THOMAS JEFFERSON PAPERS

For the AGE OF JEFFERSON course,

By Professor Peter S. Onuf






UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
MONTICELLO



Thomas Jefferson, American Icon
















Notable Comments on Jefferson -
Contemporary
1784 June 8. (Ezra Stiles). "The Governor is a most ingenuous Naturalist and Philosopher, a truly
scientific and learned Man, and every way excellent."
[1]

1784 August 27. (John Adams to James Warren). "He is an old friend with whom I have often had
occasion to labour at many a knotty problem, and in whose abilities and steadiness I always found great
cause to confide."
[2]

1784 December 27. (Marquis de Chastellux). "Let me describe to you a man, not yet forty, tall, and with
a mild and pleasing countenance, but whose mind and understanding are ample substitutes for every
exterior grace. An American, who without ever having quitted his own country, is at once a musician,
skilled in drawing; a geometrician, an astronomer, a natural philosopher, legislator, and statesman. A
senator of America, who sat for two years in that famous Congress which brought about the revolution...a
governor of Virginia, who filled this difficult station during the invasions of Arnold, of Phillips, and of
Cornwallis; a philosopher, in voluntary retirement, from the world, and public business, because he loves
the world, inasmuch only as he can flatter himself with being useful to mankind...For no object had
escaped Mr. Jefferson; and it seemed as if from his youth he had placed his mind, as he has done his house,
on an elevated situation, from which he might contemplate the universe."
[3]

1785 January 29. (John Quincy Adams). "He has a great deal of Sensibility."
[4]

1785 January 31. (John Adams to Arthur Lee). "My new Partner, is an old Friend and Co-adjutor, whose
Character, I stued nine or ten years ago, and which I do not perceive to be altered. The same industry,
integrity, and talents remain without diminution. I amy very happy in him, but whether we shall be able to
accomplish anything here, I know not."
[5]

1785 February 16. (John Quincy Adams). "A man of universal learning and very pleasing manners."
[6]

1785 March 11. (John Quincy Adams). "Spent the evening with Mr. Jefferson whom I love to be with,
because he is a man of very extensive learning, and pleasing manners."
[7]

1785 May 4. (John Quincy Adams). "He is a man of great Judgment."
[8]

1785 May 8. (Abigail Adams to Mrs. Richard Cranch). "I shall really regret to leave Mr. Jefferson; he is
one of the choice ones of the earth."
[9]

1785 December 15. (John Adams to Henry Knox). "You can scarcely have heard a Character too high of
my Friend and Colleague Mr. Jefferson, either in point of Power or Virtues. My Fellow Labourer in
Congress, eight or nine years ago, upon many arduous Tryals, particularly in the draught of
our Declaration of Independence and in the formation of our Code of Articles of War, and Laws for the
Army. I have found him uniformly the same wise and prudent Man and Steady Patriot. I only fear that his
unquenchable Thirst for knowledge may injure his Health."
[10]

1786 October 26. (Marquis de Lafayette to George Washington). "Mr. Jefferson is a most able and
respected representative, and such a man as makes me happy to be his aid de camp."
[11]

1788. (Thomas Lee Shippen to William Shippen). "Mr. Jefferson is in my opinion without exeption the
wisest and most amiable man I have seen in Europe."
[12]

1788 May 25. (Marquis de Lafayette to George Washington). "Nothing can excell Mr. Jefferson's abilities,
virtues, pleasing temper, and every thing in him that constitutes the great statesman, zealous citizen, and
amiable friend."
[13]

1789 October 12. (Nathaniel Cutting). "I have found Mr. Jefferson a man of infinite information and
sound Judgement, becoming gravity, and engaging affability mark his deportment. His general abilities are
such as would do honor to any age or Country."
[14]

1792 October 15. (Alexander Hamilton to John Steele). "There was a time when I should have ballanced
between Mr. Jefferson & Mr. Adams; but I now view the former as a man of sublimated & paradoxical
imagination - cherishing notions incompatible with regular and firm government."
[15]

1793 February 3. (John Adams to Abigail Adams). "I wish somebody would pay his debt of seven
thousand pounds to Britain and the debts of all his countrymen, and then I believe his passions would
subside, his reason return, and the whole man and his whole state become good friends of the Union and
its government."
[16]

1796 July 26. (Benjamin Rush to James Currie). Jefferson "is a pure republican, enlightened at the same
time in chemistry, natural history, and medicine. He is, in a word, a Citizen of the World and the friend of
universal peace and happiness."
[17]

1797 June 20. (John Adams]] to Uriah Forrest). "...evidence of a mind soured, yet seeking for
popularity, and eaten to a honeycomb with ambition, yet weak, confused, uninformed, and ignorant."
[18]

1797 November 3. (John Adams to John Quincy Adams). "You can witness for me how loath I have been
to give him up. It is with much reluctance that I am obliged to look upon him as a man whose mind is
warped by prejudice and so blinded by ignorance as to be unfit for the office he holds. However wise and
scientific as philosopher, as a politician he is a child and the dupe of party!"
[19]

1801 April 8. (Du Pont de Nemours to Necker). "Mr. Jefferson is a very rare man. He must be considered
among the great governors of nations."
[20]

1802-1805. (John Adams, Autobiography). "Mr. Jefferson had been now about a year a member of
Congress, but had attended his duty in the House but a very small part of the time and when there had
enver spoken in public: and during the whole time I sat with him in Congress, I never heard him utter three
sentences together. The most of a spech he ever made in my hearing was a gross insult on religion, in one
or two sentences, for which I gave him immediately the reprehension which he richly merited...Mr.
Jefferson had the reputation of a masterly Pen..."
[21]

1803 December 4. (Du Pont de Nemours to Necker). "And under the government of the excellent Mr.
Jefferson, one needs to other protection than the usefulness of one's work."
[22]

1804 January 16. (John Adams to William Cunningham). "I wish him no ill. I envy him not. I shudder at
the calamities, which I fear his conduct is preparing for his Country: from a mean thirst of popularity, an
inordinate ambition, and a want of sincerity."
[23]

1804 February 28. (Du Pont de Nemours to Necker). "Mr. Jefferson, who resisted the whole country and
risked all his popularity, who ran the risk of not being reelected by refusing to seize Louisiana, an almost
limitless country whose land is excellent, will certainly not change his principles after the success of his
peaceful negotation..."
[24]

1824 November 12-14. (Francis Wright to Julia and Harriet Garnett). "...the greatest of American's
surviving veterans. I found the venerable patriot and statesman much what I expected to see him, perhaps
rather from the descriptions I had heard and read than from any portrait I had seen--all of which except
one exquisite drawing of Stuart's in possession of the family, are decided caricatures. His face has nothing
of that elaborate length and breadth of chin invariably attached to it in all the prints and paintings that
have come under my observation but exhibits still in its decaying outline, and fallen and withered surface
the forms of symmetry and deep impress of character and intellect..."
[25]

1826 July 12. (Dabney Carr Jr. to Nicholas Philip Trist). "The loss of Mr. Jefferson is one over which the
whole world will mourn. He was one of those ornaments and benefactors of the human race, whose death
forms an epoch, and creates a sensation throughout the whole circle of civilized man...To me he has been
more than a father, and I have very loved and reverenced him with my whole heart...Taken as a whole,
history presents nothing so grand, so beautiful, so peculiarly felicitous in all the great points, as the life and
character of Thomas Jefferson."
[26]

1843 April 8. (Albert Gallatin to George Plitt and others). "I regret extremely that i should be thus
deprived of the opportunity to pay a tribute to the revered memory of him to whom I was united not only
by a conformity of political principles, but by the ties of gratitude and of a personal friendship which
during a period of thirty years was never interrupted, or even obscured by a single cloud...As one intimately
acquainted with him, and who enjoyed his entire confidence, I can bear witness to the purity of his
character and to his sincere conviction of the truth of those political tenets which he constantly and openly
avowed and promulgated."
[27]

FOOTNOTES
1. PTJ, 7:303.
2. Ibid, 7:382.
3. Ibid, 7:585.
4. Diary of John Quincy Adams], (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 1:218.
5. PTJ, 7:383.
6. Diary of John Quincy Adams], (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 1:224.
7. Ibid, 1:233.
8. Ibid, 1:262.
9. PTJ, 8:181.
10. Ibid, 7:383.
11. Ibid, 10:477.
12. Ibid, 12:504.
13. Ibid, 14:223.
14. Ibid, 15:498.
15. Harold C. Syrett et al, Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press,
1961- ), 12:569.
16. Page Smith. John Adams]. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1962), 835.
17. L.H. Butterfield, ed. Letters of Benjamin Rush (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society,
1951), 2:779.
18. Ibid, 940.
19. Ibid.
20. De Stal-Du Pont letters; correspondence of Madame de Stal and Pierre Samuel Du Pont de
Nemours and of other members of the Necker and Du Pont families. (Madison: University of
Wisconsin, 1968), p. 70.
21. L.H. Butterfield, ed. Diary and autobiography of John Adams. (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1961), 3:335.
22. Ibid, 186.
23. Correspondence between the Hon. John Adams, late president of the United States, and the
late Wm. Cunningham, Esq. : beginning in 1803, and ending in 1812. (Boston: E.M.
Cunningham: True and Greene, printers, 1823), 10-11.
24. >De Stal-Du Pont letters; correspondence of Madame de Stal and Pierre Samuel Du Pont de
Nemours and of other members of the Necker and Du Pont families. (Madison: University of
Wisconsin, 1968), 204.
25. Houghton Library Harvard.
26. Randall, Life, 3:551.
27. Henry Adams, ed. Writings of Albert Gallatin], (New York: Antiquarian Press, 1960), 2:603.











Notable Comments on Jefferson - 19th
Century
1823 June 17. (James Fenimore Cooper). "You know my antipathies, as you please to call them, to Mr.
Jefferson. I was brought up in that school where his image seldom appeared, unless it was clad in red
breeches, and where it was always associated with the idea of infidelity and political heresy...In short I saw
nothing but Jefferson, standing before me, not in red breeches and slovenly attire, but a gentleman,
appearing in all republican simplicity, with a grace and ease on the canvas..."
[1]

1826 July 12. (Dabney Carr Jr. to Nicholas Philip Trist). "The loss of Mr. Jefferson is one over which the
whole world will mourn. He was one of those ornaments and benefactors of the human race, whose death
forms an epoch, and creates a sensation throughout the whole circle of civilized man...To me he has been
more than a father, and I have ever loved and reverenced him with my whole heart...Taken as a whole,
history presents nothing so grand, so beautiful, so peculiarly felicitous in all the great points, as the life and
character of Thomas Jefferson."
[2]

1826 August 3. (Ralph Waldo Emerson). "Yesterday I attended the funeral solemnities in Fanueil Hall in
honor ofJohn Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The oration of Mr. Wester was worthy of his fame and what is
much more was worthy of the august occasion."
[3]

1830 September 24. (James Fenimore Cooper). "Passed the day in reading Jefferson's letters. I cannot
say but the perusal of this book has elevated the man in my estimation. He discovers an equanimity of
temper, and a philosophical tone of mind, that are admirable. Some of his remarks are of the first order,
and nothing can be better than his diplomatic language; frank, courteous, and reasoning..."
[4]

1835. (Alexis de Tocqueville). "Jefferson himself, the greatest democrat whom the democracy of America
has as yet produced..."
[5]

1836 March. (Edgar Allan Poe, review of Francis Hawks Ecclesiastical History of the U.S.). "No respect
for the civil services, or the unquestionable mental powers of Jefferson shall blind us to his iniquities."
[6]

1837 January. (Edgar Allan Poe). "The sage, who had conceived and matured the plan of the expedtion to
the far west, in his instructions to its commander under his own signature, has left us a model worthy of all
imitation...The doubts of some politicians, that this government has no power to encourage scientific
inquiry, most assuredly had no place in the mind of that great apostle of liberty, father of democracy, and
strict constructionist!...The character and value of that paper are not sufficiently known. Among all the
records of his genius, his patriotism, and his learning, to be found in our public archives, this paper
deserves to take, and in time will take rank, second only to the Declaration of our Independence. The first,
embodied the spirit of our free institutions, and self-government; the latter, sanctioned those liberal
pursuits, without a just appreciation of which, our institutions cannot be preserved, or if they can, would be
scarcely worth preserving."
[7]

1846. (Edgar Allen Poe). [An essay by William Kirkland] "demonstrates the truth of Jefferson's assertion,
that in this country, which has set the world an example of physical liberty, the inquisition of popular
sentiment overrules in practice the freedom asserted in theory by the laws."
[8]

1857. (Thomas Babington Macaulay to Henry Randall). "You are surprised to learn that I have not a high
opinion of Mr. Jefferson...I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or
later, destroy liberty, or civilisation, or both...Thinking thus, of course, I cannot reckon Jefferson among
the benefactors of mankind. I readily admit that his intentions were good and his abilities considerable.
Odious stories have been circulated about his private life; but I do not know on what evidence those stories
rest; and I think it probable that they are false, or monstrously exaggerated."
[9]

1859 April 6. (Abraham Lincoln to Henry L. Pierce and other). "The principles of Jefferson are the
definitions and axioms of free society...This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave,
must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and,
under a just God, can not long retain it. 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 merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and
so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the
very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression."
[10]

1864 November 17. (Frederick Douglass, Address in Baltimore). "The fathers of this republic waged a
seven years war for political liberty. Thomas Jefferson taught me that my bondage was, in its essence,
worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose..."
[11]

1872 July 24. (Frederick Douglass, Address in Richmond). "It was, Virginia, your own Thomas Jefferson
that taught me that all men are created equal."
[12]

1889. (Henry Adams). "A few broad strokes of the brush would paint the portraits of all the early
Presidents with this exception, and a few more strokes would answer for any member of their many
cabinets; but Jefferson could be painted only touch by touch, with a fine pencil, and the perfection of the
likeness depended upon the shifting and uncertain flicker of its semi-transparent shadows."
[13]

1893 March. (Frederick Douglass, Address to the Indian Industrial School). "Mr. Jefferson, among other
statesmen and philosophers, while he considered slavery an evil, entertained a rather low estimate of the
negro's mental ability. He thought that the negro might become learned in music and in language, but that
mathematics were quite out of the question with him...The reply of Mr. Jefferson is the highest praise [on
Benjamin Banneker] I wish to bestow upon this black self-made man...Jefferson was not ashamed to call
the black man his brother and to address him as a gentleman."
[14]

FOOTNOTES
1. The Letters and Journals of James Fenimore Cooper (Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press, 1960-1968), 1:95-96.
2. Randall, Life, 3:551.
3. Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks of Ralph Waldo Emerson].
(Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press), 1963), 3:29.
4. The Letters and Journals of James Fenimore Cooper (Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press, 1960-1968), 2:31-32.
5. Democracy in America (New York: Walker, 1850), 205. (The book was first published in 1835,
although the edition we link to here is one from 1850.)
6. Poe: Essays and Reviews (New York: Library of America, 1984), 565.
7. Ibid, 1246-1247.
8. Ibid, 1124.
9. Francis Rosenberger, ed. Jefferson Reader. (New York: Dutton, 1955), p. 270-263.
10. Roy Basler, ed. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers
University Press, 1953), 3:375-376.
11. John W. Blassingame and John McKivigan, eds. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series One,
Speeches, Debates, and Interviews (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992), 4:42.
12. Ibid., 4:307.
13. History of the United States during the First Administration of America, during the First
Administration of Thomas Jefferson. (New York: Scribners, 1889), 1:277.
14. Douglass, 5:567.



Notable Comments on Jefferson - 20th
Century
1912 April 14. (Woodrow Wilson, Jefferson Dinner). "Monopoly, private control, the authority of
privilege, the concealed mastery of a few men...He [Thomas Jefferson] would have moved against them,
sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes openly, sometimes subtly; but whether he merely
mined about them, or struck directly at them, he would have set systematic war against them at the front of
all his purpose. As regards the economic policy of the country it is perfectly plain that Mr. Jefferson would
have insisted upon a tariff fitted to actual conditions, by which he would have meant not the interests of the
few men who find access to the hearings of the ways and Means Committee of the House and the Finance
Committee of the Senate, but the interests of the business men and manufacturers and farmers and
workers and professional men of every kind and class...He would have known that the currency question is
not only an economic question, but a political question, and that, above all else, control must be in the
hands of those who represent the general interest...In the general field of business his thought would, of
course, have gone about to establish freedom, to throw business opportunities open at every point to new
men, to destroy the processes of monopoly, to exclude the poison of special favors, to see that, whether big
or little, business was not dominated by anything but the law itself..."
[1]

1916 April 13. (Woodrow Wilson, A Jefferson Day Address). "The immortality of Thomas Jefferson does
not lie in any one of his achievements, or in the series of his achievements, but in his attitude towards
mankind and the conception which he sought to realize in action of the service owed by America to the rest
of the world...Thomas Jefferson was a great leader of men because he understood and interpreted the
spirits of men...It is not a circumstance without significance that Jefferson felt, perhaps more than any
other American of his time, except Benjamin Franklin, his close kinship with like thinking spirits
everywhere else in the civilized world. His comradeship was as intimate with the thinkers of France as with
the frontiersmen of America, and this rather awkward, rather different man carried about with him a sort
of type of what all men should with to be who love liberty and seek to lead their fellow men along those
difficult paths of achievement. The only way we can honor Thomas Jefferson is by illumining his spirit and
following his example. His example was an example of organization and concerted action for the rights of
men, first in America and then, by America's example, everywhere in the world. And the thing that
interested Jefferson is the only thing that ought to interest us...If you are ready, you have inherited the
spirit of Jefferson, who recognized the men in France and the men in Germany who were doing the liberal
thinking of their day as just as much citizens of the great work of liberty as he was himself, and who was
ready in every conception he had to join hands across the water or across any other barrier with those who
held those high conceptions of liberty which had brought the United States into existence."
[2]

1930. (Allen Tate). "Jefferson had many charms; was democratic; still--and yet What should one do? The
family arms On coach and spoon he wisely set Against historical alarms: For quality not being loath, Nor
quantity, nor the fame of both."
[3]

ca. 1938. (Frank Lloyd Wright on the Jefferson Memorial). "Thomas Jefferson? Were that gentleman
alive today he would be the first to condemn the stupid erudition mistaken in his honor...in terms of the
feudal art and thought that clung to him then, deliberately to make of him now, a fashionable effigy of
reaction instead of a character appreciated by his own people as a noble spirit of progress and freedom."
[4]

1940. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at the Jackson Day Dinner). "Thomas Jefferson is a hero to me
despite the fact that the theories of the French Revolutionists at times overexcite his practical judgment.
He is a hero because, in his many-sided genius, he too did the big job that hen had to be done-to establish
the new republic as a real democracy and the inalienable rights of man, instead of a restricted suffrage in
the hands of a small oligarchy. Jefferson realized that if the people were free to get and discourse all the
facts, their composite judgment would be better than the judgment of a self-perpetuating few. That is why I
think of Jefferson as belonging to the rank and file of both major political parties today."
[5]

1940. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at the University of Pennsylvania). "With the gaining of our
political freedom you will remember that there came a conflict between the point of view of Alexander
Hamilton, sincerely believing in the superiority of Government by a small group of public-spirited and
usually wealthy citizens, and, on the other hand, the point of view of Thomas Jefferson, an advocate of
Government by representatives chosen by all the people, an advocate of the universal right of free thought,
free personal living, free religion, free expression of opinion and above all, the right of free universal
suffrage."
[6]

1943 April 13. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at the Dedication of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial,
Washington, D.C.). "Jefferson, across a hundred and fifty years of time, is closer by much to living men
than many of our leaders of the years between."
[7]

1945 April 13. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Undelivered Address prepared for Jefferson Day). "In this
historic year, more than ever before, we do well to consider the character of Thomas Jefferson as an
American citizen of the world. As Minister to France, then as our first Secretary of State and as our third
President, Jefferson was instrumental in the establishment of the United States as a vital fact in
international affairs. It was he who first sent our Navy into far-distant waters to defend our rights. And the
promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine was the logical development of Jefferson's far-seeing foreign policy.
Today this Nation which Jefferson helped so greatly to build is playing a tremendous part in the battle for
the rights of man all over the world."
[8]

1948. (Dumas Malone). "...in youthful presumptuousness I flattered myself that sometime I would fully
comprehend and encompass [Jefferson]. I do not claim that I have yet done so, and I do not believe that I
or any other single person ever can. Nobody can live Jefferson's long and eventful life all over again, and
nobody in our age is likely to match his universality."
[9]

1948. (Ezra Pound). "'You the one, I the few' said John Adams speaking of fears in the abstract to his
volatile friend Mr. Jefferson."
[10]

1962 April 29. (John F. Kennedy, Remarks at a Dinner honoring Nobel Prize Winners). "I think this is
the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at
the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said
that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery,
plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet."
[11]

1963 April 16. (Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter from Birmingham City Jail"). "...I gradually gained a bit of
satisfaction from being considered an extremist...Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist - 'We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
[12]

1989. (Jerzy Kosinki). "In every Pole there is Jefferson more than anyone else, a love of freedom, free
expression-and having a house of one's own."
[13]

1989 September 20. (George H. W. Bush). "...Jefferson surveyed a horizon that no one else could
see."
[14]

1989. (Zdenek Janicek, after reading the Declaration of Independence to Polish workers). "Americans
understood these rights more than 200 years ago...we are only now learning to believe that we are entitled
to the same rights."
[15]

1990 February 21. (Vaclav Havel). "When Thomas Jefferson wrote that governments are instituted
among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, it was a simple and important act
of the human spirit. What gave meaning to that act, however, was the fact that the author backed it up with
his life. It was not just his words; it was his deed as well."
[16]

1991. (Andrei Kozyrev, Russian Foreign Minister). "The Soviet Union was never a legitimate state...I don't
know what Shakhnazarov reads; I read Jefferson on the inalienable rights of all men."
[17]

1992 July 4. (Carl Sagan, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). "Jefferson was a childhood hero
of mine, not because of his science, but because he, more than anybody else, was responsible for the spread
of democracy throughout the world. And the idea, breath-taking, radical, revolutionary at that time - and
some places in the world, it still is today - is that not princes, not priests, not kinds, not big city bosses, not
dictators, but the people are to rule. And not only was he a leading theoretician of this cause, he was
involved in the most practical way, for the first time, bringing it about in the American experiment that has
been copied, amplified, longed for, all over the world since."
[18]

1993 January 17. (Bill Clinton, kick off of inaugural journey). "Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest
presidents and perhaps our most brilliant president...He believed in the power of ideas which have made
this country great...Jefferson believed in public service."
[19]

1993 April 13. (Mikhail Gorbachev, Founder's Day Ceremonies, University of Virginia). "For myself I
found one thing to be true: having once begun a dialogue with Jefferson one continues the conversation
with him forever."
[20]

1994 July 4. (David McCullough, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). "All honor to Jefferson
in our own world now, in 1994. We can never know enough about him. Indeed we may judge our own
performance in how seriously and with what effect we take his teachings to heart. When he wrote
the Declaration of Independence, he was speaking to the world then, but speaking to us also, across time.
The ideas are transcendent, as is so much else that is bedrock to what we believe as a people, what we stand
for, so many principles that have their origins here, with the mind and spirit of Thomas Jefferson."
[21]

1996 April 13. (Lady Margaret Thatcher, Founder's Day Ceremonies). "...in the history of liberty
[Jefferson is] a great figure everywhere in the world."
[22]

1996 June 7. (Ken Burns). "[Jefferson] is a kind of Rosetta Stone of the American experience, a massive,
tectonic intelligence that has formed and rattled the fault lines of our history, our present moment, and, if
we are lucky, our future. The contradictions that attend the life and actions of Thomas Jefferson are played
out and made manifest in the trial, the trials of the unfolding pageant we call American history."
[23]

1996 June 7. (Garry Wills). "...the thing to remember from Jefferson is the power of the word. That ideas
matter. That words beautifully shaped, reshape lives. That a person who has certain disadvantages and
flaws and even crimes, like holding slaves, can transcend his imprisonment within reality by casting out
words that take you into a new reality."
[24]

1997 July 4. (Colin Powell, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). "...the man who captured in
words, better than anyone before or since, the essence of what makes America special."
[25]

2000 (James Ronda) Out of his own hopes and fears, his travels and reading, Jefferson invented an
uniquely American WestIn their maps and in their minds, by what they did and what they wrote, Lewis
and Clark imprinted Jeffersons western vision on a westering nation. James Ronda, Jeffersons West
FOOTNOTES
1. Arthur S. Link, ed., Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press),
24:331-332.
2. Ibid., 36:472-473, 476.
3. "On the Father of Liberty," Sewanee Review (January 1930).
4. Merill Peterson, The Jefferson Image in the American Mind. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1962), 426.
5. Samuel Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (New York:
Macmillan, 1938-), 5:613-614.
6. Ibid., 436.
7. Roosevelt, "Address at the Dedication of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial" (speech, Washington,
D.C., April 13, 1943). Text online at the American Presidency Project.
8. Samuel Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1941), 1940:30.
9. Malone, Jefferson, 1:vii.
10. Pound, "Canto LXXXI." Text available online.
11. Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy; containing the public
messages, speeches, and statements of the President, 1961-1963 (Washington D.C.: GPO, 1962-
1964), 1:161.
12. King, Why We Can't Wait (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 88.
13. Quoted in Washington Post, April 5, 1989.
14. Bush, "Remarks by the President, Governor Gerald Baliles, Governor Terry Branstad and
Secretary Laura Cavazos During University Convocation" (speech, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, Va., September 28, 1989.
15. Quoted in New York Times, November 28, 1989.
16. Quoted in New York Times, February 21, 1990.
17. Quoted in Washington Post, August 1, 1991.
18. In The Great Birthday of Our Republic (Charlottesville, Va.: Thomas Jefferson Foundation,
2003), 28.
19. Quoted in Charlottesville, Va. Daily Progress, January 18, 1993.
20. Gorbachev, "Comments delivered on the occasion of Thomas Jefferson's 250th birthday"
(speech, Monticello, Charlottesville, Va., April 13, 1993).
21. In The Great Birthday of Our Republic (Charlottesville, Va.: Thomas Jefferson Foundation,
2003), 40.
22. Lady Margaret Thatcher at Monticello, on the Occasion of the 253rd Anniversary of the Birth
of Thomas Jefferson and the Presentation of the First Thomas Jefferson Medal for
Statesmanship, April 13, 1996 (Charlottesville, Va.: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, 1996).
23. Ken Burns, "Puzzled and Prospering: Searching for Thomas Jefferson" (speech, Monticello,
Charlottesville, Va., June 7, 1996).
24. Garry Wills, as quoted by Ken Burns, "Puzzled and Prospering: Searching for Thomas Jefferson"
(speech, Monticello, Charlottesville, Va., June 7, 1996).
25. In The Great Birthday of Our Republic (Charlottesville, Va.: Thomas Jefferson Foundation,
2003), 53-4.

























Jeffersons Declaration of Independence





























III. Jeffersons original Rough draught of the
Declaration of Independence, 11 June4 July 1776
III. Jeffersons original Rough draught of the Declaration of Independence
A Declaration of1 the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General
Congress assembled.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance
from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the
powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of
natures god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the change.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;2 that all men are created equal &
independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights3 inherent & inalienable,
among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to
secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to
institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organising
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety &
happiness. prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light & transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that
mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses
& usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to subject4them to arbitrary power,5 it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such government & to provide new guards for their future security. such has
been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which
constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his
present majesty, is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no
one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which
have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove
this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet
unsullied by falsehood.
he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:
he has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate & pressing importance, unless
suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended,
he has neglected utterly to attend to them.
he has refused to pass other laws for the accomodation of large districts of people unless
those people would relinquish the right of representation,6 a right inestimable to them,
& formidable to tyrants alone:7
he has dissolved Representative houses repeatedly & continually, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people:
he has refused8 for a long space of time9 to cause others to be elected, whereby the
legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for
their exercise, the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, & convulsions within:
he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing
the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
migrations hither; & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:
he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies,
refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:
he has made our judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and
amount of their salaries:
he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, & sent hither
swarms of officers to harrass our people & eat out their substance:
he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies & ships of war:
he has affected to render the military, independant of & superior to the civil power:
he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions
and unacknoleged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation,
for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
o for protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders they should
commit on the inhabitants of these states;
o for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
o for imposing taxes on us without our consent;
o for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;
o for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
o for taking away our charters, & altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
o for suspending our own legislatures & declaring themselves invested with power to
legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:
he has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, & declaring us out of his
allegiance & protection:
he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns & destroyed the lives of
our people:
he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works
of death, desolation & tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy
unworthy the head of a civilized nation:
he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian
savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes, & conditions of existence:
he has incited treasonable insurrections in our fellow-subjects,10 with the allurements
of forfeiture & confiscation of our property:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of
life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating &
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the
warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing
every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:11 and that
this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting
those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has
deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying
off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the lives of another.
in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble
terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. a prince whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler
of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of
one man, adventured within the short compass of 1212 years only, on so many acts of
tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered & fixed in principles of liberty.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. we have warned
them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a jurisdiction over
these our states. we have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration &
settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were
effected at the expence of our own blood & treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the
strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government,
we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league &
amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution,
nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice &
magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations
which were likely to interrupt our correspondence & connection. they too have been
deaf to the voice of justice & of consanguinity, & when occasions have been given
them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers
of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. at this
very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of
our common blood, but Scotch & foreign mercenaries to invade & deluge us in blood.
these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to
renounce for ever these unfeeling brethren. we must endeavor to forget our former love
for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace
friends. we might have been a free & a great people together; but a communication of
grandeur & of freedom it seems is below their dignity. be it so, since they will have it:
the road to glory & happiness13 is open to us too; we will climb it in a separate
state,14 and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces15 our everlasting Adieu!16
We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General
Congress assembled do, in the name & by authority of the good people of these states,
reject and renounce all allegiance & subjection to the kings of Great Britain & all others
who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve & break off all
political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us & the people or
parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be
free and independant states, and that as free & independant states they shall hereafter
have power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, & to
do all other acts and things which independant states may of right do. And for the
support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, &
our sacred honour.
Dft (DLC). Endorsed by TJ, late in life, Independance. Declaration of original Rough
draught.
The text here presented approximates its state at the time TJ transcribed it from the
manuscript of which the Fragment was a part (Document II; Boyd, Declaration of
Independence, 1945, p. 1822) and before John Adams took off the copy in his own
handwriting (MS in Adams Manuscript Trust, Boston; facsimile in Boyd, pl. IV). The Rough
draught includes changes made in the text in the various stages of its evolutionchanges
made by TJ himself, by Adams and Franklin, who were consulted separately, by the
Committee or by Congress. The separation of the alterations made in these various stages
has been traced in Hazelton, p. 30642; Becker, ch.IV; and Boyd, p. 2838. TJs indication of
the changes made during the progress of the text at its various stages may be seen in
Document IV in the present sequence of texts (printed above with TJs Notes of Proceedings
in the Continental Congress, 7 June to 1 Aug. 1776). The alterations made in the text as
here presented, with the possible exception of that indicated in note 9, were probably made
by TJ in the course of making the Rough draught; this was certainly true of those indicated
in notes 1316.
1. TJ first wrote of and then changed it to by.
2. The phrase sacred & undeniable was changed to self-evident before Adams made
his copy. This change has been attributed to Franklin, but the opinionrests on no conclusive
evidence, and there seems to be even stronger evidence that the change was made by TJ or
at least that it is in his handwriting (Boyd,Declaration of Independence, 1945, p. 223).
3. The word in was deleted before rights; TJ may have started to write inherent.
4. The word subject was changed to reduce; this, however, was not an interlineation
but was a correction made on the same line, a clear evidence that the alteration was made
at the time TJ wrote out the Rough draught.
5. The phrase to arbitrary power was changed, in a sequence of two alterations, to
under absolute Despotism, the first alteration being made by TJ so that, when Adams
made his copy, the phrase read under absolute power. Franklin made the second changre,
substituting Despotism for power.
6. The phrase in the legislature was interlined after the word representation; this
change was probably made in the course of copying the Rough draught, for in the
legislature occurs at the same point in Document I.
7. The word alone was changed to read only. This change, like that indicated in notes
1, 10, and 12, was made by expunging or erasing one word while the ink was still wet and
overwriting the substituted word; thus all three of these changes were probably made by TJ
in the course of copying the Rough draught.
8. The phrase he has dissolved was struck out at the beginning of this line; it is
obvious that TJ had started to repeat the preceding sentence-a clear evidence that he was
copying from an earlier draft (Boyd, Declaration of Independence, 1945, p. 26).
9. Here an alteration was made by John Adams. After Adams had interlined, with a caret,
the words after such Dissolutions and had transcribed the document as it stood with these
alterations, TJ then crossed out the words space of time and prefixed time to Adams
interlineation.
10. TJ originally wrote fellowsubjects, copying the term from the corresponding
passage in the first page of the First Draft of the Virginia Constitution; then, while the ink
was still wet on the Rough draught he expunged or erased subjects and wrote citizens
over it. The fact that he made the same change in Document I is evidence that he was using
that document as the composition text for this part of the Declaration.
11. The words determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold
were bracketed in the Rough draught and then interlined at the point indicated; Adams
copied the clause at the same point. TJ subsequently deleted the brackets, crossed out the
interlined repetition of the words after commerce, and thus restored the original reading.
While, therefore, the text at this point does not reflect its state at the time the Adams copy
was written, it does give the text in the order in which TJ first copied it in the Rough
draught. Congress, of course, struck out the entire passage.
12. TJ first wrote the figure 12 and then, as in the changes indicated in notes 1, 7, and
10, wrote the word twelve over it, the correction being made in the course of copying.
13. TJ deleted glory & before, and interlined & to glory after happiness; this
alteration was made in the course of copying, since the same change was made in Document
II.
14. TJ changed in a separate state to separately in the Rough draught; then altered
both that and the passage in Document II to read apart from them; this was the form
which Adams copied. Thus we are able to follow TJ here in turning to two alternative
readings in the Rough draught before going back to the text of Document II to record the
one that finally satisfied him.
15. This word was changed to denounces in both the Rough draught and in
Document II; the Adams copy reads denounces.
16. TJ struck out everlasting Adieu in both the Rough draught and the text of
Document II, and substituted eternal separation, which is the reading of the Adams copy.








Notes of Proceedings in the Continental Congress,
7 June1 August 1776
Notes of Proceedings in the Continental Congress
[7 June to 1 August 1776]
EDITORIAL NOTE
JEFFERSONs extraordinarily graphic account of the debates and proceedings in Congress
during two critical months in the summer of 1776 is perhaps the best single source of
information concerning the movement toward independence and the formation of the Articles
of Confederation, not even excepting the similar notes made by John Adams (Works, II, 485
502; also JCC, VI, 107183). Nevertheless, its claim to contemporaneity and even to
accuracy in respect to the account of the signing of the Declaration of Independence has
been challenged by Ford, Hazelton, and other careful scholars. For this reason it is essential
that the manuscript and the facts surrounding it be examined in some detail.
The text of the Notes of Proceedings (hereafter referred to as Notes) as here presented
was inserted by Jefferson in the manuscript of his Autobiography; all previous editors of
Jeffersons papers have printed it with the Autobiography at the place where Jefferson
inserted it (TJR, I, 1029; HAW, I, 1235; Ford, I, 1847; L & B, I, 1753). However, it now
seems clear that Jeffersons insertion was an afterthought, and it is felt that the Notes would
not only serve to illuminate the events of 1776 better but would also be more accurately
understood if presented independently.
Jeffersons Autobiography, begun 6 Jan. 1821 and closed, or rather suspended, 29 July
1821, is a MS of 90 leaves, all versos being blank save three; however, Jefferson numbered
only the alternate leaves and counted blank versos in his pagination. After he had written the
MS and numbered its pages, he inserted the 20-page MS of the Notes. At present this
insertion lies between leaves [1920] and 21[22], but Jefferson probably placed it between
leaves 21[22] and [2324]. For page [23], which is only half-filled, is not a continuation of
page 21 but of the last page of the Notes, and it contains no mention of the Declaration of
Independence. It is, therefore, a substitute for a cancelled leaf which must have briefly
summarized the proceedings on both the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation, a
summarization rendered superfluous by the much more detailed account supplied with the
insertion of the Notes. This supposition is further supported by the evident fact that Jefferson
made an effort to keep the various events of his Autobiography in proportion (see his
statement at the conclusion of the account of the French Revolution, Ford, I, 147). A one-or
two-page account of the Declaration would have conformed to the plan of the whole, but the
20-page insertion of the Notes threw it greatly out of scale. Jefferson did not explain this
disproportionate amount of detail as he did in the case of his account of the French
Revolution; nevertheless, there must have been some compelling cause for his action in
deleting a brief account and in substituting therefor an extended one, particularly since it
was done after the Autobiography had already covered the events of 1776.
That compulsion would be better understood, perhaps, if it were known at what date the
insertion of the Notes was made. The most that can be said, however, is that the insertion
followed the completion of the Autobiography. It is a plausible assumption that the insertion
took place at the time of the renewed discussions of the authorship and signing of the
Declaration of Independence between 1822 and 1825 and that it was caused by the rather
partisan efforts to depreciate Jeffersons claim to sole authorship. Obviously Jefferson was
not moved to insert the Notes in the Autobiography because of the differences of opinion
over the question of the signing of the Declaration on 4 July 1776, for that question had
been publicly agitated since 1817 and Jefferson had in 1819 given a detailed account of the
matter, basing this account on the Notes (TJ to Samuel A. Wells, 12 May 1819). The same
subject came up again when he purchased a copy of the newly publishedSecret Journals of
Congress (see postscript to letter to Wells, added 6 Aug. 1822). If the agitation of the
question of the signing on 4 July had not been sufficient cause to induce Jefferson to make
the insertion in 1821, when it had been brought to his attention four years earlier, it seems
unlikely that the revival of the question in 1822 would have caused him to do it.
But the question of Jeffersons authorship of the Declaration was something that touched
his sensitive feelings more deeply. In 1822 at least two Federalist newspapers,
the Philadelphia Union and the Federal Republican, sought to deprive Mr. Jefferson of all
credit for originality in drawing up the Declaration of Independence (Hazelton, Declaration
of Independence, p. 3501). This Jefferson could probably have accepted with equanimity,
for he had been subjected to much worse from Federalist newspapers. But the following year
at Salem, Mass., Timothy Pickering delivered a Fourth of July oration in which he endeavored
to depreciate Jeffersons role as author, employing for that purpose a letter written by John
Adams which seemed to support Pickerings views. This brought the matter into public view
in a manner which Jefferson could not ignore. He wrote soon afterwards to James Madison,
expressing some skepticism concerning the accuracy of Pickerings use of statements by
Adams and giving Madison an account of the drafting of the Declaration, basing this account
upon written notes, taken by myself at the moment and on the spot (TJ to Madison,
30 Aug. 1823). It seems plausible to assume, in the absence of exact evidence, that this
discussion of the question of Jeffersons part in the drafting of the Declaration may have
provided the stimulus that caused him to insert the Notes in the Autobiography. The
insertion may possibly have occurred then or later, for the question continued to be
discussed down to 1825; but there appears no valid reason for assuming that it took place
earlier.
The manuscript of the Notes is not the same as written notes, taken at the moment
and on the spot; Jefferson may actually have had such original notes when he wrote to
Madison. If so, they are not now known to be extant. The difference between these original
memoranda and the Notes is explained by a slip of paper pasted onto page 12 of the Notes
and bearing five lines on the recto and four on the verso in Jeffersons hand:
the Declaration thus signed on the 4th. on paper was engrossed on parchment, & signed
again on the 2d. of Aug. Some erroneous statements of the proceedings on the declaration
of independance having got before the public in latter times, Mr. Samuel A. Wells asked
explanations of me, which are given in my letter to him of May 12. 19. before and now again
referred to. I took notes in my place while these things were going on, and at their close
wrote them out in form and with correctness and <this and> from 1. to 7. of the two
preceding sheets are the originals then written; as the two following are of the earlier
debates on the Confederation, which I took in like manner.
This statement is of first importance for establishing the date and dependability of the
Notes, but before its value as evidence can be properly assessed, it becomes necessary to
clarify the character of this insertion within an insertion. Obviously the slip was written after
1819. Hazelton (p. 594) is of the opinion that it was penned at, or soon after, the time of
writing the letter to Wells (TJ to Wells, 12 May 1819). This is possible, but Jeffersons
allusion to that letter (before and now againreferred to) indicates that some interval had
elapsed. The allusion is not clear, but it is certain that, at the time of writing the slip,
Jefferson had made some earlier reference to the letter to Wells. At any rate, there is
evidence in the slip itself that it was inserted in the Notes before the Notes were inserted in
the Autobiography. This is to be found in the middle part of the final sentence, which
originally read this and the two preceding sheets are the originals (the reference to sheets
is made clear by the fact that the Notes consisted of five sheets or signatures of four pages
each; the slip was attached to page 12 of the middle sheet; hence the correctness of the
reference to the two preceding and the two following sheets). However, Jefferson struck out
the words this and and interlined the words from 1. to 7. of. It seems plausible to
assume from this that the Notes were not paged until this correction was made and that the
pagination was inserted to avoid confusion, a confusion which could have been created only
by the intermingling of the sheets of the Notes with some other group of sheets such as
those of the Autobiography; hence the likelihood that the pagination was made at the time of
the insertion and that the slip, therefore, was written originally at some time before the
insertion. Another point needs to be noted about the slip: the first sentence, penned in a
smaller hand, was obviously added after the slip had been written with the beginning words
Some erroneous statements ; Hazelton is of the opinion that this addition was made 6
Aug. 1822 (p. 594), for the very plausible reason that the reference to the signing of the
paper copy of the Declaration is to the same effect as the postscript that Jefferson added on
that date to his file copy of the letter to Wells of 12 May 1819.
The real significance of the slip, however, lies in Jeffersons categorical statement that I
took notes in my place while these things were going on, and at their close wrote them out
in form and with correctness and from 1. to 7. of the two proceeding sheets are the originals
then written. Ford has thrown grave doubt upon the accuracy of this assertion (I, 47);
Hazelton and others have agreed with Fords opinion in more or less degree. At the
conclusion of the Notes in his edition, Ford (I, 47) makes this statement: Here end the
notes which Jefferson states were taken while these things were going on, and at their close
were written out in form and with correctness. Much of their value depends on the date of
their writing, but there is nothing to show this, except negative evidence. The sheets were all
written at the same time, which makes the writing after Aug. 1, 1776; while the
misstatements as to the signing, and as to Dickinsons presence, would seem almost
impossible unless greater time even than this had elapsed between the occurrence and the
notes. The MS. is, moreover, considerably corrected and interlined, which would hardly be
the case if merely a transcript of rough notes. Hazelton agrees with the implication here
that in a critical passage Jefferson relied upon memory and with the statement that there is
no evidence to show when the Notes were written in form and with correctness (p. 2045,
422, 594). Both agree that the misstatements are in fact misstatements. If this is correct,
then Jeffersons assertions in the Notes are indeed open to question. Hence the necessity for
examining (1) the opinion that there is no evidence of date attached to the Notes and (2) the
misstatements that caused doubt to arise in the first place.
First, as to the question of evidences of date, there is no room for doubt that the Notes
were written before 1 June 1783. It is true, as Ford observes, that the MS of the Notes is
considerably corrected and interlined. But this fact, far from casting doubt on the
contemporary nature of the Notes as Ford implies, is the essential evidence for establishing
the terminal date after which the Notes could not possibly have been written. Ford was led to
this erroneous inference, no doubt, by a misreading of Jeffersons statement on the slip. That
statement does not assert, as Ford seemed to think, that the Notes were merely a transcript
of rough notes. On the contrary, Jefferson seems rather explicit in his explanation that the
notes taken during the debates were, at the close of the proceedings, employed as the basis
for writing them out in form and with correctness, not for the purpose of transcription.
Many of the corrections and interlineations were made before 1 June 1783, when
Jefferson sent a copy of the Notes to Madison (see notes following this document); some
bear evidence of having been made at the time of the transcription; others indubitably were
made much later, perhaps during the years 18191825. In short, we are dealing here with
an overlay of corrections and additions precisely similar to that which occurred in the first
page of Jeffersons First Draft of the Virginia Constitution and in the Rough draught of the
Declaration of Independence. Just as the Third Draft of the former and Adams Copy of the
latter provided the dividing line for separating the earlier and the later additions in each
case, so the presence of the Madison copy of the Notes provides a dividing line for separating
the corrections and additions made prior to 1 June 1783 from the overlay made subsequent
to that date. The textual notes given below will point out every example of corrections made
after the Madison copy was drawn off; the italicized words in angle brackets in the text of the
Notes, representing deletions, will show at a glance what corrections were made prior to 1
June 1783. It may be safely assumed that the Madison copy suffered no such sophistication
subsequent to 1783 as did the Notes from which it was taken and which remained in
Jeffersons hands.
This terminal date of 1 June 1783 definitely removes the Notes from the suspicion of
having been, at least in part, dependent upon an older mans memory. But may we accept
Jeffersons statement that the Notes were written in form and with correctness at the close
of debates, meaning thereby soon after 1 Aug. 1776? Ford and Hazelton think not, chiefly
because of inability to reconcile with accepted views Jeffersons categorical assertion about
the signing of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776, an assertion which the
general consensus of historical opinion has rejected. Ford expresses no opinion as to the
date at which the Notes may have been written. Hazelton thinks that the writing took place
after Jefferson retired from Congress, but he does not specify whether this means after he
retired in 1776 or in 1784 or indeed at what period after retirement the rewriting of the
original notes took place. Though both knew of the existence of the Madison copy and made
use of it, neither recognized its importance in establishing a terminal date. Each concluded
that Jefferson had written the Notes at a later period than he asserted because of his
misstatement about the signing of the Declaration on 4 July. It is noteworthy that, except
for this and the implied assertion by Jefferson as to Dickinsons presence in Congress on 4
July, neither impugns Jeffersons testimony as given in the Notes in respect to any other
single important statement of fact or opinion. Before examining the criteria by which they
measure Jeffersons accuracy on this point, it is worth noting that the Notes, taken as a
whole, are so explicit, so detailed, so capable of being checked and verified by other reliable
sources, that we must inescapably conclude (as indeed Hazelton does) that the MS was
written from notes taken while these things were going on. In view of this, it is evident that
the standards by which any part of Jeffersons generally unimpeachable contemporary
account are to be challenged must be of equal if not superior validity.
But just how contemporary were the Notes? There is no evidence other than Jeffersons
statement on the slip written after 1819 to show that the original notes were put in form at
the close of the debates on the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation. But since it is
possible to narrow the dates of the Notes to the period from 1 Aug. 1776 to 1 June 1783, the
task of attempting to ascertain the accuracy of Jeffersons statement is relatively simplified.
The first and most important fact to be observed is that Jefferson fully realized the historic
significance of the act of separation from the British Empire and of drafting the justification
for that separation as well as stating the political ideals of the new nation. If proof of this
were needed it is to be found not only in his entire career, guided as it was by constant
reference to the leading principles then stated, but also in the numbers of copies of the
Declaration as originally written that he found time to make and send to distant friends
during the busy days of July; in the fact that he found time during June and Julytwo of his
busiest months in Congressto make such detailed notes of proceedings and debates; in his
incorporating the text of his draft of the Declaration in the Notesall evidences of his pride
in the authorship of this statement of national ideals; finally, in the care that he took in
putting the Notes in form and with correctness, a style which, whether intended for
publication or not, could easily have been put to press without further alteration. In 1787
Jefferson wrote of the nine-hour debate on 1 July during which all the powers of the soul
had been distended with the magnitude of the object (TJ to the Editor of the Journal de
Paris, 29 Aug. 1787). If the magnitude of the object made such an impression on him and if
he had intended from the beginning to make full and exact notes of these momentous
transactions, what motive could explain his deferring the putting these notes in form? The
pressure of business in Congress might have deprived him of the time necessary to make
these copies, but he was fully as preoccupied with the affairs of Virginia from Oct. 1776 to
the summer of 1781 as he was during July of the former year. During the early part of July
1776 he was arduously engaged in the affairs of the army in Canada and with the debates on
the Articles of Confederationfar more so than in the following months when he was
preparing to return to Virginiayet this preoccupation did not prevent him from making at
least six copies of the Declaration to send to friends during the busy days of early July.
Jefferson, as Adams said, was always prompt and explicit in the Congress and throughout
life he conducted business, especially paper work, with dispatch and efficiency. It seems
plausible to assume, therefore, that, especially during Aug. 1776, Jefferson had as full an
opportunity to put his rough notes in form as he had at any other time prior to 1781. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Jeffersons
statement as to the Notes being put in form at the close of debate should be given much
weight, particularly in view of the high degree of trustworthiness of the document as a
whole.
But, according to the general view, there is evidence to the contrary: the evidence lies in
Jeffersons statement in the Notes that The declaration was reported by the commee.,
agreed to by the house, and signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson. This
statement, Ford and Hazelton agree, could scarcely have been written except from memory
and after a greater interval than Jefferson claimed for the writing of the Notes, since (1) the
Declaration of Independence was not signed on 4 July and since (2) Dickinson was not
present.
To take up the second item first, it is necessary only to point out the fact (with which
Hazelton agrees) that the word present in Jeffersons statement was not in the Madison
copy of the Notes, was not in the letter of 1787 to the Editor of theJournal de Paris (which
was certainly based on the Notes), and was interlined in the letter to Wells in 1819 and
therefore presumably interlined in the Notes at the same time. Up to 1819, then, what
Jefferson had said in the Notes was that the Declaration was signed on 4 July by every
member except Mr. Dickinson; this is very different from an assertion that Dickinson was or
was not present. The fact of Dickinsons presence or absence, then, cannot be regarded as
valid evidence for discrediting Jeffersons statement about the date of the Notes. By 1819
Jeffersons interlineation of the word present indubitably caused him to make from memory
what Ford called a misstatement; but we are concerned here with plausible or provable
misstatements in the Notes as the text stood prior to 1 June 1783, not thereafter.
Yet there remain two most troublesome items in Jeffersons statement; first, that the
Declaration was signed 4 July; second, that it was signed by every member. Again to
consider the second point first, did Jefferson mean every member who was duly elected and
actually serving in Congress at the time? Did he mean the same members who signed the
engrossed parchment copy of the Declaration on 2 Aug.? Hazelton has accumulated a vast
amount of information from many sources tending to show where each member was on 4
July, what his status was, whether or not it was possible for him to have signed on that day,
and indicating which of those who signed the engrossed copy on 2 Aug. might have or could
not have signed on the earlier date (Hazelton, Declaration of Independence, p. 193219,
495543). The result is inconclusive. It only establishes, with some doubtful exceptions, a
list of members who could have signed a copy of the Declaration on 4 July. In the absence of
such a copy dated or datable on 4 July we cannot know precisely what members Jefferson
had in mind, whether those legally qualified or those actually present. The question is a
baffling one in any case and is made more so by the situation of the New York delegates,
who were so bound by instructions that they could not vote on the question on 2 July and
who, though present, could not have voted for or signed the Declaration on 4 July. Jefferson
in 1819 got around this major difficulty by saying that, when the New York instructions were
changed, the New York delegates signed on 15 July. This statement has the appearance of
being based on the transactions reported in the Journals of Congress on that day, where, of
course, no mention is made of signing though the authorization of the New York Convention
for their delegates to concert in the act of independence was presented(JCC, V, 560; TJ to
Wells, 12 May 1819). Nevertheless, a copy of the Journals of Congress (Philadelphia: Aitken,
1777) in the New York Public Library contains a marginal note in the handwriting of Charles
Thomson listing the names of four New York delegates, and opposite these names is the
following: signed July 15. This marginal note was obviously written late in Thomsons life
(Hazelton, p. 2078), but it was the considered statement of the usually reliable Secretary of
Congress.
Finally, was the Declaration signed on 4 July? The question appears rhetorical in view of
the general consensus of historical opinion that a negative answer is the only valid one. That
opinion is supported by impressive reasons, which may be summarized as follows: (1)
neither the Rough Journal, the Corrected Journal, nor the Secret Journal of Congress, which
were the only ones kept by Thomson at that time, contains any mention of a signing; (2) the
printed broadside of the Declaration wafered into the Rough Journal contains no names
except those of Hancock and Thomson, both printed; (3) no signed copy dated or datable on
4 July is known to be in existence; (4) on 9 July 1776 John Adams wrote that As soon as an
American Seal is prepared, I conjecture the Declaration will be subscribed by all the
members; (5) Elbridge Gerry wrote on 21 July 1776: Pray subscribe for me the Declaration
of Independence if the same is to be signed as proposed; (6) the New York delegates were
not authorized to sign on 4 July and could not have done so; (7) no contemporary letters are
known to be extant by members of Congress stating categorically that a copy of the
Declaration was signed on that date; (8) had such a signing taken place, it is difficult to
conceive of the neglect and disappearance of such a cherished document, particularly in view
of such expressions as those in the letters of Adams and Gerry indicating a desire to transmit
to posterity signal evidence of assent to the great decision; (9) the Journals of Congress for
4 July merely require that the Declaration be authenticated and printed, whereas the entry
for 19 July requires that the Declaration be fairly engrossed on parchment and signed
by every member of Congress (Hazelton, Declaration of Independence, p. 193219, 495
543; Burnett,Letters of Members, I, p. 52832; Charles Warren, Fourth of July
Myths, WMQ, 3d ser., II [1945], 2428).
These impressive reasons are all but overwhelming proof that Jefferson was mistaken.
Yet it must be observed that every single one of these proofs is merely negative. No member
of Congress ever stated in so many words that a Declaration was not signed on 4 July,
except for the statement of Thomas McKean in 1813. But McKeans account was made from
memory, is charged with a number of glaring errors in other respects, and cannot be
compared with the general accuracy of Jeffersons Notes.
Opposed to these negative reasons there is only Jeffersons statement in the Notes,
though in later years both Franklin and Adams (the latter repeatedly; see Burnett, Letters of
Members, I, p. 531) did casually refer to the signing of the Declaration on 4 July, references
which must not be regarded, however, as considered comments addressed to the specific
question. Hazelton, recognizing the high degree of accuracy of the Notes considered as a
whole, resolved the difficulty by assuming that the words signed by every member may not
have been intended by Jefferson to be controlled by the words in the evening of the last (4
July) and that, putting his rough notes in form at a later date and certainly after the signing
on 2 Aug., Jefferson may merely have intended his brief summary of these proceedings to
apply to the whole process from the adoption on 4 July to the signing on 2 Aug. This seems a
valid and plausible interpretation.
But is it the only one? We now know that the Report of the Committee of Five of 28 June,
submitting the text of the Declaration to Congress, has disappeared (Boyd,Declaration of
Independence, 1945, p. 401). It is at least possible to suppose that this copy may have
borne the signatures of those who were in Congress on 4 July and even of those delegates
from New York on or after 15 July. The fact of the disappearance of this copy of the
Declaration of Independence certainly invalidates one of the strongest of the negative
reasons given above, namely, that if a copy had been signed on 4 July great care would no
doubt have been taken to preserve it (Burnett, Letters of Members, I, p. 531). On the
contrary, it may be that the strong desire among members of Congress to sign the
document, the very formal engrossing and signing on 2 Aug., and the existence of the official
parchment copy bearing signatures may be advanced as reasons for both an informal signing
on 4 July and for the disposal of a copy which, in respect to the number of signatures, was at
variance with the engrossed and authorized copy. It is also possible to interpret the
statements of Adams and Gerry as meaning that there had been an informal signing on 4
July; that some, perhaps for legal reasons or because of absence, had not signed; that it was
therefore proposed to do the thing with more formality and hence the Declaration, by order
of Congress, was to be engrossed and signed; and that Adams believed all the members
would sign such a copy and Gerry, being absent, hoped someone would do it for him. For
similar reasons the difference between the entries in the Journal of Congress of 4 July and 19
July can be plausibly explained, the former omitting any mention of signing perhaps because
some had not, for one reason or another, desired such a personal record of treason; and the
latter, by action of Congress, requiring members to sign. A significant fact which has been
overlooked in previous discussions of this matter is that the final paragraph of the
Declaration makes signing almost obligatory: We, therefore mutually pledge to each other
our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour was a solemn pledge which almost by
definition required the formality of individual signatures. When these words were approved
on 4 July the several members must have understood this to be so. The fact that the order
to sign an engrossed copy was delayed until 19 July may be explained by the situation of the
New York delegation and does not exclude the possibility of the signing of a paper copy on 4
July. It is also important to observe that, in at least one notable instance, a formal document
was signed in more than one form by the members; the engrossed Association of 1774 was
signed by the several members and ordered to be printed; after which at least two and
perhaps more of the printed copies were signed. These two copies are in NN and PHi; the
copy in NN reveals the fact that the signing of the engrossed copy and of the printed copy
resembled in certain respects the confused signing of the Declaration of Independence
Henry and Pendleton signed the engrossed copy but not the printed; six members signed the
latter but not the former; and Rodney was absent at the original signing of the engrossed
copy but his name was written in by his order (JCC, I, 801). It is, therefore, plausible to
assume that a similar procedure may have resulted in July 1776that is, the signing of a
paper copy on 4 July and the signing of an engrossed copy later.
Finally, it should be pointed out that Jeffersons Notes were written at a much earlier
date than has been generally supposed; neither Ford, Hazelton, nor Burnett points out that
the Notes were written before 1783 or admits the probability that Jefferson may have been
correct in stating that they were put in form and with correctness at the end of the
debates. If, as is highly probable, Jefferson wrote the Notes in the late summer or early
autumn of 1776, greater weight than has hitherto been accorded must be attached to his
statement that in the evening of the last the declaration was signed by every member.
Even so, the interpretation placed by Hazelton on these words would still be plausible and
may indeed be the correct answer to the vexed question.
Nevertheless, on the basis of evidence thus far advancedall of it negative and some of
it demonstrably untenablethe question cannot be regarded as closed. On this great issue of
independence, in which all the powers of the soul had been distended with the magnitude of
the object, and on the precise details of its final resolution, no one was more acutely
interested than Jefferson, and none recorded the procedure with such fullness and
exactness. His testimony should not be discarded except on the basis of irrefragable proof of
a positive nature. This has not yet been brought forth.
The text of this document has been reproduced with literal fidelity. All square brackets in
the printed text are in the MS.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The principal discussions of the question of the signing on 4 July 1776 are the following,
arranged chronologically: Mellen Chamberlain, The Alleged Signing of the Declaration of
Independence, July 4, 1776, Mass. Hist. Soc., Procs., 2d ser., I (18841885), 27298; P. L.
Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, I (1892), 289; Herbert Friedenwald, The Declaration of
Independence (1904), ch. VI; John H. Hazelton, The Declaration of
Independence (1906), passim; E. C. Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental
Congress, I (1921), p. 52838; Charles Warren, Fourth of July Myths, WMQ, 3d
ser., II (1945), 2428.
Notes of Proceedings
in the Continental Congress
[7 June to 1 August 1776]
Friday June 7. 1776. the Delegates from Virginia moved in obedience to
instructions from their constituents that the Congress should declare that these United
colonies are & of right ought to be free & independant states, that they are absolved
from all allegiance1 to the British crown, and that all political connection between them
and the state of Great Britain is & ought to be totally dissolved; that measures should be
immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation
be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.
The house being obliged to attend at that time to some other business, the
<resolution> proposition was referred to the next day when the members were ordered
to attend punctually at ten oclock.
Saturday June 8. they <resolution proposed was> <house>2 proceeded to take it
into consideration and referred it to a committee of the whole, into which <it> they
immediately resolved themselves, and passed that day & Monday the 10th. in debating
on the subject.
It was argued by Wilson, Robert R. Livingston, <the two> E.3 Rutlege<s>,
Dickinson and others.
That tho they were friends to the measures themselves, and saw the impossibility
that we should ever again be united with Gr. Britain, yet they were against adopting
them at th<at> is time:
That the conduct we had formerly observed was wise & proper now, of deferring to
take any capital step till the voice of the people drove us into it:
That they were our power, & without them our declarations could not be carried into
effect:
That the people of the middle colonies (<Pennsylvania> Maryland, <Dela>
Delaware, Pennsylva., the Jersies & N. York) were not yet ripe for bidding adieu to
British connection but that they were fast ripening & in a short time would join in the
general voice of America:
That the resolution entered into by this house on the 15th. of May for suppressing
the exercise of all powers derived from the crown, had shewn, by the ferment into
which it had thrown these middle colonies, that they had not yet accomodated their
minds to a separation from the mother country:
That some of them had expressly forbidden their delegates to consent to such a
declaration, and others had given no instructions, & consequently no powers to give
such consent:
That if the delegates of any particular colony had no power to declare such colony
independant, certain they were the others could not declare it for them; the colonies
being as yet perfectly independant of each other:
That the assembly of Pennsylvania was now sitting above stairs, their convention
would sit within a few days, the convention of New York was now sitting, & those of
the Jersies & Delaware counties would meet on the Monday following & it was
probable these bodies would take up the question of Independance & would declare to
their delegates the voice of their state:
That if such a declaration should now be agreed to, these delegates must <now>
retire & possibly their colonies might secede from the Union:
That such a secession would weaken us more than could be compensated by any
foreign alliance:
That in the event of such a division, foreign powers would either refuse to join
themselves to our fortunes, or having us so much in their power as that desperate
declaration would place us, they would insist on terms proportionably more hard &
prejudicial:
That we had little reason to expect an alliance with those to whom alone as yet we
had cast our eyes:
That France & Spain had reason to be jealous of that rising power which would one
day certainly strip them of all their American possessions:
That it was more likely they should form a connection with the British court, who, if
they should find themselves unable otherwise to extricate themselves from their
difficulties, would agree to a partition of our territories, restoring Canada to France, &
the Floridas to Spain, to accomplish for themselves a recovery of these colonies:
That it would not be long before we should receive certain information of the
disposition of the French court, from the agent whom we had sent to Paris for that
purpose:
That if this disposition should be favourable, by waiting the event of <another> the
present campaign, which we all hoped would be <favourable> succesful, we should
have reason to expect an alliance on better terms:
That this would in fact work no delay of any effectual aid from such ally, as, from
the advance of the season & distance of our situation, it was impossible we could
receive any assistance during this campaign:
That it was prudent to fix among ourselves the terms on which we would form
alliance, before we declared we would form one at all events:
And that if these were agreed on & our Declaration of Independance ready by the
time our Ambassadour should be prepared4 to sail, it would be as well, as to go into that
Declaration at this day.
On the other side it was urged by J. Adams, Lee, Wythe and others
That no gentleman had argued against the policy or the right of separation from
Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should ever renew our connection: that they
had only opposed its being now declared:
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independance, we should
make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already
exists:
That as to the people or parliament of England, we had alwais been independant of
them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only & not
from any rights they possessed of imposing them, & that so far our connection had been
federal only, & was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was
now dissolved by his assent to the late act of parliament, by which he declares us out of
his protection, and by his levying war on us, a fact which had long ago proved us out of
his protection; it being a certain position in law that allegiance & protection are
reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:
That James the IId. never declared the people of England out of his protection yet
his actions proved it & the parliament declared it:
No delegates then can be denied, or ever want, a power of declaring an existent
truth:
That the delegates from the Delaware counties having declared their constituents
ready to join, there are only two colonies Pennsylvania & Maryland whose delegates are
absolutely tied up, and that these had by their instructions only reserved a right of
confirming or rejecting the measure:
That the instructions from Pennsylvania might be accounted for from the times in
which they were drawn, near a twelvemonth ago, since which the face of affairs has
totally changed:
That <sin> within that time it had become apparent that Britain was determined to
accept nothing less than a carte blanche, and that the kings answer to the Lord Mayor
Aldermen & common council of London, which had come to hand four days ago, must
have satisfied every one of this point:
That the people wait for us to lead the way <in this step>:
That they are in favour of the measure, tho the instructions given by some of
theirrepresentatives are not:
That the voice of the representatives is not alwais consonant <to> with the voice of
the people, and that this is remarkeably the case in these5 middle colonies:
That the effect of the resolution of the 15th. of May has proved this, which, raising
the murmurs of some in the colonies of Pennsylvania & Maryland, called forth the
opposing voice of the freer part of the people, & proved them to be the majority, even in
these colonies:
That the backwardness of these two colonies might be ascribed partly to the
influence of proprietary power & connections, & partly to their having not yet been
attacked by the enemy:
That these causes were not likely to be soon removed, as there seemed no
probability that the enemy would make either of these the seat of this summers war:
That it would be vain to wait either weeks or months for perfect unanimity, since it
was impossible that all men should ever become of one sentiment on any question:
That the conduct of some colonies from the beginning of this contest, had given
reason to suspect it was their settled policy to keep in the rear of the confederacy, that
their particular prospect might be better even in the worst event:
That therefore it was necessary for those colonies who had thrown themselves
forward & hazarded all from the beginning, to come forward now also, and put all again
to their own hazard:
That the history of the Dutch revolution, of whom three states only confederated at
first proved that a secession of some colonies would not be so dangerous as some
apprehended:
That a declaration of Independance alone could render it consistent with European
delicacy for European powers to treat with us, or even to receive an Ambassador from
us:
That till this they would not receive our vessels into their ports, nor acknowlege the
adjudications of our courts of Admiralty to be legitimate, in cases of capture of British
vessels:
That tho France & Spain may be jealous of our rising power, they must think it will
be much more formidable with the addition of Great Britain; and will therefore see it
their interest to prevent a coalition; but should they refuse, we shall be but where we
are; whereas without trying we shall never know whether they will aid us or not:
That the present campaign may be unsuccessful, & therefore we had better propose
an alliance while our affairs wear a hopeful aspect:
That to wait the event of this campaign will certainly work delay, because during
this summer France may assist us effectually by cutting off those supplies of provisions
from England & Ireland on which the enemys armies here are to depend; or by setting
in motion the great power they have collected in the West Indies, & calling our enemy
to the defence of the possessions they have there:
That it would be idle to lose time in settling the terms of alliance, till we had first
determined we would enter into alliance: That it is necessary to lose no time in opening
a trade for our people, who will want clothes, and will want money too for the paiment
of taxes:
And that the only misfortune is that we did not enter into alliance with France six
months sooner, as besides opening their ports for the vent of our last years produce,
they might have marched an army into Germany and prevented the petty princes there
from selling their unhappy subjects to subdue us.
It appearing in the course of these debates that the colonies of N. York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware <&> Maryland <had not yet advanced to> & South
Carolina6were not yet matured for falling <off> from the parent stem, but that they were
fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait a while for them, and to
postpone the final decision to July 1. but that this might occasion as little delay as
possible, a committee was appointed to prepare a declaration of independance. the
Commee. were J. Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston &
myself. committees were also appointed at the same time to prepare a plan of
confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper to be proposed for foreign
alliance. the committee for drawing the declaration of Independance desired me to
<prepare> do it. <I did so> it was accordingly done and being approved by them, I
reported it to the house on Friday the 28th. of June when it was read and ordered to lie
on the table. on Monday the 1st. of July the house resolved itself into a commee. of the
whole & resumed the consideration of the original motion made by the delegates of
Virginia, which being again debated through the day, was carried in the affirmative by
the votes of N. Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusets, Rhode island, N. Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia, N. Carolina, & Georgia. S. Carolina and Pennsylvania voted
against it. Delaware having but two members present, they were divided: the delegates
for New York declared they were for it themselves, & were assured their constituents
were for it, but that their instructions having been drawn near a twelvemonth before,
when reconciliation was still the general object, they were enjoined by them to do
nothing which should impede that object. they therefore thought themselves not
justifiable in voting on either side, and asked leave to withdraw from the question,
which <they had> was given them. the Commee. rose & reported their resolution to the
house. Mr.8 Rutlege of S. Carolina then <desired> requested the determination might be
put off to the next day, as he beleived his collegues, tho they disapproved of the
resolution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity. <this was done> the ultimate
question whether the house would agree to the resolution of the committee was
accordingly postponed to the next day, when it was again moved and9 S. Carolina
concurred in voting for it. in the mean time a third member had come post from the
Delaware counties and turned the vote of that colony in favour of the resolution.
members of a different sentiment attending that morning from Pennsylvania also, their
vote was changed, so that the whole 12. colonies, who were authorized to10 vote* at all,
gave their voices for it; and within a few days the convention of N. York approved of it
<by their votes to> and thus supplied11 the void occasioned by the withdrawing of their
delegates from the vote.
Congress proceeded the same day to consider the declaration of Independance,
which had been reported & laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday
referred to a commee. of the whole.12 the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in
England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. for this reason
those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest
they should give them offence. the clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants
of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to13 South Carolina & Georgia, who had
never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still
wished to continue it. our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender <on that>
under those censures; for tho their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had
been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. the debates having taken up the
greater parts of the 2d. 3d. & 4th. days of July were, in the evening of the last closed.
the declaration was reported by the commee., agreed to by the house, and signed by
every member present14 except Mr. Dickinson. As the sentiments of men are known
not only by what they receive, but what they reject also, I will state the form of
the15 declaration as originally reported <is here subjoined>. the parts <omitted and>
struck out by Congress <are> shall be distinguished by a black line drawn under
them;16 & those inserted <are> by them shall be placed in the margin or in a concurrent
column<s>.
A Declaration by the representatives of the United states of America,
in GeneralCongress assembled
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth the separate & equal station to which the laws of nature and of
natures god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their creator with , Start insertion,certain, End, inherent and inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new
government, laying its foundation on such principles, & organising its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. prudence
indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light &
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more
disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses & usurpations
[begun at a distinguished period and] pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a
design to reduce them under absolute despotism it is their right, it is their duty to throw
off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security. such has been
the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains
them to, Start insertion,alter, End, [expunge] their former systems of government. the
history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of , Start insertion,repeated,
End, [unremitting] injuries & usurpations, [among which appears no solitary fact to
contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have] , Start insertion,all having, End, in
direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this let
facts be submitted to a candid world [for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet
unsullied by falsehood.]
he has refused his assent to laws the most wholsome & necessary for the public
good.
he has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate & pressing importance,
unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; & when so
suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
he has refused to pass other laws for the accomodation of large districts of people,
unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right
inestimable to them, & formidable to tyrants only.
he has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing
them into compliance with his measures.
he has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [& continually] for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
he has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected,
whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at
large for their exercise, the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers
of invasion from without & convulsions within.
he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose
obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither, & raising the conditions of new appropriations of
lands.
he has , Start insertion,obstructed, End, [suffered] the administration of justice
[totally to cease in some of these states] , Start insertion,by, End, refusing his assent to
laws for establishing judiciary powers.
he has made [our] judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
& the amount & paiment of their salaries. he has erected a multitude of new offices [by
a self assumed power] and sent hither swarms of new officers to harrass our people and
eat out their substance.
he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies [and ships of war] without
the consent of our legislatures.
he has affected to render the military independant of, & superior to the civil power.
he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitutions & unacknoleged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended
legislation for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them by
a mocktrial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the
inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; for
imposing taxes on us without our consent; for depriving us , Start insertion,in many
cases, End, of the benefits of trial by jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for
pretended offences; for abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring
province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so
as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute
rule into these , Start insertion,colonies, End, [states]; for taking away our charters,
abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our
governments; for suspending our own legislatures, & declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
he has abdicated government here [withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out
of his allegiance & protection]
he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, & destroyed the
lives of our people.
he is at this time transporting large armies of17 foreign mercenaries to compleat the
works of death, desolation & tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and
perfidy, Start insertion,scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages& totally,
End, unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
he has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms
against their country, to become the executioners of their friends & brethren, or to fall
themselves by their hands.
he has, Start insertion,excited domestic in surrections amongst us& has,
End, endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian
savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes, & conditions [of existence.]
[he has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements
of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights
of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating
& carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the
warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market
where Menshould be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing
every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. and that this
assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those
very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has
deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying
off former crimes committed against the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the lives of another.]
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most
humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries. a
prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to
be the ruler of a , Start insertion,free, End, people [who mean to be free. future ages will
scarcely believe that the hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of
twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad & so undisguised for tyranny over a
people fostered & fixed in principles of freedom.]
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. we have warned
them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend, Start insertion,an
unwarrantable, End, [a]jurisdiction over , Start insertion,us, End, [these our states.] we
have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration & settlement here, [no one
of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expence
of our own blood & treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the; strgngth of Great Britain:
that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one
common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league & amity with them: but
that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if
history may be credited and,] we, Start insertion,have, End, appealed to their native
justice and magnanimity , Start insertion,and we have conjured them by, End, [as well
as to] the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which , Start
insertion,would inevitably, End, [were likely to] interrupt our connection and
correspondence. they too have been deaf to the voice of justice & of consanguinity, [and
when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing
from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have, by their free election, re-
established them in power. at this very time too they are permitting their chief
magistrate to send over not only souldiers of our common blood, but Scotch &18foreign
mercenaries to invade & destroy us. these facts have given the last stab to agonizing
affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce for ever these unfeeling brethren. we
must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest
of mankind enemies in war, in peace friends. we might have been a free and a great
people together; but a communication of grandeur & of freedom it seems is below their
dignity. be it so, since they will have it. the road to happiness & to glory is open to us
too. we will tread19 it apart from them, and], Start insertion,we must therefore,
End, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal] separation, Start
insertion,and hold them as we hold the rst of mankind enemies in war in peace friends,
End, !
We therefore the representatives of the
United states of America in General
Congress assembled do in the name, & by
the authority of the good people of
these [states reject & renounce all
allegiance & subjection to the kings of
Great Britain & all the good people of these
colonies,others who may hereafter claim
by, through or under them: we utterly
dissolve all political connection which may
heretofore have subsisted between us & the
people or parliament of Great Britain: &
finally we do assert & declare these
colonies to be free & independant states,]
& that as free & independant states, they
have full power to levy war, conclude
peace, contract alliances, establish
commerce, & to do all other acts & things
which independant states may of right do.
and for the support of this declaration we
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our
fortunes & our sacred honour.
We therefore the representatives of the
United states of America in General
Congress assembled, appealing to the
supreme judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do in the name,
& by the authority of the good people of
these colonies, solemnly publish & declare
that these United colonies are & of right
ought to be free & independant states; that
they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British crown, and that all political
connection between them & the state of
Great Britain is, & ought to be, totally
dissolved; & that as free & independant
states they have full power to levy war,
conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce & to do all other acts
& things which independant states may of
right do.
and for the support of this declaration, with
a firm reliance on the protection of divine
providence we mutually pledge to each
other our lives, our fortunes & our sacred
honour.20
On Friday July 12. the Committee appointed to draw the articles of confederation
reported them and on the 22d. the house resolved themselves into a committee to take
them into consideration. on the 30th. and 31st. of that month & 1st. of the ensuing, those
articles were debated which determined the <manner of voting in Congress, & that of
fixing the>21 proportion or quota<s> of money which each state should furnish to the
common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress, The first of these articles was
expressed in the original draught in these words. Art. XI. All charges of war & all other
expences that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and
allowed by the United states assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,
which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of
inhabitants of every age, sex & quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony,
a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken
& transmitted to the assembly of the United states.
Mr. Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants
of every condition, but by that of the white inhabitants. He admitted that taxation
should be alwais in proportion to property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that
from a variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice.
<that therefore it> the value of the property in every state could never be estimated
justly & equally. Some other <barometer for> measur<ing> e for the wealth of the state
must therefore be devised, some <measure of wealth must be> standard referred to
which would be more simple. he considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably
good criterion of property, and that this22 might alwais be obtained. <yet numbers
simply would not> he therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with
<some> one exception<s> only. he observed that negroes are property, and as such
cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalties held in those states where there
are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he
invests in <lands> cattle, horses &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same
surplus in slaves. there is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern states on the
farmers head, & on his slaves head, than the Northern ones on their farmers heads &
the heads of their cattle. that the method proposed would therefore tax the Southern
states according to their numbers & their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would
be taxed on numbers only: <and> that Negroes in fact should not be considered as
members of the state more than cattle & that they have no more interest in it.
Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken by this article as
an index of the wealth of the state & not as subjects of taxation. that as to this matter it
was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of
freemen or of slaves. that in some countries the labouring poor were called freemen, in
others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only.
what matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers in his farm, gives them
annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those
necessaries at short hand. the ten labourers add as much wealth annually to the state,
increase its exports as much in the one case as the other. certainly 500 freemen produce
no more profits, no greater surplus for the paiment of taxes than 500 slaves. therefore
the state in which are the labourers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in
which are those called slaves. suppose by any extraordinary operation <of law or> of
nature or of law one half the labourers of a state could in the course of one night be
transformed into slaves: would the state be made the poorer or the less able to pay
taxes?23 that the condition of the labouring poor in most countries, that of the fishermen
particularly of the Northern states is as <painful> abject as that of slaves. it is the
number of labourers which produce the surplus for taxation, and numbers therefore
indiscriminately are the fair index of wealth. that it is the use of the. word property
here, & its application to some of the people of the state, which produces the fallacy.
how does the Southern farmer procure slaves? either by importation or by purchase
from his neighbor. if he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of labourers in his
country, and proportionably to its profits & abilities to pay taxes. if he buys from his
neighbor, it is only a transfer of a labourer from one farm to another, which does not
change the annual produce of the state, & therefore should not change its tax. that if a
Northern farmer works ten labourers on his farm, he can, it is true, invest the surplus of
ten mens labour in cattle: but so may the Southern farmer working ten slaves. that a
state of 100,000 freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of 100,000 slaves.
therefore they have no more of that kind of property. that a slave may indeed from the
custom of speech be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free
labourer might be called the wealth of his employer: but <both> as to the state both
were equally its wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.
Mr. Harrison proposed a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one
freeman. he affirmed that slaves did not do so much work as freemen, and doubted if
two effected more than one. that this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a
labourer in the Southern colonies being from 8. to 12, while in the Northern it was
generally 24.24
Mr. Wilson said that if this amendment should take place the Southern colonies
would have all the benefit<s> of slaves, whilst the Northern ones would bear the
burthen<s>. that slaves increase the profits of a state, which the Southern states mean to
take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which would of
course fall so much the heavier on the Northern. that slaves occupy the places of
freemen and eat their food. dismiss your slaves & freemen will take their places. it is
our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment
would <be> giv<ing> e the jus trium liberorum to him who would import <them>
slaves. that other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed thro all the colonies:
there were as many cattle, horses, & sheep in the North as the South, & South as the
North: but not so as to slaves. that experience has shewn that those colonies have been
alwais able to pay most which have the most <males> inhabitants, whether they be
black or white. and the practice of the Southern colonies has alwais been to make every
farmer pay poll taxes upon all his labourers whether they be black or white. he
acknoleges indeed that freemen work the most; but they consume the most also. they do
not produce a greater surplus for taxation. the slave is neither fed nor clothed so
expensively as a freeman. again white women are exempted from labour generally,
which negro women are not. in this then the Southern states have an advantage as the
article now stands. it has sometimes been said that slavery is necessary because the
commodities they raise would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now
it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.
Mr. Payne <desired> urged the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the
quotas of the states to the number of souls.23
Dr. Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands & houses was the best
estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation.
this is the true barometer of wealth. the one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and
unequal between the states. it has been objected that negroes eat the food of freemen &
therefore should be taxed. horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore they also
should be taxed. it has been said too that in <making> carrying slaves <enter> into the
estimate of the taxes the state is to pay, we do no more than those states themselves do,
who alwais <m> take slaves <enter> into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to
pay. but the cases are not parallel. in the Southern colonies slaves pervade the whole
colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent. that as to the original resolution of
Congress to proportion the quotas according to the souls,25 it was temporary only, &
related to the monies heretofore emitted: whereas we are now entering into a new
compact and therefore stand on original ground.
Aug. 1. the question being put the amendment proposed was rejected by the votes of
N. Hampshire, Massachusets, Rhodeisland, Connecticut, N. York, N. Jersey, &
Pennsylvania, against those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina.
Georgia was divided.
The other article was in these words. Art. XVII. In determining questions each
colony shall have one vote.
July 30. 31. Aug. 1. present 41. members. Mr. Chase observed that this article was
the most likely to divide us of any one proposed in the draught then under consideration.
that the larger colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all if their weight
in congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they added to the confederacy;
while the smaller ones declared against an union if they did not retain an equal vote for
the protection of their rights. that it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties
together, as should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with us
at all, or <that> the different states <would> will form different alliances, and thus
increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and bloodshed which in such a state of
separation & independance would render us a miserable people. that our importance,
our interests, our peace required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices
should be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. he was of opinion the
smaller colonies would lose their rights, if they were not in some instances allowed an
<single>26 equal vote; and therefore that a discrimination should take place among the
questions which would come before Congress. <he therefore proposed> that the smaller
states should be secured in all questions concerning life or liberty & the greater ones in
all respecting property. he therefore proposed that in <all> votes relating to money, the
voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants.
Dr. Franklin <seconded the proposition> thought that the votes should be so
proportioned in all cases. he took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up their
Delegates to disagree to this article. he thought it a very extraordinary language to be
held by any state, that they would not confederate with us unless we would let them
dispose of our money. certainly if we vote equally we ought to pay equally: but the
smaller states will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. that had he lived in a state
where the representation, originally equal, had become unequal by time & accident he
might have submitted rather than disturb government: but that we should be very wrong
to set out in this practice when it is in our power to establish what is right. that at the
time of the Union between England and Scotland the latter had made the objection
which the smaller states now do. but experience had <shewn> proved that no unfairness
had ever been shewn them. that their advocates had prognosticated that it would again
happen as in times of old that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought the
prediction reversed in event and that Jonas had swallowed the whale, for the Scotch had
in fact got possession of the government and gave laws to the English. he reprobated the
original agreement of Congress to vote by colonies, and therefore was for their voting in
all cases according to the number of taxables <so far going beyond Mr. Chases
proposition>.
Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. all men admit that a
confederacy is necessary. should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union
among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, &
lessen its importance, because it will open to our view future prospects of war &
dissension among ourselves. <that> if an equal vote be refused, the smaller states will
become vassals to the larger; & all experience has shewn that the vassals & subjects of
free states <were> are the <greatest of all slaves> most enslaved. he instanced the
Helots of Sparta & the provinces of Rome. he observed that foreign powers discovering
this blemish would make it a handle for disengaging the smaller states from so unequal
a confederacy. that the colonies should in fact be considered as individuals; and that as
such in all disputes they should have an equal vote. that they are now collected as
individuals making a bargain with each other, & of course had a right to vote as
individuals.23 that <thus> in the East India company they voted by persons, & not by
their proportion of stock. that the Belgic confederacy voted by provinces. that in
questions of war the smaller states were as much interested as the larger, & therefore
should vote equally; and indeed that the larger states were more likely to bring <on>
war on the <whole> confederacy, in proportion as their frontier was more extensive <,
and> he admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle, but then it
must be of things which are co-ordinate; that is, of things similar & of the same nature:
that nothing relating to individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what
would respect colonies. he distinguished between an incorporating & a federal union.
the union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered by that union:
for that27 its inhabitants were drawn from it by the hopes of places & employments.
nor was it an instance of equality of representation; because while Scotland was allowed
nearly a thirteenth of representation, they were to pay only one fortieth of the land tax.
he expressed his hopes that in the present enlightened state of mens minds we might
expect a lasting confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.
John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. he said that we stand
here as the representatives of the people. that in some states the people are many, in
others they are few; that therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers
from whom it comes. reason, justice, & equity never had weight enough on the face of
the earth to govern the councils of men. it is interest alone which does it, and it is
interest alone which can be trusted. that therefore the interests within doors should be
the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors. <If A has 50. B> that
the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. does the individuality of a colony
increase its wealth or numbers? if it does; pay equally. if it does not add weight in the
scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weight in argument. A. has
50. B. 500. C. 1000 in partnership. is it just they should equally dispose of the
monies of the partnership? it has been said we are independant individuals making a
bargain together. the question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when
our bargain shall be made. the confederacy is to make us one individual only; it is to
form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. we shall no longer retain
our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions submitted
to the Confederacy. therefore all those reasons which prove the justice & expediency of
equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. it has been objected that a
proportional vote will endanger the smaller states. we answer that an equal vote will
endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Massachusets are the three greater
colonies. consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests, & of manners,
& it is apparent they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the
oppression of the smaller. that the smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the
larger. Rhodeisld. <will> from <their> its relation, similarity & intercourse will
generally pursue the same objects with Massachusets; Jersey, Delaware & Maryland
with Pennsylvania.
Dr. Rush took notice that the decay of the liberties of the Dutch republic proceeded
from three causes. 1. the perfect unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. their obligation
to consult their constituents. 3. their voting by provinces. this last destroyed the equality
of representation, and the liberties of Great Britain also are sinking from the same
defect. that a part of our rights <are> is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. there
it was admitted there should be an equality of representation. another part of our rights
is deposited in the hands of Congress: why is it not equally necessary there should be an
equal representation there? were it possible to collect the whole body of the people
together, they would determine the questions submitted to them by their majority. why
should not the same majority decide when <collected> voting here by their
representatives? the larger colonies are so providentially divided in situation as to render
every fear of their combining visionary. their interests are different, & their
circumstances dissimilar. it is more probable they will become rivals & leave it in the
power of the smaller states to give preponderance to any scale they please. the voting by
the number of free inhabitants will have one excellent effect, that of inducing the
colonies to discourage slavery & to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.
Mr. Hopkins observed there were 4 larger, 4 smaller & 4 middlesized colonies. that
the 4. largest would contain more than half the inhabitants of the Confederating states,
& therefore would govern the others as they should please. that history affords no
instance of such a thing as equal representation. the Germanic body votes by states. the
Helvetic body does the same; & so does the Belgic confederacy. that too little is known
of the antient confederations to say what was their practice.
Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to wealth, but that
representation should accord with the number of freemen. that government is a
collection or result of the wills of all. that if any government could speak the will of all
it would beperfect; and that so far as it departs from this it becomes imperfect, it has
been said that Congress is a representation of states; not of individuals. I say that the
objects of its care are all the <representatives> individuals of the states. it is strange
that annexing the name of State to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right
with forty thousand. this must be the effect of magic, not of reason. as to those matters
which are referred to Congress, we are not so many states; we are one large <one> state.
we lay aside our individuality whenever we come here. the Germanic body is a
burlesque on government: and their practice on any point is a sufficient authority &
proof that it is wrong. the greatest imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic
confederacy is their voting by provinces. the interest of the whole is constantly
sacrificed to that of the small states. the history of the war in the reign of Q. Anne
sufficiently proves this. it is asked Shall nine colonies put it into the power of four to
govern them as they please? I invert the question and ask Shall <a> two millions of
people put it in the power of one million to govern them as they please? it is pretended
too that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the greater. speak in honest
language & say the minority will be in danger from the majority. and is there an
assembly on earth where this danger may not be equally pretended? the truth is that our
proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the majority, and so they
ought to be. the probability is much greater that the larger states will disagree than that
they will combine. I defy the wit of man to invent a possible case <where> or to suggest
any one thing on earth which shall be for the interests of Virginia, Pennsylvania &
Massachusets, and which will not also be for the interest of the other states.
MS (DLC); 20 numbered pages in TJs hand. Another MS (DLC); in TJs hand, consisting
of 49 pages; this copy was transmitted to Madison by TJ on 1 June 1783 (but has now been
placed with the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress) and was probably made on or
shortly before that date. In the letter of transmittal TJ wrote: I send you inclosed the
debates in Congress on the subjects of Independance, Voting in Congress, and the Quotas of
money to be required from the states. I found on looking that I had taken no others save
only in one trifling case. As you were desirous of having a copy of the original of the
declaration of Independance I have inserted it at full length distinguishing the alterations it
underwent.
This would seem to indicate that the Notes, as originally copied in form and with
correctness, did not contain a text of the Declaration. This is to be doubted (see note 15
below). For convenience the fair copy of Notes made for Madison is referred to below as MFC;
its text is printed in JCC, VI, 10871106 and in Madison Papers, ed. Gilpin, I, 939; that part
of it containing the Declaration of Independence is reproduced in Boyd, Declaration of
Independence, 1945, pl. VIII. The original notes or memoranda of debates from which the
Notes were written are not known to be extant.
For a discussion of the significance of this document as a whole and of its date and
certain other controversial features, see the Editorial Note preceding it. Thetext of the
Declaration of Independence as copied by TJ in the Notes of Proceedings, though printed
here in its rightful place, is also considered as Document IV in the sequence of Declaration of
Independence documents, below; see the Editorial Notes on that sequence.
1. MFC reads obedience.
2. TJ added y to the after making the two deletions; Hazelton reads howev for
house, thus confusing the manner of making the deletion. TJ first struck out resolution
proposed was; then added house on the same line (proving incidentally that this is the
draft of the Notes put in form and with correctness); then struck out house and added
y to the, causing the sentence to read as it was subsequently copied in the Madison copy.
3. E is interlined.
4. MFC reads ready.
5. TJ originally wrote the.
6. MFC reads N. York, N. Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware & Maryland were not yet
matured; the deletion of & before Maryland and the interlineation of & South Carolina
must therefore have been made after 1783.
7. The marginal dates are not in MFC. They appear to have been added much later,
8. Edward is interlined; it does not appear in MFC and was obviously added much later.
9. The words it was again moved and are interlined.
10. An asterisk is inserted at this point, referring to the date in the margin, obviously an
addition made at a later date.
11. The words and thus are interlined. The word supplied was originally written
supply and overwritten after the deletion.
12. The words after preceding are interlined.
13. The word to was struck out; with interlined and then struck out; and then to
restored.
14. The word present is interlined; it is not in MFC nor in TJs letter to the Editor of
the Journal de Paris in 1787; it is, however, in the letter to Samuel A. Wells, 12 May 1819,
and is there also interlined. Hence it is almost certain that the interlining of present in the
Notes took place at the time of writing the letter to Wells.
15. The preceding part of this sentence is written in a minuscule hand and interlined. The
alterations in this paragraph are significant. The word declaration was written over an
erasure, clearly being done after the preceding interlineation. The erasure was of the words
its form. These changes present strong presumptive evidence that they were made at the
time TJ copied off MFC. If so, then the passage as originally written must have read:
signed by every member except Mr. Dickinson. its form as originally reported is here
subjoined. This, together with the character of the Notes and the orderly sequence of the
first seven pages of debates, the Declaration, and the subsequent debates on the Articles of
Confederation, is conclusive evidence that the text of the Declaration was from the beginning
an integral part of the Notes and not inserted as Jefferson said in his letter to Madison of 1
June 1783.
16. All but the first two were also enclosed by TJ in square brackets; in MFC these two
are bracketed. The first of these (the word General in the title) is one of three alterations
apparently contemplated during the debates of 24 July that were either not made or were
eliminated by larger excisions which included them (Boyd, Declaration of Independence,
1945, p. 345). For the other two proposed alterations, see notes 17, 18, and 19 below.
17. At this point in TJs Rough Draught, but in no other copy made by him, the words
Scotch and other were interlined. This was obviously an alteration proposed in Congress
after the change discussed in note 18 below had been made (same, p. 35).
18. In the copies of the Declaration made by TJ for R. H. Lee and George Wythe, but in
no other copy, the words Scotch and were bracketed for deletion. Probably after the whole
passage had been struck out by Congress, the insertion of the words Scotch and other in
an earlier passage was proposed but not adopted (same, p. 35; see note 17 above).
19. MFC also reads tread. In the Wythe and Lee copies, as in the Rough Draught
originally, the text read climb. This was struck out in the Rough Draught and tread
interlined, a change no doubt proposed in Congress before the whole passage was eliminated
(same, p. 35).
20. At this point T.I inserted on a separate slip his controversial statement onthe signing
of the Declaration which is quoted and discussed in the Editorial Note above.
21. The words in Congress were interlined and then struck out with the remainder of
the passage.
22. Originally written these.
23. This sentence is written in a minuscule hand and interlined.
24. This paragraph is written in the margin.
25. The words to proportion the quotas according to the souls are not in MFC.TJ may
have overlooked the passage or, what is more probable, he may have decided it was not
necessary to copy it; it is certain, however, that the words were in the Notes when MFC was
made, for they are not a correction, addition, or interlineation.
26. The word a was changed to an after the deletion was made.
27. MFC omits that.
Authorial notes
[The following note(s) appeared in the margins or otherwise outside the text flow in the original source, and
have been moved here for purposes of the digital edition.]
In Congress.
June 28.
7
July 1.
July 2.
* *July 9.
July 2.
July 3. 4.
by declaration us out of his protection & waging war against us



































From Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 8 May 1825
Monticello May 8. 25.
Dear Sir
Your favor of Apr. 29 has been duly recieved, and the offer of mineralogical specimens
from mr Myer has been communicated to D
r
Emmet our Professor of Natural
history. the last donation of the legislature to the University was appropriated
specifically to a library and apparatus of every kind. but we apply it first to the more
important articles of a library, of an astronomical, physical, & chemical apparatus. and
we think it safest to see what these will cost, before we venture on collections of
mineral & other subjects. the last we must proportion to what , Start insertion,sum,
End, we shall have left only. the Professor possesses already what he thinks will be
sufficient for mineralogical and geological explanations to his school. I do not know
how far he might be tempted to enlarge his possession by a catalogue of the articles and
prices, if both should be satisfactory. if mr Myer chuses to send such a catalogue, it
shall be returned to you immediately, if the purchase be not approved.
That George Mason was author of the bill of rights, and of the constitution founded on
it, the evidence of the day established fully in my mind. of the paper you mention,
purporting to be instructions to the Virginia delegation in Congress, I have no
recollection. if it were any thing more than a projt of some private hand, that is to say,
had any such instructions been ever given by the Convention, they would appear in the
Journals, which we possess entire. but with respect to our rights and the acts of the
British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of
the water. , Start insertion,all, End, American whigs , Start insertion,thought alike,
End, on these subjects. when forced therefore to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to
the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. this was the object of
the Declaration of Independance. not to find out new principles, or new arguments,
never before thought of, not merely to , Start insertion,say, End, things which had never
been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject; [. . .] ,
Start insertion,terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent, and to justify
ourselves in the independant stand we[. . .] compelled to take., End, neither , Start
insertion,aiming at, End, originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any
particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the american
mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
all its authority rests then on the harmonising sentiments of the day, whether
expressed, , Start insertion,in conversns, End, in letters, printed essays or in the
elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney E
t
c. the historical
documents which you mention as in your possession, ought , Start insertion,all, End, to
be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and
principles advanced in that Declaration. be pleased to accept assurances of my , Start
insertion,great, End, respect and esteem.
TH: JEFFERSON
DLC: Papers of Thomas Jefferson.








Jefferson and Slavery







































NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, QUERY XVI (PP. 146-54)

Page 146
the first assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a committee to revise the
whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report it to the assembly. This work has been executed
by three gentlemen, and reported; but probably will not be taken up till a restoration of peace shall leave to the
legislature leisure to go through such a work.

The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant, that part of the English law
which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is made the basis of the work. It was thought
dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it was therefore left to be collected from the usual monuments of it.
Necessary alterations in that, and so much of the whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as
were thought proper to be retained, were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity of style was aimed at, as
far as was safe. The following are the most remarkable alterations proposed:

To change the rules of descent, so as that the lands of any person dying intestate shall be divisible equally
among all his children, or other representatives, in equal degree.

To make slaves distributable among the next of kin, as other moveables.

To have all public expences, whether of the general treasury, or of a parish or county, (as for the maintenance
of the poor, building bridges, court-houses, &c.) supplied by assessments on the citizens, in proportion to their
property.

To hire undertakers for keeping the public roads in repair, and indemnify individuals through whose lands new
roads shall be opened.

To define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens, and citizens make themselves aliens.

To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom.

To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this
proposition;

Page 147
but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken
up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the
public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the
males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time
should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, seeds,
pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independent people, and extend to them our
alliance and protection, till they have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the
world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were
to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save
the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices
entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new
provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into
parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other
race.To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first
difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane
between the skin and scarfskin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the
colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat
and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or
less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white,

Page 148
the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal
monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the
other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the
whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black
women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the
propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour,
figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face
and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and
disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold,
than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious*
experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from
extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part
with more of it.

* Crawford.


They seem to require less sleep. A black after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest
amusemements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning.
They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of fore-thought,
which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness
or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an
eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those
numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has
Page 149
given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence
appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when
abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not
reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and
imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one
could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination
they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will
consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a
judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of
conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America.
Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been
so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought
up to the handicraft arts, from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been
liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable
degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of
this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a
plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish
you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination
glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the

Page 150
level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more
generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of
imagining a small catch*.

* The instrument proper to them is the Banjar, which they brought hither from Africa, and which is the original
of the guitar, its chords being precisely the four lower chords of the guitar.


Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is
yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry.Among the blacks is misery
enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar strum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the
senses only, not the imagination. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately; but it could not produce a poet.
The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of the Dunciad are to
her, as Hercules to the author of that poem. Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in composition; yet his
letters do more honour to the heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of friendship and general
philanthropy, and shew how great a degree of the latter may be compounded with strong religious zeal. He is often
happy in the turn of his compliments, and his style is easy and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean
fabrication of words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason
and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of
a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him
always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first place among
those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare him with
the writers of the race among whom he lived, and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has taken his
own stand, we are compelled to enroll
Page 151
him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters published under his name to be genuine, and to
have received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be of easy investigation. The improvement
of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every
one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. We know that among the
Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of
the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in separate apartments, because to raise a
child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted indulgence to his slaves in this particular,*
took from them a certain price.

* Tous doulous etaxen rsmenon nomismatos homilcin tais therapainisin. Plutarch. Cato.

But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the
commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint.The same Cato, on a principle of conomy, always
sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old
oxen, old waggons, old tools, old and diseased servants, and every thing else become useless. 'Vendat boves
vetulos, plaustrum vetus, ferramenta vetera, servum senem, servum morbosum, & si quid aliud supersit vendat.'
Cato de re rustic. c. 2. The American slaves cannot enumerate this among the injuries and insults they receive. It
was the common practice to expose in the island of sculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose cure was like
to become tedious.
Suet. Claud. 25.

The emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such of them as should recover, and first declared, that if any
person chose to kill rather than to expose them, it should be deemed homicide. The exposing them is a crime of
which no instance has existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would be
Page 152
punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a
slave as food to his fish, for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of
their slaves was under torture. Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master
was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment
falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these
and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled
too in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their master's children. Epictetus, Terence, and
Phdrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has
produced the distinction.Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been
less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have
done them justice. That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation,
and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favour no laws of property exist, probably feels
himself less bound to respect those made in favour of others. When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a
fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right: that, without this, they are mere arbitrary
rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem which I give to the master to solve,
whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for him as well as his slave? And
whether the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who
would slay him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right and
wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the colour of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago.

Page 153


'Emisu, gar t' areles apoainutai euruopa Zeus
Haneros, eut' an min kata doulion ema elesin. Od. 17. 323.

Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day
Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.

But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken
their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as
many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.The opinion,
that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great dissidence. To justify a
general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife,
to optical glasses, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we
are examining; where it eludes the research of all the senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and
variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add
too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank
in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that
though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet
been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether
originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments
both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties
of the same species, may posses different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the
gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department
of man as distinct

Page 154
as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to
the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human
nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question 'What
further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only.
Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without
staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be
removed beyond the reach of mixture.

The revised code further proposes to proportion crimes and punishments. This is attempted on the following
scale.

QUERY XVIII

THE particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state?

It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or
particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to
him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the
existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most
boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our
children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in
him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either
in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be
a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient.

Page 173
The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller
slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but
be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals
undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one
half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies,
destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patri of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this
world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must
lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of
the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the
morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can
make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are
even seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot
sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an
exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The
Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.But it is impossible to be temperate and to
pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be
contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible,

Page 174
since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust,
his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that
this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.


From Thomas Jefferson to Angelica Schuyler
Church, 27 November 1793
To Angelica Schuyler Church
Germantown Nov. 27. 1793.
I have received, my very good friend, your kind letter of Aug. 19. with the extract
from that of La Fayette, for whom my heart has been constantly bleeding. The influence
of the United States has been put into action, as far as it could be either with decency or
effect. But I fear that distance and difference of principle give little hold to Genl.
Washington on the jailors of La Fayette. However his friends may be assured that our
zeal has not been inactive. Your letter gives me the first information that our dear friend
Madame de Corny has been, as to her fortune, among the victims of the times. Sad
times indeed! and much lamented victim! I know no country where the remains of a
fortune could place her so much at her ease as this, and where public esteem is so
attached to worth, regardless of wealth. But our manners, and the state of society here
are so different from those to which her habits have been formed, that she would lose
more perhaps in that scale.And Madame Cosway in a convent! I knew that, to much
goodness of heart, she joined enthusiasm and religion: but I thought that very
enthusiasm would have prevented her from shutting up her adoration of the god of the
Universe within the walls of a cloyster; that she would rather have sought the mountain-
top. How happy should I be that it were minethat you, she and Mde. de Corny would
seek. You say indeed that you are coming to America. But I know that means New
York. In the mean time I am going to Virginia. I have at length been able to fix that to
the beginning of the new year. I am then to be liberated from the hated occupations of
politics, and to sink into the bosom of my family, my farm and my books. I have my
house to build, my feilds to form, and to watch for the happiness of those who labor for
mine. I have one daughter married to a man of science, sense, virtue, and competence;
in whom indeed I have nothing more to wish. They live with me. If the other shall be as
fortunate in due process of time, I shall imagine myself as blessed as the most blessed of
the patriarchs. Nothing could then withdraw my thoughts a moment from home, but the
recollection of my friends abroad. I often put the question Whether yourself and Kitty
will ever come to see your friends at Monticello? But it is my affection, and not my
experience of things, which has leave to answer. And I am determined to believe the
answer; because, in that belief, I find I sleep sounder and wake more chearful. En
attendant, god bless you; accept the homage of my sincere & constant affection.
TH: JEFFERSON
RC (ViU); addressed: Mrs. Angelica Church London and to the
care of mr Pinckney. PrC (DLC). Tr (MHi); 19th-century copy.














Thomas Jefferson to Edward Coles, 25 August
1814
To Edward Coles
Monticello Aug. 25. 14.
Dear Sir
Your favor of July 31. was duly recieved, and was read with peculiar pleasure. the
sentiments breathed thro the whole do honor to both the head and heart of the writer.
mine on the subject of the slavery of negroes have long since been in possession of the
public, and time has only served to give them stronger root. the love of justice & the
love of country plead equally the cause of these people, and it is a mortal1 reproach to
us that they should have pleaded it so long in vain, and should have produced not a
single effort, nay I fear not much serious willingness to relieve them & ourselves from
our present condition of moral and political reprobation. from those of the former
generation who were in the fulness of age when I came into public life, which was while
our controversy with England was on paper only, I soon2 saw that nothing was to be
hoped. nursed and educated in the daily habit of seeing the degraded condition, both
bodily & mental, of those unfortunate beings, not3 reflecting that that degradation was
very much the work of themselves & their fathers, few minds had yet doubted but that
they were as legitimate subjects of property as their horses or cattle. the quiet &
monotonous course of colonial life had been disturbed by no alarm, & little reflection
on the value of liberty. and when alarm was taken at an enterprise on their own, it was
not easy to carry them the whole length of the principles which they invoked for
themselves. in the first or second session of the legislature after I became a member, I
drew to this subject the attention of Col
o
Bland, one of the oldest, ablest, and most
respected members, and he undertook to move forcertain moderate extensions of the
protection of the laws to these people. I seconded his motion, and, as a younger
member, was4 more spared in the debate: but he was denounced as an enemy to his
country, & was treated with the grossest5 indecorum. from an early stage of our
revolution other and more distant duties were assigned to me, so that from that time till
my return from Europe in 1789. and I may say till I returned to reside at home in 1809. I
had little opportunity of knowing the progress of public sentiment here on this subject. I
had always hoped that the younger generation, recieving their early impressions after
the flame of liberty had been kindled in every breast, and had become as it were the
vital spirit of every American, that the generous temperament of youth, analogous to the
motion of their blood, and above the suggestions of avarice, would have sympathised
with oppression wherever found, and proved their love of liberty beyond their
own share of it. but my intercourse with them, since my return, has not been sufficient
to ascertain that they had made towards this point the progress I had hoped. your
solitary but welcome voice is the first which has brought this sound to my ear; and I
have considered the general silence which prevails on this subject as indicating an
apathy unfavorable to every hope. yet the hour of emancipation is advancing in the
march of time. it will come; and whether brought on by the generous energy of our own
minds, or by the bloody process of S
t
Domingo, excited and conducted by the power of
our present enemy, if once stationed permanently within our country, & offering asylum
& arms to the oppressed, is a leaf of our history not yet turned over.6
As to the method by which this difficult work is to be effected, if permitted to be done
by ourselves, I have seen no proposition so expedient on the whole, as that of
emancipation of those born after a given7 day, and of their education and expatriation at
a proper age. this would give time for a gradual extinction of that species of labor and
substitution of another, and lessen the severity of the shock which an operation so
fundamental cannot fail to produce. the idea of emancipating the whole at once, the old
as well as the young, and retaining them here, is of those only who have not the guide of
either knolege or experience of the subject. for, men, probably of any colour, but of this
color we know, brought up from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast,
are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and
are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising the young. in the
mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this
leads them. their amalgamation with the other colour produces a degradation to which
no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently
consent.
I am sensible of the partialities with which you have looked towards me as the person
who should undertake this salutary but arduous work. but this, my dear Sir, is like
bidding old Priam to buckle the armour of Hector trementibus aevo humeris et inutile
ferrum cingi. no. I have overlived the generation with which mutual labors and perils
begat mutual confidence and influence. this enterprise is for the young; for those who
can follow it up, and bear it through to its consummation. it shall have all my prayers,
and these are the only weapons of an old man. but in the mean time are you right in
abandoning this property, and your country with it? I think not. my opinion has ever
been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom
fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed & clothe them well, protect them from ill
usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and
be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them. the laws do not
permit us to turn them loose, if that were for their good: and to commute them for other
property is to commit them to those whose usage of them we cannot controul. I hope
then, my dear Sir, you will reconcile yourself to your country and its unfortunate
condition; that you will not lessen its stock of sound disposition by withdrawing your
portion from the mass. that, on the contrary you will come forward in the public
councils, become the Missionary of this doctrine truly Christian, insinuate & inculcate it
softly but steadily thro the medium of writing & conversation, associate others in your
labors, and when the phalanx is formed, bring on & press the proposition perseveringly
until its accomplishment. it is an encoraging observation that no good measure was
ever proposed which, if duly pursued, failed to prevail in the end. we have proof of this
in the history of the endeavors in the British parliament to suppress that very trade
which brought this evil on us. and you will be8supported by the religious precept be
not wearied in well doing. that your success may be as speedy and compleat, as it will
be of honorable & immortal consolation to yourself I shall as fervently & sincerely pray
as I assure you of my great friendship and respect.
Th: Jefferson
P.S. will you give to the inclosed letter the proper address of place to find your brother?
RC (NjP: Coles Papers); addressed: Edward Coles esquire at the Presidents house
Washington; franked; postmarked Milton, 1 Sept. PoC (DLC); lacking postscript. Tr (Thomas
F. Jackson, Westfield, N.J., 1946); lacking postscript. Printed in Alexandria Phenix Gazette,
10 Feb. 1825, from an unidentified issue of the Vandalia Illinois Intelligencer. Enclosure: TJ
to Isaac A. Coles, 27 Aug. 1814.
The effort by TJ and Richard bland to promote certain moderate extensions of the protection
of the laws to slaves is not documented in the journals of the Virginia House of Burgesses,
which did not routinely record failed motions. In his 1821 autobiography TJ indicated that I
made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was
rejected: and indeed, during the regal government, nothing liberal could expect success
(Ford, 1:5; PTJ, 2:224). trementibus aevo humeris et inutile ferrum cingi: armor, long
unused, on shoulders trembling with age, a paraphrase of Virgil, Aeneid, 2.50911
(Fairclough,Virgil, 1:3501). be not wearied in well doing quotes from the Bible, Galatians
6.9 and 2 Thessalonians 3.13.
1. Phenix Gazette: moral.
2. Word added in margin.
3. Phenix Gazette: but.
4. Phenix Gazette here adds no.
5. Phenix Gazette: greatest.
6. Sentence not in Phenix Gazette.
7. Tr: certain.
8. Preceding three words interlined in place of we are.


From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 22
January 1821
Monticello Jan. 22. 21.
I was quite rejoiced, dear Sir, to see that you had health & spirits enough to take part in
the late convention of your state for revising its constitution, and to bear your share in
its debates and labors. the amendments of which we have as yet heard prove the
advance of liberalism in the intervening period; and encourage a hope that the human
mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed 2000 years ago. this country,
which has given to the world the example of physical liberty, owes to it that of moral
emancipation also, for, as yet, it is but nominal with us. the inquisition of public opinion
overwhelms in practice the freedom asserted by the laws in theory.
Our anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question What does the Holy
alliance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with us on the Missouri question? and this,
by the bye, is but the name of the case. it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the
excitement. the real question, as seen in the states. afflicted with this unfortunate
population, is, Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger? for if
Congress has a power to regulate the conditions of the inhabitants of the states, within
the states, it will be but another exercise of that power to declare that all shall be free.
are we then to see again Athenian and Lacedemonian confederacies? to wage another
Peloponnesian war to settle the ascendancy between them? or is this the tocsin of
merely a servile war? that remains to be seen: but not I hope by you or me. surely they
will parley a while, and give us time to get out of the way. what a Bedlamite is man?
But let us turn from our own uneasinesses to the miseries of our Southern friends.
Bolivar & Morillo it seems, have come to a parley with dispositions at length to stop the
useless effusions of human blood in that quarter. I feared from the beginning that these
people were not yet sufficiently enlightened for self-government; and that after wading
through blood & slaughter, they would end in military tyrannies, more or less
numerous. yet as they wished to try the experiment. I wished them success in it. they
have now tried it, and will possibly find that their safest road will be an accomodation
with the mother country, which shall hold them together by the single link of the same
chief magistrate leaving to him power enough to keep them in peace with one another,
and to themselves the essential powers of self government and self improvement, until
they shall be sufficiently trained by education and habits of freedom to walk safely by
themselves. representative government, native functionaries, a qualified negative on
their laws, with a previous security by compact for freedom of commerce freedom of
the press, habeas corpus, , Start insertion,and, End, trial by jury, would make a good
beginning. this last would be the school in which their people might begin to learn the
exercise of civic duties as well as rights for freedom of religion they are not yet
prepared. the , Start insertion,scales, End, of bigotry are not sufficiently fallen from their
eyes to accept it for themselves individually, much less to trust others with it. but that
will come in time, as well as a general ripeness to break entirely from the parent stem.
you see, my dear Sir, how easily we prescribe for others a cure for their difficulties,
while we cannot cure our own. we must leave both, I believe, to heaven, and wrap
ourselves up in the mantle of resignation, and of that friendship of which I tender to you
the most sincere assurances.
TH: JEFFERSON
MHi: Adams Papers.


From Thomas Jefferson to James Heaton, 20 May
1826
Monticello May 20. 26.
Dear Sir
The subject of your letter of Apr. 20 is one on which I do not permit myself to express
an opinion, but when time, place, & occasion may give it some favorable effect. a good
cause is often injured more by ill timed efforts of its friends than by the arguments of
its enemies. persuasion, perseverance, and patience are the best advocates on questions
depending on the will of others. the revolution in public opinion which this case
requires, is not to be expected in a day, or perhaps in an age. but time, which outlives all
things, will outlive this evil also. my sentiments have been 40. years before the public.
had I repeated them 40. times, they would only have become the more stale and thread-
bare. altho I shall not live to see them consummated, they will not die with me. but
living or dying they will ever be in my most fervent prayers. this is written for yourself,
and not for the public: in compliance with your request of two lines of sentiment on the
subject. accept the assurance of my good will and respect.
TH: JEFFERSON
DDO.





















Jefferson and Religion




























82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18
June 1779
82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but
follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that1 Almighty God hath
created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by
making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;2 that all attempts to influence it by
temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits
of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our
religion,3 who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence
on reason alone;4 that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed
dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking
as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath
established and maintained false religions 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 opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,4 is sinful and tyrannical; that
even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is
depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular
pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most
persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those
temporary5 rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct,
are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of
mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more
than6 our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as
unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to
offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious
opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in
common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also7 to corrupt the
principles of that very8 religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;
that though indeed these 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;9 that to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy,
which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that
tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the
sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time
enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when
principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth
is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist
to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition
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 of Virginia do enact10 that no man shall be compelled to
frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be
enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the
same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary
purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding
Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this
act11irrevocable 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
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be
an infringement of natural right.
Report, p. 589. No MS copy of this famous Bill has been found. Text of Act as adopted
in 1785 is in Hening, XII, 846. The engrossed MS copy of the Act, on parchment, is
in Vi (photostat in TJ Editorial Files); the text in Hening agrees with this authoritative text
and also with the text of the official printing in the session laws of Oct. 1785 (Acts passed at
a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond: Dunlap and Hayes [1786],
p. 267). For various contemporary printed texts, see note below. Since the printed text of
1779 is reproduced in facsimile in this volume, the text of the Report has been followed here
so that the slight variations in punctuation and spelling can be noted. The texts of both the
1779 broadside and the 1784 Report are obviously different from the MS as TJ would
normally have written it, the former employing such spellings as honours, labour, &c.,
and the latter being punctuated in an erratic manner. These variations may be attributed to
copyists or printers errors. These two texts are the closest we can get to TJs original, but
there is little to choose between them: the most that can be said is that the 1779 broadside
is the earliest known text. Those parts of the Bill that were deleted by amendment are
printed in italic type; it is important to note that this device is employed only as a graphic
means of showing at a glance the changes made by the General Assembly and that the text
as printed in Report, p. 589, is entirely in roman type and should, for ordinary purposes, be
so quoted.
For a good summary and background of TJs attitude toward the established Church,
dissenting groups, and the relationship of church and state, see Malone,Jefferson, I, 27480.
This Bill, which TJ ranked with the Declaration of Independence, might indeed be considered
as a necessary consequence of it: as the Declaration of Independence asserted the natural
right of a people to choose any form of government conducive to their safety and happiness,
so the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom asserted the natural right of a person to choose
his beliefs and opinions free of compulsion. In this sense the famous preamble to TJs Bill
provided philosophical justification, as of natural right, not merely for the ideas of religious
toleration and separation of state and church but also for the right of the individual to
complete intellectual libertythe opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction. TJ later asserted that the effort to disestablish the Church of England
in Virginia and to establish religious freedom brought on the severest contests in which he
had ever been engaged (see Notes and Proceedings on Discontinuing the Establishment of
the Church of England, 11 Oct. to 9 Dec. 1776). The effort had resulted in 1776 in a
compromise: TJ and his colleagues had failed to obtain repeal of all laws interfering with
religious worship and, instead of disestablishing the Church, had only succeeded in
exempting dissenters from levies made in behalf of the establishment. From 1776 to 1779
the General Assembly was assailed with petitions for and against further reform. The
particular issue was whether the maintenance of churches should be left to voluntary
contributions or whether a general assessment should not be established by law, on every
one, to the support of the pastor of his choice (Autobiography, Ford, I, 54). The Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom, though TJ declared he had drawn it in 1777, was probably
not brought forward in these years from 1776 to 1779 because the intense fight over the
question of a general assessment made it difficult enough to hold the position that had been
gained. However, on 4 June 1779, after TJ had been elected governor, the House ordered
Harvie, Mason, and Baker to bring in a bill on this subject. TJs Bill was presented by Harvie
on 12 June, the next day it passed the second reading, and the third reading was postponed
to 1 Aug., which killed it for that session (JHD, May 1779, 1827 edn., p. 34, 36, 44, 46).
There is no reference in the Journals of the House of Delegates to the printing of TJs Bill
as introduced at the May 1779 session, but, though attributed to the year 1785 in the
bibliographies of Sabin and others, it was printed in the summer of 1779 as a broadside
under the title: A BILL for establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, printed for the consideration
of the PEOPLE (see facsimile reprint in this volume; see alsoMazzei to TJ, 19 Mch. 1780).
Whether this was done under the authority of the General Assembly or privately by TJ and
other supporters of the Bill is not certain, but, though the General Assembly from time to
time did print bills that were held over from one session to another so that they could be
discussed by the people (e.g., see Bill for Giving the Members of the General Assembly an
Adequate Allowance, 12 Dec. 1778), the available evidence seems to support the supposition
that it was privately issued. For, if the General Assembly had authorized publication, there
would seem to be no reason why such authorization should not have appeared in the
Journals, as other similar authorizations did. Also, at the Oct. 1779 session there were
several petitions for and against this particular Bill and two of them express doubt as to
whether the publication was authorized by the General Assembly or not. A petition from
Augusta county expressed approval of the bill presented to the last Assembly, (and
published, as they suppose, for the Consideration of the people) for establishing religious
freedom and prayed that it be enacted into law. Another petition from dissenters in
Lunenberg county asserted that they had seen a bill which they suppose was published by
order of the last Assembly, for establishing religious freedom (this petition, incidentally,
supports TJs assertion that some of the dissenting groups, having gained their point in
1776, went over to the opposition and supported the idea of a general assessment; for the
petition of the Lunenberg dissenters approved the Bill and at the same time prayed for the
enactment of a general assessment). Other petitions from Essex and Amherst concerned the
Bill but did not refer to the fact or. the method of its being printed (JHD, Oct. 1779, 1827
edn., p. 20, 27, 32, 37). It seems obvious that, if this Bill had been printed under public
authority, that fact would have been known to the petitioners and their memorials to the
General Assembly would not, therefore, have expressed doubt on the point. For if the
broadside had been printed by public authorization, it would no doubt have been transmitted
as such by the clerk of the House or by the executive department. When the printing of The
Report of the Committee of Revisors was authorized by the General Assembly in 1784, the
resolution specifically directed that the pamphlet be distributed throughout the several
counties by the Executive, in such manner as they shall judge most conducive to the end
proposed. It is difficult to imagine what motive could have persuaded, or what means could
have been employed by, the General Assembly to conceal its authorization of the printing of
the broadside if, as on this and other occasions, its object was to have the Bill printed for
the consideration of the people.
The effort to have Bill No. 82 passed separately at the May and Oct. sessions in 1779
was not successful. But in Oct. 1785 this Bill was one of two in the second half of the revisal
brought up for consideration and the only one of these adopted (the other was Bill No. 79).
Madison reported to Monroe on the day the Bill passed the House: The Bill proportioning
crimes and punishments was the one at which we stuck after wading thro the most difficult
parts of it. A few subsequent bills however were excepted from the postponement. Among
these was the Bill for establishing Religious freedom, which has got thro the H. of Delegates
without alteration, though not without warm opposition. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Corbin were the
principal Combatants against it (Madison to Monroe, 17 Dec. 1785, Writings, ed. Hunt, II,
205). This was something of an understatement. The Bill was introduced by Madison 31 Oct.
1785, read twice, and referred to the committee of the whole. It was debated and amended
by the committee on 15 Dec., and this amendment, which has not been identified, was
approved by the House the next day. At the same time another amendment was proposed
that is, that the whole of TJs preamble be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Whereas, it is declared by the Bill of Rights, that religion, or the duty which we owe to our
Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not
by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of
religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and it is the mutual duty of all to practice
christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other (JHD, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p.
1215, 93, 94, 95). When Madison reported on this Bill to TJ, 22 Jan. 1786, q.v., he
mentioned the Senates effort to accomplish the same amendment, but did not refer to that
attempted earlier in the House. As an indication of the importance attached to this whole
question, it is worth noting that the ayes and noes on this amendment were recorded in the
Journals. The amendment failed by a vote of 38 to 66.
On 17 Dec. a motion was made to postpone the third reading of the engrossed Bill until
the Oct. session 1786, but this was defeated. The Bill was thereupon read the third time, put
to a vote, passed by a majority of 74 to 20, and transmitted to the Senate. The ayes and
noes were ordered to be recorded. Those voting in favor of the Bill were: Joshua Fry, Wilson
Cary Nicholas, Joseph Eggleston, Samuel Jordan Cabell, Zachariah Johnston, Michael
Bowyer, John Trigg, Robert Clark, George Hancock, Archibald Stuart, William Anderson,
Hickerson Barksdale, John Clarke (Campbell), Samuel Hawes, Anthony New, John Daniel,
Henry Southall, French Strother, Henry Fry, William Gatewood, Meriwether Smith, Charles
Simms, David Stuart, William Pickett, Thomas Helm, Christopher Greenup, James Garrard,
George Thomson, Alexander White, Charles Thruston, Thomas Smith, George Clendennin,
John Lucas, Jeremiah Pate, Ralph Humphreys, Isaac Vanmiter, George Jackson, Nathaniel
Wilkinson, John Mayo, Jr., John Rentfro, William Norvell, John Roberts, William Dudley,
Thomas Moore, Carter Braxton, Benjamin Temple, Francis Peyton, Christopher Robertson,
Samuel Garland, Benjamin Logan, David Scott, William Pettijohn, Robert Sayres, Daniel
Trigg, William Hartwell Macon, Griffin Stith, David Bradford, James Madison, Charles Porter,
William Harrison, Benjamin Lankford, John Clarke (Prince Edward), Richard Bibb, Cuthbert
Bullitt, Daniel Carroll Brent, Williamson Ball, Andrew Moore, John Hopkins, Gawin Hamilton,
Isaac Zane, John Tayloe, John Whittaker Willis, Andrew Kincannon, and James Innes.
Those who voted against the Bill were: Thomas Claiborne, Miles King, Worlich Westwood,
John Page, Garland Anderson, Elias Wills, William Thornton, Francis Corbin, Willis Riddick,
Daniel Sandford, John Gordon, Edward Bland, Anthony Walke, George Lee Turberville,
William Garrard, John Francis Mercer, Carter Bassett Harrison, Richard Cary, Jr., Wilson
Cary, and Richard Lee.
The Senate amended the Bill and returned it to the House on 29 Dec.; this was precisely
the same amendment that had been offered in the House two weeks earlier. This time the
amendment failed of adoption by a vote of 35 to 56, a vote that, like the earlier one,
reflected opposition to the preamble rather than to the Bill; for the vote in favor of the Bill on
17 Dec. included some (e.g., such a conservative as Carter Braxton) who voted in favor of
the amendment on 29 Dec. There was, on the other hand, almost no shifting of position
among those whose names are recorded as voting on the amendment on both 16 Dec. and
29 Dec.: Francis Peyton voted in favor of it on the former date and against it on the latter;
Anthony New and John Prunty voted against it at first and then for it.
The Senate on 9 Jan. 1786 insisted on its amendment and requested a free conference
on the subject of its amendment, to which the House agreed. The managers met on 12 Jan.
1786. The Senates objections [to the preamble], wrote Madison, were frivolous indeed. In
order to remove them as they were understood by the Managers of the H. of D. the
preamble was sent up again from the H. of D. [on 13 Jan.] with one or two verbal
alterations. As an amendment to these the Senate sent down a few others, which as they did
not affect the substance though they somewhat defaced the composition, it was thought
better to agree to than to run further risks, especially as it was getting late in the Session
and the House growing thin. The enacting clauses past without a single alteration, and I
flatter myself have in this country extinguished for ever the ambitious hope of making laws
for the human mind (Madison to TJ, 22 Jan. 1786; JHD, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 1215,
93, 94, 95, 96, 115, 117, 134, 135, 138, 139, 1434, 148). The amendments offered by the
Senate, and agreed to by the House on 16 Jan. 1786, are indicated in notes 1, 2, and 4;
other amendments made either in the House or Senate are indicated in notes 7, 8, 9, and
11.
Madison and others thought these amendments rendered the style less elegant, though
the sense is not affected (Hening, XII, 84). But Malone (I, 279) is quite correct in saying that
these amendments deleted some of the more sweeping statements about the supremacy
and illimitability of reason; and, as a result, the statute did not rest on quite so broad a base
as the one its author had designed.
Ironically, due to TJ himself, it was the text neither of the Bill as originally submitted nor
of the Act as finally adopted that was in his day and subsequently most generally accepted
as The Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. In 1776 TJ had revealed his desire to have
the world, or at least some of his friends and political associates, know the text of the
Declaration of Independence as he had drafted it, and he had sent out several copies that he
had laboriously copied by hand. But his pristine text was not printed at all until more than a
quarter of a century had elapsed and it never came close to achieving the popularity enjoyed
by the text as adopted by Congress. But the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom fared
differently: its full text as drafted by TJ was put into type six years before its altered version
was enacted into law. What was more important, TJ, being in France at the time his Bill was
adopted, saw to it that the famous declaration was widely distributed. It was not mere pride
of authorship but pride of country as well that led him to obtain publication in Europe: it is
honorable for us, he wrote Madison, to have produced the first legislature who has had the
courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own
opinions (TJ to Madison, 16 Dec. 1786); in the same letter TJ reported that the Act has
been received with infinite approbation in Europe and propagated with enthusiasm; that it
had been translated into French and Italian, had been sent to most of the courts of Europe,
had been inserted in the Encyclopdie mthodique, was appearing in most of the publications
respecting America, such as those of Brissot, Clavire, and Mazzei; and that it had been the
best evidence of the falshood of those reports which stated us to be in anarchy. Though his
motive in promoting publication in Europe was elevated, TJ nevertheless took unwarranted
liberties with the authoritative text of this immortal statute, as the following facts clearly
prove.
Facsimiles of what TJ in the epitaph that he later drew up referred to as the Statute of
Virginia for religious freedom are to be found in TJ Editorial Files: (1) ABILL for
establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, I printed for the consideration of thePEOPLE.
Williamsburg, 1779]. Broadside, Boston Public Library, Evans 19350, Swem, Va.
Bibliog., 7476, and Sabin 100041. (All three bibliographies, apparently assuming that the
Bill was published under public authority in the fall of 1785 when the Bill was being debated,
assign that date, the place as Richmond, and James Hayes, the public printer, as the printer.
Since the Bill was undoubtedly printed in 1779, and was probably issued privately, this
assignment should be changed as to place, printer and date, and probably as to publisher);
(2) An ACT for establishingRELIGIOUS FREEDOM, I passed in the assembly of Virginia in the
beginning / of the year 1786. [Paris, 1786]. Four-page pamphlet. Copy in PHi; another that
TJ sent to van Hogendorp was found by Dr. Howard C. Rice, Jr., in the Van Hogendorp
papers, Rijksarchief, The Hague, Sabin 100342. This text, which was sent to various persons
by TJ as a separate pamphlet, was also bound in as an appendix to some copies of the first
edition of Notes on Virginia. It was later included as an appendix to the 1787 Stockdale
edition, the 1788 (first American) edition printed in Philadelphia by Prichard and Hall, and in
subsequent editions of the Notes. The text of (5) below derives from one of these editions.
(3) Acte de la Rpublique de VIRGINIE, / qui tablit la libert de Religion. [Paris, 1786].
Fourpage pamphlet, probably printed by Philippe-Denys Pierres (see Ford, II, 237). Copy
in NN; another found by Dr. Rice in Van Hogendorp papers, Rijksarchief, The Hague, Sabin
100342; (4) An ACT for establishing RELIGIOUS / FREE- / DOM, passed in the Assembly / of
Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786 / [rule] / Acte de la Rpublique de VIRGINIE, / qui
tablit la libert de Religion, pass / lassemble de la Virginie au commen- / cement de
lanne 1786. [Paris, 1786]. Eight-page pamphlet found by Dr. Rice, in the Bibliothque de
lInstitut de France, Paris, Sabin 100344; (5) REPUBLICAN NOTES / ON / RELIGION; / AND,
/ AN ACT ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, PASSED IN THE ASSEMBLY OF / VIRGINIA, IN
THE YEAR 1786. / [rule] / BY THOMAS JEFFERSON, ESQUIRE, / PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. / [rule] /[ornament] / DANBURY: /PRINTED BY THOMAS ROWE. / 1803. Twelvepage
pamphlet containing extracts from Query XVII, Notes on Virginia and (p. 911) the text of
AnACT for establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, / passed in the Assembly of Virginia, in the
beginning / of the Year 1786, Sabin 35914. This text, as well as the title, obviously derives
from that described under (2) above. These various contemporary versions are referred to in
the notes below as Text (1), Text (2), &c.
A glance at Texts (2) to (5) above is sufficient to show that they are not derived from the
broadside of 1779, or from the Report of 1784, or even from the printed session laws of
1785. They are, in the points noted below, at variance with both the Bill and the Act. All of
the English texts described above, excluding Text (1) of course, agree. All of the French
texts, which vary from the English texts in one important particular but possibly were derived
from one of them, agree with each other. Clearly TJ had before him a copy of the Act as
adopted when he prepared this English version of 1786; it is equally clear that he also had at
hand a copy of the Bill when he produced this curious hybrid text whose stemma embraced
those of both Bill and Act. The following variations are to be noted. First, English Texts (2),
(4), (5) do not begin, as the Act does, with the phrase Whereas Almighty God hath created
the mind free but, as the amended Bill does, with the words Well aware that Almighty God
hath created the mind free. This incorporatespart of the amendment indicated in note 1,
below, but also restores part of the deleted initial phrase of the Bill. The French texts agree
with the English in this variant reading. Second, the deletions made by amendments to the
Bill as described in notes 2, 4, and 9 below are all followed in English and French Texts (2) to
(5), since none of these texts contains any of the words or clauses deleted in these places or
their equivalent. Third, English Texts (2), (4), (5) agree with the Bill rather than the Act as
adopted by including the word very at the point indicated in note 8, below. Finally and
curiously, French Texts (3) and (4) agree with the Bill rather than with the Act in the
phraseology of the enacting clause (see note 10, below), reading: Nous, lAssemble
gnrale de Virginie, tablissons pour loi The English Texts (2), (4), and (5), however,
read as follows: Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly which is neither the
text of the Bill nor that of the Act as adopted (the latter does not contain the word
therefore). Ironically, TJ himself, by accepting in part the enacting clause agreed upon by
the General Assembly and by retaining the opening words (Well aware that) of his Bill, did
grammatical and structural violence to his great declaration of intellectual and spiritual
freedom. It is inexplicable that the English Texts (2), (4), and (5) should have had this fault,
and that the French Texts (3) and (4) should not have. The long French preamble beginning
Convaincus que le Dieu tout puissant a cr libre lesprit de lhomme is made
grammatically and structurally sound when the enacting clause following it reads: Nous,
lAssemble gnrale de Virginie, tablissons pour loi But the preamble of English Texts
(2), (4), and (5) which begins Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free
is left dangling in mid-air, without a noun or pronoun to depend on, when its enacting
clause, instead of following the Bill as TJ drew it with its stately We the General Assembly
do enact, reads Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly.
TJs hybrid English version of 1786, which is neither precisely that of the Bill nor that of
the Act, unfortunately triumphed over the more elevated style of the former and over the
legally more correct form of the latter. This version, with its unhappily dangling preamble,
became established in America by the 1788 edition of the Notes on Virginia. The H. A.
Washington edition of TJs Writings unfortunately carried the hybrid text, and even the title
given it in 1786An Act for establishing Religious Freedom, passed in the Assembly of
Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786. The Commonwealth of Virginia could go on
publishing the authoritative version (e.g., The Code of Virginia, Richmond, 1849, p. 35860);
and Ford (II, 2379) could print the Bill as it was in the 1784 Report; but when the most
widely used edition of TJs papers (L & B) repeated the incorrect text used in the Washington
edition, that form became so firmly established that the authoritative or the original versions
could never hope to displace it. Even scholarly editors of modern texts, such as Adrienne
Koch and William Peden (The Life and Writings of Thomas Jefferson, NewYork, 1944, p. 311
13), continue to repeat the unhappy hybridization of errors that TJ propagated in 1786.
1. The preceding words in italics were deleted by Senate amendment on 16 Jan. 1786.
The beginning of the Act as adopted reads: Whereas, Almighty God hath
2. The preceding words in italic were deleted by Senate amendment on 16 Jan. 1786.
3. In his Autobiography TJ wrote: Where the preamble declares that coercion is a
departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by
inserting the word Jesus Christ, so that it should read, a departure from the plan of Jesus
Christ, the holy author of our religion the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof
that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile,
the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination (Ford, I, 62).
There is no record in the Journals of this particular amendment.
4. The preceding words in italic were deleted by Senate amendment on 16 Jan. 1786.
5. Text (1) reads temporal, which is clearly what TJ intended. The clerks or printers
error which caused the Report to read temporary was repeated in the Act as adopted, thus
giving legal sanction to an incorrect usage that TJ could not tolerate. Accordingly in 1786 he
restored temporal to Text (2), a reading which was followed by the derivatives of that text.
The various revisals and codifications of Virginia laws, however, have adhered to the legally
correct but otherwise improper temporary.
6. Text (1) reads: any more than on our opinions in physicks or geometry. The error of
the clerk or printer in omitting on in the Report was repeated in the Act as adopted. TJ in
1786 restored the preposition to Text (2), but at the same time the word any at the
beginning of the clause quoted was omitted, a reading followed by the derivatives of that
text. It is quite possible that this omission of the word any may have been made by the
printer of Text (2) for no better reason than that of justifying his lines. While TJs alterations
in the text of the Act were, with this one possible exception, obviously intentional, other
contemporaneous texts departed from the wording of the Act with engaging innocence either
of a regard for accuracy or of respect for exact legal phraseology. The Act as printed, for
example, in the Virginia Gazette, or American Advertiser (Richmond: James Hayes) for 22
Feb. 1786 dropped a conjunction, altered spellings, and substituted new words, such as
preacher for teacher, suspicion for supposition, minister for ministry, habit for
bait, have for hath, and physic for physics. This particular printing is possibly the
one that was sent to TJ, though the Act may also have appeared in the Virginia Gazette and
Independent Chronicle(Richmond: Dixon & Holt) and the Virginia Gazette & Weekly
Advertiser (Richmond: Thomas Nicholson) and may have been sent to TJ from one of these
sources. Certainly the text that was printed by Isaiah Thomas as from the Virginia Gazette
in Madisons A Memorial and Remonstrance (Worcester, 1786) would seem to be derived
from another text than that presented in James Hayes Virginia Gazette; for Thomas text
repeats only three of its many vagariespreacher, minister, and physic. The text that
appeared in Hayes newspaper bore the attestation of John Beckley, clerk of the House, and
of H. Brooke, clerk of the Senate. It is quite probable, therefore, that the words preacher,
minister, and physic (as well as the variation indicated in note 10, below) were clerks
errors, just as Beckleys supervision of the printing of the Report of the Committee of
Revisors had perpetuated such errors as those pointed out in this and the preceding note.
It was Dr. Richard Price, distinguished zealot for the American cause, who surpassed
clerks, printers, and even TJ himself in taking liberties with the wording of a Virginia statute.
In 1786 Dr. Price distributed copies of the Act in a broadside circular as an example of
legislative wisdom and liberality never before known (London, 1786; Sabin 100343). This
printing was undoubtedly based on Text (2), though the copy of the first edition of Notes on
Virginia that TJ inscribed and presented to Dr. Price (Paris: privately printed, 1785; this copy
now in NjP) does not contain that text. Thus, taking TJs hybrid version of the Act as his
starting point, Dr. Price produced a more extensively altered text that no one,
fortunately,seems to have followed. Whatever Dr. Price may have felt about the wisdom and
liberality of the legislature that adopted the Act, he indubitably thought that he could
improve upon the style of the law. He therefore freely struck out words and phrases, altered
others, and provided many variant readings; some of these were indubitable improvements,
such as his excision of the word bait in an otherwise exalted passage.
7. The word also was deleted by amendment in the House or Senate and only
substituted for it, which is the reading of the Act as adopted. TJ, however, restored the
original reading in Text (2), and this reading was followed by the derivatives of that text.
8. The word very is not in the Act; it may be the amendment made by the House on 16
Dec. or one of those made on 13 Jan.
9. The preceding words in italic are not in the Act and were probably deleted by the
House on 16 Dec. or 13 Jan.
10. In employing this phraseology, TJ departed from the usual form for the enacting
clause. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact is certainly more suited to the
elevated style of the Bill than Be it enacted by the General Assembly; but, despite
Madisons statement that no alterations were made in the enacting clause, the latter is the
form that was adopted. Whether this was by amendment in the House or in the Senate is not
certain. As noted above, TJ caused Text (2) to read: Be it therefore enacted This does
not conform to the text of the Act as adopted, which omits therefore; but it does conform
to the attested copy of the Act as printed in Hayes Virginia Gazette for 22 Feb. 1786. This
seems to confirm the suggestion advanced in note 6, above, that TJ made use of a
newspaper text of the Act as he was engaged in preparing Text (2).
11. The Act reads: to declare this Act to be irrevocable ; all other texts, except those
appearing in revisals and codifications of Virginia law, omit the words to be. These two
words were apparently inserted by amendment, but were deleted by TJ when he prepared
Text (2) and are not to be found in any of the derivatives of that text.














V. To the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January
1802
V. To the Danbury Baptist Association
Jan. 1. 1802.
GENTLEMEN
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to
express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest
satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my
constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his
God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate
powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering
to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience,
I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to
restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father
and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem.
TH: JEFFERSON
PrC (DLC); at head of text: To messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim
Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist
association in the state of Connecticut.
LEGITIMATE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT REACH ACTIONS ONLY, & NOT
OPINIONS: TJ expressed similar sentiments in his 1779 draft bill for
establishing religious freedom, the opinions of men are not the
object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction (Vol. 2:545
53).













To Charles Thomson Monticello,
January 9, 1816
MY DEAR AND ANCIENT FRIEND,
-- An acquaintance of fifty-two years, for I think ours dates from 1764,
calls for an interchange of notice now and then, that we remain in
existence, the monuments of another age, and examples of a
friendship unaffected by the jarring elements by which we have been
surrounded, of revolutions of government, of party and of opinion. I
am reminded of this duty by the receipt, through our friend Dr.
Patterson, of your synopsis of the four Evangelists. I had procured it
as soon as I saw it advertised, and had become familiar with its use;
but this copy is the more valued as it comes from your hand. This
work bears the stamp of that accuracy which marks everything from you, and will be useful
to those who, not taking things on trust, recur for themselves to the fountain of pure morals.
I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of
Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and
arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more
beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am
a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the
Platonists, who callme infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while
they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have
compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of
which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on
earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek,
Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of
Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the
Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of
the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical
extravagances of his rival sects.
I retain good health, am rather feeble to walk much, but ride with ease, passing two or three
hours a day on horseback, and every three or four months taking in a carriage a journey of
ninety miles to a distant possession, where I pass a good deal of my time. My eyes need the
aid of glasses by night, and with small print in the day also; my hearing is not quite so
sensible as it used to be; no tooth shaking yet, but shivering and shrinking in body from the
cold we now experience, my thermometer having been as low as 12 degrees this morning.
My greatest oppression is a correspondence afflictingly laborious, the extent of which I have
been long endeavoring to curtail. This keeps me at the drudgery of the writing-table all the
prime hours of the day, leaving for the gratification of my appetite for reading, only what I
can steal from the hours of sleep. Could I reduce this epistolary corvee within the limits of
my friends and affairs, and give the time redeemed from it to reading and reflection, to
history, ethics, mathematics, my life would be as happy as the infirmities of age would
admit, and I should look on its consummation with the composure of one "qui summum nec
me tuit diem nec optat."
So much as to myself, and I have given you this string of egotisms in the hope of drawing a
similar one from yourself. I have heard from others that you retain your health, a good
degree of activity, and all the vivacity and cheerfulness of your mind, but I wish to learn it
more minutely from yourself. How has time affected your health and spirits? What are your
amusements, literary and social?
Tell me everything about yourself, because all will be interesting to me who retains for you
ever the same constant and affectionate friendship and respect.


79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of
Knowledge, 18 June 1779
79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge
Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated
than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at
the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath
shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by
slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual
means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the
people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which
history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries,
they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert
their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that
people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws
will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and
administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the
publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and
virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the
sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be
called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or
circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so
educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed
and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be
sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all
should be confided to the weak or wicked:
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that in every county within this
commonwealth, there shall be chosen annually, by the electors qualified to vote for
Delegates, three of the most honest and able men of their county, to be called the
Aldermen of the county; and that the election of the said Aldermen shall be held at the
same time and place, before the same persons, and notified and conducted in the same
manner as by law is directed for the annual election of Delegates for the county.
The person before whom such election is holden shall certify to the court of the said
county the names of the Aldermen chosen, in order that the same may be entered of
record, and shall give notice of their election to the said Aldermen within a fortnight
after such election.
The said Aldermen on the first Monday in October, if it be fair, and if not, then on
the next fair day, excluding Sunday, shall meet at the court-house of their county, and
proceed to divide their said county into hundreds, bounding the same by water courses,
mountains, or limits, to be run and marked, if they think necessary, by the county
surveyor, and at the county expence, regulating the size of the said hundreds, according
to the best of their discretion, so as that they may contain a convenient number of
children to make up a school, and be of such convenient size that all the children within
each hundred may daily attend the school to be established therein, distinguishing each
hundred by a particular name; which division, with the names of the several hundreds,
shall be returned to thecourt of the county and be entered of record, and shall remain
unaltered until the increase or decrease of inhabitants shall render an alteration
necessary, in the opinion of any succeeding Aldermen, and also in the opinion of the
court of the county.
The electors aforesaid residing within every hundred shall meet on the third Monday
in October after the first election of Aldermen, at such place, within their hundred, as
the said Aldermen shall direct, notice thereof being previously given to them by such
person residing within the hundred as the said Aldermen shall require who is hereby
enjoined to obey such requisition, on pain of being punished by amercement and
imprisonment. The electors being so assembled shall choose the most convenient place
within their hundred for building a school-house. If two or more places, having a greater
number of votes than any others, shall yet be equal between themselves, the Aldermen,
or such of them as are not of the same hundred, on information thereof, shall decide
between them. The said Aldermen shall forthwith proceed to have a school-house built
at the said place, and shall see that the same be kept in repair, and, when necessary, that
it be rebuilt; but whenever they shall think necessary that it be rebuilt, they shall give
notice as before directed, to the electors of the hundred to meet at the said school-house,
on such day as they shall appoint, to determine by vote, in the manner before directed,
whether it shall be rebuilt at the same, or what other place in the hundred.
At every of these schools shall be taught reading, writing, and common arithmetick,
and the books which shall be used therein for instructing the children to read shall be
such as will at the same time make them acquainted with Grcian, Roman, English, and
American history. At these schools all the free children, male and female, resident
within the respective hundred, shall be intitled to receive tuition gratis, for the term of
three years, and as much longer, at their private expence, as their parents, guardians or
friends, shall think proper.
Over every ten of these schools (or such other number nearest thereto, as the number
of hundreds in the county will admit, without fractional divisions) an overseer shall be
appointed annually by the Aldermen at their first meeting, eminent for his learning,
integrity, and fidelity to the commonwealth, whose business and duty it shall be, from
time to time, to appoint a teacher to each school, who shall give assurance of fidelity to
the commonwealth, and to remove him as he shall see cause; to visit every school once
in every half year at the least; to examine the schollars; see that any general plan of
reading and instruction recommended by the visiters of William and Mary College shall
be observed; and to superintend the conduct of the teacher in every thing relative to his
school.
Every teacher shall receive a salary of by the year, which, with the expences of
building and repairing the schoolhouses, shall be provided in such manner as other
county expences are by law directed to be provided and shall also have his diet, lodging,
and washing found him, to be levied in like manner, save only that such levy shall be on
the inhabitants of each hundred for the board of their own teacher only.
And in order that grammar schools may be rendered convenient to the youth in
every part of the commonwealth, Be it farther enacted, that on the first Monday in
November, after the first appointment of overseers for the hundred schools, if fair, and
if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, after the hour of one in the
afternoon, the said overseers appointed for the schools in the counties of Princess Ann,
Norfolk, Nansemond and Isle-of-Wight, shall meet at Nansemond court house; those for
the counties of Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Prince George, shall meet at Sussex
court-house; those for the counties of Brunswick, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg, shall
meet at Lunenburg court-house; those for the counties of Dinwiddie, Amelia and
Chesterfield, shall meet at Chesterfield court-house; those for the counties of Powhatan,
Cumberland, Goochland, Henrico and Hanover, shall meet at Henrico court-house;
those for the counties of Prince Edward, Charlotte and Halifax, shall meet at Charlotte
court-house; those for the counties of Henry, Pittsylvania and Bedford, shall meet at
Pittsylvania court-house; those for the counties of Buckingham, Amherst, Albemarle
and Fluvanna, shall meet at Albemarle courthouse; those for the counties of Botetourt,
Rockbridge, Montgomery, Washington and Kentucky, shall meet at Botetourt
courthouse; those for the counties of Augusta, Rockingham and Greenbrier, shall meet
at Augusta court-house; those for the counties of Accomack and Northampton, shall
meet at Accomack court-house; those for the counties of Elizabeth City, Warwick,
York, Gloucester, James City, Charles City and New-Kent, shall meet at James City
court-house; those for the counties of Middlesex, Essex, King and Queen, King William
and Caroline, shall meet at King and Queen court-house; those for the counties of
Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond and Westmoreland, shall meet at Richmond
court-house; those for the counties of King George, Stafford, Spot-sylvania, Prince
William and Fairfax, shall meet at Spotsylvania court-house; those for the counties of
Loudoun and Fauquier, shall meet at Loudoun court-house; those for the counties of
Culpeper, Orange and Louisa, shall meet at Orange court-house; those for the counties
of Shenandoah and Frederick, shall meet at Frederick court-house; those for the
counties of Hampshire and Berkeley, shall meet at Berkeley court-house; and those for
the counties of Yohogania, Monongalia and Ohio, shall meet at Monongalia courthouse;
and shall fix on such place in some one of the counties in their district as shall be most
proper for situating a grammar school-house, endeavouring that the situation be as
central as may be to the inhabitants of the said counties, that it be furnished with good
water, convenient to plentiful supplies of provision and fuel, and more than all things
that it be healthy. And if a majority of the overseers present should not concur in their
choice of any one place proposed, the method of determining shall be as follows: If two
places only were proposed, and the votes be divided, they shall decide between them by
fair and equal lot; if more than two places were proposed, the question shall be put on
those two which on the first division had the greater number of votes; or if no two
places had a greater number of votes than the others, as where the votes shall have been
equal between one or both of them and some other or others, then it shall be decided by
fair and equal lot (unless it can be agreed by a majority of votes) which of the places
having equal numbers shall be thrown out of the competition, so that the question shall
be put on the remaining two, and if on this ultimate question the votes shall be equally
divided, it shall then be decided finally by lot.
The said overseers having determined the place at which the grammar school for
their district shall be built, shall forthwith (unless they can otherwise agree with the
proprietors of the circumjacent lands as to location and price) make application to the
clerk of the county in which the said house is to be situated, who shall thereupon issue a
writ, in the nature of a writ of ad quod damnum, directed to the sheriff of the said
county commanding him to summon and impannel twelve fit persons to meet at the
place, so destined for the grammar school house, on a certain day, to be named in the
said writ, not less than five, nor more than ten, days from the date thereof; and also to
give notice of the same to the proprietors and tenants of the lands to be viewed, if they
be to be found within the county, and if not, then to their agents therein if any they have.
Which freeholders shall be charged by the said sheriff impartially, and to the best of
their skill and judgment to view the lands round about the said place, and to locate and
circumscribe, by certain metes and bounds, one hundred acres thereof, having regard
therein principally to the benefit and convenience of the said school, but respecting in
some measure also the convenience of the said proprietors, and to value and appraise
the same in so many several and distinct parcels as shall be owned or held by several
and distinct owners or tenants, and according to their respective interests and estates
therein. And after such location and appraisement so made, the said sheriff shall
forthwith return the same under the hands and seals of the said jurors, together with the
writ, to the clerks office of the said county and the right and property of the said
proprietors and tenants in the said lands so circumscribed shall be immediately devested
and be transferred to the commonwealth for the use of the said grammar school, in full
and absolute dominion, any want of consent or disability to consent in the said owners
or tenants notwithstanding. But it shall not be lawful for the said overseers so to situate
the said grammar schoolhouse, nor to the said jurors so to locate the said lands, as to
include the mansion-house of the proprietor of the lands, nor the offices, curtilage, or
garden, thereunto immediately belonging.
The said overseers shall forthwith proceed to have a house of brick or stone, for the
said grammar school, with necessary offices, built on the said lands, which grammar
school-house shall contain a room for the school, a hall to dine in, four rooms for a
master and usher, and ten or twelve lodging rooms for the scholars.
To each of the said grammar schools shall be allowed out of the public treasury, the
sum of pounds, out of which shall be paid by the Treasurer, on warrant from the
Auditors, to the proprietors or tenants of the lands located, the value of their several
interests as fixed by the jury, and the balance thereof shall be delivered to the said
overseers to defray the expence of the said buildings.
In these grammar schools shall be taught the Latin and Greek languages, English
grammar, geography, and the higher part of numerical arithmetick, to wit, vulgar and
decimal fractions, and the extraction of the square and cube roots.
A visiter from each county constituting the district shall be appointed, by the
overseers, for the county, in the month of October annually, either from their own body
or from their county at large, which visiters or the greater part of them, meeting together
at the said grammar school on the first Monday in November, if fair, and if not, then on
the next fair day, excluding Sunday, shall have power to choose their own Rector, who
shall call and preside at future meetings, to employ from time to time a master, and if
necessary, an usher, for the said school, to remove them at their will, and to settle the
price of tuition to be paid by the scholars. They shall also visit the school twice in every
year at the least, either together or separately at their discretion, examine the scholars,
and see that any general plan of instruction recommended by the visiters of William and
Mary College shall be observed. The said masters and ushers, before they enter on the
execution of their office, shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth.
A steward shall be employed, and removed at will by the master, on such wages as
the visiters shall direct; which steward shall see to the procuring provisions, fuel,
servants for cooking, waiting, house cleaning, washing, mending, and gardening on the
most reasonable terms; the expence of which, together with the stewards wages, shall
be divided equally among all the scholars boarding either on the public or private
expence. And the part of those who are on private expence, and also the price of their
tuitions due to the master or usher, shall be paid quarterly by the respective scholars,
their parents, or guardians, and shall be recoverable, if withheld, together with costs, on
motion in any Court of Record, ten days notice thereof being previously given to the
party, and a jury impannelled to try the issue joined, or enquire of the damages. The said
steward shall also, under the direction of the visiters, see that the houses be kept in
repair, and necessary enclosures be made and repaired, the accounts for which, shall,
from time to time, be submitted to the Auditors, and on their warrant paid by the
Treasurer.
Every overseer of the hundred schools shall, in the month of September annually,
after the most diligent and impartial examination and enquiry, appoint from among the
boys who shall have been two years at the least at some one of the schools under his
superintendance, and whose parents are too poor to give them farther education, some
one of the best and most promising genius and disposition, to proceed to the grammar
school of his district; which appointment shall be made in the court-house of the county,
on the court day for that month if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding
Sunday, in the presence of the Aldermen, or two of them at the least, assembled on the
bench for that purpose, the said overseer being previously sworn by them to make such
appointment, without favor or affection, according to the best of his skill and judgment,
and being interrogated by the said Aldermen, either on their own motion, or on
suggestions from the parents, guardians, friends, or teachers of the children, competitors
for such appointment; which teachers shall attend for the information of the Aldermen.
On which interregatories the said Aldermen, if they be not satisfied with the
appointment proposed, shall have right to negative it; whereupon the said visiter may
proceed to make a new appointment, and the said Aldermen again to interrogate and
negative, and so toties quoties until an appointment be approved.
Every boy so appointed shall be authorised to proceed to the grammar school of his
district, there to be educated and boarded during such time as is hereafter limited; and
his quota of the expences of the house together with a compensation to the master or
usher for his tuition, at the rate of twenty dollars by the year, shall be paid by the
Treasurer quarterly on warrant from the Auditors.
A visitation shall be held, for the purpose of probation, annually at the said grammar
school on the last Monday in September, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day,
excluding Sunday, at which one third of the boys sent thither by appointment of the said
overseers, and who shall have been there one year only, shall be discontinued as public
foundationers, being those who, on the most diligent examination and enquiry, shall be
thought to be of the least promising genius and disposition; and of those who shall have
been there two years, all shall be discontinued, save one only the best in genius and
disposition, who shall be at liberty to continue there four years longer on the public
foundation, and shall thence forward be deemed a senior.
The visiters for the districts which, or any part of which, be southward and
westward of James river, as known by that name, or by the names of Fluvanna and
Jacksons river, in every other year, to wit, at the probation meetings held in the years,
distinguished in the Christian computation by odd numbers, and the visiters for all the
other districts at their said meetings to be held in those years, distinguished by even
numbers, after diligent examination and enquiry as before directed, shall chuse one
among the said seniors, of the best learning and most hopeful genius and disposition,
who shall be authorised by them to proceed to William and Mary College, there to be
educated, boarded, and clothed, three years; the expence of which annually shall be paid
by the Treasurer on warrant from the Auditors.
Report, p. 535. Surprisingly, no MS copy of this famous Bill has been found and no
memoranda or scraps of notes such as TJ left respecting other Bills.
The Acts pertaining to the College of William and Mary fell within Pendletons share of the
revision, but, as TJ explained in his Autobiography, We thought that a systematical plan
of general education should be proposed, and I was requested to undertake it. I accordingly
prepared three Bills for the Revisal, proposing three distinct grades of education, reaching all
classes. 1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor. 2. Colleges for a
middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life, and such as would
be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. And 3d. an ultimate grade for teaching
the sciences generally, and in their highest degree (Ford, I, 66). Within a decade after the
work of the Committee of Revisors was begun, TJ regarded the Bill for the More General
Diffusion of Knowledge as the most important one in the Report (TJ to George Wythe, 13
Aug. 1786). The exalted declaration of purpose in the preamble remains one of the classic
statements of the responsibility of the state in matters of education. But what was new and
distinctively Jeffersonian in the Bill was not its advocacy of public education, for in this
respect it in fact envisaged a combined system of public and private education; and, indeed,
public education was already in practice and had been for some generations in the systems
of common schools of New England. But what was new in the Bill and what stamped its
author as a constructive statesman of far-seeing vision was the object of seeking out men of
genius and virtue and of rendering them by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to
guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens. This implied the
establishment of a ruling lite that would promote public happiness by wisely forming and
honestly administering the laws; but, though this never became and possibly could not
become an explicit object of any democratic society, the important thing about TJs Bill was
that those whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue should be called to that
charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance. The Bill
recognized natural gradations and disparities among men; it saw nothing dangerous or
inimical to the liberties of the people in accepting and making use of such a natural
aristocracy of virtue and talent; and its unique and revolutionary feature, never yet put into
practice by any people, was that, in order to permit such a natural aristocracy to flourish
freely, it would remove all economic, social, or other barriers that would interfere with
natures distribution of genius or virtue. (See TJs account of this Bill in Notes on
Virginia, Ford, III, 2515; see also R. J. Honeywell, Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson,
Cambridge, Mass., 1931.) A highly interesting contemporary comment on the Bill is that by
William Wirt: Among other wise and highly patriotic bills which are proposed, there is one
for the more general diffusion of knowledge. After a preamble, in which the importance of
the subject to the republic is most ably and eloquently announced, the bill proposes a simple
and beautiful scheme, whereby science (like justice under the institutions of our Alfred)
would have been carried to every mans door. Genius, instead of having to break its way
through the thick opposing clouds of native obscurity, indigence and ignorance, was to be
sought for through every family in the commonwealth; the sacred spark, wherever it was
detected, was to be tenderly cherished, fed and fanned into a flame; its innate properties
and tendencies were to be developed and examined, and then cautiously and judiciously
invested with all the auxiliary energy and radiance of which its character was susceptible.
What a plan was here to give stability and solid glory to the republic! If you ask me why it
has never been adopted, I answer, that as a foreigner, I can perceive no possible reason for
it, except that the comprehensive views and generous patriotism which produced the bill,
have not prevailed throughout the country, nor presided in the body on whose vote the
adoption of the bill depended. I have new reason to remark it, almost every day, that there
is throughout Virginia, a most deplorable destitution of public spirit, of the noble pride and
love of country. Unless the body of the people can be awakened from this fatal apathy;
unless their thoughts and their feelings can be urged beyond the narrow confines of their
own private affairs; unless they can be strongly inspired with the public zeal, the amor
patri of the ancient republics, the national embellishment, and the national grandeur of this
opulent state, must be reserved for very distant ages (William Wirt, Letters of a British Spy,
10th edn., N.Y., 1832, p. 2312; originally published in 1803).
TJ apparently finished the Bill late in the autumn of 1778, for on 18 Dec. 1778 he wrote
to Pendleton about it (his letter is missing, but see Pendletons reply under date of 11 May
1779). On 15 Dec. 1778 leave was given by the House for the presentation of a Bill for the
more general diffusion of knowledge, and Richard Parker and George Mason were ordered to
prepare it; the Bill was presented by Parker on the next day, whereupon the House
Ordered, That the public printer do forthwith print and forward four copies of the said act to
each county within this Commonwealth (JHD, Oct. 1778, 1827 edn., p. 117, 120). It is very
doubtful whether this order to print the Bill was actually executed; if it was, no copy of it has
been found (see Edmund Pendleton to TJ, 11 May 1779 and notes thereon). The Bill was
again presented on 12 June 1780, but no further action was taken until, on 31 Oct. 1785,
Madison brought it up along with other bills of the Report of the Committee of Revisors. It
was considered by the House 6 Dec., was amended 20 Dec., and on 21 Dec. was actually
passed by the House under a new title, An act, directing the mode of appointing aldermen.
But, on being referred to the Senate, the Bill died (JHD, May 1780, 1827 edn., p. 14, 44;
same, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 1215, 745, 100, 101). Madison reported a year later,
when TJs Bill was again considered, that the system was carefully considered but not
adopted because of the cost involved (Madison to TJ, 4 Dec. 1786; see also Madison to TJ,
22 Jan. 1786).
Madison did not bring in Bill No. 79 with the others reported on 1 Nov. 1786 but it was
brought up two weeks later, and, as Madison reported to TJ, it went through two readings
by a small majority and was not pushed to a third one (Madison to TJ, 15 Feb. 1787; JHD,
Oct. 1786, 1828 edn., p. 44). The plan for establishing public schools was not carried to
completion until 1796 when the Assembly passed an Act to Establish Public Schools
(Shepherd, II, 35) which retained some of the phraseology of TJs Bill, especially that
providing for the election of aldermen. However, the 1796 Act provided only for primary
schools, and the determination of the expediency of establishing such schools was left
entirely to the aldermen of each county, borough, or corporation.


















































NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, QUERY XIV

Page 156
Pardon and privilege of clergy are proposed to be abolished: but if the verdict be against
the defendant, the court in their discretion, may allow a new trial. No attainder to cause a
corruption of blood, or forfeiture of dower. Slaves guilty of offences punishable in others by
labour, to be transported to Africa, or elsewhere, as the circumstance of the time admit, there to
be continued in slavery. A rigorous regimen proposed for those condemned to labour.
Another object of the revisal is, to diffuse knowledge more generally through the mass of
the people. This bill proposes to lay off every county into small districts of five or six miles
square, called hundreds, and in each of them to establish a school for teaching reading, writing,
and arithmetic. The tutor to be supported by the hundred, and every person in it entitled to send
their children three years gratis, and as much longer as they please, paying for it. These
schools to be under a visitor, who is annually to chuse the boy, of best genius in the school, of
those whose parents are too poor to give them further education, and to send him forward to
one of the grammar schools, of which twenty are proposed to be erected in different parts of the
country, for teaching Greek, Latin, geography, and the higher branches of numerical arithmetic.
Of the boys thus sent in any one year, trial is to be made at the grammar schools one or two
years, and the best genius of the whole selected, and continued six years, and the residue
dismissed. By this means twenty of the best geniusses will be raked from the rubbish annually,
and be instructed, at the public expence, so far as the grammar schools go. At the end of six
years instruction, one half are to be discontinued (from among whom the grammar schools will
probably be supplied with future masters); and the other half, who are to be chosen for the
superiority of their parts and disposition, are to be sent and continued three years in the study of
such sciences as they shall chuse, at William and Mary college, the plan of which is proposed to
be enlarged, as will be hereafter explained, and extended to all the useful sciences. The
ultimate result of the whole

Page 157
scheme of education would be the teaching all the children of the state reading, writing and
common arithmetic: turning out ten annually of superior genius, well taught in Greek, Latin,
geography, and the higher branches of arithmetic: turning out ten others annually, of still
superior parts, who, to those branches of learning, shall have added such of the sciences as
their genius shall have led them to: the furnishing to the wealthier part of the people convenient
schools, at which their children may be educated at their own expence.The general objects of
this law are to provide an education adapted to the years, to the capacity, and the condition of
every one, and directed to their freedom and happiness. Specific details were not proper for the
law. These must be the business of the visitors entrusted with its execution. The first stage of
this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will
receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead
therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their
judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored
with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history. The first
elements of morality too may be instilled into their minds; such as, when further developed as
their judgments advance in strength, may teach them how to work out their own greatest
happiness, by shewing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has
placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and
freedom in all just pursuits.Those whom either the wealth of their parents or the adoption of
the state shall destine to higher degrees of learning, will go on to the grammar schools, which
constitute the next stage, there to be instructed in the languages. The learning Greek and Latin,
I am told, is going into disuse in Europe. I know not what their manners and occupations may
call for: but it would be very ill-judged in us to follow their example

Page 158
in this instance. There is a certain period of life, say from eight to fifteen or sixteen years of age,
when the mind, like the body, is not yet firm enough for laborious and close operations. If
applied to such, it falls an early victim to premature exertion; exhibiting indeed at first, in these
young and tender subjects, the flattering appearance of their being men while they are yet
children, but ending in reducing them to be children when they should be men. The memory is
then most susceptible and tenacious of impressions; and the learning of languages being chiefly
a work of memory, it seems precisely fitted to the powers of this period, which is long enough
too for acquiring the most useful languages ancient and modern. I do not pretend that language
is science. It is only an instrument for the attainment of science. But that time is not lost which is
employed in providing tools for future operation: more especially as in this case the books put
into the hands of the youth for this purpose may be such as will at the same time impress their
minds with useful facts and good principles. If this period be suffered to pass in idleness, the
mind becomes lethargic and impotent, as would the body it inhabits if unexercised during the
same time. The sympathy between body and mind during their rise, progress and decline, is too
strict and obvious to endanger our being misled while we reason from the one to the other.As
soon as they are of sufficient age, it is supposed they will be sent on from the grammar schools
to the university, which constitutes our third and last stage, there to study those sciences which
may be adapted to their views.By that part of our plan which prescribes the selection of the
youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to avail the state of those talents
which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use, if
not sought for and cultivated.but of all the views of this law none is more important, none
more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians
of their own liberty. For this purpose

Page 159
the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has
been said, to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to
judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will
qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition
under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. In every government on
earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which
cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve. Every
government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves
therefore are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe their minds must be
improved to a certain degree. This indeed is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially
necessary. An amendment of our constitution must here come in aid of the public education.
The influence over government must be shared among all the people. If every individual which
composes their mass participates of the ultimate authority, the government will be safe;
because the corrupting the whole mass will exceed any private resources of wealth: and public
ones cannot be provided but by levies on the people. In this case every man would have to pay
his own price. The government of Great-Britain has been corrupted, because but one man in
ten has a right to vote for members of parliament. The sellers of the government therefore get
nine-tenths of their price clear. It has been thought that corruption is restrained by confining the
right of suffrage to a few of the wealthier of the people: but it would be more effectually
restrained by an extension of that right to such numbers as would bid defiance to the means of
corruption.
Lastly, it is proposed, by a bill in this revisal, to begin a public library and gallery, by laying
out a certain sum annually in books, paintings, and statues.




From Thomas Jefferson to James Breckenridge, 15
February 1821
Monticello Feb. 15. 21.
Dear Sir
I learn with deep affliction that nothing is likely to be done for our University this year.
so near as it is to the shore that one shove more would land it there, I had hoped that
would be given; and that we should open with the next year an institution on which the
fortunes of our country depend more than may meet the general eye. the reflections that
the boys of this age are to be the men of the next; that they should be prepared to
recieve the holy charge which we are cherishing to deliver over to them; that in
establishing an institution of wisdom for them we secure it to all our future generations;
that in fulfilling this duty we bring home to our own bosoms the sweet consolation of
seeing our sons rising, under a luminous tuition, to destinies of high promise; these are
considerations which will occur to all. but all, I fear, do not see the speck in our horizon
which is to burst , Start insertion,on us, End, as a tornado, sooner or later. the line of
division lately marked out, between different portions of our confederacy, is such as
will never, I fear, be obliterated. and we are now trusting to those who are against us in
position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds & affections of our youth.
if, as has been estimated, we send 300,000.D. a year to the Northern seminaries for the
instruction of our sons, then we must have there at all times 500. of our sons imbibing
opinions and principles in discord with those of their own country. this canker is eating
on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once will be beyond remedy. we are
now certainly furnishing recruits to their school. if it be asked What are we to do? or
said, that we cannot give the last lift to the University without stopping our primary
schools and these we think the most important; I know their importance. no body can
doubt my zeal for the general instruction of the people. who first started that idea? I may
surely say myself. turn to the bill in the revised code which I drew more than 40. years
ago; and before which the idea of a plan for the education of the people generally had
never been suggested in this state. there you will see developed the first rudiments of
the whole system of general education we are now urging and acting on. and it is well
known to those with whom I have acted on this subject, that I never have proposed a
sacrifice of the primary to the ultimate grade of instruction. let us keep our eye steadily
on the whole system. if we cannot do every thing at once, let us do one thing at a time.
the primary schools need no preliminary expence. the ultimate grade requires a
considerable expenditure in advance.) a suspension of proceeding for , Start insertion,a,
End, year or two on the primary schools, and an application of the whole income during
that time, to the completion of the buildings necessary for the University, would enable
us then to start both institutions at the same time. the intermediate branch of colleges,
academies and private classical schools, for the middle grade, may hereafter recieve any
necessary aids when the funds shall have become competent. in the mean time they are
going on sufficiently, as they have ever yet gone on, at the private expence of those who
use them, and who in numbers and means are competent to their own exigencies. the
experience of 3. years has, I presume, left no doubt that the present plan of primary
schools, of putting money into the hands of 1200. persons acting for nothing, and under
no responsibility, is entirely inefficient. some other must be thought of; and during this
pause, if it be only for a year, the whole revenuee of that year, with that of the last 3.
years has not been already thrown away, would place our University in readiness to start
with a better organisation of primary schools, and both may then go on, hand in hand,
for ever. no diminution of the capital will in this way have been incurred; a principle
which ought to be deemed sacred. a relinquishment of interest on the late loan of
60,000.D. would so far also forward the university, without lessening the capital.) But
what may be best done, I leave with entire confidence to yourself and your colleagues in
legislation, who know better than I do the condition of the literary fund, and its wisest
application: and I shall acquiesce with perfect resignation to their will. I have brooded,
perhaps with fondness, over this establishment, as it held up to me the hope of
continuing to be useful while I continue to live. I had believed that the course and
circumstances of my life had placed within my power some services favorable to the
out-set of the institution. but this may be egoism; pardonable perhaps when I express a
consciousness that my colleagues and successors will do as well, whatever the
legislature shall enable them to do.
I have thus, my dear Sir, opened my bosom, with all its anxieties, freely to you. I blame
nobody, for seeing things in a different light. I am sure all act conscientiously, and that
all will be done honestly and wisely which can be done. I yield the concerns of the
world with cheerfulness to those who are appointed in the order of nature to succeed to
them: and for yourself, for our colleagues, and for all in charge of our countrys future
fame and fortune, I offer up sincere prayers.
TH: JEFFERSON







































The earth belongs to the living





























To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 6
September 1789
From Thomas Jefferson
PARIS September 6. 1789.
DEAR SIR
I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I
do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more
than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches.1
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems
never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of
such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental
principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here
on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; & that
no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this
ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the
living: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by
any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, & reverts to the society. If the
society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be
taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife & children of the
decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife
and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may
give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural
right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, & to which they are
subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons
who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if
he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several
generations to come, & then the lands would belong to the dead, & not to the living,
which would be the reverse of our principle.
What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all
collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of
the individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us
suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on
the same day, & to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment
of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, &
their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of
mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive
generation would, in this way, come on, and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as
individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during
its course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts
& incumbrances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. & so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead & not the living generation. Then no
generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own
existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves & their lands for 34. years to
come: at 22. for 33: at 23. for 32. and at 54. for one year only; because these are the
terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a material difference
must be noted between the succession of an individual, & that of a whole generation.
Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of the whole. These laws may
appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any
other, or to his child on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation,
that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation
or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their
territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their
faculties of paying.
What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on the same day, &
dying all on the same day, is true of those in a constant course of decay & renewal, with
this only difference. A generation coming in & going out entire, as in the first case,
would have a right in the 1st. year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33. years,
in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths & births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their
contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The
length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the
circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors.
Take, for instance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states 23,994 deaths, & the
ages at which they happened.2Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born
every year, & live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be
as follows. 1st. It will consist constantly of 617,703. persons of all ages. 2ly. Of those
living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly.
10,675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 4ly. It will constantly
have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. And the half of those of 21. years
& upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say
19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which
neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can
validly extend a debt.3
To render this conclusion palpaple by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV.
had contracted debts in the name of the French nation to the amount of 10,000 milliards
of livres, & that the whole had been contracted in Genoa.4 The interest of this sum
would be 500. milliards, which is said to be the whole rent roll or nett proceeds of the
territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in
which nature produced them, & ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the
same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations
had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then
and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors.
Again suppose Louis XV. & his cotemporary generation had said to the money-
lenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, & be merry in our day; and on
condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19.5 years you shall then for ever
after receive an annual interest of *12 per cent.6 The money is lent on these
conditions, is divided among the living, eaten, drank, & squandered. Would the present
generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth & of their labour to replace their
dissipations? Not at all.
I suppose that the recieved opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve
on the next, has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who
succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator: without
considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral; flowing from the will of
the society, which has found it convenient to appropriate lands, become vacant by the
death of their occupant, on the condition of a paiment of his debts: but that between
society & society, or generation & generation, there is no municipal obligation, no
umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have percieved that, by the law of nature,
one generation is to another as one independant nation to another.7
The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandth part of
its rent roll, the paiment of it is practicable enough: & so becomes a question merely of
honor, or of expediency. But with respect to future debts, would it not be wise & just for
that nation to declare, in the constitution they are forming, that neither the legislature,
nor the nation itself, can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own
age, or within the term of 19. years? and that all future contracts will be deemed void as
to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19. years from their date? This would put the
lenders, & the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing
within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has
been procured by the inattention of money-lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding
generations are not responsible for the preceding.
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.
They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their
usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them
as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The
constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course,
with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself,
& no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19
years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the
succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as
if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place,
this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is
not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly
contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without
impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their
representation is unequal & vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative
proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts
them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents:
and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited
duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.
This principle that the earth belongs to the living, & not to the dead, is of very
extensive application & consequences, in every country, and most especially in France.
It enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent
of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given
antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, & otherwise in
perpetuity? Whether they may abolish the charges & privileges attached on lands,
including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical & feudal? It goes to hereditary offices,
authorities & jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions & appellations; to perpetual
monopolies in commerce, the arts & sciences; with a long train of et ceteras: and it
renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity & not of right. In all
these cases, the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations &
establishments for their own time, but no longer; & the present holders, even where
they, or their ancestors, have purchased, are in the case of bon fide purchasers of what
the seller had no right to convey.
Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir, & particularly as to the power of
contracting debts; & develope it with that perspicuity & cogent logic so peculiarly
yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity of producing
it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be rallied, as
a theoretical speculation: but examination will prove it to be solid & salutary. It would
furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue;
& it will exclude at the threshold of our government the contagious & ruinous errors of
this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means, not sanctioned by
nature, for binding in chains their fellow men. We have already given in example one
effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose8 from
the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to
pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held out by us also in the first
instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts
so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with
ease, principal & interest, within the time of our own lives.9 Establish the principle also
in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights & new inventions, by securing the
exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years. Besides familiarising us to this term, it will
be an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide, instead of English precedent,
the habit of which fetters us with all the political heresies of a nation equally
remarkeable for its early excitement from some errors, and long slumbering under
others.
I write you no news, because, when an occasion occurs, I shall write a separate letter
for that. I am always with great & sincere esteem, dear Sir Your affectionate friend &
servt
TH: JEFFERSON
RC (DLC); FC, Tr (DLC: Jefferson Papers); FC of draft, FC of Tr (DLC: Jefferson Papers).
The RC is the revised text enclosed in Jefferson to JM, 9 Jan. 1790. All other copies follow
the RC, except for the FC of draft, which is the earliest extant version of the letter. The FC of
draft is a press copy of a draft (now missing) of the letter Jefferson gave to Richard Gem
(Jefferson to Gem, 9 Sept. 1789, Boyd, Papers of Jefferson, XV, 39899). In writing this
draft Jefferson copied from a still earlier text, now missing (see n. 3, below, and ibid., XV,
389). Important differences between the RC and the FC of draft are noted below.
1. For the background of this celebrated letter, see the editorial note, ibid., XV, 38491.
See also the discussion in Koch, Jefferson and Madison, pp. 6296. Since Jefferson delayed
sending the letter, JM did not reply until 4 Feb. 1790 (Boyd,Papers of Jefferson, XVI, 147
50).
2. Buffon, Histoire naturelle, gnrale et particulire (17501804 ed.), IV, 385418.
3. In the FC of draft the preceding paragraph reads: What is true of generations
succeeding one another at fixed epochs, as has been supposed for clearer conception, is true
for those renewed daily as in the actual course of nature. As a majority of the contracting
generation will continue in being 34. years, and a new majority will then come into
possession, the former may extend their engagements to that term, and no longer. The
conclusion then is that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself
assembled can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time, that is to
say, within 34. years from the date of the engagement. At this point Jefferson deleted three
lines, having mistakenly begun to copy this paragraph over. This error proves that he was
copying from an earlier text. As Jefferson explained to Gem, this paragraph failed to take
account of the difference between generations succeeding each other at fixed epochs, and
generations renewed daily and hourly (Boyd, Papers of Jefferson, XV, 39899). Using
Buffons mortality tables, he revised his calculations and altered the paragraph to read as in
the RC.
4. Here and in the next paragraph, Jefferson wrote Holland and Dutch in theFC of
draft instead of Genoa and Genoese.
5. Here and below Jefferson wrote 34 in the FC of draft instead of 19.
6. FC of draft reads 15. per cent and does not have a footnote.
7. This sentence is not in the FC of draft.
8. FC of draft reads the power of declaring war.
9. In the FC of draft this sentence concludes: principal & interest, by the measures you
have taken, within the time of our own lives. The remainder of the paragraph is not in
the FC of draft.
Authorial notes
[The following note(s) appeared in the margins or otherwise outside the text flow in the original source, and
have been moved here for purposes of the digital edition.]
* 100 , at a compound interest of 5. per cent, makes, at the end of 19. years, an
aggregate of principal & interest of 25214, the interest of which is 12 12s7d. which is
nearly 12 per cent on the first capital of 100. .


















































To Samuel Kercheval Monticello, July
12, 1816
SIR,
-- I duly received your favor of June the 13th, with the copy of the
letters on the calling a convention, on which you are pleased to ask
my opinion. I have not been in the habit of mysterious reserve on any
subject, nor of buttoning up my opinions within my own doublet. On
the contrary, while in public service especially, I thought the public
entitled to frankness, and intimately to know whom they employed.
But I am now retired: I resign myself, as a passenger, with confidence
to those at present at the helm, and ask but for rest, peace and good
will. The question you propose, on equal representation, has become a
party one, in which I wish to take no public share. Yet, if it be asked for your own
satisfaction only, and not to be quoted before the public, I have no motive to withhold it, and
the less from you, as it coincides with your own. At the birth of our republic, I committed
that opinion to the world, in the draught of a constitution annexed to the "Notes on Virginia,"
in which a provision was inserted for a representation permanently equal. The infancy of the
subject at that moment, and our inexperience of self-government, occasioned gross
departures in that draught from genuine republican canons. In truth, the abuses of
monarchy had so much filled all the space of political contemplation, that we imagined
everything republican which was not monarchy. We had not yet penetrated to the mother
principle, that "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of
their people, and execute it." Hence, our first constitutions had really no leading principles in
them. But experience and reflection have but more and more confirmed me in the particular
importance of the equal representation then proposed. On that point, then, I am entirely in
sentiment with your letters; and only lament that a copy-right of your pamphlet prevents
their appearance in the newspapers, where alone they would be generally read, and produce
general effect. The present vacancy too, of other matter, would give them place in every
paper, and bring the question home to every man's conscience.
But inequality of representation in both Houses of our legislature, is not the only republican
heresy in this first essay of our revolutionary patriots at forming a constitution. For let it be
agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his
equal voice in the direction of its concerns (not indeed in person, which would be
impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or small township, but) by representatives chosen
by himself, and responsible to him at short periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon
every branch of our constitution.
In the legislature, the House of Representatives is chosen by less than half the people, and
not at all in proportion to those who do choose. The Senate are still more disproportionate,
and for long terms of irresponsibility. In the Executive, the Governor is entirely independent
of the choice of the people, and of their control; his Council equally so, and at best but a fifth
wheel to a wagon. In the Judiciary, the judges of the highest courts are dependent on none
but themselves. In England, where judges were named and removable at the will of an
hereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared, and has flowed, it was a
great point gained, by fixing them for life, to make them independent of that executive. But
in a government founded on the public will, this principle operates in an opposite direction,
and against that will. There, too, they were still removable on a concurrence of the executive
and legislative branches. But we have made them independent of the nation itself. They are
irremovable, but by their own body, for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own
body for the imbecilities of dotage. The justices of the inferior courts are self-chosen, are for
life, and perpetuate their own body in succession forever, so that a faction once possessing
themselves of the bench of a county, can never be broken up, but hold their county in
chains, forever indissoluble. Yet these justices are the real executive as well as judiciary, in
all our minor and most ordinary concerns. They tax us at will; fill the office of sheriff, the
most important of all the executive officers of the county; name nearly all our military
leaders, which leaders, once named, are removable but by themselves. The juries, our
judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it, are not selected by the people, nor
amenable to them. They are chosen by an officer named by the court and executive. Chosen,
did I say? Picked up by the sheriff from the loungings of the court yard, after everything
respectable has retired from it. Where then is our republicanism to be found? Not in our
constitution certainly, but merely in the spirit of our people. That would oblige even a despot
to govern us republicanly. Owing to this spirit, and to nothing in the form of our constitution,
all things have gone well. But this fact, so triumphantly misquoted by the enemies of
reformation, is not the fruit of our constitution, but has prevailed in spite of it. Our
functionaries have done well, because generally honest men. If any were not so, they feared
to show it.
But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I do not think their
amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them
inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the
croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people. If experience be called for, appeal
to that of our fifteen or twenty governments for forty years, and show me where the people
have done half the mischief in these forty years, that a single despot would have done in a
single year; or show half the riots and rebellions, the crimes and the punishments, which
have taken place in any single nation, under kingly government, during the same period. The
true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person
and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our
constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your legislature to
a convenient number for full, but orderly discussion. Let every man who fights or pays,
exercise his just and equal right in their election. Submit them to approbation or rejection at
short intervals. Let the executive be chosen in the same way, and for the same term, by
those whose agent he is to be; and leave no screen of a council behind which to skulk from
responsibility. It has been thought that the people are not competent electors of
judgeslearned in the law. But I do not know that this is true, and, if doubtful, we should
follow principle. In this, as in many other elections, they would be guided by reputation,
which would not err oftener, perhaps, than the present mode of appointment. In one State of
the Union, at least, it has long been tried, and with the most satisfactory success. The judges
of Connecticut have been chosen by the people every six months, for nearly two centuries,
and I believe there has hardly ever been an instance of change; so powerful is the curb of
incessant responsibility. If prejudice, however, derived from a monarchical institution, is still
to prevail against the vital elective principle of our own, and if the existing example among
ourselves of periodical election of judges by the people be still mistrusted, let us at least not
adopt the evil, and reject the good, of the English precedent; let us retain amovability on the
concurrence of the executive and legislative branches, and nomination by the executive
alone. Nomination to office is an executive function. To give it to the legislature, as we do, is
a violation of the principle of the separation of powers. It swerves the members from
correctness, by temptations to intrigue for office themselves, and to a corrupt barter of
votes; and destroys responsibility by dividing it among a multitude. By leaving nomination in
its proper place, among executive functions, the principle of the distribution of power is
preserved, and responsibility weighs with its heaviest force on a single head.
The organization of our county administrations may be thought more difficult. But follow
principle, and the knot unties itself. Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every
citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of
their wards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen by themselves,
in each, a constable, a military company, a patrol, a school, the care of their own poor, their
own portion of the public roads, the choice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and
the delivery, within their own wards, of their own votes for all elective officers of higher
sphere, will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better
done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices
nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the
independence of his country, and its republican constitution. The justices thus chosen by
every ward, would constitute the county court, would do its judiciary business, direct roads
and bridges, levy county and poor rates, and administer all the matters of common interest
to the whole country. These wards, called townships in New England, are the vital principle
of their governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by the
wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government, and for its preservation. We should
thus marshal our government into, 1, the general federal republic, for all concerns foreign
and federal; 2, that of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3, the
county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4, the ward republics, for
the small, and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in
government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of
duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole
is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public
affairs.
The sum of these amendments is,
1. General Suffrage.
2. Equal representation in the legislature.
3. An executive chosen by the people.
4. Judges elective or amovable.
5. Justices, jurors, and sheriffs elective.
6. Ward divisions. And
7. Periodical amendments of the constitution.
I have thrown out these as loose heads of amendment, for consideration and correction; and
their object is to secure self-government by the republicanism 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, orprofusion and servitude. If we run
into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries
and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the
people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the
twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily
expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now
do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to
account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the
necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and
stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander,
like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory
of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are
destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human
governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second;
that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere
automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then
begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so
general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train
wretchedness and oppression.
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of
the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a
wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew
that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was
very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of
experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say
themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and
untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be
borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find
practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must
go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed,
more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and
opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep
pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him
when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous
ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their
monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring
progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses,
entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through
blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the
peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into
acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one
generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own
affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience,
to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-
meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated
periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of
mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about
nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in
other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as
that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the
form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to
accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its
predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of
doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it
may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of
time, if anything human can so long endure. It is now forty years since the constitution of
Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds of the
adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish,
the right to hold in obedience to their will, and to laws heretofore made by them, the other
two-thirds, who, with themselves, compose the present mass of adults? If they have not,
who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own
something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident. This corporeal globe, and
everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation. They
alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law
of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority,
then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution
what they think will be the best for themselves. But how collect their voice? This is the real
difficulty. If invited by private authority, or county or district meetings, these divisions are so
large that few will attend; and their voice will be imperfectly, or falsely pronounced. Here,
then, would be one of the advantages of the ward divisions I have proposed. The mayor of
every ward, on a question like the present, would call his ward together, take the simple yea
or nay of its members, convey these to the county court, who would hand on those of all its
wards to the proper general authority; and the voice of the whole people would be thus
fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of the
society. If this avenue be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that
of force, and we shall go on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression,
rebellion, reformation; and oppression, rebellion, reformation, again; and so on forever.
These, Sir, are my opinions of the governments we see among men, and of the principles by
which alone we may prevent our own from falling into the same dreadful track. I have given
them at greater length than your letter called for. But I cannot say things by halves; and I
confide them to your honor, so to use them as to preserve me from the gridiron of the public
papers. If you shall approve and enforce them, as you have done that of equal
representation, they may do some good. If not, keep them to yourself as the effusions of
withered age and useless time.
I shall, with not the less truth, assure you of my great respect and consideration.












III. First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801
III. First Inaugural Address
Friends & Fellow Citizens,
Called upon to undertake the duties of the first Executive office of our country, I
avail myself of the presence of that portion of my fellow citizens which is here
assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been
pleased to look towards me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my
talents, and that I approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments which the
greatness of the charge, and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising
nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich
productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and
forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye; when I
contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honour, the happiness, and the
hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of this day, I
shrink from the contemplation & humble myself before the magnitude of the
undertaking. Utterly indeed should I despair, did not the presence of many, whom I here
see, remind me, that, in the other high authorities provided by our constitution, I shall
find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal, on which to rely under all difficulties.
To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation,
and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidanceand
support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all
embarked, amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world.
During the contest of opinion through which we have past, the animation of
discusions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on
strangers unused to think freely, and to speak and to write what they think; but this
being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the
constitution all will of course arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in
common efforts for the common good. All too will bear in mind this sacred principle,
that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful,
must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must
protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one
heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection
without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that
having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long
bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as
despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes
and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonising spasms of infuriated man,
seeking through blood and slaughter his long lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the
agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this
should be more felt and feared by some and less by others; and should divide opinions
as to measures of safety; but every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all
republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve
this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments
of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to
combat it. I know indeed that some honest men fear that a republican government
cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But would the honest
patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far
kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear, that this government, the
worlds best hope, may, by possibility, want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I
believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only
one, where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and
would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern.Sometimes it is
said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted
with the government of others? Or have we found angels, in the form of kings, to
govern him? Let history answer this question.
Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican
principles; our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by
nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too
high minded to endure the degradations of the others, possessing a chosen country, with
room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation,
entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the
acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow citizens,
resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them, enlightened by a
benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various forms, yet all of them
inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and the love of man, acknowledging
and adoring an overruling providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it
delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness hereafter; with all these
blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still
one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits
of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has
earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of
our felicities.
About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend every
thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the
essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its
administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear,
stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.Equal and exact justice to all
men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political:peace, commerce, and
honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none:the support of the
state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our
domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies:the
preservation of the General government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet
anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad: a jealous care of the right of election by
the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of
revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided:absolute acquiescence in the
decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to
force, the vital principle and immediate parent of the despotism:a well disciplined
militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may
relieve them:the supremacy of the civil over the military authority:economy in the
public expence, that labor may be lightly burthened:the honest payment of our debts
and sacred preservation of the public faith:encouragement of agriculture, and of
commerce as its handmaid:the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses
at the bar of the public reason:freedom of religion; freedom of the press; and freedom
of person, under the protection of the Habeas Corpus:and trial by juries impartially
selected. These principles form the bright constellation, which has gone before us and
guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our
sages, and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment:they should be
the creed of our political faith; the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to
try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error
or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to
peace, liberty and safety.
I repair then, fellow citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience
enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I
have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this
station with the reputation, and the favor, which bring him into it. Without pretensions
to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character,
whose pre-eminent services had entitled him to the first place in his countrys love, and
destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much
confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your
affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be
thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground.
I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and your
support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in
all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage, is a great consolation to me for
the past; and my future solicitude will be, to retain the good opinion of those who have
bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my
power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.
Relying then on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the
work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choices it
is in your power to make. And may that infinite power, which rules the destinies of the
universe, lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your
peace and prosperity.
Printed in the National Intelligencer, 4 Mch. 1801; at head of text: Presidents Speech
this day At 12 oclock, THOMAS JEFFERSON, President of the United States, Took the oath of
office required by the Constitution, in the Senate Chamber, in the presence of the Senate,
the members of the House of Representatives, the public officers, and a large concourse of
citizens. Previously to which he delivered the following Address: (this version in DLC: TJ
Papers, 110:18838).
























From Thomas Jefferson to Roger Chew
Weightman, 24 June 1826
Monticello June 24. 26
Respected Sir
The kind invitation I recieve from you on the part of the citizens of the city of
Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the 50
th
anniversary of
American independance; as one of the surviving signers of an instrument, pregnant with
our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the
honorable accompaniment proposal for the comfort of such a journey. it adds sensibly
to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the
rejoicings of that day. but acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed
among those we are permitted to controul. I should indeed, with peculiar delight, have
met and exchanged there, congratulations personally, with the small band, the remnant
of that host of worthies, who joined with us, on that day, in the bold and doubtful
election we were to make, for our country, between submission, or the sword; and to
have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact that our fellow citizens, after half a century
of experience and prosperity, continue to approve , Start insertion,the, End, choice we
made. may it be to the world what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others
later, but finally to all.) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which
Monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to
assume the blessings & security of self government. the, Start insertion,form,
End, which we have substituted restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of
reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man. the
general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable
truth that the mass of mankind has not been born, with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god.
these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves let the annual return of this day, for
ever refresh our recollections of these rights and an undiminished devotion to them.
I will ask permission here to address the pleasure with which I should have met my
ancient neighbors of the City of Washington and of its vicinities, with whom I passed
so many years of a pleasing social intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved
the anxieties of the public cares, and left impressions so , Start insertion,deeply,
End, engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. with my regret that ill health
forbids me the gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to recieve for yourself and
those for whom you write the assurance of my highest respect and friendly attachments.
TH: JEFFERSON
DLC: Papers of Thomas Jefferson.