Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
It is now two hundred years since the birth of Thomas Jefferson. His name has become one of the major symbols in the tradition we call American. The personality of the man shows vigorously in his letters, in the results of his policies as a leader and in the restored Monticello which he loved more than any other spot on the face of the earth. We study his personality because of his interest in science, his appreciation of invention, but surely not because of his metaphysics. We admire him because of his belief in progress, but not because he avowed himself a materialist. We remember him because he could see in outline the drama of a growing United States, but not because of his perverse judgments on New England leaders. Those who love America as it is, can see the results of his policy in our imperial domain and in the establishment of political traditions that still seem valid for contemporary life. To those who dream of a society that yet is not, Jefferson stands as a symbol of the new world, the progenitor of benevolent reforms that may yet make men happy. Both the realist and the Utopian can find in the complexities of Jefferson's personality much that gives them encouragement and emotional support. We see Jefferson's work in the living America, both that which is and that which many believe ought to be.
1 Cf. Lederer, Emil, “Technology,” in The Encyclupaedia of the Social Sciences, XIV. 553–559Google Scholar.
2 See Chinard, Gilbert, Jefferson et les Idéologues (1925). pp. 285–287Google Scholar.
3 See Charles, A. and Beard, Mary R., The American Spirit (1942)Google Scholar, for emphasis on Condorcet in the rise of the ideas of progress and civilization, characteristic of the Enlightenment. See also Doren, Carl Van, Benjamin Franklin (1941)Google Scholar.
4 Sabine, G. H., A History of Political Theory (1937), pp. 545–547Google Scholar. Cf. Becker, Carl L., The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (1932)Google Scholar.
5 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, collected and edited by Ford, P. L. (10 vols., 1892–1899), IX. 295–296Google Scholar.
6 Ford ed., VII, 425.
7 Ford ed., IX, 462–463. The introduction of representative government had rendered Aristotle useless, he thought in 1816. lefferson was unaware, it seems, of Aristotle's philosophical views. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by Washington, H. A. (9 vols., 1853–1854), VII. 32Google Scholar.
8 See Kimball, Marie, “Jefferson's Four Freedoms,” Virginia Quarterly Review. XIX (1943), 204 ffGoogle Scholar.
9 See Chinard, , op. cit., p. 5Google Scholar, passim.
10 Washington ed., IV. 526–527.
11 Chinard, , op. cit., pp. 53 ff., 181Google Scholar.
12 Ibid., pp. 250 ff.
13 Washington ed.. VI. 114.
14 Washington ed., VI, 335. He urged that the study of law begin with Coke rather than Blackstone, the monarchist. Ford ed., IX, 276–277.
15 Ford ed., V, 333.
16 Washington ed., VII, 359. While Jefferson admitted the common law was part of the State laws, he regarded the idea of a general common law in force in the United States as a means toward the further expansion of national power. Ford ed., VII, 451.
17 Ford ed., IX, 71.
18 Ford ed., I, 127.
19 Ford ed., X, 120.
20 Ford ed., X, 6. In 1819 he said: “I too am an Epicurean.” Ibid., p. 143.
21 See Chinard, Gilbert (ed.) The Commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson. A Repertory of His Ideas on Government (1926)Google Scholar.
22 See Parrington, Vernon L.. The Colonial Mind, 1620–1800 (1927). pp. 343 ffGoogle Scholar. for further comments on the intellectual foundations of Jefferson. Parnngton, it would seem, stresses the influence of the frontier too much. It is held now that from the start Jefferson was at least a somewhat aristocratic frontiersman.
23 Ford, ed., IV, 428.
24 Washington ed., VI, 351.
25 Washington ed., V, 471 (1809).
26 Washington ed.. VI, 309 (1814).
27 Washington ed., VI, 412.
28 Ford ed., X. 73.
29 Commonplace Book, p. 57.
30 Washington ed., II, 355.
31 Washington ed., VII, 175 f (1820). There has been controversy as to whether Jefferson was influenced by the ideas of Cardinal Bellarmine on the popular consent basis of government. The idea of consent has been a pervasive one in Western thought for centuries past, and it is probably not worth while to try to show that such ideas were derived exclusively from one source. The Commonplace Book shows that without Locke, Jefferson could have derived his natural law ideas from Lord Kames or others. What we should do is to recognize that in Christianity there is a philosophical and historical basis for democratic government that not even the gentlemen of the Enlightenment could escape. See Hunt, Gaillard, “Cardinal Bellarmine and the Virginia Bill of Rights,” Catholic Historical Review, 10, 1917, pp. 276–289Google Scholar; Schaff, David S., “The Bellarmine-Jefferson Legend and the Declaration of Independence,” Papers of the American Society of Church History, Second Series, VIII (1928), 237–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Schaff's paper is marred by errors. A comparison of his interpretation of mediaeval ideas with the work of Mcllwain, Charles H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West (1932)Google Scholar and , R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West (6 vols., 1903–1936)Google Scholar, will show that Schaff did not understand the mixed form of government, the governmental as distinguished from the social contract, the growth of parliamentary institutions in mediaeval times, and certainly not the nature and role of law in the mediaeval community or mediaeval monarchy. In addition he has been unable to state the mediaeval or modern Catholic theory of the relation of Church and State.
32 Historical Essays and Studies, ed. by Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, R. V. (1907), p. 131Google Scholar.
33 Ford ed., X, 22.
34 Ford ed., X, 335.
35 See Johnson, Gerald W., “The Changelings,” Virginia Quarterly Review, XIX (1943), 236 ffGoogle Scholar.
36 Ford ed., X. 39.
37 Ford ed., V, 206; IX, 29.
38 Ford ed.. Ill, 254.
39 Ford ed., I. 68 f.
40 Ford ed., IX, 425–426.
41 Ford ed., X, 69.
42 Washington ed.. VII, 202 (1821).
43 Ford ed., X, 376.
44 Washington ed.. VII, 397. Jefferson opposed the leaching of divinity at the University of Virginia, but he proposed that each religious body might establish a lecturer on or near the campus. Ford ed., X, 243.
45 Washington ed.. VI. 524.
46 Forded., X. 141.
47 Ford ed., X, 8.
48 See Quinn, Patrick F., “Agrarianism and the Jeffersonian Philosophy,” The Review of Politics. II (1940), 87 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Ford ed., IX, 239.
50 Loc. cit.
51 Ford ed., IX, 226.
52 Ford ed., V, 28; VI, 509: IX. 333. 371, 373; Washington ed., V, 456.
53 Washington ed., VI. 335 (1814).
54 Ford ed., X, 354–355. See in general on Jefferson's defense of local government, Carpenter, Jesse T., The South as a Conscious Minority, 1789–1861 (1930)Google Scholar. In this connection one must not forget his long-standing opposition to standing armies as a means of destroying local liberty and republican government.
55 Washington ed., V, 303.
