and the enforcement of the

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 177
right of election. Again, if Hamilton's standing army
in times of peace (for he advises its organization "in
the event of a settlement of differences with France")
could have been put on its feet, the Federalists could
have defeated the will of the people by force, notwith
standing Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Here is another excerpt from his letter of advice to
the FederaUsts, as if aUen and sedition laws had not
maddened the people enough: —
"Fourth. Laws for restraining and punisMng incendiary and
seditious practices. It wiU be useful to declare that all such writings,
etc., which at common law are libels, if levelled against any officer
whatsoever of the United States, shall be cognizable in the courts of the
United States. To preserve confidence in the officers of the General
Govemment, by preserving their reputations from malicious and
unfounded slanders, is essential, to enable them to fulfiU the ends of
their appointment. It is, therefore, both constitutional and politic
to place their reputations under the guardianship of the courts of the
United States. They ought not to be left to the cold and reluctant
protection of State courts, always temporizing, and sometimes dis
affected." Nothing has ever been equal, perhaps, to what this
last scheme would have resulted in, except what took
place in the South during the very worst period of
reconstruction. Then the manner in which he finds
constitutional warrant for it! Broad imphcation with
a vengeance! The major premise is that an officer
of the United States cannot properly attend to his
duties unless confidence in him is preserved; whether
he deserves it or not ! The understood minor is obvious.
The conclusion is: "therefore, it is constitutional to
make the common law crime of Ubel, when United States
13

178 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OP JEFFERSON
officials are alleged to be libeUed, jurisdictionable in
the federal courts!"
Underlying all of this is the idea that it is dangerous
to the social structure for common folks to talk about
public officials!
I said above, "whether he deserves it or not," because
what are these "common law hbels" which were to be
"judged in the federal courts," when the plaintiff was
a United States official? Turn to your Blackstone and
read as follows: "It is immaterial, with respect to the
essence of a hbel, whether the matter of it be true or false,
since the provocation (to a breach of the peace) and
not the falsity, is the thing to be punished criminally."
So that, therefore, anything, true or false, which brought
into contempt or ridicule (by printing or writing or
exposing) any civil or military official of the United
States, would have been cognizable in a federal court.
A pohtical administration, which Hamilton was fond of
calhng "the government," would have had some eighty-
odd judges, which Hamilton proposed in this same
paper, to create ("at the rate of four for Connecticut"),
and, in addition to them, "federal justices of the peace
in each county" of the United States, to hunt down and
inform against " libellers " of the government. More
over, these justices of the peace would have been non-
salaried officers, who would have made their Uving by
their fees!
One of the grounds upon which Hamilton places his
recommendation of this enormous increase of the
Federal judiciary, is that it would bring with it "salu
tary patronage." It is curious, too, that in this same
paper, one reason that he gives for recommending open-

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 179
ing canals and improving waterways is, that "it will be
a useful source of influence for the government."
Hamilton, of course, did not regard these purposes as
corrupt and corrupting, but it is at least natural that
Jeffersonians did.
Judges, "at the rate of four to Connecticut," with
incidental marshals and clerks "on the side," and
United States justices of the peace at the rate of one to
a county, would have been abundant, if not "salutary"
patronage, and a wide-spread if not "useful" "source
of influence" for the Federalist "government."
Is it any wonder that the people thought that the
Federahsts were looking to two things, to wit: The
judiciary and the army, as vehicles for the overthrow
of popular hberty?
Hamilton suggests in a letter to Senator Gunn of
December 22, 1798, fifty thousand men as the right
size of the army. Fifty thousand then would mean
eight hundred and fifty thousand now, preserving the
ratio to population. The people outside the army
would have been as nearly helpless then in the defence
of their rights and liberties against fifty thousand
trained soldiers, as now they would be against eight
hundred and fifty thousand.
In a letter to Harrison Gray Otis, dated January 26,
1799, he says that he would be glad to see a law em
powering the President, if the negotiations with
Prance should not "terminate in peace by the first of
the succeeding August," to "declare that a state of
war existed" between the two countries, so that he
could use the land and naval forces of the United
States in the "most effectual way for annoying the

180 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
enemy," and then he suggests this language for the
Act: "for preventing and frustrating hostUe designs of
France, either directly or indirectly, through any of her
allies." Spain was then the helpless "ally" of France
— chained behind Napoleon's triumphal car.
Here is a request that Congress, abdicating the
power to declare war, should empower the President to
"declare that a state of war existed," not because a
state of war did actually exist, but, as a fiction of the
law! Thus anxious was he for war and an army to go
with it.
Fisher Ames, a FederaUst leader, in a reply to a
letter, in Gibb's "Memoirs," Volume 2, page 313,
says: —
"... Though you justly remark, it [meaning an army] is no
engine of the Govemment, and the civil magistrate and the process
are better ordinary means of self-defence, yet I hesitate to admit
that, therefore, the army must not be levied and reUed on. . . .
I would have in preparation the force to decide the issue in favor of
Government." Agam my reader will notice this use of the word
"Government" (not the government) when admin
istration is meant.
Who can say that if we had had war, with such a
spuit behind it and such leaders in control of it, the
American people would have "come out of it" "as free
as they were before" it occurred? Jefferson feared not
and expressed his fear. Truly one of the greatest
services John Adams ever performed for his country
was taking the bit in his teeth, while he ran away to the
Peace Goal.
Now mark this next and desperate move of the

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 181
Counter-Revolutionists. The result of the election in
New York had demonstrated that Jefferson was to
receive its electoral vote. On May 7, 1800, Hamilton
wrote an ever memorable letter to Jay, then Gov
ernor of N. Y., in which he proposed — notwithstand
ing the Repubhcan majority in the State Legislature,
the members whereof had just been elected distinctly
and by previous agreement, to choose the electors of
the State — to defeat the will of the people by a scheme,
which he proceeded to unfold. It was for the hold
over FederaUst Legislature to reverse its former action
and to have the people vote once more — this time
by districts. But let us quote a part of his own
language: —
"The calUng of the Legislature Tvill have for its object the
choosing of electors by the people in districts; tMs (as Pennsylvania
viill do nothing) wiU ensure a majority of votes in the United States
for a Federal candidate. The measure wiU not fail to be approved
by aU the Federal party; wMle it wiU, no doubt, be condemned by
the opposite. As to its intrinsic nature, it is justified by unequivocal
reasons of pubhc safety.
"The reasonable part of the world wiU, I beUeve, approve it.
They wiU see it as a proceeding out of the common course, but
warranted by the particular nature of the crisis, and the great cause
of social order."
Here is Hamilton's everlasting "crisis" recurring
again, and here is the reason given, since the world
began, by monarchs and aristocrats, for opposing
repubhcanism and refusing to abide by the result of
elections, to wit: the maintenance of "the cause of
social order."
Read this letter. It has been spoken of as "remark
able and extraordinary." It is not. It is but a normal

182 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
outcropping of a political system and an anti-demo
cratic creed, in which Hamilton was thoroughly
sincere. Honest old John Jay — amongst whose papers after
his death this letter was found by his son and biog
rapher — had endorsed upon the back of it, in his own
handwriting, these words: "Proposing a measure for
party purposes which I think it would not become me to
adopt." Hamilton's scheme in New York, taken in connection
with the scheme to which he refers to throw out the
vote of Pennsylvania, by not permitting either its
people or its Legislature to vote for Presidential electors
¦ — a scheme to be accomplished by a hold-over Feder
ahst State Senate refusing to act at aU — would have
destroyed all possibihty of Jefferson's election, and
were both desperate measures. If they had been
carried out, the chances are that the American union
would have been dismembered. At any rate, civil
war must have ensued. The South and West and the
people of New York and Pennsylvania would hardly
have submitted peaceably to this nullification of
Pennsylvania's and this partial reversal of New York's
vote. If the Union had been preserved, it would have
been preserved at the end of a war, and the Govem
ment of the United States, if the FederaUsts had won,
would have come out of that war no longer a govern
ment of delegated powers, but a Hamiltonian strong
govemment of assertedly inherent powers, whatever
its form. I do not doubt that Hamilton, thinking
himself quite a mihtary character, felt assured of
FederaUst victory. In his very boyhood he had hoped

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 183
for a war, so that he "might gain distinction" and at
every opportunity of his hfe, he displayed absolute
confidence in his military genius.
About four years after this time, Gouverneur Morris,
Hamilton's truest friend, who knew him better than
anybody, in a letter to Aaron Ogden, dated December
28, 1804, speaking of Hamilton, said: —
"He knew that Ms favorite form [of government] was inad
missible, unless as the result of civil war; and I suspect that his belief
in that, wMch he called Ms approacMng crisis, arose from a con
viction that the kind of government most suitable in Ms opimon
to tMs extensive country, could be estabhshed in no other way."
The language is that of the cool, cynical, penetrating,
observant friend of Hamilton, the man selected by his
family to pronounce his eulogy, and whose opinions, as
a rule, ran parallel with Hamilton's.
But Jefferson's great task seems done. At least the
people vote to endorse him and his gospel: "Back to the
principles of the American Revolution." But the great
task only seems finished. The Counter-Revolutionists
had had their Leipzig. They insisted upon meeting their
Waterloo. True Jefferson had been elected, and there
was no complaint that it was not by a remarkably
honest and fair vote. Yet he, and, what seems never to
have occurred to these men, the people, might yet be
cheated or bulhed out of the fruits of their victory.
Not a Democratic-Repubhcan in all the land had voted
for anybody but Jefferson to be President. Not a man,
however partisan or bitter, pretended it. But again,
"whom the gods would ruin, they first make mad."
Jefferson and Burr had received the same number of
electoral votes. This left the House to determine

184 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
between them. It had no other function. It is to
Jefferson's victory over those engaged in this mad
attempt to overthrow popular rule and "the voice of
the majority honestly expressed," that, next to our
independence and the adoption of the present Consti
tution, with its first ten amendments, our institutions
owe most for their permanency and stability and spirit.
Had this attempt succeeded, every subsequent Presi
dential election would have been an invitation to civil
war, or a submission to usurpation.
To the spectacle of what occurred attention is now
invited. Throughout all this, by the way, Gouverneur
Morris seems to have acted honestly and with a
gentlemanly appreciation of duty. What is quoted
below, he seems to have abided by.
In a letter to Hamilton, on December 19th, he
says: —
"It is supposed that Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr will have equal
votes, and various speculations are made and making on that
subject. At first it was proposed to prevent any election, and thereby
throw ths Government into the hands of a President of the Senate. It
even went so far as to cast about for the person. TMs appeared
to me a wild measure, and I endeavored to dissuade those gentlemen
from it, who mentioned it to me. The object of many is to take
Mr. Burr, and I should not be surprised if that measure were
adopted. Not meaning to enter into intrigues, I have merely
expressed the opinion, that since it was evidently the intention of
our feUow-citizens to make Mr. Jefferson their President, it seems
proper to fulfiU that intention."
None of the other FederaUst leaders, except Huger of
South Carohna, seemed to be impressed with that plain
homely truth. The Secretary of State, John Marshall,
wrote to Hamilton on January 1st that he "had not

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 185
determined" to which of the two, Jefferson or Burr,
"preference was due," but that he "could not bring
himself to aid Mr. Jefferson!"
Rutledge of South Carohna, a man of extraordinarily
high honor in ordinary affairs, wrote: "Should Mr.
Jefferson be disposed to make (as he would term it)
an improvement (and as we should deem it a sub
version) of our Constitution, the attempt would be
fatal to us." Now mark the conclusion, which shows
the character of "subversion of our Constitution" to
which Rutledge was referring: "For he [i. e., Jefferson]
would begin by democratizing the people, and end
with throwing everything into their hands!" (Italics
and exclamation are both mine.) This was such an
enormous iniquity that even an honest gentleman Uke
Rutledge wanted it prevented by defeating the known
will of the people! It shows that when once the
poisonous germ of aristocratic arrogance gets into a
man's head, it destroys all vestiges of a moral code in
affairs of State.
Fortunately for our institutions and peace, Alex
ander Hamilton feared and hated Burr, more than he
hated Jefferson.
But while trying to persuade aU his Federahst friends
— and really persuading not one — to vote for Jefferson
as against Burr, he did it on the ground that Burr
was "a CatiUne," and aU that. He exhibited neither
any motive higher than one of personal choice, nor the
sUghtest indication of a consciousness of the binding
obligation on the citizen to obey the will of the nation
honestly expressed in a democratic repubUc.
Neither then nor afterwards did he betray any

186 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
regret, or any consciousness of wrong concerning what
he had connived at in Pennsylvania, and attempted
to persuade John Jay and the FederaUst Legisla
ture to do in New York. He never once took the
position taken even by cynical Gouverneur Morris, and
much less that taken by Huger of South Carolina —
who hved and died a FederaUst, but a repubUcan —
to wit: — in Huger' s words — that "the people had
elected" Jefferson, and that "it was for them to elect
a President, and not for me," and that, therefore, he
would vote to seat him, over Burr — the only consti
tutional choice left him being between these two.
The Federahsts had their choice between three
things, either to elect Burr, or confirm the people's
election of Jefferson, or to continue the deadlock, and
thereby leave the Government without executive head.
In the last event, the plan was for the Federahst
Congress to usurp the authority of "reorganizing the
Government" by passing a law vesting the chief
magistracy in some man of its choice — John MarshaU,
Secretary of State, being apparently the favorite,
though the Speaker of the House, and the President
pro tempore of the Senate, aU three FederaUsts, were
mentioned. Jefferson very quietly, but resolutely, denied the right
of Congress to "reorganize the government," or "any
part of it"; said that no authority existed for the
purpose "save in the people themselves," and that
"they might authorize a convention to reorganize and
even amend the machine." This suggestion of a con
vention was an insuperable checkmate to the Counter-
Revolutionists.

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 187
His constant reply to everybody who approached
him was that "there were ten individuals in the House
of Representatives, any one of whom by changing his
vote" could not only reUeve the deadlock, but do the
wiU of the people. He said, that if the House of
Representatives should elect Burr, he and his party
would submit. It had a technically constitutional right
to do that, although in doing it its members would
commit substantial treason against the known will of
the American people. But if they undertook to pass a
law, to use his language, "for putting the government
into the hands of an officer," that would be clearly a
usurpation to which Americans could not submit,
and would call for a different and more virile treatment.
So, at his suggestion, he and all his friends "declared
openly," that "the day such an act passed, the Middle
States [meaning Virginia and Pennsylvania] would
arm," and "no such usurpation, even for a single day,
should be submitted to."
"This first shook them," and then they were com
pletely alarmed at "the ultimate resort" for which
Jefferson declared, to wit: "A convention to reorganize
the government and to amend the Constitution." Of
course, the convention once sitting would have un
hmited powers, subject to State ratifications. All that
was necessary was to protect it in its deliberations.
Jefferson said that "the very word convention gave
them the horrors, as in the present democratical spirit
of America, they fear they should lose some of the
favorite morsels of the Constitution." This declaration
and this "ultimate resort" is what really caUed a first
halt upon the FederaUst conspu-acy to remain in power

188 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
despite the election. Then they tried to get Jefferson
to make terms. But here too they failed. In a letter
to Momoe, of February 15th, he says: "I have declared
to them unequivocally that I would not receive the
government on capitulations, and that I would not go
into it with my hands tied."
They had pursued the usual course of enemies of
democracy and of popular hberty; they had first
contemplated a clear usurpation, and — that being
balked — they had then attempted to prevaU upon the
choice of the people, in return for office and emolument,
to prove traitor to his constituency by becoming the
condition-bound servant of the seff-asserted better
element. They thus found themselves confined to the election
of Burr, hoping from his gratitude a betrayal of his
constituents. Even to do this they must make a break in the
Democratic-Republican phalanx in the House. The
House, when voting by States, was a tie.
Jefferson's pohcy throughout was not only wise and
bold, but it was assured, unless some of his own party
deserted him for Burr. The Federahsts had not suc
ceeded in organizing their army. John Adams's "fool
peace" had balked that. The people were no longer
afraid. Two great strong States — Virginia and Penn
sylvania, strategically situated — had as executives
two quietly-determined men, Monroe and McKean,
who were mobiUzing the State forces in order to protect
the convention, which, if need were, would be caUed
by the President-elect, and to which every Repubhcan
State, and the Republican voters in the other States,

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 189
would at once send delegates, with such consequence of
a thorough democratization of the government as might
follow. At every point of the game Jefferson had the
counter-revolutionists checkmated.
In a letter to James Madison, dated February 18,
1801, he says: "The minority in the House of Repre
sentatives, after seeing the impossibiUty of electing
Burr, the certainty that a legislative usurpation would
be resisted by arms, and recourse had to a convention
to reorganize and amend the Constitution," were at
their wit's ends. Things were brought to an end for
them when "Morris, of Vermont, withdrew, which
made Lyon's vote that of his State." This was
Matthew Lyon, the Jeffersonian, who had served a jail
sentence under the Sedition Law.
This Morris was a relative — nephew, I believe — of
Gouverneur Morris, to some extent under the infiuence
of the latter, and probably in this particular act actu
ally influenced by him. All the subsequent attempts of
Bayard, of Delaware, to take the credit to himself of
what occurred, and then to tarnish that credit by
claiming that his act of withholding Delaware's vote
had been conditioned upon certain promises made by
Jefferson, through Snuth of Maryland, all of which was
denied point blank by Smith; all the claims of Hamil
ton's friends, that he ought to have the credit, are
equally baseless. Bayard quit only when the spectre
of a convention frightened him into a semi-paralyzed
halt. Hamilton did want Jefferson to beat Burr, and
in so far as that is creditable to him, he deserves
credit. The only other Federalist, besides Robert Morris and

190 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Gouverneur Morris, that deserves any credit, was Huger
of South Carolina, to whose utterance I have already
referred. At this stage Huger made an agreement with
his colleagues from South Carohna, that they would
all withdraw, and permit the delegation to vote a
blank; but it must be remembered, that even if Huger's
colleagues had not agreed to that, Morris's withdrawal,
leaving Lyon to cast the Vermont vote for Jefferson,
settled the election.
Meanwhile, the rank and file of the Federalists had
not sympathized, as a body, with this action of their
leaders. Some of them felt humiliated; some angry;
many of them went over bodily to the Republican party,
and Jefferson properly said: "This conduct of the mi
nority has done in one week what very probably could
hardly have been effected by years of mild and im
partial administration."
The full measure of the success which Jefferson had
wrought can be appreciated, when one contemplates
this contemptible scene in which the reactionary
leaders had acted their respective roles, and then
remembers, that there has never been another day to
dawn in America, when any lot of pohticians any
where — however talented, rich or respectable —
would have dared to attempt to reenact it. No party
wiU ever attempt again to set aside the undisputed
result of an honest election by the people. Such an
X-ray did this pitiable spectacle shed upon the nature
and tendencies of the counter-revolution, that two-
thirds of both Houses and three-fourths of the States,
as soon as the machinery provided by the Constitution

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 191
could move, enacted an amendment to the Consti
tution, that it might never be repeated.
This amendment constitutes one of the permanent
gains for American institutions, which may properly be
credited to Jefferson's cool and unwavering constancy,
and to the inspiration it gave to that superb, unbroken
and unbreakable phalanx of his followers in the House,
who asserted the elementary doctrine: "Let the will of
the people, honestly and constitutionally expressed,
be done." This elementary creed of repubhcs, no
single Federahst leader — except one Morris at the
last, and another Morris and Huger, from the begin
ning — seemed so much as to scent.
Bayard, of Delaware, who may be said to be the man,
who historically sang the Federahst swan song, in a
letter to Alexander Hamilton, dated March 8, 1801,
which may be found in Hamilton's "Works," Volume
6, page 524, says: "The means existed of electing Burr,
but this required his cooperation. By deceiving one
man, a great blockhead, and by tempting two, not
incorruptible, he might have secured a majority of the
States." Bayard adds an expression of his indignation
and disgust in these words: "He [Burr] will never have
another chance of being President of the United States;
and the little use, which he has made of the one which
has occurred, gives me but an humble opinion of the
talents of an unprincipled man." Nothing better
shows the spirit of the anti-Democracy. That Burr
was an unprincipled man, there can be no doubt, but
if it be true that he refused to "deceive one man" and
to corrupt two others, then there stands in history at
least something to his credit! Now, there was no man

192 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
of higher character, more respectable talent, greater
personal probity in private life than James Bayard of
Delaware; yet he uttered the words quoted. They were
the natural outcropping of a pohtical system, the
keystones of whose structure were contempt for the
"common herd," and the divine right of the self-
assumed " better element " to rule. For this world has
been plagued not only with the doctrine of the "divine
right of kings," but with this lesser, and later, doctrine,
based upon a still more insidious assumption. A Uttle
thing like deceiving a blockhead and buying two
corrupt pohticians ought not to stand in the way of
the rule of the wise and good! If given the creed, the
conduct follows.
Professor Tucker, in his "Life of Jefferson," to show
how far this awful doctrine could carry its wicked
influence, says: "General Lee, of Virginia, it was said,
was earnest in advising this desperate measure" (that
is, putting the Secretary of State in as President).
This Lee was "Light Horse Harry" of "the Legion,"
a brave soldier and a gentleman, with generations of
gentlemen's blood in his veins! Gouverneur Morris,
in a contemporaneous letter, says: "Desperate meas
ures were contemplated," and describes what the
desperate measures were — substantiaUy what Bayard
said they were.
Jefferson owed no debt of gratitude to the Federalist
leaders, and the war between him and them must go
on; but he felt quite differently towards the rank and
file of that party — the misled, and not the mis-
leaders. They had never been consciously and pre-
meditatedly monocratic. From the very first hour

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 193
of his administration the administration was fair and
even generous to them, and every possible means of
reconciling them to republican rule was used. This
spirit was fully disclosed in his inaugural address.
This inaugural address has had a permanent and
abiding influence upon the pohtical thought and the
spirit of the institutions of the American people. It
has been from the day it was spoken down to now a
"Sermon on the Mount," not alone for those who call
themselves Democratic, with a big "D," but for all
men with democratic hearts and purposes. He empha
sizes as "the vital principle of republics, from which
there is no appeal save to force " — the vital principle
of despotisms — "an absolute acquiescence in the
decisions of the majority honestly expressed." He
does not once mention the House of Representatives,
nor, except in this indirect way, criticize it. If the
reader has not read this address, I request him to read
it at once; if he has read it, let him read it over again.
However hypocritical the pretense upon the hps of
politicians may often be, no man has, since 1808,
hoped to be taken as thoroughly American, unless he
professed faith, in the long run, in the common sense
of the people, and their "essential rectitude of purpose,"
a faith which was expressed by Lincoln later in the
phrase, "You can fool some of the people all the time
and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot
fool all the people all the time;" a faith, which was
much better expressed by Jefferson in the words, "Error
is not to be feared, if reason be left free to combat it."
But even with the result, the counter-revolutionary
scheming did not cease. In answer to a letter in which
14

194 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Hamilton had raised the question of the RepubUcan
repeal of the Federal judiciary act — through whose
new and numerous judges the Federalists had hoped
still to unshape our institutions — Bayard warned him
that he. Bayard, had "had an opportunity of learning
the opinions of the Chief Justice," and that the latter
"considered the late repeahng act as operative in de
priving the judges of all power derived under the act
repealed." By the way, this sheds a side-hght on some
things. Here was Bayard, practically the Senate
leader of the Federalists, getting an "off-the-bench"
opinion from John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United
States, in advance of the presentation of a case before
the court, and while the pubhc generally would remain
in ignorance of the position, which the court would
take. I remember the fine indignation of a gentleman,
whom I once knew, the judge of a Mississippi circuit
court, when a lawyer came to him off the bench to get
his opinion concerning the unadjudicated constitution-
ahty of a State statute.
Hamilton's outUne of a so-called "Christian Con
stitutional Society," though it "died aborning" under
Bayard's discouragement, and probably the discourage
ment of others — practical men — was the last desperate
dying struggle on the part of the American Counter-
Revolution. With it ends the last readable page of this
"Suppressed Chapter of our History." Read it; it
is worth reading. It is such a curious anachronism to
have been written in America, for Americans.
While apparently intending to criticize Jefferson,
Curtis, in the following words, pays bini the highest
possible tribute: —

DEMOCRATIZER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS 195
"Jefferson intended that the new nation should be a democracy,
and he would rather have let the whole world perish than that tMs
purpose should fail. Nevertheless, he was the most absolute
monarch that ever sat in the Presidential chair. Although he
introduced the practice of discussing aU matters in Ms Cabinet and
deciding the questions of importance by vote, his powerful indi
viduaUty and persuasive reasomng controUed Ms advisers in that
official family, and in Congress. He exercised an influence in both
Houses of the National Legislature and with the people that has
never been equaUed by any of Ms predecessors. He formed a
powerful party, he directed its action, and he selected its principles,
but he never assumed the attitude of a 'boss.'"
In connection with this statement that "Jefferson led
his party," as thoroughly as "an absolute monarch,"
it may well be remarked that America has never
suffered from too much pohtical leadership. We have
not had enough of it. True, we have had too much
unofficial, unelected, irresponsible leadership, or too
many "bosses." But a man selected to lead and
leading by convincing others that he is right, by appeals
to the popular heart and head, has no followers except
volunteers, and, they even, not "for the war," but only
during his " good behavior." The reason why a genuine
democracy, oftener than a party not founded on its
principles, follows a leader, is because it is only the
head of a party with that faith, that dares or can appeal
frankly to the common-sense and common-conscience
of the masses. How can a multitude follow him, who
does not trust them, nor, at heart, recognize their
reason and rectitude of purpose, and not recognizing
them, can therefore not sympathetically appeal to them?

CHAPTER VI
THE INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON AS PRESIDENT
1. "my passion is peace"
Thkoughout Jefferson's whole administration, the
chief thing in his view was the democratization of the
Federal Government. For this, a frugal, simple
government, and peace, were absolutely necessary.
This accounts to a large extent for his peace-at-ahnost-
any-price policy.
In a letter to Noah Worcester (Massachusetts col
lection), he says^l^—
"Of my disposition to maintain peace until its condition shall
he less tolerable than war itself, the world has had proofs, and more,
perhaps, than it has approved ; ... if by the inculcations of reason
or reUgion, the perversities of our nature can be so far correctedj
as sometimes to prevent the necessity, real or supposed, of an appeal
to the bUnder scourge of war, devastation and murder, the be
nevolent endeavor of friends of peace wiU not be entirely unre-
munerated." If deeds, or lack of deeds, flowing from such a creed
be error, it is humanizing error, requiring more reso
lution and courage, than it required a hundred years
after the time, for a citizen of a compact, wealthy and
strong country, of nearly one hundred milUons of
inhabitants, unassailable by any foreign influence to
call it "infamous conduct."
If infamous, Washington's administration was "in-
196

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 197
famous" for the same reason, and that of Adams only
a little less so.
Washington submitted to the humiliation of recom
mending and signing the Jay Treaty. It required
courage to do it.
If our early history, while the government was
a-forming, had been either one of war and victory and
conquest, or one of war and defeat and desolation
and debt, a beginner can spell out for us a fate totally
different from that which we have enjoyed.
Washington and Jefferson were great, but greater in
nothing than in not permitting "the Maniacal War
Fury of Europe" to spread its contagion to America.
Washington, perhaps, deserves the more credit of the
two, because he first set the pace. However that may
be, there is "glory enough to go round," as Schley
said, and Washington's preeminence consists in this,
that without his great name, neither Jefferson as his
Secretary of State, nor any other man, amidst all the
then provocations to popular passion, could have
started us off right, as "The Great Peace Nation of
the Earth."
Few have better expressed our special reasons and
our peculiar opportunity to set an example of peace to
aU the world, than Jefferson: —
"Separated by a wide ocean from the nations of Europe, and
from the poUtical interests, wMch entangle them together, with
productions and wants which render our commerce and friendsMp
useful to them and theirs to us, it cannot be the interest of any to
assail us, nor ours to disturb them. We should be most unwise,
indeed, were we to cast away the singular blessings of the position
in which nature has placed us, the opportumty she has endowed
us with of pursuing, at a distance from foreign contentions, the

198 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
paths of industry, peace and happiness; of cultivating general
friendsMp, and of bringing collisions of interest to the umpirage of
reason rather than of force."
I Uke those last words, which I have itaUcized.
In one of his messages these words — so much too
wise for Jingoes to comprehend — occur: —
"Our duty, therefore, is to act upon tMngs as they are, and to
make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were
armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon,
we should never have been without them. Our resources would
have been exhausted on dangers, which would never have happened
instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."
It is popular to talk about our being "an unready
nation," and about how much is added to the cost of
war in Ufe and treasure by the fact that we are never
prepared for it; but those who talk thus forget the
other side of the shield. If we are to be kept always
prepared for war, then we are never prepared for the
utmost possibiUties of peace, and it is far better to
strain our backs to an extra burden, now and then, when
war is unavoidable, than it is to keep them burdened
all the time. Every dollar which goes into war prep
aration goes out of peace progress; it is subtracted
from pubhc roads, popular education, internal improve
ments, good churches, clothes or food for the people —
subtracted somewhere from industry or improvement.
The real truth is, the constant drain pre-decreases our
strength either for offensive or defensive war when it
comes. Besides; being "always ready" is an ever-present
temptation to make war wantonly. A nation thus

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 199
"fixed" is like a man with a pistol — he wants to use
it, to see if it is not rusty.
Jefferson in one of his letters, says: "I frankly
confess that my passion is peace." And in another
place he voices this utterance, by way of a subhme
paraphrase: "Let all the world pray to Heaven that at
length there may be on earth peace and good will
toward men."
In connection with the designation by Mr. Theodore
Roosevelt of the conduct of Jefferson and Madison in
"not preparing for war," as "infamous conduct,"
Mr. Tom E. Watson is very happy. What he says is
worth reading from every standpoint, and can be found
on pages 445 and 446 of his "Life of Jefferson."
Anent the Leopard-Chesapeake incident, Jefferson
wrote: —
"I had only to open my hands and let havoc loose. ... If
ever I was gratified with the possession of power and of the confi
dence of those who intrusted me with it, it was on that occasion,
when I was enabled to use both for the prevention of war, toward
which the torrent of passion was directed almost irresistibly, and
when not another person in the Umted States, less supported by
authority and popular favor, could have resisted it."
I think the best judgment wiU be that the early
Presidents acted wisely in their "Peace-at-ahnost-any-
Price" poUcy, in their avoidance of war tiU, Uke Topsy,
we were "growed up" a little. It would not be many
years before instead of accepting terms from others, we
could impose them. So convinced was Jefferson of
this that he was wary of all such treaties and agree
ments as were practically to be hoped for in his day.
This sound reasoning and sentiment occur m a letter

200 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
to his son-in-law. Jack Eppes, dated September 27,
1811: —
"I am so far, in that case, from believing that our reputation
wfll be tarnished by our not having mixed in the mad contests of
the rest of the world, that, setting aside the ravings of pepper-pot
pohticians, of whom there are enough in every age and country, I
beUeve it will place us Mgh in the scale of wisdom to have pre
served our country tranquil and prosperous during a contest wMch
prostrated the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of
every coimtry on the other side of the Atlantic. WMch of them
have better preserved their honor? Has Spain, has Portugal,
Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Prussia, Austria, the other German
powers, Sweden, Denmark, or even Russia? And would we accept
the infamy of France or England in exchange for our honest repu
tation, or the result of their enormities — despotism to the one,
and bankruptcy and prostration to the other — in exchange for
the prosperity, the freedom, and independence wMch we have
preserved safely tMough the wreck?"
There was ever present for Jefferson, and there is
ever present for the true Jeffersonian since, a broad
vision of world democracy and world peace.
Henry Adams splendidly says: —
"Jefferson aspired beyond the ambition of a nationaUty and
embraced in Ms view the whole future of man. ... He wished to
begin a new era. Hoping for a time when the world's ruling interest
would cease to be local and should become universal ... he set
himself to the task of governing with tMs golden age in view. Few
men have dared to legislate, as though eternal peace were at hand,
in a world torn by wars and convulsions and drowned in blood; but
this was what Jefferson aspired to do. . . . As he conceived a true
American poUcy; war was a blunder, an uimecessary risk; and
even in case of robbery and aggression the United States, he be
lieved, had oMy to stand on the defensive in order to obtain justice
in the end. He would not consent to build up a new nationaUty
merely to create more armies and navies, to perpetuate the crimes

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 201
and folUes of Europe. The central Govemment at WasMngton
should not be permitted to indulge in the miserable ambitions,
that had made the Old World a heU, and frustrated the hopes of
humanity." Shall we permit what Jefferson would not? Is the
spirit of peace to continue permanently, as the in-
dwelUng soul of our body poUtic?
2. "an empire for liberty"
Jefferson, the repubUcan expansionist, had been all
his Ufe looking across the Blue Ridge from the planta
tion porch towards the Western country. During the
Revolutionary war he reahzed the value of having
possession of it. A Treaty of Peace would be based
upon the principle of uti possidetis, and it was for this
reason that George Rogers Clark, whom John Randolph
of Roanoke subsequently called, in his high-flown style,
the " Hannibal of the West," was sent to take possession
of the northwestern country. Sufficient attention has
never been paid by historians to the effect of the
success of this movement upon the subsequent extent
of our national domain.
When Jefferson was Secretary of State in 1790, it
looked at one time as if Great Britain were about to
seize New Orleans. Jefferson advised President Wash
ington then, that the United States ought to go to war
to prevent it. In the same year he gave a warning to
France upon the same subject through the American
Minister at Paris, saying that such an act would be
regarded as unfriendly to the United States, and, in the
long run, "not beneficial to France." Remember this
was as early as 1790.

202 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Let us take up the story of Louisiana.
The information came to America of the cession of
Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France. In so
far as the Floridas were concerned it was error, but if
the reader will keep in his mind the fact that the news
came that way it will unravel some tangles. At once,
Mr. Jefferson wrote to Mr. Livingston, our Minister
at Paris, a letter dated April 18, 1802, which was strong
and uncompromising.
In connection with the effort that has been made in
some quarters to give an over-share of the credit of the
purchase of Louisiana to Livingston, Mr. Morse is,
at any rate, not deluded. He says in his "Life of
Jefferson": —
"Jefferson put on foot the movement for the purchase of
Louisiana. . . . But that mimster [meaning Livingston], before
he had learned the executive purpose, had unfortunately expressed
very different views of Ms own. He had told the French govern- )
ment that the Umted States cared not at aU whether their neighbor
at the mouth of the Mississippi was to be France or Spain, provided
the right of navigation and privileges of deposit should not be
interfered with. After correction, indeed, he began to discuss a, I
purchase, and in time would probably have concluded it; but
Jefferson, for many reasons, chose to send a special emissary."
Even later Livingston wrote to Madison these
words: —
"I would rather have confined our views to smaUer objects,
and I tMnk that if we succeed, it would be good poUcy to exchange
the west bank [of the Mississippi] with Spain for the Floridas,
reserving New Orleans."
To this proposition Jefferson expressed his opposition,
shrewdly believing that we would obtain Florida any-

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 203
how, when the fruit was ripe; that is, whenever Spam in
volved in war would want or need to sell; and that the
thing of chief value to us was the free and exclusive
navigation of the Mississippi, which could not weU
consist with the possession by any power of territories
upon its western bank, or even upon its western
tributaries. As late as the afternoon of April 11, 1803, Talleyrand
astounded Livingston with these words: "Does the
United States wish the whole of Louisiana?" Livings
ton replied: "No; we only want New Orleans and the
Floridas." That evening Monroe arrived in Paris.
He came with verbal instructions from the President,
and the pathway for American negotiators was
simphfied. Jefferson had said: —
"The day that France takes possession of New Orleans fixes the
sentence wMch is to restrain her forever witMn her low water
mark. It seals the imion of two nations, who in conjunction can
maintain exclusive possession of the ocean. From that moment
we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation. . . . The
first cannon, wMch shall be fired in Europe, [will be] the signal for
tearing up any settlement she may have made, and for holding
the two continents of America in sequestration for the common
purposes of the united British and American nations."
Professor Hart in his "Making the American
Nation," says: —
"Never in all Ms long and varied career did Jefferson's fox-Uke
discretion stand Mm in better stead. Instead of foUowing the
pubUc clamor, he calmly formulated a poUcy and carried it through
to a most successful termination.
"The first tMng to do was to quiet the pubhc mind; the second
was to regain the right of deposit; the tMrd was to steer a tortuous

204 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
course between France and England and to take advantage of
every possible opening to secure possession of New Orleans and
the Gulf coast, and in tMs way to put an end forever to all chances
of similar trouble in the future."
If it had been anybody but Jefferson the adjective
above would have been "wise," not "tortuous."
In the preface of a little book entitled "The Louisiana
Purchase," by Winship and Wallace, I find this lan
guage:— "Little did either France or the Umted States dream, on that
eventful last day of April, 1803, of aU that lay in the sale by the
one and the purchase by the other of the vast and unknown ter
ritory called Louisiana."
If by that is meant that not many people in France,
or in the United States dreamt all that it meant for the
future, the statement is, of course, a truism. That is
true, at the time of its happening, of almost any great
transaction; but if it is meant that the men possessing
the great guiding minds on both sides, Jefferson and
Napoleon, did not fully realize why they did what they
did, and what it all meant then and for the future, it
is a great mistake.
Napoleon knew that he had made up his mind to go
to war with England again; that, if he did, the chances
of his being able to retain Louisiana were one in ten;
that even if the United States did not stir a foot. Great
Britain, if earnestly intent upon it, could capture New
Orleans and hold it, and that holding New Orleans and
the mouths of the river, she would control the interior,
at least as against France. But he knew more than
that, for Jefferson had told him so, that the United
States, in the event of his keeping Louisiana, must

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 205
"marry themselves," to use Mr. Jefferson's language in
the negotiations, "to the British fieet and nation." He
knew that Jefferson was only waiting, until the war
broke out, for the co-operation of a British fleet, to
turn loose the land-hungry and warlike frontiersmen of
Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory to
seize the French possessions all the way down the river,
including New Orleans.
That Jefferson fuUy understood the importance of
the entire matter is indicated by his language: —
"Every eye in the United States is now fixed on the affairs of
Louisiana. Perhaps notMng since the Revolutionary War has
produced more uneasy sensations tMough the body of the nation."
And this: —
"The cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France
works most sorely on the United States. ... It completely reverses
aU the poUtical relations of the United States, and will form a new
epoch in our poUtical course. . . . There is on the globe one single
spot, the possessor of wMch is our natural and habitual enemy.
It is New Orleans, through wMch the produce of tMee-eighths of
our territory must pass to market, wMch from its fertiUty will ere
long jdeld more than half of our whole produce, and contain more
than half of our inhabitants.
"France, placing herseff in that door, assumes to us the attitude
of defiance. Spain might have retained it quietly for years. Her
pacific dispositions, her feeble state, would induce her to increase
our faciUties there, so that her possession of the place would be
hardly felt by us. And it would not be very long, perhaps, when
some circumstance might arise which might make the cession of it
to us the price of sometMng of more worth to her.
"Not so can it ever be in the hands of France; the impetuosity
of her temper, the energy and restlessness of her character, placed
in a point of eternal friction with us, and our character, wMch is as
Mgh-minded, enterprising and energetic as that of any nation on

206 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
earth, . . . render it impossible that France and the Umted States
can long continue friends, when they meet in so irritable a position.
They, as weU as we, must be bUnd if they do not see tMs; and we
must be very improvident if we do not begin to make arrangements
on that hypothesis."
As far as this particular great transaction was con
cerned, there were simply two parties to it: one,
Napoleon the Great, and the other, Jefferson, the
Seer — the see-er.
When the treaty was signed Napoleon said: "A few
Unes of a treaty restored to me the Province of Louisiana
and repaired the fault of the French negotiator, who
abandoned it in 1763. But scarce have I recovered it
when I must lose it again." (Itahcs are always mine.)
It was a case of "must," and Napoleon knew it. He
reahzed fully what he was parting with. He also saw
that, by its cession, he not only prevented a present
alhance between these two Enghsh-speaking countries,
but that he dealt a blow, which would, in the long run,
possibly count very much against his arch enemy,
England. The only reason why his prophecy about "our
humbUng Britain's pride on the ocean" has not come
to pass is that we have grown to be such a stupendous
people in resources and reserved power, that nobody
wishes to chaUenge us to a contest. If there were
the sUghtest need, we would be in command of the seas.
Jefferson began to buy Louisiana without consultmg
Congress. WeU does Mr. Bryce, in his "American
Commonwealth," say: "This was the boldest step that
a President of the United States has ever yet taken."
The committee report, which reconmiended the legis
lation appropriating $2,000,000 declared that it was

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 207
"to enable the executive to commence with more
effect a negotiation with the French and Spanish
Governments relative to the purchase from them of the
Island of Orleans and of East and West Florida."
Remember that it was at that time thought in America
that New Orleans and East and West Florida were the
lands ceded by Spain to France.
Upon the question how far Jeffersoii had in con
templation the possibility of securing all of the Louisi
ana territory, there have been many words written.
The truth seems to be that the minimum of his desire,
without which an English alliance and war must be our
recourse, was the city and island of Orleans, to which
he would have preferred these plus East and West
Florida, but that he would have preferred above all else
the purchase of everything, which Spain had ceded to
France, of the exact extent of which he was then ignorant.
Further, to sum it up, it appears that Monroe was sent
with only verbal instructions to join Livingston, ex
pressly in order that the American negotiators might be
prepared for any contingency, which might present
itself. Few men were quicker to take a hint of any descrip
tion than Napoleon the Great. No man ever hved
who saw the end of a mihtary, or naval, situation in
advance, as completely as he. A man with a very much
smaUer military insight could have foreseen that while
England remained the mistress of the seas, and the
United States of America remained the mistress of their
own land and, except for England, of their local waters,
it would be impossible for him to land a single soldier at

208 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
the mouth of the Mississippi river, or, if landed, after
wards to withdraw him.
It has been frequently said that Napoleon "by one
of his sudden impulses, changed his whole pohcy,"
and concluded to seU Louisiana. Lucien Bonaparte, in
his half-serious, half-humorous, description of the con
versation, which he and Joseph had with Napoleon,
while the latter was in the bath tub, has spread this
notion over the world.
Napoleon never acted by "sudden impulses." He
sometimes pretended to do it. You may depend upon
it that he traveled in thought all over this Louisiana
question and found himseff in a. cul de sac, with no way
out, except either the surrender of Louisiana in war, or
its sale in peace. The only way he could have kept
Louisiana was to have kept the peace. This he either
could not do, or desired not to do. Hence, the moment
he made up his mind to renew war with England, he
wanted to seU Louisiana before he declared war and
before his enemy could declare it. He even antedated
the treaty. If he could seU it and get the money in his
pocket, then he could leave England to do what she
pleased — either acquiesce, or take on a new enemy.
No great judge, or lawyer, nor any of Jefferson's
friends, agreed with him in his doubt of the Consti
tutional right to acquire territory by treaty. Indeed,
the sole contention even of the Federahsts, in their
subsequent effort to embarrass the administration was
that Congress had no power to acquire territory "to be
formed into States of the Union."
The threats of dissolution of the Union made by the
New Englanders were not based so much upon the

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 209
ground of the acquisition of the territory, as on the
declared intention of carving it up into States to be
admitted to the Union, as a part of the governing power
of the United States. The third article of the treaty of
cession contained this language: —
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shaU be incorporated
into the umon of the Umted States and admitted, as soon as possible,
according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the en
joyment of all the rights, advantages and immimities of citizens
of the Umted States."
It was when that part of the Louisiana Territory,
which we now caU the State of Louisiana, knocked at
the doors of Congress for adnussion as a State and nine
years after the purchase, that Josiah Quincy made that
noted speech, in which he said: —
"I am compeUed to declare it as my deUberate opinion, that if
tMs biU passes, the bonds of tMs Umon are virtually dissolved;
that the states, wMch compose it, are free from their moral obUga
tions; and that as it wiU be the right of ah, so it will be the duty
of some to prepare definitely for a separation; amicably, if they can;
violently, if they must."
It is rather curious, and a good deal of an impeach
ment of Mr. Jefferson's usual clearness of thought, that
he should have permitted the character of our Govern
ment with regard to domestic affairs and its character
with regard to foreign affairs to become mixed in his
mind. The States delegated to the general Government
all the power they ever possessed with regard to foreign af
fairs, consequently reserved none. All "the powers not
delegated " to the Federal Government " are reserved
to the States, and to the people," but with regard to
our relationship to foreign governments all power
15

210 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
having been delegated and, hence, none reserved, the
Federal Government has every power, except such as
may be expressly prohibited to it by the Constitution,
or, ex necessitate rei, forbidden by our dual system of
government. In other words, the Federal Government
cannot, under the pretext of international relations,
legislate by treaty upon State domestic affairs. For
example, it can not by treaty dictate to the people of
Cahf ornia the character, or management, of their pubhc
school system — not because the Federal Government
has not every power with regard to international and
foreign affairs, but because this is not an international,
nor a foreign affair.
Gallatin, Madison and all Jefferson's friends took the
position that, with regard to foreign relations, the
States were preeminently one; that the power of ac
quiring territory as a result of war, or as a means of
settling international disputes had to reside somewhere;
that as the States had delegated all power with regard
to international relations, it must reside in the Federal
Government; that, in conferring the treaty-making
power, the fact that it had been conferred without any
limitation prohibiting the acquisition of territory, was
itself eloquent in behalf of their contention; that,
although the treaty-making power could not amend,
nor alter the Constitution of the United States, nor
change our dual system of State and Federal Govern
ments, nor deprive any citizen of his protection under
the constitutional biU of rights, nor do any other thing
forbidden by the Constitution, it was yet unlunited, in
the sense, that anything, not prohibited to the whole
Federal Government, nor expressly and exclusively

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 211
vested in some other branch of it, could be done by it
under the treaty-making power. Not only had the
States expressly delegated all the treaty-making power
to the Federal Government, but that there might be no
doubt about the fact that it was a complete and ex
clusive delegation of a fuU power, without residuum,
they, in another clause of the Constitution, expressly
prohibited to themselves all power to enter into leagues,
or treaties.
The position, however, which was taken by Madison,
GaUatin and others, is totally different from that taken
by a later administration with regard to the Philippines
and Porto Rico. It was never contemplated by any
of the men of that party, which added two-thirds of
our domain to the Union, that any part of it, after
acquisition, could be indefinitely governed in abso
lutism, as conquered territory. True, it was contended,
that in "a period of transition" between the moment of
the "cession" and the moment of the "incorporation,
according to the principles of our Constitution," the
territory must be governed by Congress; and that in the
interval between the cession and the date at which even
a territorial government could be set on its feet, some
government, de facto, must exist.
This mistake of Mr. Jefferson's is all the more pecuUar
because it stands in its class alone. In every other
respect, he seems to have appreciated fully, that, with
regard to foreign affairs, the United States Government
had plenary power, except in so far as Constitutional
prohibitions and the very nature of our dual government
constituted a limitation. In one sense, of course, no
government, under the American theory, has absolutely

212 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
plenary power, not even a State government — even
over matters of internal poUce. All American govern
ments are limited by express prohibitions in State or
Federal Constitutions. The Federal Government m
regard to foreign relations is thus hmited; but not by
the operation of the reservation clause. The limitations
on it, with regard to foreign affairs, are like the limita
tion upon State governments, with regard to domestic
affairs. Mr. Jefferson himself, in another place, said,
that the powers of the Federal Govemment were divided
into two classes, foreign and domestic, and used this
language: "The States are independent as to everything
within themselves, and united as to everything respecting
foreign nations." Long prior to that, he had written
from Paris, when we were about to form the new
Constitution, that this was the principle upon which it
should be framed.
The recent Porto Rican and Phihppine cases are not
to be reconcUed either with previous decisions, with one
another, or with themselves. The De Lima case
partiaUy announces the old and theretofore accepted
doctrine; the Downes case crawls out from under it.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Cross vs. Harrison
decided that, after the ratification of the treaty of
Guadaloupe Hidalgo, Cahfornia became a part of the
United States, and a bare majority of the Court recently
in the Downes case decided that, after the ratification
of another treaty, Porto Rico did not become a part of
the Urn ted States! The Court in the former case
said that California "became instantly bound and
privileged by the laws which Congress had passed to
raise a revenue from imports and tonnage "

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 213
Justice Brown in the latter case declared that neither
the Constitution nor the revenue laws extended over the
island ex propria vigore, and not until Congress said so; in
other words, that the Constitution of the United States
— the fundamental voice of the people — prescribed
and announced to control all functionaries created by it
and subject to change only in the way designated in the
body of it — is an overcoat, to be put on, or removed,
by Congress to suit the weather at Washington.
The idea in the Chief Justice's mind seems to be,
that the old overcoat is not big enough, or otherwise
does not fit, and that if the attempt is made to cover
with it not only "contiguous territory," but "distant
possessions," there is great danger of spht ting it!
Quite true, too.
I am old-fashioned enough, however, or, as I would
rather express it, have laic common sense enough, to
believe that, if it is found that we cannot govern certain
"distant possessions," with "alien populations" in
accordance with the Constitution of the United States
(subject to which every possible functionary of the
Federal Government everywhere must act), that one
of three things ought to follow: either — warned by
the fact — we ought not to annex them, or, having
annexed them, we ought, under just and safe provision,
to let them go, or else an amendment to the Consti
tution giving the powers necessary, in the cases desig
nated, should be asked. Queer idea this, that "the
court should make concessions!"
Justice Harlan, in his dissenting opinion, rises to the
height of eloquent statesmanship. He announces that
every branch of the Federal Government is "tethered

214 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
by the Constitution," and that this is a government,
which has no power, either at home or abroad, in the
Territories, or in the States, or in "appurtenances" or
"appendages," or anywhere else, "except such power
as is derived from the Constitution," and that "inter
national law has not been so incorporated into our insti
tutions," as that "an agreement with a foreign nation
can change, alter, or amend the Constitution."
I haven't time to go into all this, but I wish the
student would read the second chapter of Sidney
Webster's little book, "The Two Treaties of Paris,"
where the whole thing is set forth in its miraculous
incomprehensibility, and its full enormity.
Upon this question it is well to quote in this con
nection an excerpt from a letter written by Gouverneur
Morris on December 4, 1803. It will be remembered
that he was the chairman of the Committee on Style in
the Constitutional Convention, and, therefore, the
formal draftsman of the Constitution: —
"I always thought that when we should acquire Canada and
Louisiana, it would be proper to govern them as provinces and aUow
them no voice in our councils. In wording the tMrd section of
the fourth article I went as far as circumstances would permit me
to estabUsh the exclusion. Candor obUges me to add my beUef,
that, had it been more pointedly expressed, a strong opposition
would have been made."
This note shows that in Morris's opinion there was no
doubt of the contemplation by the framers of the Con
stitution, at the very time of its adoption, of possible
acquisition of foreign territory; Canada and even
Louisiana, being in remote contemplation. It shows,
moreover, that he himself, although in favor of govern-

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 215
ing such territory merely "as provinces," was afraid
to let this latter idea be known to the Constitutional
Convention. In fact, under the Continental Congress,
previous to the time of the adoption of the present
Constitution, and at the time of its adoption, the Ameri
can people had in view the possibihty that at some
time the British American Provinces might want to be
admitted into the Union. The hope has only recently
disappeared since the British Canadian Provinces have
developed into a great, prosperous, free and self-
governing dominion, and have become perfectly recon
ciled, under their substantial autonomy, to the nominal
rule of the mother country.
Professor Hart says that, "Diplomatically, Jefferson,
Livingston and Madison had achieved nothing; Louisi
ana had been thrown into their hands through no efforts
of theirs." This is not a just thing to have written. It
is true, they first thought all we could get was the city
and so-caUed island at the mouth of the Mississippi,
and, perhaps. West Florida, and began negotiating for
that. But, if we could have purchased nothing but
the Island of Orleans, including the City of New
Orleans, stiU the upper part of the Louisiana Territory
must necessarily !have faUen into our hands. The
French would have had no way of getting to it, or
defending it, from the south except by our permission,
or from the north except by England's permission.
Talleyrand was right, when he said to Livingston that
"without New Orleans, Louisiana itself would be of no
use to France."
By the acquisition of Louisiana, these great aims were
attained: The exclusive navigation of the Mississippi,

216 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
making it the great commercial artery of the country
and an unshackled outlet for our produce; a vast
territory, fitted by soil and climate for home-making for
the sons and daughters of the Republic, became their
heritage; potentially, and, in fact, almost immediately
there accrued a large increase of the annual revenues;
it effected the removal of possible enemies from im
mediate contiguity, minimizing the occasions for wars;
it gave a guarantee of an extension of field for the
development of American institutions, individual free
dom, and democratic laws. As Jefferson expressed it,
it gave us "a new empire for liberty," which, "with our
old," constituted such a domain, "as she had never
witnessed." Senator Hoar said he never thought of Jefferson
without seeing him "with the Declaration of Independ
ence in one hand and the Louisiana treaty in the other."
Curtis says: "It seems inexphcable that Jefferson
did not include in his epitaph his acquisition of the
Louisiana Territory." In this he shows a complete
lack of comprehension of the character of the man.
Nothing in the way of mere material acquisition was to
a mind Uke Jefferson's a primary, or an eternal thing.
To such a mind, acquisition of territory might be a
means and very valuable, but not an end. Men are
not made free, or happy, because of the area of the
country in which they live. Territorial acquisition is a
secondary and not a primary thing in the poUtical phi
losophy of a man Uke Jefferson — good only, if it
extend "an empire for liberty." The acquisition of
Louisiana was not "the greatest benefit that Jefferson
ever conferred upon his country." The Jeffersonian

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 217
spirit was. This Jeffersonian spirit was permanently
embodied in our institutions, simultaneously with the
defeat of the Counter-Revolution.
Curtis declares that Jefferson was not the originator
of the project of acquu-ing Louisiana, and says that as
far back as the Revolution, the necessity of controlling
the mouth of the Mississippi and its navigation had
become apparent to many minds. In the same way,
he might deprive Lincoln of the credit of emancipation,
because as far back as the Revolution, and, indeed,
prior to it, the idea that the temple of democracy would
be more symmetrical and more enduring, if slavery
were abohshed, had "been apparent" to very many
other minds also, to Jefferson's among others. Christ
opher Columbus was not the first man to dream of
lands to the West, but he was the first man who "got
there." The expansion advocated and effected by Jefferson
and that advocated and effected by McKinley and the
negotiators of the second Treaty of Paris cannot be
compared. They must, in all respects, be contrasted.
Jefferson annexed to the American domain vast areas
of unpeopled lands, contiguous to American territory,
the possession of which was essential to American de
fence, and which were fit for home-making by the sons
and daughters of the American Repubhc.
McKinley annexed distant possessions, densely popu
lated, destined at no time to become parts of the
governing American people, and incapable of becoming
so, without poisoning our body-pohtic by the infil
tration of alien and unassimilable blood, and requiring
an increased naval and miUtary force to hold them.

218 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
In the treaty bringing to us the Louisiana Territory,
the United States stipulated that the inhabitants
should be governed "according to the principles of our
Constitution," and should, "as soon as possible,"
consistently with those principles, "be incorporated into
the Union." Although the inhabitants of the ceded
territory did not become immediately a part of the
governing United States, they knew and were assured
from the beginning that such was their destiny, and
they secured in advance, as soon as territorial govern
ment could be organized, the fuU individual protection
of every article of the Federal Constitution.
On the contrary, the second Treaty of Paris, which
brought to us the Phihppines, contained the language
that "the civil rights and political status of the native
inhabitants of the territory hereby ceded to the United
States should be determined by Congress." Instead
therefore of the inhabitants obtaining the nationaUty
of citizens of the United States, they obtained that of
Porto Ricans and Filipinos.
When Congress passed its first act for the government
of Louisiana, it is true that it vested in persons to be
appointed by the President all powers of government,
but it was with this ever-memorable limitation upon the
character of those powers and the exercise of them;
that they were to be exercised "for maintaining and
protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free
enjoyment of their hberty, property and religion."
Sidney Webster, in his "Two Treaties of Paris and
The Supreme Court," says: —
"Congress thereby enacted, in effect, that the former Spanish
and French laws — excepting always, and of course, those for-

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 219
bidden by our Constitution — should be the laws of the new ac
quisition till Congress make others. Jefferson was commanded to
supervise the execution of the enactment."
Under the new dispensation, the Spooner Amend
ment of March, 1901, is very much broader. The
language of it is: "AU mihtary, civil and judicial
powers, necessary to govern the Philippines, shaU be
vested in such person and persons, to be appointed by
the President, and to be exercised in such manner as
the President shaU direct." "It contains no limitations
at all upon the governing powers of the President's
appointees, except his direction," and no limitation
upon him, except that the "powers" shaU "be necessary
to govern the PhUippines." The language of the
enactment in Jefferson's time might have been repeated.
It was purposely not repeated.
The cardinal difference is that the Spooner Amend
ment did not recognize (in fact, those who voted for it
denied), that the inhabitants of the Phihppines, or of
Porto Rico, received, by the fact of their coming under
the American flag and becoming subject to American
sovereignty, any Constitutional protection whatsoever.
Indeed the advocates of the McKinley species of
"dependency" and "appur tenancy" government were
much disturbed by the opinion long before given by
John Marshall in the case of Loughborough vs. Blake,
to the effect that the phrase "throughout the United
States," "designated our great repubhc, composed of
States and Territories." The course pursued by the
United States, with regard to the Louisiana Territory,
under the treaty with France, and that with regard to
the Florida Territory, under the treaty with Spain in

220 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
1819, and that with regard to the territory acquired
from Mexico, as a result of the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, were essentially the same, although the lan
guage of the treaties differed somewhat. But in every
instance the intent and purpose and promise — the
only purpose consistent with American institutional
and constitutional ideas — was preserved, to wit: That
the people of the acquired territory should not be
indefinitely governed in absolutism without their own
consent, but should at some time become a part of the
governing United States.
Pitt the elder — Earl of Chatham — the "Empire
Builder," in a speech in Parhament, once said: —
"From all the Mstory of the European world since the later
days of the Roman RepubUc, there is no more important lesson to
be learned than tMs, — that it is impossible for a free people to
govern a dependent people despotically, without endangering its
own freedom."
I have always been endeared to this utterance and it
has been the guiding star of my own walk from the mo
ment that the United States undertook to "go a' world-
powering" with purposes of "benevolent assimilation"
in the Phihppine Archipelago for a pretext.
It was in January, 1802, that Jefferson sent his
message to Congress proposing the exploration of the
Western country to the Pacific Ocean. This resulted
in the Clark and Lewis exploration, which gave us our
firmest basis for claim of title to the Oregon country.
It wUl be noted that this was before the cession of
Louisiana and not afterwards. Nor was the exploration
to be confined to the Louisiana territory. As a matter
of fact, it went far beyond it, to the Pacific Ocean.

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 221
Thus Thomas Jefferson not only gave us Louisiana
by purchase, but gave us the claim, by exploration and
discovery, to the Oregon country, which carried our
boundary to the Pacific and made us truly Continental.
Jefferson's vision was broad. He saw, as no other
man of his time saw, the importance of adding to the
territory of the United States contiguous lands fit for
homes for the sons and daughters of the people and for
European immigrants. He saw its importance as a
I safety valve sociaUy and politically, for us and for the
white race in Europe, and its importance as a part of
his great Peace Pohcy. It is not strange, therefore,
that the annexation of Louisiana was not the limit of
his endeavor, but that during his entire administration
he was engaged in attempting to secure the Floridas by
negotiation and purchase. Had it not been for John
Randolph's venom in delaying Congressional action,
until it was too late, we probably would have secured
Florida under his administration by a process as peace
ful and noiseless, as the one by which he had secured
Louisiana. At least General Armstrong, our Minister
at Paris, thought and said so.
Even in his retirement at MonticeUo, he was still
thinking of the expansion of our domain, and in one of
his letters to the President, April 27, 1809, he discloses
what his limit as an expansionist was: The Continent
with Canada plus Cuba and there a stone to be set up
inscribed "ne plus ultra."
Of course he then thought the Canadians would be
more than willing.
StiU, the thing desired by him is never mere domain —
mere dirt; — it is "an empire for Uberty"! That is

222 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Jeffersonian-democratic-expansion. If there be any
spot over which expansion does not give more room for
Uberty, let us none of it. There, the very ah: stams our
flag. There were many, who apprehended menace to our
institutions from the magnitude of our territory. In
this coimection, read Jefferson's language in his second
inaugural address: —
" I know that the acquisition of Louisiana has been disapproved
of by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our
territory would endanger its Umon. But who can Umit the extent
to wMch the federative principle may operate effectively? The
larger our associations, the less it wiU be shaken by local passions."
The foUowing expression occurs in a letter to De
Marbois: —
"Contrary to the principal of Montesquieu, it wiU be seen that
the larger the extent of a country the more firm its RepubUcan
stracture, if founded not on conquest, but in principles of compact
and equahty."
That is, of course, under a Federal system.
He held that possessing the West would hold the
Union together, cementing the North and South more
nearly together, because it would be inhabited by the
children of both. It has had that effect. Even
Missouri and Kentucky, though slave States, failed to
secede. Indiana and IlUnois, settled mainly by South
erners, sent their sons to the front to maintain the
Union. It is not too much to say that the chief material
consideration actuating them was a desire to preserve
the free navigation of the Mississippi River; to permit
it to "flow free and unfretted to the sea." Without

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 223
the weight of the Middle West in the scale, we of the
South would have won our independence with ease.
I do not think the wise student of history will doubt
the proposition, that even if the Southern States had
succeeded in maintaining a separate and independent
confederacy, another war would before long have been
necessary to settle disputes between the Northern and
Southern Confederacies, growing out of the navigation
of the Ohio, and Mississippi — certainly if the South
had asserted the sole right of navigation of the lower
Mississippi, which, from the very nature of things, it
probably would have done.
Jefferson had drawn up in 1784 the draft, whose pro
vision — estabhshing our pohcy of holding our terri
tories under self-governing Congressional guardianship,
while being educated for statehood — was later em
bodied in the ordinance for the government of the
Northwest Territory. This great provision riveted on
our institutions forever that pohcy, of governing
territories — whether old or newly acquired — which
we pursued to the end of the Spanish War. Out of the
Louisiana Territory were carved twelve great States.
When, later, territory was acquired as a result of the
Mexican War, the question as to the relationship it
and States already in the Union held to one another
was so well settled, that it was not even questioned,
and out of that territory other States were carved.
Jefferson was right; it is hard, if not impossible, to
conceive of any limit to the area of country, which
can be governed under a Federal model, provided: first,
that the Central government leave the federated states
fuU self-government in domestic affairs, and second,

224 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
that the Federal government itself have power to tax
individuals and strength to defend the self-governing
states from all foreign foes, and third, that the popu
lations of the states be homogeneous in language,
race, and love of hberty. When I say homogeneous in
race, I mean that aU shall be of the white or Caucasian
race. It seems to us right odd now to imagine a Federal
Repubhc of Anglo-Saxony composed of England, Scot
land, Wales and Ireland, and the several self-governing,
Enghsh-speaking British Colonies, Quebec, Ontario,
New Zealand, etc., and the several American States,
each a sovereign state in the Federal Union. This
sort of thing did not seem so strange in our early
colonial history to Englishmen and some Americans.
Fiske, in his "American Revolution," says truthfully
that in England such a scheme was favorably re
garded by Adam Smith, and in America by James Otis
and Benjamin Frankhn. He might have added that
Pitt the elder had something Uke it in his head. It
may be, at some time in the remote future, that such a
scheme may yet evolve itself; minus a King, minus a
Federal House of Lords, minus an Estabhshed National
Church — in short with substantially an American
Federal Repubhcan Constitution — perhaps with a re
sponsible British Mmistry, and responsible opposition
system — constituting real parhamentary govern
ment, quickly responsive to election returns — which
we unfortunately do not now have, as a new graft
on our system. If so, there would never be another
war on the high seas, and navies would be needed
chiefly to do ocean pohce service. Qui sail?

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 225
3. JEFFERSONIAN SIMPLICITY
Jeffersonian simphcity grew out of the idea that
officials are public servants and should be accessible to
the citizen; that there should be no oriental mystery
about republican office holders — who are to be of the
people in, as well as out of, office.
Parton wrote an article, entitled "Jefferson's Return
from France in 1789," which appeared in the November
number of the Atlantic Monthly of the year 1872.
He says that while in France as Ambassador, Jeffer
son's "family soup," as he himseff called it, played a
great part: "He lived in the easy, hberal style of
Virginia, that harmonized as well with the humor of the
time, as with his own character and habits." It was
this easy, hberal style of Virginia that Jefferson hoped
afterwards to make permanent in the White House.
When Jefferson reached New York on March 21,
1790, if he read the Gazette of the United States, pub
hshed the day before, he was probably not a Uttle
astonished to find what follows: —
"There must be some adventitious properties infused into the
government to give it energy and spirit, or the selfish, turbulent
passions of men can never be controlled. This has occasioned that
artificial splendor and dignity, that are to be found in the courts
of so many nations. Some admiration and respect must be excited
towards public officers, by their holding a real or supposed superiority
over the mass of the people. . . . Avarice and ambition increase
with population; and in a large, opulent community the dazzUng
appendages and pompous formaUties of courts are introduced to
form a balance to the increasing ardor of the selfish passions, and
to check that ascendancy wMch aspiring individuals would other
wise gain over the pubhc peace and authority."
16

226 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
When this same paper gave an account of the arrival
of Mrs. Washington in New York on May 30, 1789, the
attempt to imitate "British Court society" entries
was almost childlike in its simphcity. There were
noticed as present "Lady Sterhng," "Lady Mary Watts,"
"Lady Kitty Duer," besides Lady Washington, etc.
When the President attended his birthday baUs —
themselves imitations of the Court of St. James — "a
platform was reared at one end of the ballroom, a sort
of dais, and upon this was a sofa," where dear, plain old
George Washington of Mount Vernon plantation was
persuaded to sit "rechned" with his "consort"!
This foolish movement — looking towards the estab-
Ushment of pomps and ceremonies, cavalcadings, forms
and friUs of office in America, meant under the surface
much more then than we are inchned to think now.
The Senate wanted to call the President: "His High
ness, George Washington, President of the United States
and Protector of their hberties." The House very
wisely resolved that he should be called simply "George
Washington, President of the United States," and Jef
ferson very keenly sympathized with the action of the
House. This, in the view of his enemies, is his first
display of "disloyalty" to George Washington, and a
betrayal of "French influence"; but the Presidents
have ever since then been caUed plainly, "Mr. Presi
dent," and no harm has come of it. Mr. Jefferson
himseff enjoys the rare distinction of having been
generally called simply Mr. Jefferson. He wrote to
Madison on August 28th and said : —
"In every instance, the new govemment has ushered itself into
the world as honest, masculine, and dignified. It has shown

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 227
genuine digmty, in my opinion, in exploding adulatory titles; they
are' the offerings of abject baseness, and nourish that degrading vice
in the people."
I have thought that one of the exquisitely humorous
things in our history proceeded from Senator Grayson,
of Virginia, when, the Senators, being in a state of
worry about proper titles to be given our high officials,
he suggested that the President should be called
"His Limpid Highness," and more exquisitely still,
that the Vice-President should be caUed "His Super
fluous Excellency"!
Washington wore a sword at his inauguration and at
his receptions, and carried a cocked hat in his hand, so
that nobody could feel encouraged to shake hands. It
is needless to say that shaking hands was then, as now,
the American way of expressing both cordiahty and
equality of intercourse. It looks childish now that men
should have quarreled about these things, but it was
not unreasonable that those who wanted to democratize
American institutions in that day should have regarded
them with suspicion. "Give a fool an inch and he
wiU take an eU." Especially a "sas-si-e-ty" fool. The
democrats knew that; and they knew the weight which
would be carried in the popular imagination by con
ventional ceremonies, if they became stereotyped.
Jefferson knew, as Napoleon did, that "the world is
governed by imagination." The latter knew that
repubhcan simplicity must be sacrificed, ff he was to
be a real emperor; the former that it must be retained,
if we were to have a real democracy. "Jeffersonian
simphcity" consisted in divorcing officialdom from
forms, ceremonies, and assumptions of superiority.

228 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
and in abohshing "mysteries" of administration.
Hence, when Secretary of State, he continued, on the
social side of his hfe, his "family soups," and on the
official side, introduced in the State Department that
admirable simphcity and directness, which has con
tributed so immensely to our weight and influence in
intercourse with other nations.
When he resigned the office of Secretary of State and
left Philadelphia, he and Washington were on the frank
and friendly terms that Virginia country gentlemen and
neighbors love best to stand upon. Some of his enemies
have attempted to attack the sincerity of his professions
of attachment to the President, expressed in contem
poraneous letters to his friends, and in his daily conver
sations, by calUng attention to entries in other letters
and in his Ana making fun of certain fooUsh forms
and ceremonies, throne elevations, sword-by-side and
cocked-hat-under-arm receptions, etc. I do not think
any impartial man could doubt my sincerity of attach
ment to another, because I did not see fit to revere his
forms and ceremonies — in this particular case, forms
and ceremonies, which even St. Beuve stamps as part
of a "frinesie quasi monarchique."
Earher in his hfe, when about to take his seat as
Vice-President, Jefferson had illustrated his dislike of
pubUc scenes. He wrote to Senator Taswell of Vir
ginia, saying that he had heard that on the former
elections of President and Vice-President, "gentlemen
of considerable office were sent to notify the parties
chosen," and expressed the hope that in his case "the
Senate would adopt that form of notification which
would always be least troublesome and most certain, "
the post office.

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 229
Mr. Tucker records that so consistent was Jefferson
in his dishke of empty titles, that his visiting cards
never contained anything else except the words
"Thomas Jefferson," no matter what office he was
holding. He announced in substance, when he became Presi
dent, that he would receive people at the White House
just as he would receive them at MonticeUo — just
as a man of good breeding may receive them any
where — on the twin principles of absolute "equahty
among guests," and above all, of "place aux dames."
He attempted to introduce republican simpUcity
into the official hfe of Washington. There was found
among his papers at his death one marked, "Etiquette,"
worth reading, I think, both because it is curious and
because it is in the main sound. This had been com
municated to his Cabinet, and formed the rule of con
duct of his administration.
No administration since Jefferson came in has dared
to depart from the precedent of simphcity, which he
set in sending a written message to Congress, to which
no reply was expected. None has ever dared to
attempt to restore the "speeches from the throne"
made by Washington and Adams. Presidents now
shake hands at receptions with their guests, as Jefferson
did, and do not stand up "girded with the sword of
State," with cocked hats under their arms, as snobs
persuaded honest, modest, noble George Washington
to do. Presidents now, with their wives, "stand upon
the level" at White House receptions, and not on "a
raised dais." "Sassiety" did not conquer as long as
Jefferson himself was at the hehn. It made up its

230 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
mind that he should not do away with levees, so its
pretty and fashionable women gathered themselves
together — and went, upon one of the regular levee
days, to the White House, with a view of forcing the
President's hand — he being known to be a pohte man,
and especially poUte to the ladies. They found, how
ever, that the wise old fox had gone horseback riding.
They determined to await his return. The Master of
Monticello came back, riding boots on, somewhat soUed
with dust, and politely desirous "not to keep them
waiting," came in just as he was. He fulsomely ex
pressed his deUght and surprise to find them there' —
his happiness in the contemplation of the "coincidence"
of their presence and his return ! He greeted everybody
kindly, and as each made motion to go, he urged each
further to remain. The women could not help heartily
laughing at themselves, and never attempted to repeat
the performance. They came to capture or to ridicule.
They left captured or feeling ridiculed.
The Repubhcans were more rejoiced at Jefferson's
abohtion of pomp, ceremonies, parade, and cavalcades,
than they were in consequence of many other more
important things. The FederaUsts viewed what they
caUed "a Jacobin wreck" with alarm and despair!
Little things that seem to us now, with the glamor of
the past about them, interesting, if not beautiful,
meant more then than they would mean now, and would
have grown, by now, to mean more than they did then.
Adams, unfortunately, did not see what Jefferson did,
that George Washington constituted a whole class by
himseff. In a chapter headed "Jeffersonian SimpUcity,"

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 231
evidently put in quotation marks with a view of
ridicuhng the subject matter and Jefferson, Curtis
opens: "The inauguration of Jefferson as President of
the United States was attended with as much pomp and
ceremony as the conditions would permit." I submit
that this is beneath the dignity of history. If the state
ment had been true, it would not have made much
difference; but it is not true. Jefferson carefully
eschewed all pomp and ceremony, and did it for a
purpose — the purpose of demoUshing the "frenesie
quasi monarchique." He walked from his boarding
house, which was on New Jersey Avenue- north, and
not far from the Capitol, and a few friends, among them
some Senators and Representatives, accompanied him
to the Senate room to be sworn in. It is idle to say
that he could not have ridden in his own coach, sent
up from Monticello, or in any sort of a state coach he
might have fancied to have built. It is equally idle
to say that he could not have had a thousand men on
horseback, if he had wanted them.
Curtis very properly exposes the story of Jefferson's
going to the Capitol on horseback, and "tying his horse
to the fence." This was not true for three reasons, first,
because the distance was too short to make it necessary
to have his horse, and, secondly, because from the best
information I can get there was no fence there at that
time, and third because a good horseman — and Jeffer
son was about the best — would not hitch his horse to
a fence, if he could find a swinging limb, or even a
hitching post under a shed.
After Jefferson had taken the oath, he went back to
his boarding house, taking his old seat, and dechning

232 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
amid laughing protest to go to the head of the table.
He stayed there several days before he went to Monti
ceUo. He rode meantime freely and unattended around
Washington. Afterwards, when President, if he wanted
to see a Senator or a Member of Congress, he rode up
to the Capitol and saw him — hitching his horse under
one of the construction sheds on the uncompleted House
wing side of the Capitol; hence, perhaps by confusion,
the horse was given him at the inauguration.
Jeffersonian simphcity was a real thing and not a
thing to be put in quotation marks.
His "democratic simphcity," as Curtis calls it, was
not "affectation," as he stigmatizes it. Jefferson was
trying to teach a useful lesson to office holders in a
Repubhc — to show that a plain man, who was elected
President had nothing to do except to go on being just
what he had been — a plain man — a man, "for a'
that." It was the very contrary of affectation. He
saw no reason why he should "affect" something new
to him and therefore unnatural, just because he had
been elected President. The people had'nt sent him
to Washington to "put on airs."
It is said that his conduct was affected and insincere,
because when Minister to France he had "Uved in
great elegance," and "knew better than any man in
America, perhaps, the habits of European courts."
It was for that very reason, that he recurred to simple
habits, and it proves no inconsistency. Every man of
common sense "when in Rome does as Rome does,"
and when Jefferson was Minister to France, he, of
course, was not rustic enough not to comply, upon state
occasions, with Parisian court customs.

ESTFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 233
When ht was President of these United States, he
was the court !
It would have been just as absurd for Mm to have
permitted his conduct, as chief magistrate in America,
to be guided by the usages of the court of France, as
to have permitted his conduct in France to be guided
by "the common usages of American gentlemen."
Curtis says that "He abandoned the courtly deport
ment for which he had previously been noted, and
adopted manners that were offensive to people of refined
taste." If by "courtly deportment" is meant courtesy
and genial good breeding, he never abandoned it. The
manners which he carried into the White House, being
the manners of "Monticello" and "Gunston HaU"
and "Brandon" and "Mount Vernon" and "Rose-
mont," were not offensive, and could not have been
offensive to anybody, except snobs.
Possibly Jefferson intended that they should be offensive
to them. Perhaps, he was not entirely without intent
to rebuke the tinsel Federalist "Upper-Ten," which
had grown to imagine that it ruled the roast in Washing
ton. Curtis got his ideas from reading the letters
written by the left-over Federahsts in Washington —
men and women — who were trying to decry democ
racy, and render it ridiculous and offensive. Some
of these criticisms were brought to Jefferson's ears, and
had the effect only of making him emphasize what he
was already doing, and maybe sometimes over-empha
size it. Under his administration, the White House
was open to all comers under the same conditions as
his house on "Little Mountain" had been and would be
later — subject to the master of the house not being

234 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
engaged and the guest behaving decently. Although
his receiving a British Ambassador "in shppers run
down at the heels" was certainly too careless, it was,
after aU, a small matter, and I don't see yet why so
much noise was made about it. Jefferson was Jefferson
and President of the United States, whether he was in
boots, shoes or shppers, and provided he was pohte and
courteous to the Ambassador, it was none of the
Ambassador's business how he was dressed — if only
within statutory limits, and certainly not a state affair.
As President, he himseff at pubhc functions asserted
no precedence over governors of States, nor, for that
matter, over anybody else who happened to be present.
A governor having once written him to know what the
etiquette would be when they should meet, he rephed:
"My dear Sir, there wiU be no etiquette." The
President's residence was no longer called "The
Palace." Unfortunately, these troublesome, expensive in
augural processions that Jefferson thought to do away
with, have gradually come back to plague us! It is
to be hoped that some strong, wise man on being elected
President will do away with them. They do no good
and result generally in several deaths from pneumonia
caused by exposure to the weather. They are, at best,
an "idle foohsh parade" — a weak imitation of
"coronation" proceedings — resulting in nothing of
any benefit to anybody, except a temporary increase of
revenues to Washington hotels and boarding-houses
and saloon keepers and street cars.
Jefferson did not want the image of a President
impressed on the coinage. He did not want birthdays

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 235
celebrated, and never would permit his own to be
celebrated, where he could help it.
He seemed to be afraid of the effects of hero-worship
of any description. It is the great danger of a democ
racy. It will remain so until the end of time. Men
ought to be taught more and more to reverence laws
and institutions and less and less to reverence offices
and men.
I shaU quote from page 122 of Merwin's "Thomas
Jefferson": —
"The ascendancy of Jefferson and the RepubUcan party pro
duced a great change in the government and in national feeUng, but
it was a change, the most important part of wMch was intangible,
and is therefore hard to describe. It was such a change as takes
place in the career of an individual when he shakes off some con
trolhng force, and sets up in Ufe for Mmself. The common people
felt an independence, a pride, an elan, wMch sent a tMiU of vigor
through every department of industry and adventure.
"The simplicity of the forms which President Jefferson adopted
were a symbol to the national imagination of the change which had
taken place. . . ."
Now for substantial results of Jeffersonian simpUcity
in the public business. There must be, to use the words
of his Inaugural Address, "a wise and frugal govern
ment." It behooved him first then to simphfy our
bookkeeping and to unmystify our finances — to render
aU plain of comprehension to the people. It was their
right, because it was their money. Let us then instruct
our Secretary of the Treasury.
Jefferson's letter to Gallatin, of April 1, 1801, inaugu
rating this reformation, is condensed by Professor
Tucker as follows: —

236 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OP JEFFERSON
"On the 1st of April, 1801, Mr. Jefferson addressed a letter to
him on tMs subject, in wMch, after approving the secretary's plan
of having one aggregate fund from wMch every thing was to be paid,
he further suggests that aU the money in the treasury should form
a consoUdated mass, from wMch the whole expenditure should be
paid, and should have preference in the foUowing order — 1. The
interest of the pubUc debt. 2. Such parts of the principal as the
creditors had a right to demand. 3. The expenses of the govem
ment. 4. Such parts of the debt as the govemment had the right
of paying. To tMs he proposes that degree of cleamess and sim
pUcity in the accounts that every inteUigent man in the Umon could
readily understand them, and detect abuses. 'Our predecessors,'
he remarks, 'have endeavored, by intricacies of system, and shuf
fling over the investigation from one officer to another, to cover
everytMng from detection. I hope we shaU go in the contrary
direction, and that by our honest and judicious reformations, we
may be able, witMn the Unaits of our time, to bring tMngs back to
that simple and inteUectual system on wMch they should have
been orgamzed at first.'"
As soon as possible, on Gallatin's recommendation,
Jefferson authorized the sale of the United States Bank
\ stock, owned by the government. The money was put
into the sinking fund. Thus begms the dissolution of
the marriage between the monied element and the
government, so carefully solemnized by the Federahsts,
"Now let us adjust our income and expenditures to
one another!" He recommended the abolition of
internal taxes, which shocked the FederaUsts — not
beUeving that he could carry on the government with
out them, because they had said that they. were neces
sary. Congress obeyed his wish, and did abohsh the
internal taxes, and. we did get along without them, with
a larger annual surplus and a larger annual payment
on the pubhc debt than had been found possible under
his predecessor.

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 237
Further pursuing his simpUfication of government,
he urged the abohtion of unnecessary offices, thereby
decreasing the patronage at his disposal and, at a time,
when a new and hungry party was coming into power.
He promised later to lay before Congress a hst of
superfluous offices. This he did, and over one-fourth/
of the former Executive patronage was abohshed. '
The policy of making appropriations in "lump sums,"
as it has been called, he reprobated, because it carried
no information to the citizens concerning the precise
purpose for which the money was to be spent, and he
suggested that wherever possible the purpose of the
appropriation of each dollar be specifically stated in
the law appropriating it. He recommended provisions
which would prevent executive officers from deflecting
amounts appropriated for one purpose to another, or
devoting amounts appropriated in lump sum to unex
pected purposes, which was really the evil struck at. ,
To a surprising extent this evil was corrected by /
that Congress. He recommended placing the duty of
accounting for all the public money in one department.
This recommendation prevailed and is in use today: ,
"Auditors in the Treasury Department for the Post '
Office Department" and "for" other departments
being the instrumentality through which it is done.
While he was a candidate for the Presidency, the
FederaUsts had everywhere said that he would repudi
ate the pubhc debt. The truth is, he wanted to pay it
off as rapidly as possible and Hamilton did not want
unduly to hasten this process, because the outstanding
debt "interested" the monied classes in the "stabil
ity" of the government, and thereby "strengthened"

238 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
it. Jefferson proceeded at once to pay off the debt and
continued its payment to its extinction, once more
falsifying the predictions of his enemies.
I think I may safely say that this has become a
cardinal doctrine with the party which he founded
and has ever since been professed as such by its leaders,
even when temporarily varied from in practice. Cleve
land's first administration, 1884-88, furnished an
example, almost equal to Jefferson's, of the theory and
its observance.
Under Jefferson's and Gallatin's thoroughly simple
and comprehensible management, the difficulty of
purchasing an imperial domain, and at the same time
meeting the interest and all payable principal of the
pubhc debt, was managed hand in hand with the
abohtion of some old taxes and without levying a
single new tax or increasing an old one. It was man
aged upon the Jeffersonian principle of providing for
the interest and the sinking fund, so that the debt
might be completely satisfied within the life of a gener
ation. Professor Albert Bushnell Hart does not seem to be
one of those who accept, without any sufficient reason
for it, the legend that our present treasury system comes
over from Hamilton. The truth is, that there was a
marked revolution even in the method of keeping the
books, and in the whole policy of the Treasury, when!
GaUatin went in as Jefferson's Secretary. Professor!
Hart well says: — \
"The system estabhshed by Gallatin remains to tMs day, and ,
is undoubtedly one of the most perfect organizations of a great;
financial macMne, wMch can be found anywhere in the world."

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 239
SOME MINOR MATTERS
Coinage System
Jefferson is the father of our coinage system. More
justly described, his was a scheme of coinage, weights
and measures, because the cardinal idea of it was the
decimal system, applied equally to all three. In it he
recommended the pendulum as a standard of measure.
Or, if this was difficult in practice, a measure taken at
latitude 45°, corresponding to it. He reinforced his
selection of latitude 45° as the place of measuring his
uniform cylindrical rod, as being a place "upon which
the nations of both hemispheres might unite."
He shattered Robert Morris's proposed unit of value
scheme, and succeeded in having substituted for it
his own. It is the very simple and remarkably satis
factory system which we have now. His common
sense suggested at once that the Spanish milled dollar,
which "circulated more with us than any other coin,"
should be taken as the basis for both division and
multiphcation. This was the Spanish "Piece of
Eight," i. e., eight bits, a bit being one-eighth of a
doUar. The phrase "two-bits," meaning twenty-five
cents, and "four-bits," meaning fifty cents, and "six-
bits," meaning seventy-five cents, are still in use in the
South, and I have seen old bookkeepers indicate on
their books "eight bits" instead of a doUar.
Indians ^
In his time as Secretary of State he also had the
duties of the present Secretary of the Interior. In this
capacity, Jefferson deUvered a Cabinet opinion in which

240 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
he assumed the position that the Federal Government
alone possessed the right of acquiring title to Indian
lands from the Indian tribes, and that this should be
done by treaty. This became a settled pohcy of the
Government, and until within the last few years, we
treated the Indian tribes as a sort of subordinated
foreign powers, ceding us their lands by solemn treaty.
Apportionment
Under Washington's administration the ratio of one
representative to every thirty thousand inhabitants
was fixed, but when the bill for the first apportionment
of Representatives in Congress passed instead of
applying the ratio to each State, it was appUed to the
population of the entire country. Jefferson gave the
President a Cabinet opinion to the effect that this
violated the true intent of the Constitution, and
urged an executive veto. The President agreed with
Jefferson, notwithstanding Hamilton's opinion to the
contrary, and vetoed the bill. The House then passed
the bill, applying the ratio to the population of each
State separately, and this has become the permanent
custom after every succeeding census.
Power of Congress over Interstate Commerce
On February 28, 1803, Congress passed a law "pro
hibiting the importation of any negro, mulatto, or
other person of color into any State where, by the laws
thereof, their admission is prohibited," and affixing
penalties for the violation of the act. Jefferson signed
the act. This is curious and valuable right now, inas-

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 241
much as it furnishes a precedent for a biU, now pending
in Congress, to prohibit the importation of alcohohc
stimulants into any State, where, "by the laws thereof,"
their sale is prohibited.
This Jeffersonian precedent is of high permanent
value. Congress should not obstruct, but should
cooperate with the States, when exercising their poUce
powers for the protection of pubhc health, or pubhc
morals, whenever Congress thinks the end, sought by
the State, not violative of natural right, nor of national
pohcy. Electoral College
Jefferson advocated a constitutional amendment
which would enable Presidents to be elected by a
direct vote of the people, thus abolishing the electoral
coUege, the people, however, voting in each State as
citizens of the State, each State's vote counting to the
extent of the sum of its Senators plus its Represen
tatives. That amendment ought to be passed now.
Some day we shall have trouble in the electoral college
because of some elector's not keeping faith and voting
as his constituents have voted. There is no law to
prevent him. There is no legal penalty to which he
would be subjected. There is only a pledge on honor
— sometimes even that is only impliedly made.
Freedom of the Press
In his second inaugural address, after referring to
the hcentiousness of the press and to the calumnies
and slander, etc., he announces what was his, and what
ought forever to remain, the permanent pohcy of the
Republic, by asking: —
17

242 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"Whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, was not
sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth — whether
a govemment conducting itself in the tme spirit of its constitution,
with zeal and purity, and doing no acts wMch it would be unwilling
the whole world should witness — can be written down by falsehood
and defamation."
He proudly refers to the fact that the Federahst
experiment to throttle and suppress free speech and
printing had been tried and failed, and to the result
of the Repubhcan experiment of the contrary theory
which "had been honorable to those who served
them, and consolatory to the friends of man, who
beUeved he might be intrusted with his own affairs."
You will agree that he was justified in this psean of
seff-congratulation. He had kept the same faith in
office that he had preached when out of it, though
everybody knew that he had suffered more from the
Ucense of the press than any man, who has ever been
prominent in American history, and suffered because
he was not the victim of the hatred of individuals, but
of classes. SUMMING UP
Meanwhile his administration had paid off thirty-
three millions of the pubhc debt, which had been
somewhat increasing before he came in; it had reduced
taxes very much; it had reduced patronage, thereby
simplifying the Government a great deal, and had
added to the national domain the vast area of the
Louisiana Territory, and put down Burr's conspiracy
without war or bloodshed; so adeptly that the Federal
ists were beginning to deny that there ever had been
a conspiracy at all; it had laid the foundations for the

INFLUENCE AS PRESIDENT 243
future successful contention for the possession of the
Oregon country; it had benefited its own commerce and
that of the civihzed world by putting down the Barbary
powers; it had kept the peace amid untold difficulties
and with unspeakable benefit; it had captured the
common sense and imagination of the country; it had
destroyed quasi-monarchical forms, ceremonials, caval
cadings and "demnition nonsense" generally; it had
given a practical illustration of the fact that govern
ment can be carried on successfully without tying to
itself the monied, or any other special interest, and that
it could be carried on by those, who regarded it as a
pubhc trust; he had given practical demonstration of
the fact that a democracy is not irresponsible or
dangerous, and that restraints upon freedom of speech
and of the press are not necessary to make a govern
ment strong; he had put the example of George Wash
ington in dechning a third term upon a basis of reason
and general principle, destined to appeal for all time to
the American people, and although his embargo pohcy
had pressed hard upon the navigating States, the
pressure had been no harder, nor the dissatisfaction
any greater, than war would have brought in its train,
as was a,fterwards demonstrated.

CHAPTER VII
JEFFERSON'S INFLUENCE ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION
IN AMERICA
In connection with his devotion to the cause of
freedom of reUgion and speech, and to the idea that
government ought not to attempt to stifle the expression
of opimon, but that church and state should be separate,
this is worth quoting from Jefferson's "Notes on
Virginia": —
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
... "It is error alone wMch needs the support of govemment.
Truth can stand by itself. Subject opimon to coercion and whom
will ye make your inquisitors? FalUble men, governed by bad
passions, by private as well as pubUc reasons. And why subject
it to coercion? Difference of opimon is advantageous to reUgion.
The several sects perform the office of censor morum over each other.
Is uniformity attainable? MiUions of innocent men, women and
cMldren since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt,
tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch
towards umformity. Let us reflect that the earth is inhabited by
thousands of milUons of people; that these profess probably a
thousand different systems of rehgion; that ours is but one of the
thousand; that if there be but one right, and ours be that one, we
should wish to see the mne hundred and mnety-mne wandering
sects gathered into the fold of truth. But, against such a majority,
we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only
practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry
must be indulged by them; and how can we wish others to indulge it,
while we refuse it ourselves?',' 244

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 245
Such utterances as these form no smaU part of the
permanent influence of Thomas Jefferson upon Ameri
can "Church and State" thought. Nothing in Mil
ton's "License of Pubhc Printing" is more eloquent.
Scarcely anything in Victor Hugo is more short-
sentence-pithy. It was a decade probably after this
utterance before he had stamped its essence upon the
statute books of Virginia in the first written statute
that the world ever knew, granting not toleration
only, but absolute freedom of rehgion, and not only to
aU sects of Christians, but to all people.
Again Jefferson wrote: —
"I never wiU by any word or act bow to the shrine of intolerance,
or admit a right of inquiry into the reUgious opimons of others.
On the contrary, we are bound — you and I, and everyone — to
make common cause, even with error itself, in order to maintain
the common right of freedom of conscience. . . . For tMs reason,
were my opinions up to the standard of those who arrogate the
right to question me, I would not countenance that arrogance by
descending to explain."
Jefferson's views about the church are not more radi
cal than those of Emerson. As the editor of the New
England Magazine says : —
"The curious tMng about it aU is that the pulpit fulminated as
it did against Jefferson and let Adams alone, for as Parton truth-
fuUy says, 'there was not a pin to choose between the heterodoxy
of the two candidates.' "
Why the difference? The answer is obvious. Jeffer
son legislated disestabUshment and the loss to the
clergy of glebes and salaries. John Adams never did
though he once said with a spirit of hate that Jefferson
never felt and therefore never indulged in: "Until this

246 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
awful blasphemy [the doctrine of the Trinity] be got
rid of there will never be any liberal science in the
world." But it was not until 1834 that church and
state were completely divorced in Massachusetts.
Having, as I have shown in a previous chapter, dealt
a great blow in Virginia for the freedom of the land and
for freedom of social hfe from special privilege and
incumbrance, Jefferson next dealt one in favor of
freedom of faith and worship. He was a member of
the standing committee of the Virginia House on
reUgion, a committee which was directed to "meet and
adjourn from day to day, and take under their con
sideration all matters and things relating to rehgion and
morahty, with power to send for persons, papers and
records." Upon this committee, as in the House of
Delegates itself, the established church of Virgima
predominated. Jefferson here began his resolute work
for the declaration of the principles, which were after
wards expressed by him in the Bill for Religious Free
dom, throwing off the domination of the church in
Virginia, as the bills for the abolition of primogeniture
and entail had thrown off the domination of the great
famihes. The curious inquirer may read what Jefferson says in
his " Memoir " and in his " Notes on Virginia " on this
subject; how the church had shown at once intolerance
and incompetency, how the laws had been adapted to
the purposes of the church by making heresy a capital
offence, punishable by burning, and by very many
other less, but oppressive penalties. Happily for
Virginia, these laws were more honored in the breach
than in the observance. The history of the slow and

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 247
gradual steps by which ecclesiastical influence in state
affairs and political influence in church affairs were
destroyed in Virginia is very interesting and it wiU pay
any student to make a special study of it. It was a
step-by-step performance, leading up through a series
of years to the gradual climax, which was the Bill for
Religious Freedom, concerning the authorship of which
Jefferson took so much pride, that he had it inscribed
on his tomb, as one of the three things, because of which
he wanted to be remembered.
Under the Virginia Act of Assembly of 1705, if a
person brought up in the Christian rehgion denied the
being of a God, or denied the Trinity, or denied the
Christian religion to be true, or denied the Scriptures
to be of Divine authority, he was punishable, first, by
deprivation of the right to hold office or employment;
on the second offense, by disability to sue or to inherit,
or to take any gift or legacy, etc., and by three years'
imprisonment without bail. If the offender were a
father, he was deprived of the right of the custody of
his own children. The first step was to repeal the laws,
which rendered criminal the maintenance of any
reUgious opinions, or the failure to attend church, or
the exercise of any mode of worship except that of the
estabhshed church. The next was to exempt dis
senters from contributions to the support of the
estabhshed church. The next was to suspend levies
on the members even of the established church for the
salaries of their own ministers; but this last was limited
in its operation until the next session of the House of
Delegates. Jefferson's opponents, however, on No
vember 19th, passed a declaration asserting that

248 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
"assembhes ought to be regulated," and that "legal
provision ought to be made for the succession of the
clergy, and for superintending their conduct;" in other
words, a legal declaration of the wisdom and righteous
ness of a quahfied union of church and state. Per
mission was later secured for any person paying an
assessment for the support of the clergy to designate a
pastor of his choice, even though not a member of the
Estabhshed Church, to whom his proportion of the
assessment should go.
On the 15th the House agreed that the compulsory
levies to support the estabhshed clergy should agata
be suspended for another session.
Thus, toe to toe, the pulhng match continued —
the disciples of hberty now losing, now gaining ground.
Up to the time Jefferson left the Virginia Legislature,
he had not yet accomplished his full purpose. He left
his statute for ReUgious Freedom on strong ground,
as a legislative legacy to his friends, and they finally
won it. The law as it appears upon the statute books
of the State of Virginia is not word for word as it was
drawn by Jefferson. The changes were verbal. The
words of the bill, as given in the "Notes on Virginia,"
are not the words of the original, but of the biU as
amended, and as it was passed by the General As
sembly. The original bill may be found in RandaU's
"Lffe of Jefferson," volume 1, pages 219 and 220, with
the parts which the Legislature of Virginia struck out
in itahcs, and the parts which they added in brackets,
and some alterations placed in the margin. I wiU
excerpt a part only of this great instrument, with
the itahcs, brackets and marginal notes which go
with it: —

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 249
"A BiU for EstabUsMng ReUgious Freedom.
"WeU aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on
their own free will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to
their minds; that Almighty God had created the mind free, and
manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it
altogether insusceptible of restraint; that aU attempts to influence
it by temporal pumshments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations,
tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a de
parture from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being
Lord both of body and noind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either, as was in His Almighty power to do, hut to
extend its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption
of legislators and ralers, civil as weU as ecclesiastical, who being
themselves but faUible and umnspired men, have assumed domimon
over the faith of others, setting up their own opimons and modes of
thinking as the only true and infaUible, and as such endeavoring
to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false
reUgions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation of opimons wMch he disbeUeves and abhors, is sinful
and tyrarmical; that even the forcing Mm to support tMs or that
teacher of Ms own reUgious persuasion, is depriving Mm of the com
fortable Uberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor,
whose morals he would make Ms pattern, and whose powers he feels
most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the
ministry those temporary rewards, wMch proceeding from an ap- temporal
probation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to
earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind;
that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opimons,
any more than on our opimons in physics or geometry; that, there
fore, the proscribing any citizen, as unworthy the pubUc confidence,
by lajdng upon Mm an incapacity of being caUed to (the) offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce tMs or that
reUgious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and
advantages to wMch, in common with Ms feUow-citizens, he has a
natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very
reUgion, it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of
worldly honors and emoluments, those who wiU extemaUy profess

250 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON

Be it therefore
enacted by the
General
Aeaembly

the power

and conform to it; that though indeed those are criminal, who do
not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent,
who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the
object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the
civil magistrate to intrude Ms powers into the field of opimon and
to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on (the)
supposition of their iU tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once
destroys aU reUgious Uberty, because he being of course judge of
that tendency wiU make Ms opimons the rule of judgment, and
approve or condemn the sentiments of others, oMy as they shall
square with, or differ from, Ms own; that it is time enough for the
rightful purposes of civil govemment for its officers to interfere,
when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good
order; and, finaUy, that truth is great and wiU prevail, if left to
herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagomst to error,
and has notMng to fear from the confUct, unless by human inter
position disarmed of her natural weapons — free argument and
debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them.
"We, the General Assembly, do enact. That no man shaU be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worsMp, place or
mimstry whatsoever, nor shaU be enforced, restrained, molested,
or burthened in Ms body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of Ms reUgious opimons or beUef; but that aU men shall
be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions
in matters of rehgion, and that the same shaU in no wise diminish,
enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
"And though we know weU that tMs Assembly, elected by the
people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power
to restrain the acts of succeeding AssembUes, constituted with
powers equal to their own, and that therefore to declare this act
irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare,
and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural
rights of mankind, and that if any act shaU be hereafter passed to
repeal the present act, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an
infringement of natural right."

"Natural right" again; the "things of the first
table!"

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 251
Jefferson judged himself, as he did other men, wisely,
when he selected, as one of the three things to be
remembered about him, and to be cut into the granite
of his tombstone, that he was "The author of the
Virginia Statute for Rehgious Freedom." It was the
first of its kind, for though the charter of Rhode
Island proclaimed in most absolute terms, the principle
of religious liberty, the same law declared this law not
applicable to Roman Catholics. Maryland had been
for a long time the only asylum in the British Empire
where the principle of religious toleration was estab
hshed. It was estabhshed there by the Roman Cath-
oUcs, and the reason is not far to seek. They were
seeking some place in the Empire where they could
unpenalized profess their faith, and, being in a rehgious
minority, they were compeUed to grant the same
hberty to others. But even in Maryland the principle
of religious liberty applied only to those, who believed
in the Divinity of Christ.
The next step in Jefferson's reform process dis
closes his trait of "taking things by the smooth handle,"
while never sacrificing the essential end. The church
having been disestablished and freedom of rehgion —
not mere toleration, but freedom — having been
secured, it remained to do justice to the old church in
the case, hence his biU, entitled "A Bill for Saving the
Property of the Church, heretofore by Law estabhshed,"
and providing that the glebes, church belongings,
furniture, arrearages of debt due the church, and all
church property of every description, which had come
to it by private donation, "should be saved in all time to
come to the members of the EngUsh church," resident

252 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
in the parish, where the property was situated, and
reciting that it could be used by them, as they chose,
in support of their clergymen. This did justice,
observed the sanctity of the property relation, while
not mihtating at all against the principle of a total
separation of church and state, and entire freedom of
rehgious opinion and practice. The bill also provided
that certain surplusage, accruing out of the fact that
former levies had exceeded the law, should be restored
to the pubhc by being put into the poor rates of the
parish, but even in this case, in order to be generous
to the defeated antagonists, it was provided, that if
the parish had no glebe, this surplus was to be apphed
to the purchase of a glebe.
In 1784 the friends of the church rallied again and
made an effort to pass, as an amendment, a bUl en
titled: "A Bill to EstabUsh a Provision for Teachers of
the Christian Rehgion," by a levy of a general assess
ment for that purpose. To show how far their strength
had been broken, however, this bill allowed each person
to direct the payment of his own contribution to the
church of his choice. The struggle against the reaction
was fierce, but George Mason and George Nicholas and
James Madison, in the absence of their chief, stood their
ground and conquered, notwithstanding the strength
of the churches, the landed aristocracy, and the in
fluence of such great names as George Washington,
Richard Henry Lee, and others.
George Washington, on October 3, 1785, wrote to
George Mason: —
"Although no man's sentiments are more opposed to any kind
of restraint upon reUgious principles than mine are, yet I confess

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 253
I am not among the number of those, who are so much darmed at
the thought of making people pay towards the support of that wMch
they profess."
This shows that Washington had not yet learned the
lurking danger in any connection whatsoever between
church and state, nor the great truth that men's
rehgious opinions are things between them and God,
and that the support of churches ought to rest upon the
voluntary contributions of those who profess their faith.
Richard Henry Lee, on November 26, 1784, wrote to
James Madison this rather remarkable protest against
what I suppose he considered "theory" and radical
ism: —
"Refiners may weave reason into as fine a web as they please,
but the experience of aU time shows reUgion to be the guardian of
morals; and he must be a very inattentive observer in our country,
who does not see that avarice is accompUsMng the destruction of
reUgion for want of a legal obUgation to contribute sometMng for
its support."
In other words, there could be no motive for the non-
contribution to a church except avarice, and this
irrehgious motive should be overcome by state com
pulsion. Madison and Mason secured a delay in the
proposed legislation until the next session, giving as
their reason a desire to submit the question to the
people, thus proposing a sort of referendum. Madison
then appealed to the people in a written argument,
unanswered because unanswerable, and at the next
session, in 1786, the proposed assessment, which was
to have gone along with Jefferson's statute for rehgious
freedom, was abandoned as hopeless, and the bill for
ReUgious Freedom passed, with the amendments,

254 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
which I shall now indicate. You will see from exami
nation that the Legislature struck out this language of
Jefferson's original draft, to wit: "that the opinions
and belief of men depend not on their own wiU, but
follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their
minds." I rather think they did well, because al
though with a perfectly imbiased and open mind, the
statement is true; yet it is also true, that, in most
cases, an opimon is the result as much of prejudice and
environment, or heredity, or an inclination to reach a
certain conclusion, as it is of evidence.
Jefferson's original draft read in the next sub-sen
tence: "that Almighty God had created the mind free,"
and then there followed this language, which the Legis
lature also struck out: "and manifested His supreme
will, that free it should remain by making it altogether
insusceptible of restraint." In this respect, the Legis
lature seems to have been fighting a truism. It is
impossible to conceive of any way in which the human
mind can be restrained. Human utterance may be;
human conduct may be. A man may be forced by
law to bottle up his opinion in his own mind, but the
opinion itseff cannot be restrained against his conviction
and will.
Jefferson next recited, that God had chosen not to
propagate rehgion by coercion either of body or mind
"as was in His Almighty power to do." Then follow
these words in Jefferson's draft, stricken out by the
Legislature: "but to extend its influence on reason
alone." In striking this out the Legislature hkewise
acted wisely, because the assertion begged the very
question at issue. AU people beUeving m the Divinity

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 255
of Jesus beheved that the influence of reUgion was
extended by the grace of God, as weU as by the reason
of man.
As John T. Morse says in another coimection,
"Jefferson's pen sometimes ran away with him."
Whose does not? In the next sentence to which I
shaU caU attention it undoubtedly did so. He said
in the original draft that "to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions,
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
The Legislature struck out the words "and abhors,"
and thereby strengthened the statute. It is not
necessary that a man should abhor a religion, in order
that the conclusion should be rightfully reached, that
he ought not to be forced to contribute to it. It is
sufficient that he disbeheves in it. It is sufficient, in
fact, whether he beUeves in it or not, that he simply
does not choose to contribute.
The Legislature was indefensible in striking out the
next phrase to which I am going to call attention.
They showed by striking it out that they had not yet
risen to the full level of the philosophy of freedom of
religion, and were still staggering around in the quag
mire of rehgious toleration. The phrase to which I
refer is this: "that the opinions of men are not the
object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction."
If there be a self-evident truth in the world this is one.
But it was exceedingly fortunate that the bill should
have passed even as it was, nor was its strength materi
ally weakened by the passage of these motions to strike
out, nor by the several non-essential substitutions and
additions, which were really only three.

256 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
First the substitution of the word "temporal" for
the word "temporary" in the sentence, "withdrawing
from the ministry those temporal rewards." The word
was the accustomed one, and its substitution was an
improvement. The next substitution was striking out the words,
"We, the General Assembly, do enact," and substi
tuting for them, "Be it therefore enacted by the General
Assembly." The third was to substitute the words "the power"
for the word "powers."
The most remarkable thing about this statute consists
in the closing clause of it, where the attempt is made to
forestall and prevent any repeal of it by future legis
latures, although acknowledging their power to repeal,
and confessing inabiUty to restrain the exercise of that
power. The clause accomphshed its end, however.
It was ever afterwards considered in Virginia, that the
assertion in the concluding words of the enactment, to
wit: "We do declare that the rights hereby asserted
are of the natural rights of mankind, and that ff any
act shaU be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or
to narrow its operation, such an act wiU be an infringe
ment of natural right," were binding.
It is not too much to say that an overwhelming
majority of the American people are prepared to main
tain by bloodshed, if needful, that any act of any legis
lature, state or national, attempting to interfere with
the absolute freedom of rehgious opinion and of rehgious
worship is an infringement of a natural right, and that
the state has no power over the matter; that it is not
under its jurisdiction, except when overt acts injurious

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 257
to the state, or to a person, or to property occur, as a
consequence of religious beUef, and then that it is the
act which is to be punished, or restrained, and not the
belief. Not only did Jefferson's enemies accuse bim of taking
political views from France, but reUgious views, too.
This is absurd to anybody who knows the history of
the man's life. His reUgious views were entertained
by him, when he was a young man at WiUiam and Mary
CoUege. They were shared by George Wythe, his good
friend and law teacher, and partially shared, I am
inclined to believe, by his much esteemed and beloved
Professor of Mathematics. His statute for the Estab
lishment of Religious Freedom was drawn by him years
before he went to France. The French encyclopedists
were, for the most part, unqualified atheists, and when
not, were purely materialistic agnostics. Jefferson was
a devout believer in the existence and the providence of
God, and in a future state. I have sometimes thought
that he was more nearly a Christian in his behef than
any man who has lived since Christ. His Unitarianism
was a reverential and a cautious, as well as a rational,
beUef. It was not the "sneering, leering" behef of
Voltaire, which necessarily led to "a divorce of hfe
from morals," nor Gibbon's "solemn mocking of a
solemn creed" with a solemn sneer. Jefferson was
afterwards charged with being an atheist, principally
by the Calvinistic and Congregational priests, because
they did not see any difference between a denial of the
Divinity of Christ and atheism.
I have said that his behef was not only reverential,
but that it was cautious. He seemed to have a sensi-
18

'258 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
tive fear of intermeddhng with the reUgious behef of
other people, even with that of his own children. In
fact, his chUdren and his grandchildren did not know
until after he was dead, that he had prepared the so-
caUed "Jefferson Bible." He was always most careful
not to be a propagandist, but to insist that every man's
behef should be formed, as his own had been, mde-
pendently and on one's own dread responsibihty, "not
for the rightfuhiess, but for the righteousness of it."
His beUefs were expressed in a few confidential letters
to Priestley and Adams, and others, who entertained
the same opinions, and, in one or two cases, they were
expressed to Dr. Franklin, who likewise entertained
them, but, in a cannier way, kept them to himself.
These letters, for the most part, were not pubhshed
until after his death. Many of his friends thought that
his grandson made a mistake in pubUshing them, and I
have an idea that Jefferson would have thought so
himseff. However, he left his letters and documents to
his grandson, without limiting the authority to use
them, as he chose.
The hatred, calumny and Ues — scurrUlous and cruel
— visited on his devoted head for the balance of his
Ufe on account of the Disestabhshment in Virginia, and
because of the anger and fear arising from the justly
anticipated imitation of his legislation elsewhere, are
wondrous. During his campaign for the Presidency
there was positively no end to the bitter denunciation.
It was charged by one preacher in New England that
Jefferson had "obtained his property by fraud and
robbery;" that in one instance he had "defrauded and
robbed a widow and fatherless children," of whose

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 259
estate he was executor, "of ten thousand pounds
sterling, by keeping the property and paying them in
money at the nominal rate, when it was worth no more
than forty for one," and this stupendous he was closed
with the assertion that the reverend gentleman "could
prove it"!
The New England clergy seem to have adopted him
as a favorite text. One, Doctor Mason, declared that
Mazzei had once told a Reverend Mr. Smith, who had
told him, that Jefferson had said of a ruined church:
"It is good enough for him who was born in a manger."
Dr. Mason also charged that Jefferson was solicitous
"to wrest the Bible from the hand of the people's
children." In a letter to Dr. Rush, Jefferson said that the clergy
beheved that any portion of power confided in him,
Jefferson, would be exerted in opposition to aU church
estabhshment schemes. Then he adds: —
"And they beUeve rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of
God eternal hostihty against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man. But tMs is aU they have to fear from me; and enough,
too, in their opimon. And tMs is the cause of their printing lying
pampMets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei,
Bishop Madison, etc."
The man's superb moral courage was shown in the
fact that he dared, on coming into power as President,
to remember to keep a promise to Thomas Paine made
in consequence of his services to the cause of liberty
in America during the American Revolution, notwith
standing the intense and almost universal hatred of
Paine which had grown out of his notorious anti-reh-
gious views. Paine was then in France, where he had
been cooperating with the French revolutionists, and

260 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
where, by the way, be it remembered to his credit, he
had had the courage and the good sense to vote against
the king, when that was dangerous, and against the
death decree pronounced upon the king, when to do
that was yet more dangerous. He was in prison and
would have reached the guillotine, had not Robespiere
reached it first. He wanted to return to America, was
afraid that the British cruisers might take him off a
merchant ship, and had therefore asked that he be per
mitted passage on board a national vessel. Jefferson
wrote to him: —
"You expressed a wish to get a passage to tMs country in a
pubUc vessel. Mr. Dawson is charged with orders to the captain of
the Maryland to receive and accommodate you with a passage back,
if you can be ready to depart at such short warning."
In another part of the letter he says : —
" I am in hopes you will find us returned generally to sentiments
worthy of former times. In these it wiU be your glory to have
steadily labored, and with as much effect as any man Uving. That
you may long five to continue your useful labors, and to reap their
reward in the thankfulness of nations, is my sincere prayer."
Men who have denounced Mr. Jefferson for thus
affording the asylum of a war vessel to Mr. Paine,
because Paine was an atheist, as they say, in ahnost the
next breath pronounce him to be a man of gross "timid
ity" in the face of public opinion, and to be a per
sistent "demagogue seeking popularity"! The two
things do not well fit into one character. Jefferson
must have been the greatest fool in the world if he had
not known, and as a matter of fact, he did know, that
this letter to Paine and this passage on a war vessel

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 261
extended to him, would raise a storm of popular dis
approval, and unchain once more the satanic fury of
the theologians and of a great many good people. Not
withstanding it aU, Jefferson remembered Paine's
services to the cause of liberty in America, and his
manly stand at the risk of his neck in France. Not
only that, but when Paine had come, Jefferson enter
tained hun with Virginian hospitahty at Monticello,
and this was while the storm was blowing.
The degree to which the New England clergy hated
Jefferson, and the measure in which he returned their
hate, coupled with some contempt, were extraordinary.
It was no wonder they hated him. First, he was of
the opposite party. Secondly, there was jealousy of
the rule of "the Virginia Dynasty"; New England pride
was aroused. Third, he was not orthodox in religion.
Fourth, he carried his lack of orthodoxy in Virginia to
the point of separating the church from the state, the
church being as yet, "established" and in the enjoy
ment of valuable special privileges throughout all New
England, except in Rhode Island. Fifth, his known
sympathies with the French people constituted him a
"blood-thirsty Jacobin." They neither asked, nor
gave quarter. They had their flocks in such condition
that when Jefferson was elected President, it produced
a sort of panic among many good people.
John Fiske says that he "has heard his grandmother
teU how old ladies in Connecticut, at the news of his
election, hid their family Bibles, because it was sup
posed that his very first official act — perhaps even
before announcing his cabinet — would be to issue a
ukase ordering all copies of the sacred volume through-

262 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
out the country to be seized and burned." And this
simply because Jefferson was a conspicuous advocate of
freedom of rehgion, or perhaps stiU more because he had
disconnected parsons from glebes and state support —
much to the improvement of true rehgion. He was, as
it was the habit to caU men in that day, a "freethinker."
It is wonderful how many good, honest folk think they
are thinking when they think they think that thinking
freely is a sin, and ought to be made a crime. Fiske
weU adds that "when people get into such a state of
mind, the only thing that can cure them is an object
lesson." In connection with the hatred of the clergy and
preachers generaUy for Mr. Jefferson, growing out of
his disestabhshment of the church in Virgima, and the
welcome which that measure had met with, and the
imitation of it elsewhere, it is weU for the student to
remember that the support of pubhc worship was com
pulsory in Massachusetts, except in a few exempt cities,
as late as the year 1833. We are apt to forget facts
like this now, and to forget that Dr. Childs, of Berk
shire County, attempted unsuccessfuUy in the Massa
chusetts Convention of 1820 to free himseff, and others,
of this unjust burden. Some honest people denounced
Jefferson, as "an atheist," because he was a Unitarian,
or rather because — not being orthodox — he might
be anything. Being God's vice-gerents in this world,
they proceeded to destroy God's enemy, and especiaUy
this Phihstine and Amalekite. They did not stop with
attacking his pohtical and rehgious views. They lent
ears of easy creduhty to every charge, rumor, or insinu
ation against his private character. They preached

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 263
from the pulpit that he was an adulterer, a miscegenist,
a demagogue, a har, a hypocrite, and a coward. Not
withstanding all this. New England, httle by Uttle,
shpped from under their control. A broad, tolerant,
and free administration, a "wise and frugal govem
ment," httle by httle, sapped the strength of New
England Federalists, whose natural leaders were the
clergy. The object lesson to which Fiske referred was
taught and learned.
I don't know whether Jefferson was greatest as a
political manager, as so many people say and write, or
not, but that he was great in this role, is undeniable.
He won men over and held them not by corrupting
them with patronage, nor by tying them to his ad
ministration through their monied interest, or class
interest, nor by extending to anybody any special priv
ileges, nor by any rod held over them, but by "taking
things by the smooth handle," while appeahng to the
reason and common sense of all. Thus he rendered
hurtless the arrows of intolerance and hatred which fell
upon the shield of his honest intent. The odium
theologicum was itself partially disarmed in reconciU-
ation before his death.
James Parton in his article entitled "Jefferson a
Reformer of old Virginia," in the Atlantic Monthly,
of July, 1872, says: —
"We have come now to regard Uberty of beUef very much as we
do Uberty of breatMng — as a right too natural, too obvious, to
be called in question — forgetting all the ages of effort and of
anguish wMch it cost to rescue the human mind from the domination
of its natural foes."
It is for this reason that we are not apt to estimate

264 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OP JEFFERSON
at its fuU value Jefferson's efforts, and his final triumph
in obtaining the enactment of the Virginia statute of
Rehgious Freedom. "No man ever more effectively
put the case in favor of freedom of worship and freedom
of opinion." "Logic, irony, good-natured appeal, were
all combined." The reader will find a good deal of it
in the "Notes on Virginia," being a recital for the world
of the arguments that had been used so effectively in
the Virginia Assembly.
Jefferson later followed up the work in this cause
performed in his State, by insisting that the United
States Constitution should be amended by the inclusion
of a bill of rights, and as a part of it, a clause forever
debarring the Federal Government from the estabhsh
ment of a reUgion. In the western States the Virginia
example of a complete separation of church and state,
hke most Jeffersonian examples, was universally and
at once followed.
Jefferson's definition of a church is interesting: —
"A voluntary society of men, joimng themselves together of
their own accord, in order to the pubUc worsMping of God, in such
a maimer as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the
salvation of their souls. It is voluntary because no man by nature
is bound to any church. The hope of salvation is the cause of Ms
entering into it. If he finds anytMng wrong in it, he should be as
free to go out, as he was to come in."
Upon the subject of the separation of church and
state, he said: —
"The people have not given the magistrates the care of their
souls, because they could not. They could not because no man has
the right to abandon the care of his salvation to another. The opinions
of men on reUgion are not the subject of civil govemment, nor
under its jurisdiction."

ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION 265
During his stay in Paris his "Notes on Vkginia"
were pubhshed — a pirated edition. Parton says:
" Saturated as the book was with the repubhcan senti
ment of which he was the completest living exponent,
it was eagerly sought after in Paris, and had its effect
upon the time." "In France, too, during his stay there,
his 'Act for Freedom of Rehgion' was printed, this
time at his own instance."
Instead of the old laws against witchcraft — which
had existed not in New England alone, as some people
from the way they talk seem to think, but also in
old England and in Virginia — Jefferson substituted this
in Virginia: —
"All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their under
standing by the pretended arts of withcrafts, conjuration, enchant
ments, or sorcery, or by pretended prophecies, shaU be pumshed
by ducking or wMpping, at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding
fifteen stripes."
In other words, instead of punishing anybody for
being a witch, the punishment was meted out to those
who pretended to be witches! Thus anybody in Vir
ginia to be innocent of witchcraft had only to deny his
"witchship," and to be guilty must be liar and fraud
enough "to pretend witchcraft!" To wipe out a
superstition by a piece of legal irony like that, ap
proaches humor, though Jefferson's was not a humorous
character.

CHAPTER VIII
JEFFERSON'S INFLUENCE ON OUR EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
To George Wythe Mr. Jefferson wrote, m August,
1786: —
"Preach, my dear sir, a cmsade against ignorance; establish and
improve the law for educating the common people. Let our coimtry-
men know that the people alone can protect us against these evils;
and that the tax wMch wiU be paid for tMs purpose is not more than
the thousandth part of what wiU be paid to kings, priests, and
nobles, who wiU rise up among us, if we leave the people in ignorance."
I quote this because it is a keynote expression of the
Jeffersonian doctrine that democracy and education
are interdependent and that from their blissful marriage
proceeds "the happiness and freedom of man."
Harvard University had conferred on Mr. Jefferson,
while in France, the degree of Doctor of Laws. In his
letter of acceptance, addressed to Dr. Willard, this
everlasting educational basis for all his theories appears
again. He says: "We have spent the prime of our Uves
in procuring for them [that is, the young men of the
country — the students at the colleges] the precious
blessing of liberty. Let them spend theirs in showing
that it is the great parent of science and virtue; and
that a nation will be great in both, always in proportion
as it is free."
Dr. James C. Carter truthfully says that "Jefferson s
educational scheme was part of his political phi-
266

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 267
losophy," being aidful to man's self-government and
indispensable to the freedom and happiness of mankind,
because he beheved that no nation or community "could
permanently retain this blessing [of liberty] without the
benefit of the lessons of truth."
Jefferson stated the objects of primary education
as he understood them, with a comprehension and just
appreciation unexcelled : —
1. "To give to every citizen the information he needs to transact
Ms own business.
2. "To enable Mm to calculate for Mmself and to express and
preserve Ms ideas, contracts and accounts in writing.
3. "To improve, by reading, Ms faculties and morals.
4. "To understand Ms duties to Ms neighbors and Ms country,
and to discharge with competence the fimctions confided to Mm
by either.
5. "To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those
he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates,
and to notice their conduct with diUgence, candor and judgment.
6. "And, in general, to observe with intelUgence and faitMulness
all the social relations irnder wMch he shaU be placed."
Dr. Carter said of this statement, that it "ought
to be written in letters of gold and hung in every
primary school throughout the land and be known by
heart to every teacher and child."
As early as 1778, while we were still in the throes of
revolutionary travail, Jefferson presented to the Legis
lature of his native State a biU outUning the scope and
estabUshing the means of inaugurating common schools,
grammar schools and a State university. From that
time on, no matter where he was, no matter how
much occupied with pubhc duties, his mind was con
tinuously recurring to that scheme, and in a letter

268 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
dated June 4, 1786, addressed to General Washington,
Jefferson expressed the opinion, that, "nothing but the
extreme distress of our resources" prevented that
scheme from being carried into execution, "even during
the war."
Nor were his views of education narrow. The chief
end in his mind was to equip for citizenship — practical
and utihtarian here, as always — but the scope of the
preparation that he would make for citizenship included
learning of almost every sort.
Throughout his whole hfe he was singularly neglect
ful, if not defiant, of authority. This enabled him to
see the folly of the old four class system — Freshman,
Sophomore, Junior and Senior — and substitute for it
separate, independent and yet interlocked schools, each
speciahzing in a given subject. He saw no reason, for
example, why a man, who wanted to study civil engi
neering, should be first forced to show a certain degree
of proficiency in Latin, or Greek, and he saw, as most
men now do and few then did, that, although the classics
were a beautfful study, refining the taste and improving
the intellect, there was still no reason why they should
so nearly monopolize the field of education.
Returning to the report of the Law Revisers; it
contained a general plan of education for the State
constituted of three bills drawn by Mr. Jefferson, one
entitled, "For the more general Diffusion of Knowledge,
by estabhshing Common Schools and Grammar
Schools;" the second, "For Amending the Consti
tution of WUUam and Mary CoUege and Substituting
more certain Revenues for its Support:" and the third,
"For estabhshing a Pubhc Library."

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 269
The preamble of the bUl to establish Common and
Granamar Schools goes upon the ground that it is not
only the right, but the duty, of a State to make proper
provision for the education of the chUdren of the
commonwealth. Each county was to have three
officers called "aldermen"; to be divided into "hun
dreds"; in each "hundred" there was to be a military
company and a school. It was made the duty of the
inhabitants of each "hundred" to erect and repair
suitable schoolhouses. In these all chUdren were
entitled to receive tuition free for three years, and were
entitled to attend the school as much longer thereafter
as they chose, provided their parents paid for their
attendance. The subjects taught were to be the
"three Rs" — reading, writing and common arith
metic; and it is characteristic of Jefferson that when he
came to the subject of reading, he provided that the
books to be read were to be such "as would at the same
time make them acquainted with Grecian, Roman,
Enghsh and American history." The wise old fox
knew that Virginia was not yet up to the mark of
taxing the rich planters to teach history free to the
chUdren of the poor, ff indeed she were up to the mark
of taxing them to teach anything free. But history,
next to mathematics and natural science, was his own
favorite study. It was moreover, in his opinion, the
most useful of all studies to free citizens under a popular
government. Every ten schools were to have over them an "over
seer," who, in Jefferson's words, was to be "eminent
for his learning, integrity and fidelity to the Common
wealth." I don't suppose that anybody but Jefferson

270 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
would have thought of testmg a teacher's fitness by
his "fidehty to the Commonwealth," but he was right,
in a broad way. This overseer had the power of
appointment and removal of teachers.
Next comes his provision for Grammar or Central
Schools. The State was to be divided into twenty
districts, and the Board of Overseers, constituted of
aU the overseers of aU the counties contained in each
district, was to procure a hundred acres of land, situated
as nearly as practicable in the center of the district,
upon which were to be erected buUdings of stone or
brick, for the central academy or grammar school.
These buUdings were to contain at least a school room,
a dining room, four rooms for master and usher, and
ten or twelve lodging rooms. To these schools were
to be admitted for free tuition and free board the
brightest pupUs of the common schools, as shown by
their records, thus "carrying the talents of the State
up by a process of selection, from the lowest to the
highest" schools, because there was also a provision
made by Jefferson for carrying the brightest of each
grammar or central academy school boys, as shown by
their records, up to the State University; aU this
"selected talent," as it was thus "carried up," being
educated and boarded gratis. In these grammar
schools, or central academies, were to be taught
Latin, Greek, Enghsh, Enghsh Grammar, history,
geography, and the higher mathematics.
Each overseer, in obedience to this theory of "selec
tion of talents," was to act "after the most diUgent and
impartial examination and inquiry," under oath, and
"without favor or affection." At the end of each year

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 271
the Visitors were to cuU out one-third of the least
promising of these common-school-selected pupils and
discontinue their free board and tuition at the grammar
school. At the end of the second year of free board and
tuition at the grammar school, aU of them thus sent
up were to be discontinued, except one from each
grammar school district, who was to be the one of the
greatest merit, who was permitted to remain four years
longer, and after that, if he passed, he was to be deemed
a "senior." Now from these seniors, thus arrived at
by process of "survival of the fittest and extinction of
the unfit," the Visitors were each year to select one
and send him with free board and tuition to the State
University. 2. "The BUl for Amending the Constitution of
WUham and Mary College and Substituting more
certain Revenues for its Support," that is, making it a
State University, first and cardinally, did away with
religious tests for professors and students. Because of
this it was never enacted. Church influence at WUUam
and Mary was too strong. It was by its charter a
Church of England School, and inclination ran with the
provisions of the charter to prevent the aboUtion of reU
gious tests for teachers and even for pupUs. Thus
WiUiam and Mary missed being the State University.
3. His Bill for estabUshing a Pubhc Library appro
priated two thousand pounds a year to purchase books
and maps. It faUed at that time, but a similar law,
based on it, passed in 1822-1823.
Girls as well as boys were to be admitted to Jeffer
son's common schools. In this Henry G. BouteUe says
that he was "ten years ahead of Boston."

272 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
Never surrendering an idea, Jefferson began to work
on the project of a State University elsewhere than at
WUliam and Mary, with these cardinal, and at that
time, for the most part, novel features: —
"Freedom of teacMng in independent elective schools — by Pro
fessor's Lectures.
"Freedom of Study — Student selects Ms 'ticket.'
"The Honor System — No espionage — Freedom of conduct under
obUgation of observing the laws of the State and the United
States.
"Proficiency in mtermediate and final examinations — not class
attendance, not daily examinations, nor time spent, nor degrees
attained elsewhere — brought degrees, at Jefferson's Umversity.
"No gradations in a degree — aU cum laude or none, (80%-75%
necessary to pass).
"No honorary degrees.
"Degrees to bear EngUsh, not Latin names — Master of Arts etc.
"No rewards — no coUege honors — except a certificate of having
passed examination in the 'school,' or a number of examinations
in a number of schools, entitling to a prescribed degree.
"No compulsory attendance on prayers or service. Each denomi
nation to send a clergyman for two years, who conducts daily
prayers and Sunday service." (They are weU attended and the
preacher is paid by voluntary contributions of students.)
All of which were later engrafted on the University
of Virginia at Charlottesville.
Jefferson was a stickler for educating women, but
not precisely as men. His general principles were: —
1st. "A soUd education to enable them to educate their own
daughters. ' Dancing,

2nd. "Then special studies

Music,Poetry,
. Household economy.'?

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 273
Jefferson held that the chief use of education was to
fit a man for citizenship. Hence the common school,
and, to some extent, the grammar school — the edu
cation of the masses — was (because they are all one)
the backbone of his system, but he was just as fixed in
his opinion, that there ought to be also a University
school for the people — a State University. The
permanent influence of Mr. Jefferson upon pubhc
institutions has nowhere been more pronounced or!
more beneficial than in this. His idea was taken up byj
his disciples in Michigan and a State University school',
for the people established there, even before Jeffer- i
son had succeeded in consummating his plans in Vir-I
ginia. I
Judge A. B. Woodward, his friend, whom he had
appointed Chief Justice of Michigan Territory, created
a university in the wilderness on Jefferson's plan, before
Jefferson could open the University of Virginia; no
rehgious creed to be taught — professors to hold posi
tions for ten years — a Jesuit priest and a Presby
terian minister working together in the faculty — the
beginning of our priceless heritage of universities free
from shackles on thought.
E. P. Powell says of this Michigan University: —
"It was Jeffersomamsm worked out to a fimsh.''^
"Thefactof forty State umversities. . . each ambitious to excel,
and becoming more completely every year the head and centre of
a complete state system, is one of the grandest features of Amer
ican institutional development."^
' "Jefferson and Hamilton in our Education," New England Maga
zine, 1896, n. s.. Vol. 14, page 702.
' Same, page 703.
119

274 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
PoweU adds: —
"TMs we owe to that master mind that stood beside Washington
in the hour of the nation's birth . . . the briUiant imagination
that foresaw the moral and inteUectual needs of a vast repubUc,
as weU as its poUtical needs."
A university's purpose, according to Jefferson's
notion, was "to make men fit to be wise citizens," and
to equip able statesmen, or men able to select states
men — "to train men to be judges, legislators, diplo
mats, farmers, scientists, teachers, manufacturers" —
in other words, successful laborers in the vineyard of
human progress.
Then add Jefferson's idea of Theological Seminaries
near by, erected and paid for by the churches, and
enjoying the benefit of the tuition of the umversity
schools, and their pupils meeting in these schools, so
as to wear away sectarian prejudices, all emulating one
another in the conception and practice of true Christian
and unsectarian morals. The churches never availed
themselves of this privilege.
It is too long to quote in detail, but I refer the student
to Jefferson's report of June 6, 1818, drawn by him and
signed not only by him, but by Madison and Monroe
and CabeU, upon the establishment of a State Uni
versity. It is one of the ablest and most interesting of
his state papers. This much of it I wiU quote: —
"By a biU of the last session, passed by one branch, and printed
by the other for pubUc consideration, a disposition appears to go
into a system of general education, of wMch a single Umversity for
the use of the whole State is to be a component part. A purpose so
auspicious to the future destimes of our coimtry, wMch would
bring such a mass of mind into activity for its welfare, cannot be

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 275
contemplated without kindUng the warmest affection for the land
of our birth, with an ammating prospect into its future Mstory.
WeU directed education improves the morals, enlarges the minds,
enlightens the councils, instructs the industry, and advances the
power, the prosperity and the happiness of the nation."
He was no orator, but here, as in the Declaration of
Independence and in the First Inaugural Address, he
is eloquent. As a result of this report a bill was passed,
which gave authority for the foundation of the Uni
versity of Virginia, whereunder Jefferson and some
others, including Madison, were appointed members of
a commission to determine upon a suitable place for it.
Mr. Jefferson's report to the Legislature, as Chairman
of this comnussion, is one of his greatest state docu
ments. In it he undertook to delineate the work of
the lower schools — common schools — and that of the
grammar schools and colleges, which were to be "insti
tutions intermediate between primary schools and the
University," and of the University itself.
Upon a meeting of the Board of Visitors constituted
by the Act, under the authority reposed in them, they
selected Thomas Jefferson as Rector of the University.
From that time on the University became his pet and
ahnost the complete monopoUst of his tune and at
tention. It has been said that Jefferson had no unagination.
If it be meant by this that he had none of the romantic
tinge, it is perhaps true, but he had constructive
imagination of the highest order. He planned, not
for what was then needed, but for a greater future than
his or any other University in America has yet enjoyed,
although the work of his own has been of the most

276 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
thorough and the most useful sort. He said, in a
report of November 29, 1821, to the Directors of the
Literary Fund: —
"We had, therefore, no supplementary guide but our own judg
ments, wMch we have exercised conscientiously, in adopting a scale
and style of building, beUeved to be proportioned to the respect-
abihty, the means, and the wants of our coimtry, and such as may be
approved in any future condition it may attain. We owed it to it
to do, not what was to perish with ourselves, but what would remain,
to be respected and preserved tMough other ages, and we fondly
hope that the instruction wMch may flow from tMs institution,
kindly cherished, by advancing the noinds of our youth with the
growing science of the times, and elevating the views of our citizens
generally, to the practice of the social duties and functions of self-
government, may ensure to our country the reputation, the safety
and prosperity, and aU the other blessings, wMch experience proves
to result from the cultivation and improvement of the mind; and,
without going into the monitory Mstory of the ancient world,
in aU its quarters, and at aU its periods, that of the soil on wMch we
Uve, and of its occupants, indigenous and immigrant, teaches the
awful lesson, that no nation is permitted to live in ignorance with
impunity." It has been urged by some critics that Mr. Jefferson
had the idea of a university only for a State, while
Washington's "grander conception" had gone to a
national university. I am not one of those who
beUeve that a great national university, overshadowing
the State universities, is the best in the long run for
the coimtry. I think that each State of this Union,
as it becomes more densely settled, will have sufficient
means readily to furnish its citizens with a great uni
versity, equal to anything in Europe, in its scope, its
thoroughness, its teaching faculty, its apparatus, and
its architecture, and that the estabhshment of a

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 277
great national university would discourage the growth
towards perfection of the State institutions. But, as
it happens, this opinion of mine Mr. Jefferson did not
share, thus, as usual, putting his critics to shame —
for, in his sixth annual message to Congress, he urged
the foundation of a university at Washington, saying,
in answer to obvious arguments of the old school
against it: "A public institution can alone supply those
sciences which, though rarely caUed for, are yet neces
sary to complete the circle, all the parts of which con
tribute to the improvement of the country, and some
of them to its preservation."
I beUeve that the Federal Government has taken
over so many things that it has resulted in the States
waiting on it for nearly everything. If the dreams of
Washington and Jefferson had been reahzed early in
our history, the great and splendidly conducted State
universities, now within easy reach of nearly every
citizen's boy, would never have been born, and the
older privately endowed institutions, like Harvard,
and Yale, and Princeton, and King's or Columbia,
aheady born, would have lagged behind in the race,
overshadowed and becoming more and more compara
tively incompetent to aid in the great higher educational
work of the land, and possessing from generation to
generation less and less the confidence of the student
body and the faculty body of the Union.
In Jefferson's educational report, written from Fish
Gap Inn, August 1, 1818, to which I have already
referred, there are some things the reading of which
may or may not tire your patience, but they are so
sound, so fuU of common sense, so far from doctrin-

278 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
airism, of which take-things-on-trust writers always
accuse him, that I shall adventure it: —
"And tMs brings us to the point at wMch are to commence the
Mgher branches of education, of wMch the Legislature requires the
development; those for example, wMch are: —
"(1) To form the statesmen, legislators and judges, on whom
pubUc prosperity and individual happiness are so much to depend;
"(2) To expound the principles and stmcture of govemment,
the laws wMch regulate the intercourse of nations, those formed
municipaUy for our own govemment, and a sound spirit of legislar
tion, wMch, bamshing aU arbitrary and unnecessary restraint on
individual action, shaU leave us free to do whatever does not violate
the equal rights of another;
"(3) To harmomze and promote the interests of agriculture,
manufactures and commerce, and by weU-informed views of poUtcal
economy, to give a free scope to the pubUc industry;
"(4) To develop the reasomng faculties of our youth, enlarge
their minds, cultivate their morals, and instill into them the pre
cepts of virtue and order;
" (5) To enUghten them with mathematical and physical sciences,
wMch advance the arts, and admimster to the health, the subsistence,
and the comforts of human life;
"And, generaUy, to form them to habits of reflection and cor
rect action, rendering them examples of virtue to others, and of
happiness witMn themselves.
"These are the objects of that Mgher grade of education, the
benefits and blessings of wMch the Legislature now proposes to
provide for the good and omament of their coimtry, the grati
fication and happiness of their feUow-citizens, of the parent espe
ciaUy, and Ms progeny, on whom aU of Ms affections are concen
trated." Jefferson's plan held out, as we have seen, prizes m
each of the grades of the educational system, to an
honored place in the next higher grade which would be
not only of material value to those who succeeded in
obtaining them, but of mind-training value to those

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 279
who unsuccessfuUy competed for them, and perhaps
of stiU greater aspiration value to the general body of
pupils and students as fixing an ideal educational
esprit du corps.
In this report of 1818 to the Legislature of Virginia
Jefferson, among other things, says: —
"Education generates habits of appUcation, of order, of the
love of virtue, and controls by the force of habit any innate ob-
Uquities in our moral organization. We should be far, too, from the
persuasion that man is fixed, by the law of his nature, at a given point;
that Ms improvement is a cMmera, and the hope delusive of render
ing Mmself wiser, happier, or better than our fore-fathers were.
As weU might it be urged that the wild and uncultivated tree,
Mtherto yielding sour and bitter fruit only, can never be made to
yield better; yet we know that the grafting art implants a new tree
on the savage stock. ... It cannot be but that each generation,
succeeding to the knowledge acquired by aU those that preceded
it, adding to it their own acquisitions and discoveries, and handing
the mass down for successive and constant accumulation, must
advance the knowledge and weU-being of mankind, not infinitely,
as some have said, but indeflnitely, and to a term which no man can
fix and foresee."
A great system of state-supported common schools,
academies and universities, in a government where all
men are accounted equal, gives to the poor, as well as
to the rich, the opportumty of developing their talents,
and does it in institutions without class bias. Some
universities and colleges have a spirit which would
subject man's mind, by hmiting free range of thought,
and some others resting upon private endowments, even
in our own country to-day, are permeated with the
distinct bias of plutocracy. A seffish and designing
plutocracy can give Jefferson's "kings, nobles and
priests" of the opening quotation of this chapter two

280 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
pomts in every game of three and stiU nearly always
win. He was happy in calling attention to the fact, that
the benefits of coUeges and universities are not monopo-
Uzed by students within their walls. Every man goes
out as a practical teacher in that walk of Ufe, which he
is to tread — to the advantage of aU with whom he
comes in contact.
Jefferson, throughout his whole Ufe, was pretty
strong in preambles to bUls. The preamble to his BiU
for the Better Diffusion of Knowledge, in 1779, is as
foUows: "And to avail the Commonwealth of those
talents and virtues, which nature has sown so hberaUy
among the poor as the rich, and which are lost to their
country by the want of means for their cultivation;
Be it further enacted," etc. Queer language for a
dry statute, but characteristic of Jefferson! What
foUows, too, occurring in a letter written to Dr. W. T.
Barry on August 4, 1822, is characteristic. After
complimenting Barry on what had been done in the
Legislature of Kentucky for popular education, he
says: "A popular govemment, without information or
the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce
or a tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever
govern ignorance." Even the early aboUtionists and
the doctrinaires and the theorists of "reconstruction,"
who frequently mistook Jefferson for their apostle,
without fuUy understanding either bim or why, learned
that lesson in the course of time.
In one of Jefferson's letters to Adams, written in
1813, he speaks of an educational system as "the
keystone of the arch of our Govemment."

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 281
And to Joseph C. CabeU, two years afterwards, he
wrote: —
"Were it necessary to give up either the Primaries, or the
University, I would rather abandon the last, because it is safer to
have a whole people respectably enhghtened, than a few in a Mgh
state of science, and the many in ignorance. TMs last is the most
dangerous state in wMch a nation can be."
And yet I heard a critic once say that it was " char
acteristic of the South and Southern statesmen" that
Jefferson should have spent time and wasted fortune
in building a university in a State without a compat
ible system of free schools, with the idea that " ff a few
people were highly cultivated," civilization and the
State would be in the best possible condition!
As the democratic support, which he had received
in his great work of making-over the American soul-
politic, had had its surest strength in Virginia and in
Kentucky, he never ceased to admonish all Virginians
and Kentuckians to take up the great work of popular
education, and if they did not heed his admonitions
to the extent to which they ought to have heeded them,
it is but another instance of "a prophet not without
honor save in his own country!" The great West
took it up, "the country beyond the mountains," as
he was fond of calhng it, where Jefferson was beloved
and confided m, as perhaps no man of our entire
history ever was, and in the acts of their legislatures
and by the great burden of taxation which they have
voluntarily borne, they have echoed his language:
"No other sure foundation [than education] can be
devised for the preservation of freedom and happi
ness." Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, IlUnois and Indi-

282 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
ana were early in the field; Michigan, as we have seen,
by the direct inspiration of Jefferson; Kentucky, also,
under his direct inspiration, founded the Transylvania
University, from which great things were expected, but
which the slaveholders' poverty, because of inefficient
labor, and his lack of sympathy with an educated com
mon people permitted much to decay and languish.
Jefferson never showed greater contempt for author
ity than in his organization of the University of Virginia.
He not only put modern languages upon an equal foot
ing with Latin and Greek and Apphed Mathematics
on a footing with pure mathematics, but he insisted
on teaching all appUed sciences. He organized a uni
versity of separate and independent schools, where a
boy who had a particular reason for wanting to study
French, for instance, could study French without having
to be first examined in mathematics or something else,
and a boy who wanted to fit himseff to be an Architect
or a Civil Engineer could take up the mathematics
leading to that profession and the art itself, without
having to show that he knew Latin or French —
schools which might be entered by any one, provided
only he knew enough to take up the work in that school,
where it began at the University. Not only that, but
he left each student free — not comparatively, or in a
modified way — but absolutely — to study just what
he wanted to study, and he buttressed the freedom of
teaching, as it was buttressed in no other institution —
each professor in each school being the judge of how he
should teach, and teaching by lecture. This sort of
school was especially adapted to the condition of the
South and Southwest at that time.

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 283
It was assumed that a boy fit to enter a university
knew the importance of mastering his work, and also
knew beforehand, at that particular institution at any
rate, that, unless it was thoroughly mastered, he could
not possibly pass the only tests, two examinations, one
intermediate of the term called the Intermediate and
the other at the end of it, called the Final.
I once heard a man say that he who was not master
of the Greek subjunctive could not possibly have his
mind trained. I never dispute with a dogmatist, but
I thought to myself that the complete mastery of the
German, or even the English, subjunctive was a thing
"not to be sneezed at." In addition to the fact that
Latin and Greek have been made a fetish of, they have
been mistaught. They ought to be taught to children,
as German and Italian are, from easy primers up, and
to a large extent, objectively — conversationally —
by pointing out things with their names. The fact is,
that in the teaching of all languages some degree of
fluency in vocabulary should precede the acquirement
of the niceties of grammar-science.
To Ulustrate: There are many, doubtless, among my
readers who can read German or French easUy without
conscious translating, after having spent from a haff
to a third as much time in acquiring them as was
spent in procuring a more or less formal reading
acquaintance with Latin and Greek. In fact, for a
whUe there was a superstition to the effect that civih-
zation itself — that is, the progress of culture — de
pended upon the acquirement of Latin and Greek.
The Japanese have dissipated that idea. It is wonder
ful what a progress they have made in aU the arts and

284 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
sciences and languages of modern Europe, but they left
Latin and Greek out of their curricula, not because
they were not worth studying, but because the Japanese
had something else to do.
The United States have "gone a world-powering."
Under our flag are Porto Rico and the thousand isles
of the Phihppine Archipelago, and yet a hundred boys
probably are taught Latin in the pubhc schools of
America, where one is taught Spanish. No man was
ever a greater stickler for the study of the classics than
was Mr. Jefferson, but he was never superstitious about
it, and never had the notion that an American boy
ought to be prevented from studying other things
simply because he had not studied them. In his ' ' Notes
on Virginia," he says: "The learning Greek and Latin
is going into disuse in Europe. I know not what their
manners and customs may caU for; but it would be very
iU-judged in us to follow their example in this instance."
"I do not pretend that language is a science," he says
in addition. "It is only an instrument for the attain
ment of science, but that time is not lost which is
employed in providing tools for future operations."
Jefferson always conceived more than he could con
summate. Back as far as 1779, he had tried to have
chemistry made an independent branch at Wilham and
Mary. This was at a time when Buffon thought that
chemistry was no more entitled to be caUed a science
than cookery.
One of the branches which Jefferson thought the best
fitted for a place in a university school for the people
was what he called the Science of Govemment —
poUtical economy, and the poUtical history of England

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 285
and the United States, and of Virginia, the Consti
tution of the United States, and the Federalist, etc.
I am not sure, but I do not beheve that the idea of
estabhshing a school of the Science of Government in
its several branches had then been broached by any
one. At any rate, it is only of late years that such
schools have been established in any degree of complete
ness at all, including even diplomacy and the history
of diplomacy, in American universities. Of course,
constitutional law and international law were very
early taught to those, who proposed to pursue the
legal profession, and in them is to be found much of
the science of government. Some slight degree of
proficiency in such science of political economy as then
existed was, too, within the reach of the American
student. Notwithstanding all of Jefferson's efforts,
the University of Virginia has not to-day a separate
school of the science of government. There was some
talk three or four years ago about adding that school
to the others, but I believe, for some reason, the project
failed. It is the noblest of all studies, and the most
universally useful in a free country. Whatsoever is
done now in that line of study by the youth of our
country — and especially at Columbia and at Johns
Hopkins much good work has been done — it must be
remembered, to Jefferson's eternal honor, that he pro
posed it nearly a hundred years ago; in fact, going
back to his first proposal of it, fully that long.
All through the very many expressions occurring and
recurring in his letters and pubhc papers concerning
education, is the idea that its chief object is to fit men
for citizenship and statesmanship. No man ever

286 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
reahzed more keenly than he the interplay between
democratic institutions and education, the manner in
which each requires and nourishes the other. It is
not only true that free institutions cannot exist for
long, when based upon doing the will of the ignorant,
but it is also tme that democratic institutions constitute
the greatest encouragement to education. Education
being necessary to its success, a successful democracy
must provide it. The one, education, is the firm base;
the other, democracy, is the beautfful super-structure.
They are parts of one monument — a monument dedi
cated to the indefinite perfectibUity of human insti
tutions, and of the human race.
Jefferson, the theorist! And yet, as early as April,
1814, he had seized upon a great idea — stiU con
necting education and citizenship — which has even
yet been adopted in only four or five of the American
States, my own, I am proud to say, being one of them.
In a letter written to De Onis, then Spanish Minister,
he said, concerning the Constitution, which had been
adopted by the hberal party in Spain : —
"There is one provision wMch will immortaUze its inventors.
It is that wMch, after a certain epoch, disfrancMses every citizen
who cannot read and write. TMs is new, and it is the fruitful germ
of the improvement of everytMng good, and the correction of every
thing imperfect in the present constitution. TMs wUl give you an
enhghtened people, and an energetic pubhc opimon wMch wiU
control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the govemment."
In every country where the aristocracy rules, it rules
by the aid of an ignorant rabble, by mihtary sub
jection, by purchase of votes, by intimidation about
employment, by force of the rabble being somehow

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 287
dependent upon it, or, by the force of a certain menial
and master affinity — Uke that between the "nigger"
and the "quality" — which ties the rabble to the
aristocracy. D'IsraeU had to some extent this idea
of cooperation of the aristocracy and the rabble, in
his mind, as have had some of the other so-caUed
"Democratic Tories" in Great Britam. If you can
cut off that ignorant, iUiterate rabble by confining the
suffrage to those at least, who are sufficiently enhght
ened to read and write, you have to a large extent
Uroited the scope of aristocratic influence.
While we teach that men must prepare themselves
for many things, we leave them to imagine that they
are natural-born graduates in the science of govern
ment. Never fear that in the long mn, democracy wUl
not find its own errors, and wiU not correct them. But
also never hope that in the meantime there wiU not be
much of error, much of wrong, and some oppression.
My own impression is that an educational quahfica-
tion for the suffrage would go far to remove the evil of
bad government, and that teaching every man some
thing of the science of government, and at least so much
to the informed as involves the proposition that he is
a poor citizen, who does not carry his information to
his primaries and to the elections, would go further.
At any rate, it is plain that every species of information
and of science has been more rapidly advanced, than
the science of government itself.
This subject was a sort of mania with Jefferson.
Numbers of young men in Virginia were writing to him
aU the time to know what books to read, writing to
him as a sort of tutor. Many of them moved into

288 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
CharlottesviUe, even before the University was opened,
to get the benefit of his advice and hbrary. He wrote
to Kosciuszko concerning them in this language: —
"In advising the course of their reading, I endeavor to keep
their attention fixed on the main objects of all science, the freedom
and happiness of men. So that, coming to bear a share in the councils
and govemment of their country, they wiU keep ever in view the
sole objects of all legitimate government."
He never had the happiness of reading Tennyson, but
he understood fuUy the theory and hope of men rising
"on stepping-stones of their dead selves to higher
things," and, although he never expressed it in that way,
he would have been charmed with Tennyson's expres
sion of the idea, that the final and highest goal and hope
for aU is "in the Parhament of man, the Federation of the
world," and that man's nearest approach to perfecti
bihty will be when among an informed people "the
common sense of most shaU hold a fretful realm in
awe." "The common sense of most" is an expression
that would have tickled his very heart, and I sometimes
wonder why he never thought of it. I sometimes
wonder, too, how much, ff anything, of the ideaUst
poet's thoughts were due to Thomas Jefferson. Con
sciously, I imagine, very Uttle — unconsciously, and
by world-kinship-infiltration, I suspect, a good deal.
However that may be, there is much in common
between what may be caUed the poUtical and social
philosophy of Locksley HaU and the ideas of Jefferson.
One of the curious reasons that Jefferson gives in
recommending especially the study of history is that it
"wUl enable them [that is, the people] to know

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 289
ambition under every guise it may assume; and know
ing it, to defeat its views."
Ambitious and seff-seeking men are such chameleons,
and succeeding periods and conditions differ so much
from those that have gone before, that it would be
curious to examine how far famiUarity with the methods
of the old enenues of liberty would teach the people
the designs of the new.
It is pathetic to note the broad scope of Jefferson's
ideas, as in the letter to Peter Carr, during the Revo
lution, when compared with what the Legislature and
the people of the State of Virginia could be prevailed
upon, or were able, actually to do. He speaks of teach
ing not only the Science of Govemment, to which I have
referred, but agriculture, horticulture, veterinary sci
ence, and electricity, about which almost nothing was
known in his day, and meteorology, a science of which
it may be said that it is not yet full bom, and, finally,
galvanism and magnetism, concerning which the same
statement may even yet be made. Even at that early
date, he suggested a scheme for night schools, where
lectures should be given to those, whose daily occu
pations did not permit them to use dayhght time. I
have no knowledge whether any of the founders of any
of these most useful institutions ever got inspiration
from him, but I know that he preceded them all in
America by from a quarter to a half a century, and that
if they had read him, it would have been a helpful and
sympathetic reading.
After much reading of Jefferson, I cannot escape the
idea that he frequently wrote with the conviction that
every word he put on paper would some day come to
20

290 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
be read, not in Virginia alone, but far outside of her
limits. I cannot account for many utterances, except
upon "the sowing the seed by the wayside" theory.
A thought with bim was a seed to grow, a germ to
infect, "a Uttle leaven to leaven the whole lump,"
after the fermentation of its kind.
Jefferson attached a school of agriculture to his
scheme of the University, and explained how many of
the things to be taught in the other schools, like chem
istry, and botany, and zoology, etc., would naturaUy
interlink themselves with the study of agriculture;
Uke chemistry, for example, becoming agricultural
chemistry, etc. Most of our States, upon receiving
Federal aid for agricultural schools, have founded
separate institutions, duplicating much of the work
done at the State universities, and duphcating, to a
great degree, the expense. A school of agriculture
connected with each State university, and a plan for
a degree in agriculture, to be attained as a result of
proficiency in all the studies in the agricultural school
proper, plus a proficiency in several other cognate
schools, would have effected the purpose in view much
more cheaply and much more efficiently, provided only
the State university would not have required of the
boy desiring to study agriculture, that he pass a sense
less examination in subjects a knowledge of which is
not necessary to the mastery of scientific agriculture.
It was pecuharly fit that in Jefferson's memory a
school of agriculture should have been attached to the
University of Virginia, and, yet, after an ineffectual
attempt, which failed for what reasons I know not
(but chiefly, I take it, because of the contempt felt by

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 291
the votaries of higher classicism for so plebeian a
pursuit), a separate college of agriculture was founded
at Blacksburg, Virginia.
Those who understand Jefferson's pecuharly inter
esting character can smile with pleasure, when they
reflect how pleased he would have been at the pemsal
of the endless number of Farmers' BuUetins, which
proceed from the Department of Agriculture at Wash
ington, and from the various agricultural coUeges of
the country. He would have been superlatively
absorbed in some of Dr. Wiley's interesting work,
and in his still more interesting narration of it, and his
optimistic and sanguine temperament, running ahead
of the time to the end, would have seen in Willis
Moore's meteorological reports a period when the
agriculturahst, "forewarned by science," would no
longer hold his fortune at the sport of winds and frosts.
In the "back to the farm" movement, Jefferson
would have been in the front rank. He always thought
that farming was the natural, and the noblest industrial
pursuit in which men could engage. He speaks of it
in a letter to David Williams, dated November 4, 1803,
as the one which is "first in utility" and "ought to be
first in respect." He thought that: —
"The same artificial means wMch have been used to produce a
competition in learmng, may be equally successful in restoring
agriculture to its primary dignity in the eyes of men. It is a science
of the very first order. It counts among its handmaids the most
respectable sciences; such as Chemistry, Natural PMlosophy,
Mechanics, Mathematics generally. Natural History, Botany. In
every college and university a professorsMp of agriculture, and the
class of its students, might be honored as the first. Young men
choosing their academical education with tMs, as the crown of aU

292 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF EJFFERSON
other sciences, fascinated with its soUd charms, and at a time when
they are to choose an occupation, instead of crowding the other
classes, would return to the farms of their fathers, their own, or
those of others, and replemsh and invigorate a calling now languish
ing," etc.
Tme then, every word of it. True yet. The disease
caUed high cost of hving, and by many other names, is
here diagnosed, and a partial remedy is eloquently
suggested. In addition to that, it sounds, does it not,
a good deal Uke what we are pleased to caU "modem
scientffic agriculture"? It is as far removed as possible
from the notion that a boy that is fit for anything else
ought not to go to farming, and stiU further removed
from the cavaher-hke contempt with which coUege
fledgeUngs view the great primary art. The trath is,
that it requires very much more brains and very much
more information to be a really successful and up-to-
date farmer, than it does to make an excellent lawyer,
physician. Senator, or coUege professor — besides
contributing more to human comfort and freedom.
It is one of the occupations that you cannot pursue to
highest point of success without possessing a sort of
encyclopedic information, coupled with initiative and
decision, for the problem is never the same for any
two years.
But enough of what is perhaps a hobby.
Speaking of Enghsh — the noblest of languages —
and the importance of its study, these are his words:
"A language already fraught with aU the eminent
science of our parent country, the future vehicle of
whatever we may ourselves achieve, and destmed to
occupy so much space on the globe, claims distm-
giushed attention in American education." He might

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITLTIONS 293
have expressed a just pride that before he retired from
office his pohcies had resulted in our language occupying
a yet more broadly extended "space on the Globe."
When Jefferson was a boy his father had told him
that the training of the hand must go step by step with
that of the mind. In fact, his father, being a very large
and powerful man, held the opinion that really great
minds could not exist outside of strong bodies. Jeffer
son therefore pointed out that a hall for physical
training, with the proper apparatus, ought to be at
tached to the University. Again the consummation
feU short of his conceptions. The Virginia Legislature
regarded that, I suppose, as "one of Jefferson's pets."
At any rate, the University did not have a gymnasium
untU a few years ago, when Mr. Fayerweather donated
the money for its erection and equipment.
In a letter to Peter Carr, which Jefferson wrote on
September 7, 1814, he thus outlines another scheme for
physical culture and national defense, which even to
this day has not gone into operation and which might
well be adopted at his and all State universities:
"Through the whole collegiate course, at the hours of
recreation on certain days, all of the students should
be taught the manual exercise [meaning the manual
of arms], military evolutions, and manoeuvres, and
should be under a standing organization, with proper
officers to train and command them." It seems curious
that Jefferson should seemingly have forgotten here his
own cherished principle of leaving the choice of study
always open to the student. However, his idea might
be weU applied, with this modification, that those only
who choose to do so shaU attend the school of miUtary

294 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
science and practice. Thus the members of the student
military organization would be volunteers. It would
furnish the United States, by the way, with a very good
and not a smaU army — highly trained, because com
posed of especially inteUigent men — without a doUar
of pubhc expense, except the amount of money neces
sary for each State to employ the three professors of
tactics and strategy and nuhtary history — even these,
as weU as the drUl master, could be detailed from the
Regular Army. The other branches — mathematics,
engineering, etc. — would interUnk from the other
schools already existing in each university.
The heart of a university is its teaching faculty,
and its hbrary. Jefferson's University was early pro
vided with a very useful hbrary, from which, however,
he excluded novels, and, from the beginning, his own
hbrary, which was probably the largest and best selected
private collection then in America, was at the service of
its students.
His professors were gotten, for the most part, from
abroad. They were aU men of the highest abihty in
their respective hues of work.
But even teachers cannot make an institution of
learning great unless the teachers and the teaching are
free and untrammelled. With this idea in his mind,
Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Mr. Roscoe, dated December
7, 1820, says: —
"TMs institution wiU be based on the ilUmitable freedom of the
human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the trath wher
ever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error, so long as reason is left
free to combat it."

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 295
His professors went through the experience, that
every man and woman did, who were brought into close
personal contact with Jefferson, unless there was some
poUtical or religious reason to make it almost im
possible. They feU in love with him. It is interesting,
and, indeed, affecting, to read what they wrote about
him — Dunglison, Tucker, and all of them.
It is perfectly wonderful that the man should have
succeeded in erecting the beautiful buildings, each a
type of classic architecture — himself being the archi
tect and draftsman — in importing the professors, and
in putting the institution into operation, considering
where he was, by what confronted, and what limited
means he had at his disposal. The poorer men of
Virginia were apt to say, "well, that will never do my
boy any good. I cannot afford to board him there."
The rich planter was wont to say that he had money
enough to send his own boys to coUege and he did not
care about being taxed to send other people's boys
thither. Of this last class, who were not as numerous
as the former, but had much more influence with the
Legislature, Jefferson, on January 14, 1818, in writing
to CabeU, said — and I think said beautifully: —
"And wiU the wealthy individual have no retribution, and what
will tMs be? 1. The peopUng of Ms neighborhood with honest,
useful, and enhghtened citizens, understanding their own rights and
firm in their perpetuation. 2. When their own descendants become
poor, wMch they generally do in three generations, (no law of pn-
mogemture now perpetuating wealth in the same famiUes) their
children wiU be educated by the then rich, to Ms descendants,
when become poor, thus wiU be given a chance of rising again.
This is a soUd consideration and should go home to the bosom of
every parent. TMs wiU be seed sown in fertile ground. It is a

296 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
provision for Ms family looking to distant times, and far in duration
beyond that he has now in hand for them. Let every man count
backward in Ms own family, and see how many generations he can
go before he comes to the ancestor who made the fortune he now
holds. Most of us wiU be stopped at the first generation, many at
the second, few wiO reach the third, and not one in the State can go
beyond the fifth."
The finest citizenship in the world in the days of
Washington and Jefferson was, and in our own day is,
that of Virginia. EngUsh sturdiness and sure-f ootedness
are combined with American vivacity and initiative.
Its greatness especiaUy shines out in loyalty and courage
and truth, and simphcity of Uving — the cardinal
virtues; but it was not then and it is not now pecuharly
susceptible to appeals to make pecuniary sacrffices to
be recompensed by remote rewards, especially if these
rewards are of an educational character. But the
patient, sweet-tempered old philosopher won measur
able victory over aU difficulties, and was ready when his
time came to say nunc dimittis.
When La Fayette visited the University and Monti
ceUo in 1825, at the grand banquet which was given to
him Jefferson attended, and in response to a toast in
his own honor, being too feeble to rise and respond,
handed to a friend to read a paper upon which the
foUowing words were written: —
"My friends, I am old, long in the disuse of making speeches,
and without voice to utter them. In tMs feeble state, the exhausted
powers of hfe leave httle witMn my competence for your service.
If, with the aid of my younger and abler coadjutors, I can stiU con
tribute anytMng to advance the institution witMn whose waUs we
are mingling mamfestations to tMs our guest, it wiU be, as it ever
has been, cheerfuUy and zealously bestowed. And could I Uve to

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 297
see it once enjoy the patronage and cherishment of our pubhc
authorities with undivided voice, I should die without a doubt of
the future fortunes of my native State, and in the consoling con
templation of the happy influence of tMs institution on its character,
its virtue, its prosperity, and safety."
He never lived to see it enjoy "with undivided voice
the patronage and cherishment" of Virginia's "pubhc
authorities," nor has any one yet Uved thus long.
Virginia has been, upon the whole, niggardly, not
generous. It looks now, as ff she would leave the first
completely established State university in the world
behind those that have been estabhshed elsewhere on
the plan of its founder. The people of the new States
in the West have adopted Jefferson's state university
idea, and they have been much more generous, and
less divided, in their support. Many of the Western
universities surpass the parent institution in wealth,
appUances, numbers in the faculty, comprehensive scope
of teaching, and, especially, with irony of fate, in those
very practical applied sciences, that Jefferson's mind
was so pecuharly bent upon fostering. But his influ
ence has been none the less great and permanent, not
only in the Western States, where his idea was taken up
"with undivided voice," but in his own State, and the
institution which he founded has given tone and
character, in a notable way, not only to Virginia, but
to the entire South. Its work has been thorough, even
where its scope has not been comprehensive, and the
esprit du corps has constituted one of the most precious
things upon the American continent — diffusing a
spirit of honor, freedom, and love of truth. It is to-day
undoubtedly, in its spirit and in its practices, the least

298 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
plutocratic and perhaps the most democratic institution
in the East. Its students do not know, because they
do not inquire, nor care to know, whether a student is
poor or rich. They do sometimes know whether he
comes from a good or a bad family.
Tucker says that in consequence of a riotous tumult
in which one of Jefferson's nephews was concerned, the
laws of freedom at the University had to be somewhat
altered. Perhaps so in theory, and perhaps so even in
practice in his time, but in my day, in practice at any
rate, there were only two rules : first, the rule which
guides gentlemen in their intercourse with one another;
and secondly, the rule which ought to guide all citizens
— obedience to the laws of the State and of the United
States. There was no such thing as a pubhc expulsion,
though sometimes young men would quietly go home,
and the supposition was that the Chairman of the
Faculty had called for them, and, in a private conver
sation, had admonished them that they were doing no
good for themselves or anybody else, and that perhaps
it would be better for them to "seek some other field of
usefulness." Whenever this took place, of course it
meant that they did go; but Jefferson's idea of not
putting a stain upon a mere youth, that might hamper
him aU through life, was observed in my day there.
There was a rule that you must attend lectures; that
is, that you must not "cut" over so many lectures in a
month, unless your absence was due to sickness, and
it was pretty well known that transcending this rule
might lead to the private admonition. Being once in
the class room and being interrogated upon the subject
matter of the last lectm-e, any student could reply

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 299
"Not prepared," and there was, strange to say, no
limit upon the number of times that he could reply
"Not prepared." There was a reason for it: he had to
pass his "Intermediates" and "Finals" anyhow —
they were the tests.
In connection with Jefferson and the University of
Virginia, Schouler, in his "Life of Jefferson," says: —
"The first Rector of the University of Virgima Uved long enough
to see the institution opened in the Spring of 1825, with a fair roll
of students for matriculation and a corps of able professors, most
of whom he imported from Europe, recogmzing that in the world
of letters a young RepubUc must not be self-sufficient. Vicissitudes
shared by Virgima herself have kept tMs institution, perhaps, from
making its impression felt throughout the Umon; but the oldest
and richest of America's institutions have, in later times, enlarged,
one after another, their spheres of activities upon a similar model.
All the strong ideas wMch Jefferson's imiversity put in force for
the first time upon American soil, remain to tMs day as the founder
fixed them — the distinct schools in which one may specialize
his knowledge; the substitution of electives for the routine of a
curriculum; the honour system of discipUne among students,
which sets them to influencing one another and makes a law of
liberty; and finally, an even balance between aU reUgious and poUt
ical sects and parties. In matters of the Mgher education Jefferson,
as a close student of comparative systems and an adapter to the
American age, was much farther in advance of Ms times than ia
poUtics; and hence Ms fame in that respect has come less rapidly,
but it wiU come at last."
Hamilton W. Mabie, in an article on "The University
of Virginia," says: —
"It fulfilled Jefferson's noble conception of the place of a um
versity in a democratic society. It was our first real umversity.
It was hterally Jefferson's creation. It is the most democratic of
American coUeges in its orgamzation."

300 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
He adds that it was "the first coUege in this country
to adopt a general architectural scheme and to preserve
it mtact." George F. Mellen, in an article entitled
"Thomas Jefferson and Higher Education," New Eng
land Magazine, n. s., vol. 26, 1902, says: "He affected vi
tally educational ideals and changed radically some of
the current educational practices." He "introduced a
distinct chair of modern languages, . . . and became
the first champion of modem language studies in an
American coUege curriculum." George Ticknor visited
and sojourned with Jefferson at Monticello in 1816,
previous to his trip to Germany for study. MeUen
says their intimacy "bore fruit in broadening and
hberalizing work at Harvard," where Ticknor became
professor of French and Spanish Uterature.
That Jefferson interested himseff in pubhc hbraries
as schools for adults — and therefore indispensable
educational auxiharies — was demonstrated in his
letters. In 1809 he wrote to John Wyche, who had
informed him in a recent letter of the estabhshment of a
hbrary society: —
"I always hear with pleasure of institutions for the promotion
of knowledge among my countrymen. The people of every country
are the oMy safe guardians of their own rights, and are the only
instruments which can he used for their destruction. And certainly
they would never consent to be so used, were they not deceived.
To avoid tMs, they should be instructed to a certain degree. I
have often thought that notMng would do more good at small
expense than the estabhshment of a smaU circulating hbrary in
every county, to consist of a few weU-chosen books, to be lent to
the people of the county, under such regulations as would secure
their safe return in due time. These should be such as would give
them a general view of other Mstory, and a particular view of that

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 301
of their own country, a tolerable knowledge of geography, the
elements of natural philosophy, of agriculture, and mechamcs."
Of course, this is a vastly different scheme from
those immense coUections in large cities, in great and
expensive buUdings, of aU sorts of books, whose bene
fits may be great, but are not diffused throughout those
neighborhoods where they are most needed. It is
doubtful, ff a great free hbrary in a great city, the
donation of some generous man, produces results
conunensurate with the expense. In the first place,
there are apt to be several free libraries and a large
number of circulating libraries already in existence.
In the second place, for those who are not perfectly
indigent books are to be bought, except expensive
reference books, for a very httle. As a part of the
"back to the farm" movement, there ought to be a
free circulating hbrary in every rural neighborhood,
or else a free public library. It could be made a part
of the school teacher's business to carry the key, to
give out and take in and keep account of the books.
To save the pubhc from any expense at aU — except the
very slight one of wear and tear by use — a deposit
might be asked, recoverable upon the return of the
book. In connection with Jefferson's other educational
work, he was a member of the Virginia State Literary
Fund Board. Virginia not being prepared for com
pulsory education, he suggested the idea of holding
over the parent the penalty of the disfranchisement of
those of his children who could not read or write,
adding: "Society has certainly the right to disavow
him, whom it offers, and is not permitted to quaUfy

302 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
for, the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruc
tion, let us at least strengthen the motive to receive
it when offered."
The foUowing letter to CabeU I think is one of the
noblest ever penned, in its fortitude and optimism, and
in its faith in the youth of the future: —
"When I retired from the administration of pubUc affairs, I
thought I saw some evidence that I retired with a good degree of
pubhc favour, and that my conduct in office had been considered,
by the one party at least, with approbation, and with acquiescence
by the other. But the attempt in wMch I have embarked so ear
nestly, to procure an improvement in the normal condition of my
native state, although, perhaps, in other states it may have strength
ened good dispositions, it has assuredly weakened them within our
own. The attempt ran foul of so many local interests, of so many
personal views, and so much ignorance, and I have been considered,
as so particularly its promoter, that I see evidently a great change
of sentiment towards myself. I cannot doubt its having dissatis
fied a respectable niinority, if not a majority of the House of
Delegates. I feel it deeply and very discouragingly. Yet I shall
not ^ve way. I have ever found in my progress tMough life, that,
acting for the pubhc, if we do always what is right, the approbation
demed in the beginning wfll surely foUow us in the end. It is from
posterity we are to expect remuneration for the sacrifices we are
making for their service — of time, quiet, and good wUl, and I
fear not the appeal. The multitude of fine young men whom we
shaU redeem from ignorance, and who wfll feel that they owe to
us the elevation of mind, of character, and station they wUl be able
to attain from the result of our efforts, wiU insure their remembering
us with gratitude, we wUl not then be weary in weU doing. Usque
ad aras, amicus tuus."
The fact that Jefferson selected coUege-bred men for
his Cabinet has been cited to prove that he was a hypo
crite in his professions of democracy! It merely proves
mahce on the part of bim making the charge and that

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 303
Jefferson was not a demagogue. His action was abso
lutely consistent with the theory from which he never
departed, that information and education are neces
sary for government, especially m those who do the
actual governing.
The pohcy of giving to the States for educational pur
poses the sixteenth sections of the pubhc lands, whUe
the Government of the United States retains control
of the balance, had its begmning under Jefferson's
administration, at the time of the admission of Ohio as
a State. There was also given to that State five per
cent of the sales of public lands. The consecration of
the sixteenth sections to "the better diffusion of in
formation" in Ohio was imitated afterwards in all
cases upon the admission of new States, save in that of
Texas, which being first an independent repubUc,
reserved, with our consent, all her pubhc lands.
Nothing in our whole history has had a more perma
nently beneficial effect upon our institutions — political,
social and educational. One cannot doubt that it
was at President Jefferson's suggestion that Gallatin,
his Secretary of the Treasury, having at that time the
Land Office in his Department, made the recommen
dations to Congress.
As President of the United States, he signed many
biUs ia which he approved appropriating public lands
not only for common schools, but for academies and
coUeges. His conceptions were stupendous. They are
sometimes humorous or pathetic — depending on
your mood — when contrasted with his limited means
of embodying them. For example, his scheme of
transferring the whole University of Geneva to Rich-

304 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
mond, Virginia — a scheme which might have been
perfected, by the way, but for the fact that General
Washington pronounced the scheme impracticable.
Washington was one of the few men, whose opinions
sometimes controUed, and always influenced Jefferson.
Jefferson, whUe President, signed a bill providing
that in the territory south of the Tennessee line (con
stituting the present States of Mississippi and Ala
bama) the sixteenth section of every township should be
dedicated to the support of pubhc schools, and in the
Territory of Mississippi thirty-six sections of land were
given for the use of a college — which, by the way
was subsequently caUed "Jefferson CoUege" in compU-
ment to the President. I am sorry to say that this
munificent foundation was frittered away. After the
Louisiana Territory had been acquired and opened for
settlement, Jefferson signed the biU of April 21, 1806,
which not only reserved the sixteenth section of every
township, but devoted an additional township for the
support of "a seminary of learning."
He was an economist, but when it came to giving
away land for school purposes, he was as much of a
spendthrift, as he who was most of one. He was a
strict constructionist, but it does not seem to have
occurred to him that there could be any doubt of the
right of the Federal Government to give away its own
lands in advancement of the intelUgence of its own
citizens. In this, it was not acting so much in the
capacity of a government, as in that of a land-owner.
Congress being expressly empowered by the Consti
tution to "dispose of the territory and other property
of the United States." The dear old optimist had no

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 305
distrust of the future, as long as the destinies of the
country were hung to his "two hooks," popular edu
cation, and local self-government.
You wUl remember that Jefferson once suggested
amending the Constitution, so as to authorize the Fed
eral Government to cooperate with the States in edu
cational work. I think it may perhaps be said with
truth — though I have not given sufficient detaUed
research to make me assured of the accuracy of the
comparison — that under no single administration of
the Federal Government was there ever so much done
by the Government, with a view to helping the States
estabUsh and maintain education, as under his ad
ministration. The first RepubUcan Congress, with the incoming of
Jefferson, introduced a new custom which has had an
abiding and permanent educational effect upon the
people. Up to that time newspaper reporters were
admitted and expelled at the will of the Speaker, and
even while present, were not considered privileged to
comment upon the proceedings. One Speaker expelled
two for reporting speeches. Over in the Senate they
could sit in the gallery with the other spectators, if
they chose. The RepubUcans now gave reporters
desks on the floor, and ever since then that has been the
custom. This has two important effects: first, it acts
as a restraint and check upon the Congressmen in both
Houses; second, it educates the people in practical
governmental science.
On December 10, 1821, Hugh Nelson, a Representa
tive from Virginia, presented a petition signed by
Jefferson for the "Rector and Visitors of the University
21

306 PERMANENT INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON
of Virginia," praying that "the aid and patronage of
Congress may be extended to the cause of science and
Uterature generaUy throughout the United States by
an exemption from duties of aU books and other articles
generaUy used in acquiring information." This duty
was fifteen per cent. In the petition, weU worth your
perusal, occurs this phrase: "To obstruct the acquisi
tion of books from abroad, as an encouragement of the
progress of hterature at home, is burying the fountain
to increase the flow of its waters."
An adverse report from the Senate Finance Com
mittee caUs books "foreign luxuries" — fit subjects,
therefore, for taxation, and objects "to singling out
this important branch of industry" and "stripping it
of all protection" and "leaving it to struggle with
powerful competitors." How famihar these stock
phrases of beneficiaries of law-conferred special priv-
Ueges! Also in the adverse report, foreign books are
feared "as a means of foreign influence from which
our youths may imbibe sentiments, dangerous to our
Uberties." For three years the movement was laid aside. Then,
in 1824, Jared Sparks took it up again in the North
American Review, and Jefferson wrote a letter to en
courage him in the good and wise work. It was pub
Ushed with effect, and in the Tariff Act of 1824, the
taxes on books "printed before 1775" and on aU books
in foreign languages, except Latin and Greek, were
reduced. Printed before 1775! We didn't want any
late information! Too dangerous a luxury! Danger
ous to the pubUshers. Thus Congress refused "to
wipe this stain from our legislation," as Jefferson

ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 307
stigmatizes it in his letter to Sparks, "and ff possible
obUterate it from the mind of man."
In conclusion: Well warranted, indeed then, were
these words of the lovable "friend of man," written in
his extreme old age, not long before "the night came,
when no man could work," and standing as a prophecy
and a promise to be literally fulfilled up to the very
day but one before his death: —
"A system of general instmction wMch shaU reach every de-
description of our citizens from the Mghest to the poorest, as it
was the earUest, so it wiU be the latest, of aU the pubUc concerns
In wMch I shaU permit myself to take an interest."
Verily; again the words recur: —
."He was stigmatized as a dreamer, but Ms dreams came trae."

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Henry. History of the United States of America. New
York, Scribner, 1891-98. 9 v.
Adams, Herbert Baxter. Thomas Jefferson and the Umversity of
Virgima. WasMngton, Bureau of Education, 1888
Adams, John. Works, with a life of the author, notes and Ulustrationa
... by Charles Francis Adams. Boston, Little, 1850-56. 10 v.
Adams, John. Defence of the constitutions of government of the
United States. (In Works, v. 6)
Adamb, John. Discourses of Davila. (In Works, v. 6)
Ames, Fisher. Works; with a selection from his speeches and corre
spondence; edited by Seth Ames. Boston, Little, 1854. 2 v.
Bancroft, George. History of the United States. Author's last
revision. New York, Appleton, 1883-85. 6 v.
BoTJTELL, Lewis Henry. Thomas Jefferson, the man of letters.
Chicago, Privately printed, 1891
Brtce, James. The American commonwealth. 3rd edition. New
York, MacmUlan, 1893-95. 2 v.
Bitrk, John [Daly]. History of Virginia from its first settlement to
the present time. Vol. 1-3. Petersburg, the Author, 1804-5
Continued by S. Jones and L. H. Gerardin. Vol. 4. Petersburg,
Proprietors, 1816
Carter, Jameb Coolidgb. The University of Virgima; Jefferson its
father and Ms political philosophy; an address deUvered upon the
occasion of the dedication of the new buUdings of the Umversity,
June 14, 1898. [Charlottesville] The Umversity, 1898
Cook, Theodore Andrea. The original intention of the Monroe
doctrine. Fortnightly Review, 1898. 70: 357-68
Cooke, John Esten. Virginia; a history for the people. With a
supplementary chapter by W. G. Brown. (American common
wealths) Boston, Houghton, 1903
Curtis, William Elbroy. The true Thomas Jefferson. FhiladelpMa,
Lippincott, 1901
Dickinson, John. Political writings. Wilmington, Bonsai, 1801. 2 v
Dickinson, John. The declaration by the representatives of the
United Colonies of North-America, . . . setting forth the causes
and necessity of their taking up arms. July 6th, 1775. (In his
Pohtical writings. 1801, v. 2) 308

BIBLIOGRAPHY 309
Emancipation of Spanish America. Edinburgh Review, 1808. 13:
277-311
Federalist, The; a coUection of essays written in support of the Consti
tution, reprinted from the original text of Alexander Hamilton,
John Jay and James Madison; edited by H. C. Lodge. New
York, Putnam, 1902
Fiske, John. The American Revolution. Boston, Houghton, 1899. 2 v.
Fiske, John. Thomas Jefferson the conservative reformer. (In his
Essays Mstorical and literary. New York, MacmiUan, 1902,
vol. 1)
Ford, Paul Leicester. The French Revolution and Jefferson. The
Nation, 1S95. 61:61
Ford, Paul Leicester. Thomas Jefferson. Boston, Elson, 1904
Foster, John Watson. A century of American diplomacy. New
York, Houghton, 1900
Gardener, Helen Hamilton. An unofficial patriot. Boston, Arena
Pub. Co., 1894
GiBBS, George. Memoirs of the administrations of Washington and
John Adams; edited from the papers of OUver Wolcott. New
York [Van Norden, printer] 1846. 2 v.
Giraedin, L. H. See Burk, John Daly, above
Gkigsby, Hugh Blair. The Virginia Convention of 1776. A dis
course delivered before the Virginia Alpha of the Phi Beta Kappa
Society, in the chapel of William and Mary College . . . July 3,
1855. Richmond, Randolph, 1865
Hamilton, Alexander. [Speech in the Constitutional Convention,
June 18, 1787.] (In Madison, James. Papers. 1840. vol. 2,
p. 878-92)
Hamilton, Alexander. Works; comprising Ms correspondence, and
his political and oflBcial writings. . . Edited by John C. Hamilton.
New York, Trow, printer, 1850-51. 7 v.
Hamilton, John Church. Life of Alexander Hamilton. A history
of the Repubhc ... as traced in Ms writings and in those of his
contemporaries. Boston, Houghton, 1879. 7 v.
Hart, Albert Bushnell. American Mstory told by contemporaries.
New York, MacmUlan, 1901. Vol. 3: National expansion, 1783-
1845, p. 344-433
Hart, Albert Bushnell. The formation of the Union. 1750-1829.
(Epochs of American Mstory) New York, Longmans, 1910
Hazen, Charles Downer. Jefferson in France. (In his Contempor-
, ary American opinion of the French Revolution. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkms Univ., 1897)

310 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ingeeboll, Charles Jared. The duty on foreign books. North
American, 1824. 18: 163-68
Jay, John. Correspondence and pubhc papers, 1763-1826; edited by
H. P. Johnston. New York, Putnam, 1890-93. 4 v.
Jepfeeson, Thomas. Writings; coUected and edited by Paul Leicester
Ford. 1760-1826. New York, Putnam, 1892-99. 10 v.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Anas. (In Writings. Vol. 1, p. 154-339)
Jefferson, Thomas. Autobiography. (In Writings. Vol. 1, p. 1-
153)
Jefferson, Thomas. Communication to the American Commissioners
at Madrid, June 30, 1793. (In Writmgs. Vol. 6, p. 330-38)
Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of independence. (In Writings.
Vol. 2, p. 42-58. facsim.)
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration on taking up arms. (In Writings.
Vol. 1, p. 462-76)
Jefferson, Thomas. Draft of Report on Lord North's motion. (In
Writings. Vol. 1, p. 476-82)
Jefferson, Thomas. The Jefferson Bible. PMladelpMa, McKay,
1908
Jefferson, Thomas. Manual of parhamentary practice. (In U. S.
Congress — House of Representatives. Constitution, Jefferson's
manual, and Rules of the House. . . 1912)
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the state of Virginia. (In Writings.
Vol. 3, p. 68-295)
Jefferson, Thomas. Report of the revisers. June 18th, 1779. (In
Writmgs. Vol. 2, p. 195-239)
Jefferson, Thomas. A Summary view of the rights of British Amer-
'ica. . . (In Writings. Vol. 1, p. 421-47)
Jefferson's Memoirs and correspondence. Edinburgh Review, 1830.
51:496-528
Kean, Robert Garlic Hill. Thomas Jefferson as a le^lator.
[Richmond] 1887
From Virginia Law Journal, 11: 705-24
Lincoln, Abraham. Complete works; edited by John G. Nicolay
and John Hay. . . New and enlarged edition. New York,
Tandy, [c 1905] 12 v.
Letter on Je&erson's biithday. v. 6, p. 124-26
Lodge, Heney Cabot (editor). History of the United States, by
J. W. Gamer and H. C. Lodge. (History of nations, v. 23-24)
PhiladelpMa, Morris, 1906
Majbib, Hamilton Wright. Some famous schools: The University of
Vu-gmia. Outlook, August 4, 1900. 65: 785

BIBLIOGRAPHY 311
Madison, James. Papers; being Ms correspondence and reports of
debates; [edited] by Henry D. GUpm. WasMngton, Lanetree.
1840. 3v.
Marshall, John. The Life of George WasMngton. . . 2nd edition.
PhiladelpMa, Crissy, 1850. 2 v.
Mellen, George Frederick. Thomas Jefferson and Mgher edu
cation. New England Magazine, 1902, n. s. 26: 607-16
Merriam, Charles Edward. A history of American political theories.
New York, MacmiUan, 1903
Merwin, Henry Childb. Thomas Jefferson. (Riverside biog. series.)
Boston, Houghton [1901]
MoEEis, Gouverneur. Diary and letters; edited by Anne Gary
Morris. New York, Scribner, 1888. 2 v.
Morse, John Tohrby, Jr. Thomas Jefferson. (American statesmen)
Boston, Houghton, 1883
New England Magazine. [Editorials on Thomas Jefferson.] 1900-
l.n. 8.23:228-40
Otis, Jambs. The Rights of the British colonies asserted and proved.
Boston, Edes, 1764
Paemeleb, Mary Platt. Jefferson and Ms political philosophy.
Arena, 1897. 18: 505-16
Paeton, James. Jefferson a reformer of Old Virginia. Atlantic
Monthly, 1872. 30: 32-49
Parton, James. Jefferson's return from France in 1789. Atlantic
Monthly, 1872. 30: 547-65
Parton, Jambb. Meeting of Jefferson and Hamilton. Atlantic
Monthly, 1872. 30: 704-19
Powell, Edward Payson. Jefferson and Hamilton in our education. •
New England Magazine, 1896. n. s. 14: 699-706
Powell, Edward Paybon. A study of Thomas Jefferson. The
Arena, 1891. 3: 712-23
QmNCY, JoBiAH. Speeches delivered in the Congress of the United
States, 1805-13; edited by Edmund Quincy. Boston, Little, 1874
Randall, — . Thomas Jefferson as a lawyer. Columbia Jurist, 1886.
2: 479-80
From the Legal Adviser, 7: 223
Randall, Henry Stephens. The Life of Thomas Jefferson. New
York, Derby, 1858. 3 v.
Russell, John, 1st earl. Life and times of Charles James Fox. Lon
don, 1859-66. 3 V.
Sabine, Lorenzo. BiograpMcal sketches of loyalists of the American
Revolution. Boston, Little, 1864. 2 v.

312 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sage, Behnard Janin. A repubhc of repubUcs: A retrospect of our
century of federal Uberty. . . 3rd edition. Philadelphia, Harding,
1878
Sainte-Beuve, Charles Augubtin. Premiers lundis. Tome 2.
Paris, L6vy, 1874
Schouler, Jambs. Thomas Jefferson. (Makers of America) New
York, Dodd, 1893
Tourgee, Albion Wineqae. A fool's errand. New York, Fords,
1902
TucKBE, George. The life of Thomas Jefferson . . . Philadelphia,
Carey, 1837. 2 v.
Tyler, Mobeb Coit. The Uterary history of the American Revolution.
New York, Putnam, 1897-98. 2 v.
Vest, George Graham. Thomas Jefferson. An address at (!k)lumbia,
Missouri, Jime 4th, 1885. St. Louis, Buxtom, 1885
Walker, Francis Amasa. The making of the nation. 1783-1817.
(American history series) New York, Scribner, 1899
Washington, George. Writings; collected and edited by WortMngton
Chauncey Ford. New York, Putnam, 1889-93. 14 v.
Watson, Thomas Edward. Life and times of Thomas Jefferson. New
York, Appleton, 1903
Webster, Daniel. Works. Boston, Little, 1851. 6 v.
Webster, Sidney. Two treaties of Paris and the Supreme Court,
New York, Harper, 1901
WmTE, Andrew Dickson. Jefferson and slavery. Atlantic McnMy,
April, 1862. 9: 29^0
WnsrsHiP, Albert Edward, and Robert W. Wallace. The Louisiana
purchase as it was and as it is. CMcago, Flanagan [1903]
Witt, Cornelis Henei de. Thomas Jefferson: Etude historique sur
la dfimocratie amSricaine. Paris, 1861
Witt, CoRNiLis Henei de. Jefferson and the American democracy;
an historical study; translated by R. S. H. Church. London,
Longmans, 1862

INDEX

Academy of science, A central, to
control men, 53
Act for freedom of religion printed in
Paris, 265
Adams, Henry, on rejection of treaty
effected by Monroe, 133; on Jeffer
son's aspirations, 200-1
Adams, John, a founder, 1; error of,
about the sentiment for inde
pendence, 29; inaccurate as to
Declaration of Independence, SC
SI, 40; colossus of debate, 31, 42;
member of committee to prepare
Declaration, 33; to Pickering, on
the Declaration, 41; wrote Report
of Committee on Rights and
Grievances, 42-43; failed to see
ultimate issue of French Revo
lution, 59 ; contempt of, for common
folks, 61; in France, 107; "Dis
courses of Davila," 143-44; a re
actionary, 144; conversation with
Hamilton on the British Consti
tution, 156-57; defeated Jefferson
by three votes, 169-70; secured
peace with France, 173-74; hated
by Federalists, 174; his greatest of
services, 180; heterodoxy of, 245-46
Adams, Samuel, at Boston tea-party,
9; and committees of correspond
ence, 9
Agriculture, A school of, planned,
289, 290-91
Albemarle County, Instructions of,
12-13; Committee of Safety in,
20, 21; British prisoners in, 109-10
Alien and sedition laws passed, 145;
unexpected results of, 171; power
of President under alien law, 172;
Jefferson's antagonism to, 172; and
Know-Nothing movement, 172
Allegiance, The doctrine of inde
feasible, 16; first denial of, 68, 91
America, the fad in France, 107
American colonies, The, expatriated
themselves, 16

American Commissioners at Madrid,
Jefferson's communication to the,
124^25
American experience, 6; our institu
tions the product of, 38
American history, A suppressed chap
ter of, 143, 148, 194
American nations, An American policy
for aU, 134, 136
American people. The, based their
claims upon natural rights of man,
46
American political theory, Jefferson's
the, 54
American products in France, 107-8
American reign of terror, 175
American Revolution, Back to the
principles of the, 141, 183
Americanism, Exponents of, 100
Ames, Fisher, Letters of, 165; the
American people like free negroes,
165; on use for an army, 180
Anarchy, Seeming state of, 12
Angles and Saxons, The, expatriated
themselves, 16
Apollo Room in Raleigh Tavern at
Williamsburg, Meetings in, 10, 11
Applied sciences, at University of
Virgima, 282
Apportionment for representation,
240
Appropriations in lump sums, 237
Aristocracy and clergy, Jefferson's
hatred of, learned in France, 57-58;
eradication of, 85; and the rabble,
286-87
Aristocracy of Colonial Virginia, The,
88-89
Aristocracy of virtue and talent. An;
74
Armstrong, General, on Florida, 221
Army, with Hamilton as chief, and
Federalist officers, projected, 175-
76, 177; to overthrow popular
liberty, 179; size of the, 179; Ames
on use of an, 180; Jefferson on, 198

313

314

INDEX

Asiatic interests and alliances, 3
Assemblfee Nationale, L', Name of,
suggested by Jefferson, 56; com
mittee of, on constitution asked
Jefferson's assistance, 64; not an
integral legislature, 115
Auditors placed in one Department,
237
Austria denies expatriation, 15
Authorities on the rights of man,
55-56
Bancroft, George, on the committees
of correspondence, 8
Barbary powers. The, put down, 243
Bayard, James Asheton, Claims of,
baseless, 189; on Aaron Burr, 191;
the creed of, 192; gave off-the-bench
opinion of Marshall, 194
Bequests, Limitation of, 86
Bibles, Old ladies hid their, 261-62
BiU of Rights adopted in Virginia, 43
Bill of Rights, embodied in Consti
tution, 163, 264
Blacksburg, Va., CoUege of Agri-
cultvu-e at, 291
Blackstone on Ubel, 178
Blockade, Jefferson on, 126
Bookkeeping, Hanulton' s system of, 36
Books, Removal of tariff on, refused
by Congress, 306-7
Borough, Rotten, system in England,
156, 157
Bosses, Too many, 195
Boston, Closing the port of, a declara
tion of war, 11; Jefferson's protest
against, 18; ten years behind
Jefferson in admitting girls to
schools, 271
Bread famine in France, 58
British alliance, Hamilton's proposed,
174
British ambassador, Reception of, 234
British captives in Albemarle county,
110
British constitution, our best inherit
ance, 30; "best form," 148
British Court society imitated, 226
British government "most perfect
which ever existed," 167
British House of Lords, The, 147
British model advised for the French
58

British nation. Arraignment of justice
of, 22
Brown, Justice, Decision of, in
Downes case, 213
Bryce, James, on the Louisiana
purchase, 206
Buckle's "History of civiUzation," 4
BuU Moose Convention, The, pre
tended to draw faith from Jefferson,
64
Burke, Edmund, edited Jefferson's
"Summary View," 14; failed to see
ultimate issue of French Revo
lution, 69; on Chatham, 93; rhetoric
of, 156, 157
Burr, Aaron, Miranda's connection
with, 174; had same number of
electoral votes as Jefferson, 183;
Hamflton's hatred of, 185; Bayard
on, 191; something to credit of,
191; conspiracy of, put down, 242
Business, big. Divorce of government
and poUtics from, 159
CabeU, Joseph C, Letters to, 97-98;
and State University, 274
Cabot, George, Letters of, 165
Calhoun, John C, far apart from
Jefferson, 96
California became a part of the
United States on acquisition, 212
Canada, G. Morris on acqviisition of,
214; Jefferson had eye on, 221
Canning, and the Monroe Doctrine,
136
Capital punishment. Sole defence of,
72
Careys, The, of Virginia, 89
Carlyle and the French Revolution, 63
Carmichael, WiUiam, 112
Carpet-bag authority intimidated, 12
Carr, Dabney, brother-in-law of
Jefferson, 10
Carter, Dr. James C, on Jefferson's
educational scheme, 266-67
Carters, The, of Virginia, 89
Censors of govemment. On, 171
Central American republics. The, 3
Ceremonials and etiquette. No bureau
of, in State Department, 137
Ceremonies, Forms, cavalcadings and;
abolished, 227-28, 230, 243
Channing, a bracer of the repubUc, 1

INDEX

315

Charles I, Execution of, justified, 17
Charter for the French people, 63
Charters, Rights confirmed not cre
ated by, 13
Chatham, Burke on, 93; accepted
Newcastle and corruption, 160; on
a free people governing dependents,
220
Childs, Dr., Efforts of, in Massa
chusetts Convention of 1820, 262
Christian Constitutional Society,
HamUton's, 194
Church, Definition of a, 264; separa
tion of, and state, 264
Church membership a requisite for
suffrage, 94, 96
Church, State, disestablished, 104,
245; punishments in Virginia for
offenses against, 247; levies for
support of, 247-48; property of,
saved to the, 261-52
Cis-Atlantic affairs. No interference
of Europe in, 134, 136
Citizenship, Act defining, 68, 69;
education to equip for, 268, 273,
285-89
Civil war imminent, 182, 183
Clarke, George Rogers, sent to the
northwestern country, 201, 220
Clarkson, Thomas, 70
Class distinctions ignored, 92
Class hatred of Jefferson, 105
Class opposition to Jefferson's the
ories, 88-89, 91
Class privUeges, Jefferson on aboUsh-
ment of, 64
Classics, Place of the, 268; and
modem languages, 282-84
Clergy, Loss to, of glebes and salaries,
245; levies for support of, 247, 248,
252; attempt at a BiU providing
for, faUed, 252
Coalescence of Kings and bene
ficiaries of special privilege, 60
Coinage system, 239
Coles, Edward, set free his slaves, 76;
letter to, on slaves, 77
CoUege-bred men in Jefferson's Cab
inet, 302-3
CoUege students. Duty of, 266
CoUeges and universities, Benefits of,
280
Colomes, Greek Republican con

ception of status of, 16; practice of
British empire towards her, 19;
ministry planning to invade the, 22
Colony, Internal regulations of each,
12
Colvunbia University, 277; study of
science of government at, 285
Columbus, Christopher, 217
Committee on Rights and Grievances,
Report of, by John Adams, 42-43
Committees of correspondence, Origin
of the, 8; intercolonial, 8, 10;
revolutionary, 8, 11; the real
government, 10
Committees of safety, 9, 62; Girardin
on the, 20; RandaU on the, 20-21
Commonwealth and common weal, 48
Community, Right of any, to change
its form of government, 13, 46, 48
Compact, Origin of the neighborhood,
5-6
Confederation, Virginia's assent to a,
12
Congress, An American, 8; a general
annual, called for, by Virgima, 11
Congress, Rights of, respecting treat
ies, 131; should cooperate with the
States, 241
Consent of the governed, 46
Constable, The, 6; elective, 102
Constitution, the present, Jefferson
in favor of, 34; HamUton's plan for
a, 150-52; views on, 162-54; "a
fraU and worthless fabric," 153;
amendments to, secured by Jeffer
son, 163; a bulwark of protection
for the people, 163; the unwritten,
169; amended, 190-91; an overcoat,
213; BUl of rights made part of, 264
Constitution of Virginia adopted, 43;
with Jefferson's preamble, 44
Constitutions, Rights confirmed not
created by, 13
Constitutions, state, Jefferson on,
100-1; adopted by conventions,
101; submitted to the people, 102;
periodical amendments to, 103
Constructive genius of Jefferson and
Hamilton, 36-36
Continental Congress, First move
ment for a, 11; instructions to
Virginia members of, 14—16; Jeffer
son chosen to, 21, 23; reply to

316

INDEX

Lord North adopted by, 23; com
mittee of, on a declaration of
causes, 23-24; adopted a declara
tion, 24; conmiittee on the "Con
ciUatory Proposal," 26; desired a
lasting union with Great Britain, 30
Contraband, Dootrme concerning, 126
Convention, Powers lodged in a, 16;
Jefferson threatened to caU a,
186, 187, 188, 189
Cook, T. A., on the Monroe Doctrine,
134-35
Cooke, John Esten, on the change in
Virginia, 92
Corruption essential to govemment
of a nation, 168, 160
Cotton, John, denounced democracy,
94-95
Counter-Revolution, The American,
30; overcome by Jefferson, 64, 60;
Jefferson foresaw, 85; stemming
tide of, 141-96; result of, an
amendment to the Constitution,
190-91; defeat of the, 217
Counter-revolutionists, Desperate
move of the, 180-81; Jay defeated
the, 182 ; had choice of three things,
186; feared a convention, 186-88;
checkmated, 189
County, Organization of a, new, 6;
wards or townships in a, 97-98,
102; administration of a, 102;
division of, into hundreds, 269
Court system of Virginia simplified, 69
Courts, Adventitious properties of,
225
Criminal laws of Virginia reformed,
69; preamble to the criminal code,
71-72
Crisis, HamUton always anticipating
a, 154, 173-74; changing electoral
vote of New York a, 181 ; approach
ing, 183
CromweU, Treaty of, with Virginia, 17
Cross va. Harrison, Case of, 212
Cuba, Jefferson had eye on, 221
Curtis, WilUam E., on Jefferson, 194-
95; on the acquisition of Louisiana,
216-17; on Jefferson's inauguration,
231-32; and manners, 233
De Lima case. The, 212
Death penalty. Removal of the, 69

Debt, The pubUc, 236, 237-38;
amount of, paid, 242
Debts due foreigners, CoUection of,
114
Debts, Foreign, international, 115
Debts, state. Federal assumption of,
161-62
Declaration of Independence, Essen
tial ideas of, in the "Summary
View," 17; Jefferson's account of
the writing of the, 30-31; committee
chosen to prepare, 31—32; Jefferson
the author of the, 33-34; passed,
35; an evolution of revolutionary
thought, 37; Merwin on, 39;
Lincoln on, 39; parts of original
draft of, stricken out by Congress,
40; "quotable" and received with
enthusiasm, 43; De Witt on, 45;
50th anniversary of, 51; Jefferson's
letter to Weightman on, 51; a
logos, 52; the Soul-PoUtic of the
American people, 54; Jefferson's
pride in authorship of, 67; oppo
sition to slavery in, 74-75
Declaration of rights, passed by
House of Burgesses, 32, 43 ; adopted
by French National Assembly, 64
Declaration of the causes of taking
up arms, 23-26; Jefferson's para
graphs of the, 24, 25-26
"Defense of American constitu
tions," 144
Democracy, The fear of, 2; attacks
upon, ineffectual, 55; HamUton's
distrust of, 150; more, the best
cure for evUs of, 165; judges har
anguing against, 175; and edu
cation, 266, 286-87; wiU correct
its own errors, 287
Democratic-RepubUcan party. The,
160
Democratic-RepubUcans, The, found
ed on Jefferson's poUtical theory,
54; ceased to be Jeffersonian, 84
Democratization, of the state, 102-3;
of the Federal govemment, 196
Democratizer of federal institutions,
141-95
Democratizer of state institutions,
67-106
Derk van CapeUen, see Van CapeUen
Descents, Statute of, 73-74

INDEX

317

Dickens, Charles, and the French
Revolution, 63
Dickinson, John, member of Com
mittee on declaration of causes, 24;
kept paragraphs of Jefferson's, 24
Diplomacy, EngUsh the official lang
uage of, 138; the study of, 285
Diplomatic Corps, Highest titles of
our, 139
Diplomatic state papers admired, 129
Disarmament on the border, 139
"Discourses of DavUa," The, 143
DisestabUshment, Labors for, >245-
46, 247-51; in Massachusetts, 246,
262; denunciation of Jefferson,
because of, 258-63
Dispatches, Jefferson's, 111
Divine right of the "better element"
to rule, 192
Doctrinaire, Jefferson caUed a, 58, 67,
93
Doctrines, hard and unpalatable, 89
Dorset, Duke of, and Jefferson and
the Tiers Etat, 56
Downes case. The, 212-13
Dwight, Theodore, Letters of, 155
Dwight, Thomas, Letters of, 155
Eastern Shore, Great estates on the,
88-89
Economy and liberty, 103
Edinburgh Review on Jefferson, 111-
12; on Miranda, 174
Education, Aims of the higher
branches of, 278; cumulative influ
ence of, 279-80; democracy must
provide, 286; government aid for,
under Jefferson, 305
Education, primary, The objects of,
267
Education, A system of, necessitated,
55; biU to estabUsh, 68-69; ele
mentary school part of, enacted, 71 ;
general, 96-97, 165; scheme for,
presented to the State Legis
lature, 267-68, 269-71; prizes in
grades of, 278-79; keystone to
arch of government, 280
Elections, John Adams on, 143-44
Elective studies, 282
Electoral coUege, Abolishment of,
recommended, 241
Emancipation of slaves, BiU for the.

76; and deportation; 78, 82-84;
a pre-Revolution idea, 217
Embargo, New England's position on
the, 120, 243
Empire, A weU-poised, 19-20
England, Institutions of, 3-4; people
of, in accord with King and ParU
ament, 41
English colonies, Govemment system
in, 164-65
English Govemment, System of the,
164-65
English-speaking race. Experience of
the, 37-38
English the official language of
diplomacy, 138; the study of, 283,
292-93
EntaU, Abolition of, 67, 68, 74, 90;
result of, 85; BiU for, 88; fight for,
90-91
Epitaph, Jefferson's draft of own, 216,
251
Eppes, Jack, Letter to, 200
Error, Truth and, 244
Esprit, L', des Lois, 4
Estates, stupendous. Disposition of,
90
Estates taU, Act abohshing, 68, 72-
74,88
Etiquette, Jefferson on, 229, 234
Europe, broUs of. No entanglement
with the, 134, 136, 200
Executive, Power of, in English
Government, 164-65; self-succes
sive, and dictatorship, 168
Expansion under Jefferson and Mc
Kinley, 217
Expatriation, The right of, 16-16;
first legislative assertion of, 68
Extradition, Question of, 113
Fairfax County, Washington and the
resolutions of, 14
Farming, Jefferson on, 291-92
Fathers of countries must put up
with free speech, 171-72
Fayerweather, Daniel B., gave gym
nasium to University of Virgima,
293
Federal power. Extent of, over the
States, 114
Federal RepubUc of Anglo-Saxony, A,
conceivable, 224

318

INDEX

Federalist, The, opposed to popular
movements, 164
Federalists, The, opposed observing
the French treaties, 118; helped
Jefferson, 171; all army officers,
176; plot to keep Jefferson and
Burr from being seated, 176, 180—
81, 186; feared a convention, 186,
187-88; rank and file of, humUiated,
190; Jefferson's feeling towards,
192—93; effect of Jefferson's ad
ministration on, 263
Financial system, HamUton's, an
imitation, 36; his Treasury meas
ures, 160-62
Fiske, John, on Boston tea-party, 9;
on seeming state of anarchy, 12;
on Jefferson's letter to Randolph
on separation, 28; estimate of
Jefferson, 36-36; Jefferson no
French doctrinaire, 45 ; on a Federal
Republic of Anglo-Saxony, 224;
on hiding Bibles, 261
Florida, would be ours in due time,
202-3; the people of, to be citizens,
220; Gen. Armstrong on, 221
Foreign Affairs, Secrecy in J)epart-
ment of, 138
Foreign languages not required of
clerks in our State Department, 137
Foreign relations. Our, an expression
of Jefferson's poUcies, 122, 125, 130
Foresight of Jefferson, 2
Forms, ceremonies, and cavalcadings
aboUshed, 227-28, 230, 243
Forms obtaining in State Department,
137
Foster, J. W., anti-Jeffersonian, 122;
on credit of United States, 162
France, Revolutionary committee
system in, 20; Jefferson in, 66-66;
cost of the American war to, 67;
domestic violence in, 60; con
vulsions in, followed in Europe, 62;
our treaties with, 116-21; war with
did not occur, 173, 174; Hamilton
anxious to declare war with, 179-
80; warning to, about New Orleans,
201, 203
Franklin, Benjamin, a, bracer, 1;
chairman committee on reply to
Lord North, 26; made verbal
corrections in Declaration of Inde

pendence, 31, 40; on committee to
prepare the, 33 ; Minister to France,
107; conceived a Federal RepubUc
of English peoples, 224
Frederick of Prussia, Treaty with, 110
Freedom, The love of, 2
Freedom of religion in America,
Influence on, 244—66
Freedom of religion, speech, etc., 46
Freedom of speech, 46, 243, 244
Freedom of the press, advocated, 241-
42, 243
French Canal-Bond-Sale, The, 172
French debt, Payment on, suspended,
116; we ought to have paid, 117
French Revolution, De Witt on the,
46; American Revolution one cause
of the, 56-57; Jefferson and the,
68-64
French revolutionists, drew from
America, 45; regarded us as a
model, 56; Jefferson adviser of the,
56, 57, 58; violence of, a protest, 60;
not ripe for their blessings, 62
French soldiers and officers caught the
American spirit, 56-67
French West India Islands, The, 133
Freneau, Trouble with Washington
over, 127-28; Jefferson on, 171
Frfinfeie quasi monarchique. A, 228
Frontiersman, Jefferson a, 5-6
GaUatin, Albert, on right to acquire
territory by treaty, 210-11; estab
lished our treasury system, 238;
and the pubUc lands, 303
Gardener, Helen, on Lincoln, 78
Genet, Edmond C. E., Mission of,
121-22; recaUed, 124; settled in
America, 125
George III, Appeal to, in the "Sum
mary View," 19-20; reply of Van
Capellen to, 31; name of, legislated
out of prayer book in Virginia, 32;
censure of, stricken out of Declara^
tion of Independence, 40-41
German, Study of, 283
Germany, Institutions of, 3—4
Gierke, Otto, on the rights of man, 38
Girardin, L. H., on committees of
safety, 20
Glebes, church. Loss of, 245; restored,
251-52

INDEX

319

Glittering generalities, so-called, 37,
45, 46, 75; Lincoln's summary of
the, 39, 75
God and the Man, 54
Gore, Christopher, Letters of, 155
Government, Germ of dual system of,
12; right of throwing off, 13, 46,
47-49; Jefferson a founder of our,
34-35; right to alter or to abolish,
48; bad, the result of too much, 49;
a means not an end, SO; Uberties
and, 53; grades of power conferred
upon, 55, 97; precedent for terri
torial system of, 69 ; the real balance
in our, 99; marshalled out into
general and lesser republics, 102-3;
preference for kingly, spreading,
142—44; HamUton on efficiency in,
149-50, 161; by popular plebiscite
advocated, 165; censors of, 171;
UbeUing the, unknown, 172
Govemment, Our Federal, the least
responsive to result of an election,
164; power delegated to, 209-10;
Jefferson on, 212
Government resting on compact. Idea
of, 5-6
Government, Science of, as a study,
284-86, 287-88, 289
Governments, Recognition of, 116
Grant, rebuked by own party, 166,
167
Great Britain, Lasting union with,
desired, 30; and the Monroe
Doctrine, 136, 136; centennial of
peace with, 139; about to seize
New Orleans, 201; could take
and hold against France, 204
Greek and Latin, The teaching of,
283, 284
Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, 212,
220
GuiUotine, Lives lost by the, 60
Hamilton, Alexander, a nation builder,
1; not a constructive genius, 36;
distrusted the masses, 51; failed
to see ultimate issue of French
Revolution, 59; on extent of Federal
power, 114; on French treaties and
Minister, 118; on Genet, 124; a
monarchist, 144, 146, 149, 150, 163;
advocated monarchy at Consti

tutional Convention, 147-48; head-
notes of speech, 148-49, 160; plan
offered to the Constitutional Con
vention, 150-52; views on present
Constitution, 152-54; letters of,
155, 174; conversation with J.
Adams on a "monarchy bottomed
on corruption," 156-67, 158; Jeffer
son on, 158; deemed corruption
essential, 158-59; idol of the
monied classes, 169 ; Treasury meas
ures of, 160-61; in the Federalist,
163-64; his philosophy of govern
ment, 170; H. C. Merwin on, 173-
74; on a permanent army, 176-76,
177; advised division of Pennsyl
vania and Virginia, 176; on libels
against government officials, 177;
anxious for a war, 179-80; letter to
Jay on changing vote of New York,
181-82, 186; mUitary ambition of,
182-83; hated Burr more than
Jefferson, 185, 189; questioned
repeal of the judiciary act, 194;
"Christian Constitutional Society"
of, 194
HamUton, John C, biographer, 148
Hanover County, Resolutions of, 14
Harbors of refuge, 110
Harlan, Justice, Dissenting opimon
of, in the Downes case, 213-14
Harmony of the bold with the
cautious in Virgima, 7
Hart, A. B., on Jefferson's discretion,
203-4; on the acquisition of Louisi
ana, 215; on our treasury system,
238
Harvard University, 277
Hazen, caUs Jefferson a republican
militant, 58; on Jefferson's views of
the French Revolution, 59
Henry, Patrick, and resolutions of
Hanover County, 14; opposed to
Constitution, 34
Hero-worship, the great danger of a
democracy, 235
HUl, A. P., Stonewall Jackson's last
words an order to, 52
History, The study of, 269, 288-89
Hoar, Senator, on Jefferson, 216
Home-making, Vast territory for, 216,
217
House of Burgesses, Meeting of, in

320

INDEX

the ApoUo Room; 10, 11; caUed
for a general congress, 11; instruc
tions to delegates, 11-12; resolu
tions of, for independence, 32
House of Commons, Powers of, 164^
65
House of Lords "a most noble insti
tution," 147
House of Representatives, to deter
mine between Jefferson and Burr,
183-84; plan for, to reorganize the
government, 186
Huger, on Jefferson's election, 184,
186, 190, 191
Hugo, Victor, 246
Humaneness, legislative. First ex
ample of, 69
Hundreds, Counties to be divided
into, 97, 269; military company
and school in each, 269
IlUnois, Education in, 281
Immigration, Restriction of, 140
Impressment, Question of, 132
Inaugural processions, expensive and
dangerous, 234
Independence, hastened by com
munication from R. Penn and A.
Lee, 28-29; increase of advocates
of, 31
Independency, Jefferson nearing, 28
Indiana, Education in, 281
Indians, Land acquired from, by
treaty, 239-40
Individual, The, his own governor, 46;
and the Divine IndividuaUty, 54
Influence, Jefferson's, how treated, 4;
as a diplomat, 107-40; as president,
196-243; on freedom of religion,
244-65; on our educational insti
tutions, 266-307
Influence, political, A man's, 4
Inheritance, Limitation of, 86
Institutions, Permanency of a na
tion's, 2-3; what are, 3-4; informing
spirit of our, 7; dangers to, 168;
debt of our, to Jefferson, 184;
reverence for, 235
Internal taxes abolished, 236
International law. Correspondence
with Hammond on, 139
International relations, Jefferson's
impress on our, 112; message on.

128-29; successfuUy managed by
Jefferson, 130; correspondence with
Hammond on, 139; aU power with
regard to, resides in the Federal
Government, 210-11
Interstate commerce. Power of Con
gress over, 240-41
Intimidation, So-caUed, of an Ad
ministration, 18
Intolerance and incompetency in the
church, 246
Iowa, Education in, 281
ItaUan, Study of, 283
Italy, Institutions of, 3-4
Jackson Democrats, The, 29-30
Jackson, StonewaU, Last words of, 52
Jacobins, How the French became,
60-61
Japanese, The, and the classics,
283-84
Jay, John, on a. King, 146; dreaded
popular movements, 164; rejected
HamUton's scheme, 181-82, 186
Jay Treaty, The, 112, 131, 132;
Washington's humiliation of sign
ing, 197
Jefferson, Andrew D. White on, 1-2;
the man, 4; his environment, 5-6;
the revolutionist, 7-66; in America,
7-56; member of House of Bur
gesses, 13; on the "Summary
View," 14^15; proscribed, 14, 17;
always in advance, 17; "timid" and
"vacillating," 17, 20, 23; chairman
of Committee of Safety, 20, 21;
member of Continental Congress,
21, 23; Reply to North's "Con-
cUiatory Proposal," 21-22, 23, 26;
draws up Declaration of causes of
taking up arms, 24, 25-26; member
of committee on Lord North's
"Proposal," 26; on first idea of
separation, 28-29 ; corrected Adams'
error about Declaration of Inde
pendence, 30-31; chairman of com
mittee on Declaration, 32, 33;
legacy of class hatred of, 33; a
founder of our Govemment, 34-35;
faith of, in the people, 36; on rights
of man, 38; his original draft of
the Declaration of Independence,
40; on Adams' and Pickering's

INDEX

321

observations, 41-42; "plan of gov
emment" for Virginia, 43-44; on
the business of government, 49-60;
on love for and distrust of the
people, 50-51; on the Declaration,
61; last words of, 52; parties based
on poUtical theory of, 54; its
salient points, 55; in France, 66-
66; modesty of, 56, 64-65, 67; and
the French revolutionists, 66, 57,
61-66; a Celt, 67; on what was
best for France, 57-68; his hope for
France, 58-61; four great measures
of, 67; inscription for tomb of, 67;
acts of constructive legislation,
68-70; on freeing his slaves, 75-
76, 77-78 ; on importation of slaves,
76; on emancipation and deporta
tion, 78, 82-84; a logos, 82; presci
ent wisdom of, 83; a conservative
reformer, 85; on limitation of
bequests, 86-87; in Virginia House
of Delegates, 87-88; an apostle of
local self-government, 96-106; Wat
son on work of, 104; on state
governments, 104; mind of, a
laboratory, 105; as a, diplomat,
107-40; Mimster to France, 107-8,
111; the Model treaty, 108-11; as
Secretary of State, 112, 114-15,
129; on the French debt, 115; on
the French treaties, 117-18; on
neutrality, 122-23; on Genet, 124,
126; on our relations with foreign
nations, 125; on free goods, block
ade, and contraband, 126; resigns
from the Cabinet, 126, 128; Report
on foreign commerce, 129 ; on rights
of Congress and President respect
ing treaties, 131-33; the Monroe
Doctrine, 133-36; stemming the
counter-revolution, 141-95; a prac
tical man, 142; election of, in 1800,
our second revolution, 165; on
conversation of Adams with Hamil
ton, 156-57; secured amendments
to Constitution, 162-63; on term
for President, 165-67; refused third
term, 166, 169; elected Vice-Presi
dent, 170; schemes to defeat
election of, as President, 181-90;
elected by the people, 183; had
same number of electoral votes as
22

Burr, 183; victory of, 184, 189;
denied right of Congress to re
organize government, 186; threat
ened to caU a convention, 186-89;
refused to make terms, 188; de
feated the Federalists, 189; on the
result, 190; inaugural address of,
193; on error, 193; Curtis on, 196;
influence of, as President, 196-243;
our reasons for peace, 197-98; on
an army, 198; on Leopard-Chesa
peake incident, 199; hoped for a
new era, 200-1; the expansionist,
201; on marrying the British fleet
and nation, 203; discretion of,
203-4; on the Louisiana cession,
205-6; and Napoleon, 206; the
purchase, 206-7; doubts of, on
acquisition of territory, 208, 209-10 ;
mistake of, 211; on powers of
Federal Government, 212; annexed
contiguous lands, 217; broad vision
of, for expansion, 221-22; ordinance
for Northwest Territory, 223; and
Washington, friends, 228; reception
to ladies at levee, 230 ; inauguration,
231-32; as President he was the
court, 233; afraid of hero-worship,
236; father of our coinage system,
239; on freedom in religion, 244,
245; member of Committee on
religion and morality, 246; Bill for
reUgious freedom, 249-60, 263-66;
religious views of, 257-58; denunci
ation of, 258-63; as a political
manager, 263; made a LL.D. at
Harvard, 266; educational scheme,
267-71; project for a State Uni
versity, 272, 274-75; Rector of
Umversity, 275; Report of, 276,
277-79; strong in preambles, 280;
on State Literary Fund Board,
300-1; stupendous conceptions of,
303—4; a spendthrift economist,
304^6; petition for removal of
duties on books, 305-6; for edu
cation to the last, 307
Jefferson Bible, The, 258
Jefferson College, in Mississippi,
Foundation of, frittered away, 304
Jefferson, Letters of, quoted: To Wm.
Wirt, 7; to John Randolph, 28, 30;
to Du Pont de Nemours, 50; to

'22

INDEX

Mayor Weightman on the Deolara-
j tion, 51; to Mr, Short on the
French Revolution, 61; to E. Coles
on the slaves, 77; to Franklin on
the change in Virginia, 92-93; to
Gov. Tyler on education and
hundreds, 96-97; to CabeU on
education and wards, 97-98; to
Kercheval on townships, 98; to
Kercheval on state constitutions,
100-1; to E. Rutledge on the Jay
Treaty, 131; on Monroe Doctrine,
134, 136; to John Taylor on
President's term, 166-67; to Madi
son on defeat of the Federalists, 189;
to Noah Worcester on peace, 196;
to Eppes on European wars, 200;
to De Marbois on expansion, 222;
to Madison on adulatory titles,
226-27; to Gallatin on finances,
235-36; nustake in publishing, 258;
to Dr. Rush on tyranny over mind
of man, 259; to Wythe on democ
racy and education, 266; to Cabell
on primaries, 281; to De Onis on
suffrage in Spain, 286; to Kosciusko
on reading for young men, 288;
to WUUams on farming, 291-92;
to Peter Carr, 289, 293; to Roscoe
on truth, 294; to CabeU on the
wealthy, 296-96; to Wyche on
county libraries, 300-1; to Cabell
on his own work for the University,
302
Jeffersonian simpUcity, 103, 139,
226-39; called simply Mr. Jefferson,
226; aboUshed forms, ceremonies,
and mysteries, 227-28, 230, 243;
dislike of pubUc scenes, 228; at
White House, 229; Curtis' slur at,
231-32; criticism of, 233-34; of
forms, 235 ; in the Treasury Depart
ment, 235-38
Jeffersonian spirit. The, 216-17
Jeffersonian theory, see Political the
ory, Jefferson's
Jefferson's Ana, 142, 156, 228
Jefferson's "Manual," 170
Jefferson's portrait in BuU Moose
Convention, 64
Jingoes, Words too wise for, 198
Johns Hopkins University, Study of
science of govemment at, 285

Judges, Election of, 101; Hamilton's
proposed, 178
Judiciary, The, to overthrow popular
Uberty, 179
Judiciary Act, Repeal of the Federal,
194
Jurors to be elective, 103
Jury system, recommended to
National Assembly, 65
Justice of the peace. The, 6; to be
elective, 102, 103; federal, to hunt
down "UbeUers," 178
Kean, R. G. H., on Act abolishing
slave trade, 69-70; on the statute
of descents, 72-73
Kentucky Resolutions, The, 96, 146,
175
Kentucky, Transylvania University
founded in, 282
Kercheval, Samuel, Letter to, 98
King, the English, HamUton on, 147-
48, 160, 161-52
King, Rufus, Letters of, 174
Kingship, A common, the sole binding
tie, 19
Know-Nothing movement. The, 172
Knowledge will govern ignorance, 280
Knox, Henry, a monarchist, 144, 145
Ku Klux Klan, The, 9
Lafayette, Jefferson's advice to,
57; banquet to, attended by
Jefferson, 296-97
Land, subjected to the pa3anent of
debts, 91
Landholders, Small, 87
Lands, Public, given for education,
303-4
Language, Lucidity of, 69; law,
reformed, 70
Languages, modern, Jefferson cham
pion of, 300
Law revision committee of Virginia
Legislature, 70; report of, 268
Laws and institutions, Reverence for,
235
Leadership, Political, 195
Lee, Arthur, messenger to Great
Britain, 28-29
Lee, Henry, advised making MarshaU
president, 162
Lee, Richard Henry; Dean of Virguoia

INDEX

323

delegation, 32, 35; opposed to the
Constitution, 34; charged plagi
arism, 42; favored clergy BUl, 252;
on avarice and religion, 253
Lee, Thomas L., member of Law
revision committee, 70
Lees, The, of Virginia, 89
Legislature of Virginia, see House of
Burgesses
Legislature, One, may not infringe
on rights of another, 19, 21
Leonard, Daniel, on the committees
of correspondence, 10
Leopard-Chesapeake incident, Jeffer
son on the, 199
Letters, Hoards of, unpublished, 165
Lex taUonis, Protest against, 69
Libels, HamUton urged laws against,
177; Blackstone on, 178
Liberties and government, 53
Liberty, An empire for, 201-24, 216
221
Library, Jefferson's private, 294
Library, PubUc, BUl for a, 268, 271;
letter on, 300-1
Lincoln, Abraham, on the Declaration
of Independence, 39, 75; a Jeffer
sonian, 54; Helen Gardener's por
trayal of, 78; faith of, in the people,
193
Livingston, Robert R., member of
committee to prepare Declaration
of Independence, 33; Minister to
France, 126; and the Louisiana
purchase, 202-3, 207
Locke, John, "Treatises of Govern
ment" of, 37, 42
Lodge, Henry Cabot, on committees
of correspondence, 8; on Jefferson,
104; on the monied interests, 161-62
Logos, The Declaration of Inde-
pel)dence a, 52
Louis'XVI dethroned, 115, 118
Louisiana Territory, Acquisition of,
140, 214, 242; story of, 202-9;
ceded by Spain to France, 202;
negotiations for, 202-6; Hart on
the, 215; aims attained by the, 215-
16; status of citizens of, under
treaty, 218, 220; Spanish and
French laws re-enacted for, 218-19;
states carved out of, 223

Louisiana Treaty submitted to Con
gress, 131
Loyahsts, The, in New York, 146-46
Lyon, MaMhew, cast vote of Vermont
for Jefferson, 189
Mabie, H. W., on the University of
Virginia, 299, 300
McKean, Thomas, govomor of Penn
sylvania, 188
McKinley, WilUam, annexed distant
possessions, 217
Madison, James, favored adoption of
Constitution, 34; reported Hamil
ton's Convention speech, 147, 148,
160; on powers of Federal Govern
ment, 210-11; opposed clergy BUl,
252; appealed to people, 253;
favored State University, 274, 275
Majority, A parUamentary, 160
Man, God and the, 64; land and the
91
Maryland, Religious toleration estab
hshed in, by the Roman CathoUcs,
251
Marshall, John, on Jefferson, 111,
129-30, 184-85; mentioned for
presidency, 186; Lee favored, 192;
off-the-bench opinion of, 194
Mason, George, opposed to the
Constitution, 34; drew up first
Constitution of Virginia, 44; mem
ber of Law revision committee, 70;
opposed clergy Bill, 262, 253
Mason, One Dr., on Jefferson, 259
Massachusetts Bay rejected aristo
cracy as a form of government, 95
Massachusetts, Church support com
pulsory in, 262
Mazzei, Story of, against Jefferson,
259
Mellen, G. F., on Jefferson and
higher education, 300
Men of the hour dangerous in a
crisis, 168
Mercer, James, in Virginia Assembly,
21
Merriam, Charles E., "American
political theories," 38; on the
American working hypothesis, 46;
on the theocratic government in
New England, 94-95
Merwin, H. C, on Hamilton's

324

INDEX

"crisis," 173-74; on Jefferson's
simpUcity of forms, 235
Mexico, 3; Territory acquired from,
220; states out of, 223
Michigan, State University created
in, 273, 282
MUton, John, " Defense of the EngUsh
People," 37; "License of pubUo
printing," 246; "Tenure of Kings
and Magistrates," 37
Ministers abroad. Instructions to our,
109
Ministers, Foreign, national not djTi-
astic agents, 118
Minnesota, Education in, 281
Miranda, Francesco, revolutionist,
174
Mississippi, Constitutional conven
tions in, 102
Mississippi River, Right of navigation
of the, 112-13, 216, 217, 222-23
Mohawk Indians, The, of the Boston
tea-party, 9
Monarchical party. Existence of a,
154 ; Washington thought, dead, 160
Monarchists, Large numbers of, 145
Monarchy and democracy, Long con
test between principles of, 143, 145
Monied interests. Tying the, to the
government, 161-62 ; not necessary,
243
Monocrats, Many Whigs among the,
146
Monroe, James, consulted and fol
lowed Jefferson, 135; governor of
Virginia, 188; and Livingston,
negotiators, 203, 207; and State
University, 274
Monroe Doctrine, First inkling of the,
133; expressions of, 134—35; fuU
bom, 136
Montesquieu, 99, 157
Montmarin, Count de, on salt beef,
108
Moral sense, Influence of, on govem
ment, 61
Morris, Gouverneur, on protecting
French nobles, 61 ; Jefferson did not
confide in, 62; character of, 63
instructions to, on French debt, 115
to Walsh on HamUton, 152, 153
to Ogden, 154; a reactionary, 154
to Ogden, on HamUton, 183; to

Hanulton on election of Jefferson,
184, 186; favored Jefferson's elec
tion, 189-90; obeyed wiU of the
people, 191; on desperate measures,
192; on acquisition of Canada and
Louisiana, 214
Morris, Robert, Action of, elected
Jefferson, 189, 190; obeyed wiU of
the people, 191
Morse, J. T., on Jefferson's reply to
North's "Proposal," 26-27; on the
Louisiana purchase, 202
Napoleon, Victories of, useless to us,
117; might have succeeded, 120;
purpose of, in selling Louisiana,
204^6, 206, 207-8; ante-dated the
Treaty, 208
National bank, Hamilton's scheme
for a, 161-62
National sentiment the condition of
national existence, 152
Nations, Intercourse of, imder the
model treaty, 109
NaturaUzation of foreigners, BiU for
the, 91; law for, 140
Necker, Jacques, on the British Con
stitution, 147, 157
Negro postmistress. A, and a closed
post office, 18
Negroes, Freedom for, as a race and
as a few individuals, 77-78; the
American people Uke free, 155
Nelson, Hugh, presented Jefferson's
petition for removal of duties on
books, 305-6
Nelsons, The, of Virginia, 89
Neutral property in war-time, 109
Neutral ships and free goods, 126
NeutraUty, Declaration of, 120; Jeffer
son on, 122-23
New England clergy hated Jefferson,
259, 261-62; odium theologicum
partiaUy disarmed, 263
New England Magazine, on heterodoxy
of Adams and Jefferson, 245
New England, Monarchical ideas in,
146 ; threats of dissolution in, 208-9
New Orleans, Great Britain about
to seize, 201; France and, 203;
Hart on Jefferson's poUcy, 203-4;
Napoleon and, 204-5
New York, First movement for a

INDEX

325

Continental Congress came from,
11; worse thing than primo-geniture
in, 90; electoral vote of, for Jeffer
son, 181; Hamilton's scheme to
reverse, 181
Newcastle, Duke of, and corruption,
160
Newspaper reporters given desks in
Congress, 305
Nicholas, George, 21; opposed entaU
BUl, 91 ; opposed Clergy BUl, 252
Night schools suggested by Jefferson,
289
North, Lord, "Conciliatory Pro
posal" of, 21; Jefferson's reply to,
21-22, 23, 26, 42
Northwest Territory, BiU of 1784 for
govemment of, 69, 223; slavery
excluded from the, 76-77
"Notes on Virginia," Jefferson's, 28-
29; liberal sentiments in, 57;
opposition to slavery in, 74;
freedom of religion, 244, 246;
BUl for religious freedom in, 248,
264; pirated edition of, in Paris,
265; on study of language, 284
Nurselings of luxury, 89
Officers of the general government.
Protection of, from libel, 177-78;
superiority of, over the mass of
the people, 225
Offices, Unnecessary, abolished, 237
Ohio, Public lands given for edu
cation in, 303
Old Line Whigs, The, 29-30
OUgarchs, The Confederate, 80
Opinion, An, punished, not an act,
18; source of, 254; not subject to
jurisdiction, 265, 264
Opponents, political. Traditional
courtesy of, in Va., 90-91
Oppressions, A series of, denounced
in the "Summary View," 16-17
Oregon country. Claim on, secured by
Jefferson, 221, 243
Otis, Harrison Gray, HamUton's letter
to, on war, 179-80
Otis, James, Reference by Adams to
pamphlet of, 41-42; conceived a
Federal Republic of Anglo-Saxony,
224
Overseers, school. Duties of, 269-70

Pages, The, of Virginia, 89
Paine, Thomas, Jefferson kept promise
made to, 259-60
Parliament, had no right to interfere
in the colonies, 21-22; people of
England in accord with, 41
Parmelee, Mary P., on Jefferson, 105
Parton, James, on Jefferson in France,
64-66; on the model treaty, 109,
110; on the change of sentiment,
142, 143; on Jefferson's "famUy
soup," 225; on liberty of belief,
263
Patronage, Hamilton's salutary, 178-
79; executive, abolished, 237; re
duced, 242
Peace, My passion is, 196, 199; our
reasons for, 197-98
Peace-at-almost-any-price policy, 196;
wisdom of, 199, 243
Penalties, brutal, Amelioration of, 69
Pendleton, Edmund, member of Law
revision committee, 70; opposed
abolishing entaUs, 91; and primo
geniture, 92
Pendletons, The, of Virginia, 89
Pendulum, standard of measure, 239
Penn, Richard, and A. Lee, reported
the King's reply, 28-29
Penn, William, Definition of free
government, 95
Pennsylvania, First constitution of,
48; division of, advised by HamU
ton, 176; troops mobilized in, 176;
vote of, to be thrown out, 182;
would protect a convention, 187,
188
People, Jefferson on love for and
distrust of the, 60-51; Woodrow
Wilson on the, 50; Hamilton dis
trusted the, 51; not Americans, 126
John Adams on the, 143-44
"your, is a great beast," 163, 158
wUl of, must be done, 191; faith
in common sense of the, 193
Petition, The right of, 46
PhUippines, World-powering in the,
3, 220; status of, 211, 212; of
people of, under the treaty, 218;
no constitutional protection for, 219
Physical culture and national defense,
293-94
Pickering, Timothy, published Adams'

326

INDEX

criticism on the Declaration, 41,
42; letters of, 155, 174
PUgrim Fathers, The, and the Puri
tans, 95
Pitt, the Elder, see Chatham
Plagiarism, No, by Adams or Jeffer
son, 43
Planter, The rich, and the University,
295-96
Plumer, W., Letters of, 155
PoUtical theory, Jefferson's, Parties
founded on, 54; the Soul-PoUtic, 54;
saUent points of, 55; source of, 56
Pohticians, conscious hypocrites, 159,
193
Politics, big. Divorce of big business
from, 169
Porto Rico did not become a part of
the United States on acquisition,
212; status of people of, under
treaty, 218; no constitutional pro
tection for, 219
Possessions, distant, with alien popu
lations, What to do with, 213;
aimexed by McKinley, 217
Post office, under a negro postmistress,
closed, 18
PoweU, E. P., on A suppressed
chapter of American history, 143;
on Michigan University, 273; on
Jefferson, 274
Powers, not delegated reserved, 34,
46—46, 163; doctrine of delegated,
48-49; grades of, conferred upon
govemment, 65, 97; state and
national, 66; aU, with regard to
foreign affairs, delegated, 209-10
Preamble to Virgioia Constitution,
Jefferson's, 44, 57, 69; to BUl for
better diffusion of knowledge, 280
President, Rights of the, respecting
treaties, 132; term of office of, 165-
68, 243
Primogeniture, AboUtion of, 67, 68,
74; result of, 85; bUl for, 88, 90;
fight for, 90-91; Pendleton opposed,
92
Princeton University, 277
Principles of the Revolution, Reaction
against the, 2
Prisoners of war, Treatment of, 109-10
Pm.Tleges, special. Beneficiaries of, 60 ;
Jefferson urged withdrawal of, in

France, 62; abolished by the
National Assembly, 64
Profusion and seriatude, 103
Property, Unequal division of, 86-87
Protective system. The, in France, 108
Prussia denies expatriation, 16
Pure Repubhc, Definition of a, 96, 98
Puritans, early. Government of the,
theocratic, 94-95; distinction be
tween and the PUgrim Fathers, 95
Quakers, PoUtical ideas of the, 95
Quincy, Josiah, on dissolution of the
Union, 209
Rabble, The, and the aristocracy,
286-87
Race problem. The, 80; Jefferson on
the, 83; Lincoln on the, 84; the
South's drawback, 89
Raleigh Tavern at WilUamsburg, 10,
11
RandaU, H. S., on committees of
safety, 20-21; on class hatred of
Jefferson, 70; on the Revolution,
146; the original BiU for reUgious
freedom, 249-50
Randolph, John, Letters of Jefferson
to, 27-28; emancipated his slaves,
76; on the American reign of
terror, 175; venom of, 221
Randolph, John, of Roanoke, 27, 89,
201
Randolph, Peyton, presented Jeffer
son's resolutions to the Convention,
14; asked Jefferson to reply to
North's "ConciUatory Proposal,"
21
Randolphs, The, of Virginia, 89
Reactionaries, Utterances of the,
143-^5
Reciprocity, Stimulus to, 107
Recodification, Brevity and succinct
ness of the, 71
Reconstruction, a fool's errand, 3;
the mad saturnalia of, 83, 177
Reform, poUtical, A B C of , 159
Regulating Act, Impossible to execute
the, in Massachusetts, 12
Religion, Difference of opinion in,
244, 246 ; pumshment under Virginia
Act for denial of, 247
ReUgious freedom, Jefferson's statute

INDEX

327

of, 57, 67, 68, 70; results of, 85;
first in the world, 245, 246, 247,
248, 251; excerpt from, 249-60;
passed, 253-64; amendments to,
254-66; 263-64
!' Reply to Lord North's ConciUatory
Proposal," 21-22, 23, 26, 42
Representation, Equal, in the legis
lature, 103
RepubUcan govemment radicaUy de
fective, 152
RepubUcan party, The, founded on
Jefferson's theory, 54
RepubUcanism, Catholic principle of,
in recognition of governments, 115-
16
RepubUcs, The lesser, 97, 99-100,
102-3
Resolutions for Committee of inter
colonial correspondence, 8; offered
in the Assembly, 10
Revenues, Increase of annual, 215
Revision work in Virginia, 68-70, 85;
Bill for revision of the laws, 88
Revolution, The American, a cause
of the French, 56-67
Revolutionary intimidation, 12
Revolutionary period. Political theory
of the, 47-49
Revolutionist, The, 7-66
Rhode Island, Religious freedom in,
except for Catholics, 251
Right of revolution, 4'7-48
Bight to a thing. The, gives right to
means for use, 112
Rights of man. The, 13; Van CapeUen
on, 31; declared in the Roman
Digest, 38; the object lesson of,
in America, 39; De Witt on, 46;
business of government to make,
more secure, 60; letter to Weight-
man on, 51-62; the political sci
entists and, 53-54; natural, inalien
able, God-given, 55; authorities
for, 55-56; Jefferson a forerunner
of, 57; unviolated, 85; the Puritans
not enthusiastic for, 95; in Bill for
reUgious freedom, 250, 256-57; the
citizen should know his, 267
Roman Catholics refused religious
Uberty in Rhode Island, 251;
estabUshed it in Maryland, 251

Roman Digest, The, expressed the
natural rights of man, 38
Roosevelt, Theodore, on Jefferson, 17,
20, 23, 54, 104; rebuked by both
parties, 166; wanted third term,
167; spirit of sedition laws under,
172; on "infamous conduct," 196,
199
Rousseau, Jefferson opposed to central
principle of, 38; Jefferson no disciple
of, 46; difference between Jefferson
and school of, 49-50; not quoted
as authority on rights, 66
Rousseau's " Contrat social," 5
Rowe, John, at Boston tea-party, 9
Russia, Treaty with, abrogated, 15-16
Rutledge, Edward, Letter to, 131
Rutledge, John, on Jefferson's elec
tion, 185
Sabine, Lorenzo, "American Loyal
ists," 145
Salt beef, in France, 108
Schools, Common and Grammar, BUl
to estabUsh, 268; provision for
common, and overseers, 269-70;
for grammar or central, 270-71;
districts and Boards of overseers,
270; duties of visitors, 271; co
education in, 271; primaries, 281
Schools, Grammar or central. Land
and buUdings for, 270; promotion
to, from common, 270-71; from,
to University, 271
Schouler, James, on Jefferson and
the University, 299
Scientists, The political, and the
rights of man, 53-54
Search and arrest. Freedom from
unreasonable, 46
Secession, Right of peaceful, denied,
47
Secretary of State, Jefferson appoint
ed, 112; handicapped by Senate's
right to amend a treaty, 138
Sedgwick, Theodore, reactionary, Let
ters of, 166
Sedition laws passed, 145; a blunder,
170; result of, 171; faUure of, 242
Self-extinguishment, The right of, 53
Self-government, Capacity of Ameri
can people for, 12; inherent rights
of, 13

328

INDEX

Self-government, Local, 56; an apostle
of, 96-106; Jefferson on, 98-99
Self-preservation, first duty of a
nation, 117
Shays's RebelUon, 2, 141
Sheriffs to be elective, 103
Sherman, Roger, member of com
mittee to prepare Declaration of
Independence, 33
Ships of war and prizes, French,
admitted to our ports, 119
Short, Mr. Jefferson's letter to, 60-61,
112, 134
Sidney, Algernon, "Discourses on
Government," 37
Slave owners. Difficulties of, 78;
kindliness and heroism of, 79-80
Slave-trading, References to, stricken
out of Declaration of Independence,
40; Jefferson right about, 41; Act
to aboUsh, 69, 80
Slavery, Jefferson's opposition to,
74-78, 81-83; efforts to prohibit,
in all territories, 76-77; defence of,
a defence of aristocracy, 80-81;
Jefferson's words against, a logos,
82
Smith, Adam, 224
Smith, Samuel, denied claims of
Bayard, 189
Social contract. A, at the base of
govemment, 5
Social order, HamUton's view of, 181
Social structure. The, aristocratic, 88
Soul-Politic, The, within our Body-
PoUtic, 4, 64; making over the
American, 281
Sovereignty of the people, 47
Spain, Diplomatic correspondence
with, 129 ; Holy Alliance and South
American colonies of, 136; would
need to seU Florida, 203
Spanish, Study of, neglected, 284
Sparks, Jared, battled for removal
of tariff on books, 306
Spanish miUed dollar, basis of value,
239
Speech, Freedom of, 46
Speeches from the throne. No, for
Jefferson, nor since, 229
Spooner Amendment, The, 219
State, The, the safeguard of republi
can institutions, 96; a lesser re

pubUc, 97, 99, 102-3; true barrier
of liberty, 105
State Department, Forms and eti
quette in the, 137, 139
Stephens, Alexander, 24
Suffrage General, 103; educational
qualification for, 286-88
"Summary View," Jefferson's, printed
by the Virginia Convention, 14-16
a mine for ideas and phrases, 16
basis of argument in the, 15-16
forerunner of the Declaration, 16-
17, 42, 57; justified execution of
Charles I, 17; protest against
closing port of Boston, 18-19;
appeal to George III, 19-20;
opposition to slavery in the, 74
Supreme Court, Contradictory de
cisions of the, 212
Sweden and Norway, Separation of,
47

Table, Things not of the first, 47;
things of the first, 55; the first and
second, defined, 94
Talleyrand, offered Louisiana to
Livingston, 203, 215
Taxes, Some old, abolished, no new
created, 238; reduced, 242
Tea, thrown overboard in Boston, 9;
House of Burgesses on purchase of,
10; the punishment for, 18
Teachers, free and untrammeUed.
294r-95
Tennyson and Jefferson, 288
Territory, acquisition of. Early doc
trine of, 210-11; new doctrine, with
regard to the PhiUppines and
Porto Rico, 211, 212-14; a means,
not an end to Jefferson, 216
Texas, Public lands of, 303
Theological Seminaries, to be estab
lished by the churches, 274
Ticknor, George, Visit of, to Jefferson,
300
Tiers Etat, Leaders of the, consulted
Jefferson, 66
Titles, Adulatory, proposed, 226-27
Titles, Honorary, 137, 139, 226
Tories, Position of Revolutionary
time, 48
Tourgfee, Albion W., 3
Town-meeting methods opposed, 142

INDEX

329

Township system in New England,
93; Jefferson enamored with, 96;
elementary republics, 97-98; power
of, 98; vital principle of govern
ment, 98
Trade preferences voluntary, 19-20
Trade regulations. Unbearable, 16
Transylvania University, Causes of
failure of, 282
Treason, Jefferson's act defining, 68,
72; instructions on, 113
Treasury measures, HamUton's, 160—
61
Treasury system GaUatin's not Ham
Uton's, 238
Treaties, Interpretation of, in relation
to dual character of our RepubUc,
113-14; Jefferson wary of, 199
Treaties with France, Our, 116-21;
violation of, 117, 130
Treaty effected by Monroe in 1806
not sent to Senate, 132
Treaty of Amity and Commerce with
France, 118-19; provisions of,
violated, 119-20
Treaty of Paris of '63, 112
Treaty of 1782-83, 112
Treaty, The Model, 108-11
Treaty, Right of the Senate to amend
a, 138
Tucker, George, on desperate meas
ures, 192
Tuition and board. Free, in grammar
schools, 270
Tyranny, submission to, or resistance
by force, Jefferson on, 26-26
Tyler, Governor, Letters to, 96-97
Umpirage of reason. The, for col
lisions of interest, 198
Union for the colonies. A, effected
by the correspondence committees,
8
Union, The, acknowledged and em
phasized by Virginia, 22; right of a
state to withdraw from, not
doubted, 120; must be strengthened,
162-53; HamUton's devotion to,
164; dismemberment of, 182, 208-9;
Josiah Quincy on dissolution of,
209
Unit of value scheme, 239
tfnitarianism of Jefferson, 257

United States, A legal govemment of,
36 ; credit of, in Amsterdam, 162
United States Bank, Stock of, sold,
236
University, A national, favored by
Washington and Jefferson, 276-77;
arguments against, 277
University of Geneva, Scheme to
transfer the, to Richmond, 303-4
University of Virginia, Father of the,
67; laws for establishment of, 69;
cardinal features of, 272; founded,
275; organization of, 282-83; no
school for science of govemment at,
285; agriculture, etc. at, 289, 290-
91; a gymnasium for, 293; the
Library and the teaching force,
294-95; success of the, 296; Jeffer
son on, 295-97; treated niggardly
by Virginia, 297; influence of, 297-
98; freedom at, 298-99; Schouler
on, 299; Mabie on, 299-300
University, Purpose of a, 274; each
State should have a, 276-77
Value, Unit of, scheme, 239
Van CapeUen, Johan Derk, Reply of,
to George III, 31-32
Vanity of authorship, Jefferson had
no, 24
Vest, Senator, on Jefferson, 129
Virginia convention, called to elect
delegates to Congress, 11; instruc
tions to members of Congress pre
sented to the, 14-16; the first of
its kind, 15; Dr. Grigsby on, 104
Virginia Dynasty, Jealousy of the, 261
Virginia Resolutions, The, 146, 175
Virgima, Sole tie binding, to England,
19; would not desert her sister
colonies, 22; reply of, to Lord
North, 20-23, 26; a written consti
tution for, 32, 43-44; instructions
to representatives to move inde
pendence, 32, 36, 43; efforts to stop
slave trade in, 41; BUl of Rights
and Constitution of, adopted, 43-
44, 100; Jefferson's work of recon-
stmction in, 68-70, 86; recodifi
cation in, 69, 71; emancipation and
non-importation of slaves in, 76, 80;
what held, back, 89; a State made
over, 92-93; foUowed Jefferson, 93;

330

INDEX

constitution of, attacked, 104;
division of, advised by Hamilton,
176; troops mobilized in, 176;
would protect a convention, 187,
188; feU short of Jefferson's ideas,
289; citizenship of, 296; neglects her
University, 297
Virginia State Literary Fund Board,
301
Visitors, school. Duties of, 271
Walcott, Oliver, pussy-footed old
Counter-Revolutionist, 156
Walker, Francis, on passage of sedi
tion law, 170; on HamUton's
phUosophy of govemment, 170-71
Walker, John, member of House of
Burgesses, 13
Walpole, Robert, and corruption, 158
War, Waste in preparation for, 198-99
Wards, Counties to be divided into,
97-98, 102-3
Washington, George, a founder, 1;
on the model treaty, 110; supported
Jefferson against the Cabinet, 115,
124; criticised, 126; persuaded
Jefferson to remain in Cabinet,
127, 130; relations with Jefferson,
128; idea of making, king, 146; on a
monarchical form of govemment,
146-47; refused third term, 166,
243; humUiation of, in signing Jay
Treaty, 197; started us as the
Great Peace Nation, 197; birth
day balls of, 226; titles proposed
for, 226-27; with sword and cocked
hat, 227, 229; favored BUl for
supporting clergy, 262; to Mason,
on, 252-53; influenced Jefferson,
304
Washington's Cabinet, 160
Watson, Thomas E., on democratized
Virginia, 93; on the work of Jeffer
son, 104; on Napoleon's victories,
117; on Jefferson's peace poUcy,
199
Webster, Daniel, on Jefferson, 111,
129
Webster, Sidney, "The Two Treaties
of Paris," 214, 218-19
Weightman, Letter to Mayor, 51

West, Possession of the, a bond of
union, 222-23
Western states. Separation of church
and state in, 264; Uberal to their
universities, 297
Whigs, The early, made pretense of
Jefferson's theory, 54
White, Andrew D., The six architects
of our republic, 1; on Jefferson,
1-2, 80; Jefferson's opposition to
slavery, 81-82
WUey's, Dr., interesting work, 291
WUUam and Mary CoUege, BiU for
amending the Constitution of, 268;
never enacted, 271; chemistry at,
284
WiUiams, Roger, on things not of the
first table, 47 ; stood for democracy,
94; in accord with Jefferson, 94-95
WUson, Woodrow, on those who dis
trust the people, 50
Winship, A. E., and R. W. WaUace,
on the Louisiana purchase, 204
Wirt, WiUiam, Letter to, quoted, 7
Wisdom, The prescient, of Jefferson,
83
Witchcraft, Law against, in Virginia,
265
Witt, Cornelius de, on the Declaration
of Independence, 45 ; on the authori
ties for rights, 65-66; on Jefferson
in Paris, 57-58
Women, Education of, 272
Woods, the. Our beginningB in, 39
Woodward, Judge A. B., created
Michigan University, 273
Worcester, Noah, Jefferson's letter
to, 196
World democracy and world peace,
200
Wythe, George, agreed with Jefferson,
13; member of Law revision com
mittee, 70; set free his slaves, 76;
shared Jefferson's reUgious views,
257
Yale University, 277
Young men consiUted Jefferson on
their reading, 287-88
Charles Albzandeb Nxlbon

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Columbia nnlTersity in the City of New York

M>

The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publication
of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, related di
rectly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall be
officers of the University and that the President of Columbia University
shall be President of the Press.

The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on
Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and
Literature, and the following series :
Colombia University Contribution* to Anthropology.
Columbia University Biological Serifs.
Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects.
Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology.
Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature.
Columbia University Studies in English.
Columbia University Geological Series.
Columbia University Germanic Studies.
Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series.
Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and
Philology.
Columbia University Oriental Studies.
Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Litsr-
atnre.
Adams Lectures. Carpentisr Lecturs*.
Julius Beer Lectures. Hewitt Lectures.
Blumenthal Lectures. J«»np Lectures.
Catalogues will be sent free on application.
LeMCKE & BUECHNER, Agcnts
30.3a WEST aytli ST., NEW YORK

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Columbia University in ttie City of New Yoric
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LECTURES

ADAMS LECTURES

Graphical Methods. By Cam, Kunge, Ph.D., Professor of
Applied Mathematics in the University of Gottingen ; Kaiser
Wilhelm Professor of German History and Institutions for the
year 1909-1910. 8vo, cloth, pp. ix-|-148. Price, $1.50 net.
JULIUS BEER LECTURES
Social Evolution and. Political Theory. Bj Leonabd T.
HoBHouBB, Professor of Sociology in the Uniyersity of London.
12mo, cloth, pp. ii-t-218. Price, $1.50 net.
BLUMENTHAL LECTURES
Political Problems of American Development. By
Albeet Shaw, LL.D., Editor of the Heoiew of Reviews. 12mo,
cloth, pp. vii-f268. Price, $1.50 net.
Constitutional Government in the United States. By
WooDBOW Wilson, LL.D., Sometime President of Princeton
University. 12mo, cloth, pp. vii-)- 236. Price, $1.50 net.
The Principles of Politics from the Viewpoint of the
American Citizen. By Jebemiah W. Jenks, LL.D., Pro
fessor of Govemment and Public Administration in New York
University. 12mo, cloth, pp. xviii-|-187. Price, $1.50 net.
The Cost of Our National Government. By Henbt
Jones Foed, Professor of Politics in Princeton University.
12mo, cloth, pp. ZV4-147. Price, $1.50 net.
The Business of Congress. By Hon. Samtjbi, W. McCaix,
Member of Congress for Massachusetts. 12mo, cloth, pp. vii-f-
215. Price, $1.50 net.
Thomas Jefferson: His Permanent Influence on
American Institutions. By Hon. John Shabp Williams,
United States Senator from Mississippi. 12mo, cloth, pp.
ix-f330. Price, $1.50 ne<.

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents
30-32 West 27tli Street, New York

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Columbia University in the City of New Yorlt
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LECTURES

CARPENTIER LECTURES
The Nature and Sources of the Law. By John Chipkan
Geat, LL.D., Koyall Professor of Law in Harvard University.
12mo, cloth, pp. iii+332. Price, $1.50 net.
World Organization as Affected by the Nature of the
Modern State. By Hon. David Jaynb Hill, Sometime
American Ambassador to Germany. 12mo, cloth, pp. ii+214.
Price, $1.50 net.
The Genius of the Common Law. By the Et. Hon. Sib
Feedbeiok Pollock, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., Bencher of Lincoln's
Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 12mo, cloth, pp. vii-|-141. Price, $1.50
net. HEWITT LECTURES
The Problem of Monopoly. By John Bates Claek, LL.D.,
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University. 12mo,
cloth, pp. vi4-128. Price, $1.50 ntt.
Power. By Chaeles Edwaed Luokb, Ph.D., Professor of Me
chanical Engineering, Columbia University. 12mo, cloth, pp.
vii-1-316. Illustrated. Price, $2.00 net.
The Doctrine of Evolution. Its Basis and its Scope. By
Heney Edwaed Ceampton, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, Col
umbia University. 12mo, cloth, pp. ix-l-311. Price, $1.60 met.
Medieval Story and the Beginnings of the Social
Ideals of English-Speaking People. By William
WiTHEBLB Lawebnce, Ph.D., Aisociate Professor of English,
Columbia University. 12mo, cloth, pp. xiv-|-236. Price, $1.50
net. JESUP LECTURES
Light. By BiCHAED C. Maolaubin, LL.D., ScD., President of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 12mo, cloth, pp.
ix 4-251. Portrait and figures. Price, $1.50 net.
Scientlflc Features of Modem Medicine. By Feedbbio
S. Lee, Ph.D., Dalton Professor of Physiology, Columbia Uni
versity. 12mo, cloth, pp. vii-)- 183. Price, $1.50 net.

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents
30-32 West 27th Street, New York

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Columbia University in tlie City of New Yorlc

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LECTURES

Four Stages of Greek Religion. By Gilbket Mueeay,
Begins Professor of Greek, in the University of Oxford. 8vo,
cloth, pp. 223. Price, $1.50 net.
Lectures on Science, Philosophy and Art. A series of
twenty-one lectures descriptive in non-technical language of the
achievements in Science, Philosophy and Art. 8vo, cloth.
Price, $5.00 net.
Lectures on Literature. A series of eighteen lectures by in
structors of the University on literary art and on the great lit
eratures of the world, ancient and modern. 8vo, cloth, pp.
viii-t-404. Price, $2.00 net.
Greek Literature. A series of ten lectures delivered at Columbia
University by scholars from various universities. 8vo, cloth,
pp. vii-|-306. Price, $2.00 net. The lectures are:
The Study of Geeek Litebatuee. By Paul Shobey, Ph.D.,
Professor of Greek, University of Chicago.
Epic Poetey. By Heebeet Weie Smyth, Ph.D., Eliot Pro
fessor of Greek Literature, Harvard University.
Lyeic Poetby. By Edwaed Delavan Peeey, Ph.D., Jay Pro
fessor of Greek, Columbia University.
Teagedy. By James Eignall Wheelee, Ph.D., Professor
of Greek Archaeology and Art, Columbia University.
Comedy. By Edwaed Capps, Ph.D., Professor of Classics,
Princeton University.
HiSTOEY. By Bebnadotte Pebein, Ph.D., Lampson Professor
of Greek Literature and History, Yale University.
Oeatory. By Chaeles Foestbe Smith, Ph.D., Professor of
Greek and Classical Philology, University of Wisconsin.
Philosophy. By Feedeeick J. E. Woodbeidge, Ph.D., John
sonian Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University.
Hellenistic Liteeatube. By Heney W. Pkescott, Ph.D.,
Professor of Classical Philology, University of Chicago.
Geeek Influence on Roman Liteeatube. By Gonzalez
Lodge, Ph.D., Professor of Latin and Greek, Columbia
University.

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents
30-32 West 27tli Street, New York

5597