Thomas Jefferson as Inscrutable President - Research Paper Example

Pourmohammadi Prof. Nick Morgan Government 2302 15 March Thomas Jefferson as Inscrutable President Thomas Jefferson is undoubtedly one of the most complex and least understood men to have ever held the highest office of this land. Probably due to his sheer brilliance, he defies easy classification. Even in an age of intellectual ferment and bold initiatives, he stands apart from his peers. While he is perhaps best remembered as the third president, some of his achievements before and after his two term incumbency overshadow his works during those eight momentous years. This paper seeks to examine some of Jefferson’s landmark legacy, both as it pertains to his presidency and his overall status as a first rate political philosopher and interpreter of history, both from the classical ages and in his own time. My research indicates that he was endowed with high intelligence and vision, but that this may have actually handicapped him as an effective executive in action Several authors were consulted to assist my methodology. Joyce Appleby contends that Jefferson presents the largest challenge to historians, and notes that there is a major difference between the lofty phrases of his” Declaration of Independence” and the harsh reality of his status as a slaveowner until just prior to his death. Kevin Hayes holds that Jefferson always linked life with liberty, but also that he linked religious and political tyranny, and sought to eliminate both as the essential foundation for democracy. Joseph Ellis elaborates on this theme, and supports Hayes when he claims that Jefferson saw freedom as a bulwark against unwanted encroachments from either church or state. How well Jefferson succeeded in these endeavors of course still forms the nucleus of scholarship about him to the present day. The man at the eye of this storm of complex interpretation was nothing if not well educated as he set out on the road of life. Always devoted to the Greek and Latin classics, he showed an early aptitude for science of all kinds and literature. He attended the still highly regarded College of William and Mary in Virginia (Hayes 43). He later became a member of Virginia’s House of Burgesses (the colonial legislature). He then held a gubernatorial position, but was not too successful at it, indicating a deficiency that would haunt him years later as the third president (Hayes 102-106). Indeed, this pattern of hesitation and indecision forms one of the salient features of his entire life. Jefferson’s authorship of the “Declaration of Independence” in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776 needs no introduction, but somewhat later he was also the Minister to France around 1785, succeeding the equally illustrious Benjamin Franklin in that capacity (Hayes 293). Like Franklin, Jefferson was popular around Paris and absorbed much of the revolutionary sentiment then brewing in that troubled time. Himself receptive to British empiricist theory as espoused by Locke and others, which he had incorporated in his own 1776 document, Jefferson began to entertain a decidedly anti-monarchical world view. The earth shaking events in France between 1789 and 1795 profoundly influenced his own future education as they might apply to the young American context. Jefferson had been tapped by Washington as the first Secretary of State in 1789. He soon found himself caught in ideological debate with Alexander Hamilton of New York, the brilliant and gifted Secretary of the Treasury and leading thinker of the Federalist Party, opposed to many tenets of Jefferson’s own Democratic-Republican Party. This conflict, despite Washington’s attempts to remain neutral, caused Jefferson to resign at the end of 1793. Hamilton, as is well known, favored a strong federal union, while Jefferson’s party was always partial to the concept of the rights of the individual states. Jefferson also had a different view of America’s future, foreseeing an agrarian society of small towns. Again, Hamilton’s version proved more accurate, as he predicted mass industrialization and large cities under a cohesive federal republic. Jefferson re-entered electoral politics in 1796, as Washington declined to run for a third term. John Adams of Massachusetts was elected president, with Jefferson settling for the job of vice-president. This placed him in the unenviable position of being a member of the opposition party, as Adams, like Washington and Hamilton, was a Federalist. Whatever Jefferson’s private views, there is every indication that he served his chief as a capable second-in-command during those years. The notable exception was his opposition to the repressive Alien and Sedition laws, enacted under Adams with a decided bias against potential subversives. Here again we see a clear demonstration of Jefferson’s faith in essential civil and human rights. Jefferson finally attained the presidency in the election of 1800. He obviously wanted to attempt a conciliatory gesture toward disgruntled Federalists, a party soon to go out of business. He had never liked personality issues, and his disdain for Federalist policies never carried over to attacks on, for example, Hamilton or Adams. This professionalism was not reciprocated by these two men, and Jefferson was the repeated target of personal vilification (Ellis 253). Jefferson’s presidency was dominated by two landmark events, one happening in his first term, the other occurring in his second. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803, by any standards, must count as the greatest real estate deal in history. With a stroke of the pen and fortuitous timing, Jefferson’s ministers to France nearly doubled the size of the United States, adding many virgin lands to the young country and pointing the way toward the popular phrase “Manifest Destiny” so familiar to later generations of Americans. It is indeed fortunate that Napoleon Bonaparte was preoccupied with his own continental squabbles and his need for money in Europe, and looked on this vast tract in middle North America as basically worthless. Shortly after concluding the transaction, Jefferson dispatched Lewis and Clark to explore and chart the new territory. They traversed what is now the Pacific Northwest, making many great discoveries en route. Back in Washington, Jefferson’s insatiable thirst for new knowledge in geography and as a naturalist was quenched. It now seemed inevitable America would stretch from sea to sea, and all this new land was acquired not at swordpoint--as so often in history--but by adroit diplomacy and shrewd timing. The other conspicuous feature of his presidential years did not have such a pleasant ending. This was the Embargo Act of 1807, which Jefferson hoped would avert possible future war with either France or Britain. It bottled up trade in American ports, and had a disastrous effect on New England manufacturing in particular. The United States was being slowly lured into a conflict long in the making. The failed Embargo policies were the first recorded depression or recession in American economic history, and they certainly contributed to discomfort throughout 1808. Jefferson left office under a cloud in early 1809. The war he had sought to avoid came anyway in 1812, and it was left to James Madison, Jefferson’s protégé and fellow Virginian, to cope with this negative legacy with rather inconsequential results. Jefferson retired to his beloved Monticello, looking forward to an existence of peace and rich educational activity. His next major project was one very dear to him, but on a more private level—the founding of the University of Virginia. This great institution, commenced between 1819 and 1825, was the culmination of a dream long held by Jefferson. His own considerable talents as an architect were called upon at Charlottesville. Enlarging upon what he had already built at Monticello, he envisioned a classical academic village with Greco-Roman orders, combined with a curriculum that would reflect his own grounding in antiquity. This institution is still admired throughout America and the world for its adherence to these classical ideals at a time when a watered down curriculum is threatening to undermine many American universities. Jefferson had clearly once again struck a blow for civil and intellectual rights by revival of the classical standard, even in a rapidly changing new America. Jefferson lived on until 1826, dying peacefully at Monticello, ironically on the same day as John Adams! Jefferson’s legacy on the question of universal civil rights is not easy to critically assess. While he discussed the subject extensively in his famous public writings and private letters, he was always somehow abstracted from his immediate subject matter, at least in purely human terms. His perspective was that of the detached theoretician, not that of the proverbial man in the street. He was seen as the ultimate enigma . He was apparently comfortable with contradictions(Ellis 299-301) as for example his oft-quoted remark “a little revolution, now and then, is a good thing”. Obviously, no one wants a revolution in permanence, but Jefferson was content with a certain measure of turmoil and even violence to press a reform agenda if it meant the advancement of freedom and human rights. And yet, it is also apparent that he was hostile to unchecked government growth at the expense of democracy. How best to reconcile the two? Jefferson himself never really did. While the aforementioned Louisiana Purchase contributed to the westward expansion of America, it must have irked Jefferson to contemplate further federal power transfer against essential state’s rights. In this, he shares a surprising connection to recent right-wing and libertarian impulses against just such federal expansion. This in turn leads to the “Jefferson paradox” of conflicting forces and political impulses coursing through his mind simultaneously. This could be interpreted as a basic Jeffersonian flaw, and perhaps impacted his eight year presidency and decision-making ability. Jefferson was utterly obsessed with the concept of freedom of the mind. His own relentless intellect led him into almost every aspect of human inquiry. He possessed much intellectual capital, and could phrase himself in ways no other chief executive could, but in the end, he nonetheless was a child of his time. Like another intellectual president (Kennedy), Jefferson could not rise above his own time and surroundings. As with Kennedy, who could not divorce himself from Cold War clichés--such as the alleged “domino effect” in Communist expansion—Jefferson could not quite reconcile his universal rights theses with awkward facts of his personal life. Chief among these, of course, was his ownership of human slaves, only freed at the time of his death. This is not to suggest that he was an unbridled hypocrite, merely to note that he was supremely human. Another conspicuous aspect of Jefferson was his general inability to function as a true commanding executive. In this, he suffers by comparison with those who were, such as Washington, Lincoln and the two Roosevelts. As a presidential model, he leaves much to be desired, and may have been more effective as an author on civil and human rights than as an enforcer of them. Thomas Paine, for example, never held American elective office but did much more to move the colonials toward a break with the mother country than did some of the prominent politicians of the time. Quite possibly Jefferson should be included in the abstracted intelligentsia category rather than as a “hands on “ executive exemplar. As with King John, Jefferson revealed an aristocratic bias toward his audience, the chief difference being that while John was forced to sign “Magna Carta” against his will, Jefferson was fully committed to both liberty and the process of change. However, when seen against the backdrop of history, Jefferson’s landmark 1776 document was really no more democratic than the 1215 charter had been. There were new liberties, to be sure, but only for privileged classes of people. This ambiguity has placed Jefferson’s writings in a restricted category, leaving them open to new revisionist interpretations. Jefferson has therefore to be interpreted in a different way than previous generations of scholars had assessed him. He cannot be seen as, for example, an American William Wallace or “Braveheart” because he certainly lacked the common touch. Nor can he be seen as an American Mohandas K. Gandhi or an earlier version of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These were charismatic leaders who in their times and countries helped to make vital the yearnings of ordinary people for freedom and dignity. Even though they did not hold elective office (as Jefferson did), they still were the focus of immense social and cultural change for their followers. Jefferson stands as an altogether different kind of democratic leader. If he was alive today, he might be described as a “limousine liberal”. That is, he had intuitive sympathy for the common people, but his own fortunate circumstances still precluded him from really relating to their quiet sufferings. His detached perspective therefore kept him from anchoring himself at the socioeconomic level, and he could only in a sense talk over their heads on a high ideological plane. Privately, Jefferson almost defies classification. He certainly lacks the robust simplicity of Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt. Because of his multifaceted intellect, he shares much more in common with Woodrow Wilson or John F. Kennedy. Like them, he attracts us today chiefly for his formal cerebral qualities, but he was much more complex than they were. Clearly, Jefferson was more stable than Wilson. The First World War president was often shrilly idealistic, as for example in his solemn insistence on the “Fourteen Points” at the Versailles conference held at the conclusion of that tragic conflict. Although not theoretically dedicated, as was Wilson, Jefferson still lacked Kennedy’s sense of fatalism in moments of high drama, as for example the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Then again, Jefferson never had to confront the very real possibility that civilization as it was then understood might have come to an end, as Kennedy did. Jefferson’s version of “realpolitik” was thus obviously very different from not only Kennedy’s, but from almost any other chief executive one would care to name. Perhaps his finest practical moment came with the momentous Louisiana Purchase of 1803, where he at least revealed himself (through his ministers) as a first rate negotiator. His greatest gift in the realm of civil and human rights was his writing of visionary documents and his memorable, oft-quoted sayings, some of which have been literally chiseled on the walls of his Memorial in Washington. When he equates the Almighty with the quest for religious and political liberty, he illustrates the preoccupation with Deism in his time. This rather rationalist view of theology depicts God as a remote and indifferent watchmaker, not the familiar presence so often communicated through conventional Scripture. Jefferson here reveals himself as a supreme child of the Enlightenment, preferring to rely on man’s own efforts to promote himself, not on any intervention through divine Providence. Jefferson’s inspiration to put his trust in the people comes from the Greek word for them, “demos”. Always a foe of despotism, he was receptive to notions of radicalism in his opposition to tyranny in public affairs. His inherent liberalism (in the modern sense) reveals itself here. If he was a Utopian in some ways, he was tempered in others. His commitment to religious and political liberty naturally led to intellectual freedom, arguably his greatest passion. With the individual off on a sound footing through a classically grounded education—as seen in his core curriculum for the University of Virginia—he would make a well-trained citizen in the future, capable of rational decisions in all aspects of life—political, social and economic. Jefferson thus clearly saw himself as a cultural custodian in addition to his many other roles. His willingness to experiment with different forms of social change stands in sharp contrast to his ideological opposite number, Hamilton, as well as the Englishman Edmund Burke. Both Hamilton and Burke were quite terrified by the forces unleashed by the French Revolution. Jefferson welcomed them, and indeed almost seemed to delight in them, at least until the situation got out of control in its later phases—as with the Reign of Terror. Jefferson could tolerate some disorder as long as it served the ulterior purpose of justice and egalitarianism. Many of his contemporaries clearly could not. They instead identified with the status quo of entrenched power and class favoritism. This alone casts Jefferson as a bold personality. If Jefferson is actually an “American Sphinx”-- as one work consulted for this paper describes him-- then it is due to his own complex personality. He is simply one of the most ambiguous public figures to ever be present on the American stage and to offer himself for appraisal. The passage of nearly two centuries since his death has not rendered him any easier to understand, nor is this uncertainty about him likely to be clarified anytime soon. In summary, the sage of Monticello must be considered among the foremost thinkers and articulators of human and civil rights, but from a rarefied and local Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Century perspective. It is true that the lofty phrases of his 1776 document bear favorable comparison with some of the great charters of change across history—such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights—but only if seen from the new perspective of Jefferson as a somewhat elitist theoretician, not as a true champion of the masses at their own level. Jefferson no doubt deserves his Memorial in Washington and his gigantic portrait bust on Mount Rushmore , but he will always be seen as he in fact was—enigmatic and inscrutable, not as an unimpeachable and straightforward hero. Works Cited Appleby, Joyce. Thomas Jefferson. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2003. Print. Ellis, Joseph J. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1998. Print. Hayes, Kevin J. The Road to Monticello: The Life and Mind of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Oxford U.P., 2008. Print. Read More