Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two political figures whose contrasting opinions about the United States politics and economy significantly affected Americas path of development. This division created a dual system the remnants of which exist to this day. The two men saw a very different future for the country based on the duties and powers of the federal and local governments. As a result, their influence on the industries and policies also varied.
Main body
Hamilton envisioned the U.S. under the guidance of a strong federal government that can interfere in and manage the economy of the country, believing that the concept of a single united nation is more important than the independence of its states (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Thus, he thought that a powerful central authority that could decide to support specific industries and improve local trade with import tariffs would create a stronger country. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that states should have more power, leaving the central government virtually devoid of any major responsibilities. His focus on local governments, economies, and militaries was rooted in the notion that the needs of people in various states cannot be the same (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Thus, state laws should be able to accommodate specific needs as opposed to having one source of authority that leads the whole nation.
These views of political power also impacted the mens economic philosophies. It should be noted that Hamiltons supporters were of urban origin, while Jeffersons followers mostly came from rural regions (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Therefore, it was beneficial for merchants and manufacturers to have local industries that were controlled and supported by the government. Hamilton believed that commerce in the U.S. would become stronger if local goods were favored by customers, while imported products would be disregarded. Thus, he introduced the idea of having additional tariffs for imports, driving the local industry forward (Bakija et al. 4). As a contrast, Jeffersons views were inspired by farmers who sold their crops and wanted to buy cheap products in return. The politician opposed the tariffs declaring that it would be unfair to interfere with the market relations. Thus, he believed in the economy free of governmental support or control.
Two fundamentally different opinions affected the politicians views on domestic and foreign policy. As noted above, Hamilton wanted to focus on local investments and create a nation with one shared objective. Jefferson opposed such interference and argued that the economy would be the most stable if it could operate and guide itself. After comparing the mens beliefs about the country, it can be assumed that both contributed to the countrys dual system. However, Hamiltons philosophy was possibly more influential, leaving traces in the modern governments decisions. Jeffersons beliefs continue to stay relevant to many Americans as can be seen in states ability to have some autonomy over their actions. Nevertheless, Hamiltons view of a nation became a driving force for the creation of the contemporary American culture. Peoples self-identification as Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans is a great example of that. Moreover, the federal government has some power over separate states.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that Hamiltons approach to the countrys economy helped it to establish itself in the world. While the two Founding Fathers created many ideas, most of which are still used by modern Americans, the impact of Hamilton could be viewed as more significant. Both men, however, influenced the country immensely, developing the concept of competitiveness that possibly drove the nation forward and continues to impact the politics and economy of the U.S.
Works Cited
Bakija, Jon, et al. How Big Should Our Government Be? University of California Press, 2016.
Montgomery, Scott L., and Daniel Chirot. The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Made the Modern World. Princeton University Press, 2016.
Thomas Jefferson is regarded as one of the most influential figures in American history, having drafted the Declaration of Independence and shaped the foundational ideals of American democracy and the American dream. However, Jeffersons political philosophy is marked by contradictions and complexities, particularly in his views on race and property. Reading selections from Jeffersons Notes, Mathews The Radical Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, and Richardsons Thomas Jefferson and Race provide insights into these contradictions and their implications. Exploring the impact of Jeffersons ideas, why understanding property and human nature is important in evaluating happiness and the role of government in pursuing it, and the contradictions that arise from his views on property and race.
Reading Jeffersons, Mathews, and Richardsons essays reveals several implications. Jeffersons political philosophy was multifaceted and radical. Jeffersons ideas continue to shape debates about the role of government and citizenship, but slaverys and racisms legacies continue to shape the American Dream and the fight for equality and justice (Matthews, 2013). His opposing views on racial discrimination and preserving slavery highlight the ongoing difficulty of overcoming deep-seated racial prejudice and inequality (Richardson, 2001). In conclusion, both essays emphasize the complexities of Jeffersons political philosophy in relation to the ongoing debates that have influenced the American Dream.
Jeffersons views on human nature and property reveal a lot about his definition of happiness and the role of government in achieving it. According to Jefferson, the right to own property was a substantial natural right that determined individual freedom and liberty. He believed the governments role was to protect this right by enacting laws and maintaining an enabling economic environment. Jefferson was inclined to the idea that happiness through liberty and support by the government would result in a thriving democracy based on the free exchange of goods and ideas (Jefferson, 1785). It is important to note, however, that Jeffersons understanding of property and human nature was shaped by his social and economic context, including a deeply embedded system of racial slavery.
For several reasons, dismissing Jeffersons views on race as a result of being a man of his time is historically incorrect. While at his time, many of Jeffersons contemporaries held racist beliefs, this did not absolve him of responsibility for his own beliefs and actions. Jefferson enslaved people and defended slavery in his writings (Richardson, 2001). He also advocated for removing Native Americans from their land, demonstrating his commitment to white supremacy. To dismiss Jeffersons views on race due to his time ignores how he actively perpetuated and benefited from racial oppression and inequality.
Jeffersons understanding of property and race could be more consistent with his political philosophy. If property rights are the cornerstone of an ideal democracy, but property ownership is based on a system of racial slavery and inequality, then reconciling these two ideas is difficult (Richardson, 2001). Furthermore, Jeffersons commitment to individual liberty and freedom is jeopardized by his participation in a system of racial oppression. In that case, it calls into question the sincerity and consistency of his broader political philosophy.
To conclude, Jeffersons political philosophys contradictions and complexities highlight the challenges of constructing a truly democratic and equitable society that meets the American dream. The major drawback of his philosophy is supporting systems with deeply ingrained racial oppression and inequality. The evaluated essays give insight into how Jeffersons ideas continue to shape American democracy and the ongoing struggle to reconcile the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice with the legacy of racism and oppression by exploring Jeffersons views on happiness, government, and race.
References
Jefferson, T. (1785). Notes on the State of Virginia. W. W. Abbot (Ed.). University of North Carolina Press.
Matthews, R. K. (2013). The radical philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. American Political Thought, 2(1), 2042.
Richardson, J. J. (2001). Thomas Jefferson and race. Journal of Politics, 63(3), 633655.
In 1804, Thomas Jefferson performed an act, which most people, in particular believers, would consider audacious or rather profane. He meticulously cut up the Bible and picked up the pieces with content he believed in and glued them on to a sheet of blank pages. He edited a book, which the world considered the word of God.
While the work was arguably disrespectful, to him it was simple. Likewise, in 1820, he bought six Bibles and used them to generate a revised version of the New Testament in French, Latin, Greek, and English. He successfully maimed the King James Version to generate “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”.
In this new edition, he kept some teachings of Christ, His actions, and left out any unnatural occurrences and assertions that He (Jesus) was Christ. The narrations of Jesus feeding the five thousand, raising the dead, and/or healing leprosy among others were removed. His version of the Gospel ended with Christ’s death. The goal of Jefferson was to identify the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
While his initial works in 1804 disappeared, the later version still exists. The ensuing discussion examines the extent to which Jefferson fulfilled his aim of finding the true teachings of Jesus in his construction of “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”.
How Jefferson Understood Christ
According to Carlson, Jefferson is viewed as one of the most brilliant and liberal minds in the United States (19). As the founding father, his controversial religious notions have always puzzled most Americans in the religionist nation. In fact, if he decided to run for a presidential position today, he would not win since his religious conceptions would conflict most Americans from both political wings (Carlson 19).
Jefferson was brought up as an Anglican devotee. He tutored in Anglican schools. He was always mentally inquisitive and opted to make individual decisions on issues of religion. The theories of scholars of ‘The Enlightenment’ had highly influenced his thinking such that he derided unnatural accounts in the Bible. However, he assumed that a supreme being controlled nature. He spent most of his years examining religion. Often, his opinions changed.
However, he constantly orated that the state should encourage religious freedom and tolerance. His call for religious liberty influenced his opponents to accuse him of being an atheist. As a result, Jefferson delved in determining the true teachings of Christ. He shared his faith with the public. When he eventually prepared “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”, the work portrayed a shaky theorist (Zastoupil 399).
According to Jefferson, Jesus was a transcendent teacher who offered benevolent lessons of morality that humanity should uphold. He encouraged his listeners to adopt the unsophisticated teachings of Christ. It is for this reason that he removed every atypical event that had been connected to Jesus such that only his precepts were left (Clough 38).
Conversely, his ungodly nature was pervasive. He referred to authors of the New Testament as ill-informed individuals who based their writings on fictions. He even tagged Apostle Paul, the author of several epistles in the Bible, a ‘corrupter’ of Jesus guidelines. Furthermore, he claimed that the trinity was a mere abracadabra of deceivers claiming to be Christ. His construction of Christ only shows an individual who sought to get half-truths (Holowchak 49).
Jefferson reflected Christ as an exceptional teacher of ethics and morals and not the son of God. He was opposed to teachings that sought to prove the divinity of Christ. Instead, he depicted him as a humble man who did not prioritize riches or worldly honors. According to Jefferson, Jesus’ ethical teachings were universal and applicable to all people without considering their race or social class (Carlson 20).
This situation made Jesus a teacher who was very outstanding in Jefferson’s eyes. He took Jesus to be a man born in an illegitimate way. To him, Jesus turned out to be compassionate and wise, although He was sentenced to death for sedition. He did not reject the value of Christianity or the existence of Christ at any time. However, Jefferson failed to agree with specific portions of the doctrine, although he proclaimed that he was a real Christian, meaning that he was a follower of the teachings of Christ pertaining to ethical standards and morality (Holowchak 49).
According to Sullivan, the instructions of Jesus are spread out through the Gospels (26). They were not only found in the sermons but also through the performing of miracles. However, such sections of the Gospel were eliminated from his collection of Jesus’ teachings. This situation created a vacuum in the teachings that Jefferson followed. Additionally, the teachings that Jefferson took to be about Jesus were recorded by the same writers who documented the miracles.
According to him, society can be run purely by setting and upholding moral and ethical standards without the need for supernatural beliefs and religious doctrines (Zastoupil 399). He asserted that a society would exist most effectively when moral codes are set up based on what all religions agree to and/or all that they differ with without following any particular religion.
In relation to the teachings of Jesus, his belief about the preeminence of morality led him to edit the Bible by cropping out the doctrines and all supernatural aspects while leaving only the ethical and moral teachings. The contradiction arises concerning why he would consent to some of the concepts that he could use to declare Jesus the greatest universal teacher of morals, yet profusely reject the remaining portion by claiming that it is not true. In fact, Jefferson left out teachings that were also relevant among the teachings of Jesus.
Additionally, according to the Bible, Jesus is the son of God (Gish and Klinghard 103). Even the Old Testament is a preparation of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. Therefore, his account of rejecting the divinity of Jesus discredits his whole philosophy around Jesus as a teacher. It is not practical that he would accept accounts given by a writer and publicize them to be true teachings, yet utterly reject records in the same book by the same writer on grounds of falsity.
Therefore, one can question his authorities concerning the parts of the Gospels that are true and/or ones, which are false. His account of Jesus as purely the teacher of ethics is far detached from the idea that is propagated by the Bible. Therefore, it is unacceptable for him to use the same Bible to support his philosophy. The divide that Jefferson clearly creates appears between religion and morality. His philosophy discredits Jesus as the son of God and the pillar of the Christian faith. Therefore, it is impossible for the true teachings of Jesus to be understood by one who rejected the person of Jesus.
In his construction of the “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”, he contradicts himself. He uses an Opacity Thesis approach to extract what he perceives as important while leaving out what he considers meretricious trappings. While the technique could have helped him to extract what is important, it is contradictory after considering the time span he takes to isolate the important writing from the insignificant ones (Gish and Klinghard 103).
Furthermore, since the teachings can only be understood through the account of the evangelists of the Gospel, it is tenuous for Jefferson to criticize their writing claiming that they are full of lies and then proceed to extract some information, which he believes to be true. He also uses the concept of unnaturalness thesis (UT) to detach sections that are inconsistent with the laws of physical nature.
Considering that Jefferson publicly alluded that he believed in the existence of a deity implies that he believed in unnatural happenings. Although he had been influenced by the teachings of theorists of the age of Enlightenment, his belief in the existence of a supreme being contradicts his position (Sullivan 26).
The Bible notes that Christ is part of the Trinity. Consequently, the teachings of Christ were intertwined with the purpose of God to humanity. Christ preached about the truth, way, and life, which in itself leads to the Trinity. Hence, all accounts in the New Testament are interconnected to meet the given objective of Trinity.
Extraction of some portions of the Gospel in attempt to derive the true teachings of morality will only result in serious errors. Therefore, a teaching may be considered ethical if it leads to the way, truth, and life, and hence the Trinity. Conversely, in his extraction, Jefferson ignores the Trinity, thus contradicting the actual purpose of the teachings (Clough 38).
Commentators such as Clough assert that one of the methodologies that Jefferson used was of Redundancy Thesis (RT) whereby events that have been repeated in other books are extracted (38). Through an analysis of Jefferson’s bible, it is apparent that the elimination of passages was not based on redundancy.
Rather, it was done to ensure the flow of story as illustrated by tribute, marriage, resurrection, and proper transition. Prioritizing redundancy and transition leads to the extraction of the wrong information. The Gospel books were written by different inspired individual authors and in different timelines. Thus, extracting their accounts to develop a single book would be erroneous.
Another tantalizing issue is the close relationships that Jefferson made with individuals who did not believe in Christ. If he believed in Christ, then he could have encouraged his friends to follow his teachings. For instance, Jefferson was a close ally of Tomas Paine who was a renowned satanic follower. He also wrote widely that only logics, but not belief, could disclose the true religion. Such assertions only prove that he had not found the true teachings of Christ, despite the desire to know Jesus (Holowchak 49).
Conclusion
Much has been said about Jefferson’s understanding of Christ. He has received support among populations who believe in individualism and religious tolerance. Conversely, a majority of critics argue that he provides a misleading account on the teachings of Christ. He uses the same information of evangelists whom he claims are ignorant in narrating the teachings of Jesus.
The teachings of Christ cannot entirely be viewed as intended to promote morality in the society without considering their primary purpose when it comes to addressing the truth, way, and life. Jefferson’s comprehension of Christ is subjective since he chooses to extract only what pleases him without the fact that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God.
Works Cited
Carlson, Peter. “The Bible According Thomas Jefferson.” Humanist 72.2(2012): 19-23. Print.
Gish, Dustin, and Daniel Klinghard. “Redeeming Adam’s Curse: The Bible and Enlightenment Science in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia.” Perspectives on Political Science 42.2 (2013): 103-110. Print.
Holowchak, Andrew. “The Fear, Honor, and Love of God: Thomas Jefferson on Jews, Philosophers, and Jesus.” Forum Philosophicum: International Journal of Philosophy 18.1(2013): 49-71. Print.
Sullivan, Andrew. “The Forgotten Jesus.” Newsweek 159.15(2012): 26-31. Print.
Zastoupil, Lynn. “Notorious and Convicted Mutilators: Rammohun Roy, Thomas Jefferson, and the Bible.” Journal of World History 20.3(2009): 399-434. Print.
In many cases, a person’s childhood, ideas, and views identify his or her future input in a professional area. The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was the third president of the United States. This paper aims to analyze Jefferson’s early years and adulthood to determine how they influenced his personality. In addition, the paper focuses on his ideas and career to better understand his views regarding liberty.
Early Years and Adulthood
The review of a person’s legacy cannot be properly analyzed without focusing on his or her family. Thomas Jefferson was born as the third child in the family of Jane Randolph and Peter Jefferson in Virginia in 1743 (Mullin, 2007). His mother was from an aristocratic family that provided her with household, education, and traditions, which were then translated to her children. Jefferson’s father was a successful surveyor and planter, which contributed to raising their children comfortably and with authority. The documents and correspondence show that Jefferson’s relationships with his mother were close and trustful (Mullin, 2007). The childhood of this prominent American leader is marked by entering an English school at the age of five, studying the natural world, learning to ride horses, and being interested in various sciences.
From the very childhood, Jefferson interacted with people and effectively built relationships. Mastering communication skills, he befriended with American Indians and even the local Cherokee chief (Meacham, 2013). Accordingly, he began to consider that personal relationships are critical in building one’s professional career. In adulthood, Jefferson talents included playing the violin, architecture, gardening, and so on. After the death of his father, Jefferson inherited the Shadwell property and designed Monticello as the place to live with his future wife, Martha Wayles (Bickford et al., 2019). The observation of Jefferson’s childhood illustrates that he was a talented and promising young man, whose background and personal qualities were beneficial for his successful career.
Career and Revolutionary Views
To understand Jefferson’s career directions and actions, it is significant to refer to his philosophical views. According to Professor Julian Boyd, Jefferson absorbed the liberal traditions of contemporary Western European and ancient literature (Bickford et al., 2019). He was attracted by the works of the ancient philosophers, such as Epicurus and Democritus, thinking about the happiness of people as the goal of philosophy. In his socio-political views, one can detect the influence of Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Bacon, and Locke (Thompson, 2019). The philosophy of Locke, with his doctrine of the natural right to life and property, had a particularly great influence on the formation of Jefferson’s views. It allowed this Founding Father to develop and substantiate the idea of the right to revolution.
It should be stressed that Jefferson earned a reputation as the so-called silent politician since he had an influence through written documents. After the beginning of the Revolution, Jefferson was elected to the Second Continental Congress, which subsequently made the historic decision to separate the North American colonies from England (Bickford et al., 2019). For example, the Declarations on the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms was a document that the Second Continental Congress issued to explain why the Thirteen Colonies wanted to separate. The main issue in this document was the question of the purpose of the struggle against the mother country and its colonies. Jefferson saw it as uniting Americans and winning independence by creating a free and democratic state (Meacham, 2013). He considered that no American territory would achieve anything acting alone, and that one could resist the dictates of London only by joint efforts.
Speaking about Jefferson’s enigma, it is critical to note that he kept written records of his life, which helps modern people to better recognize his personality. Although he traced incomes and expenses, Jefferson was often in debt (Mullin, 2007). Despite being highly involved in politics and leaving his house for long periods, he also focused on luxury items for his properties. Among other paradoxes, Mullin (2007) notes a solid sympathy for the ideals of Enlightenment, but their doubtful practical implementation. Accordingly, Jefferson’s personality seems to be a vivid example of a complex nature of an outstanding politician and an ordinary person with daily needs and obligations.
Intertwining Liberty and Slavery
The ideal of liberty and a strong government were the two elements in the worldview practiced by Jefferson. He brought together the reality and his ideals, transforming principles into policies. Namely, he wrote the Declaration of Independence, clarifying that liberty is an unalienable right of every person. Ideological flexibility is probably the most characteristic feature of Jefferson’s understanding of liberty. Jefferson believed that “politics is kaleidoscopic, constantly shifting, and the morning’s foe may well be the afternoon’s friend” (Meacham, 2013, p. 112). He considered that the key reason for progress is the discovery of the undiscovered and constant movement towards the unknown. For example, when James Madison, Jefferson’s friend and ideological soul mate, tried to reject the power to tax, it came against the ex-president’s opinion. However, he focused on “meeting of the principals out of the public eye”, and a compromise was achieved (Meacham, 2013, p. 244). This example shows that Jefferson successfully managed to combine personal and political issues.
The issues of slavery and liberty are interrelated, but Jefferson’s life and career included both of these seemingly contradictory notions. On the one hand, this Founding Father of America wrote the Declaration of Independence, in which he confidently argued that all people are created equal. On the other hand, Jefferson enslaved about 600 Afro-Americans and freed only some of them (Bickford et al., 2019). In his point, the White and African-American races could not coexist peacefully due to the biological inferiority of the former. At the same time, he prepared a plan for granting freedom to enslaved people in a gradual manner. Meacham (2013) states that Jefferson protected individual liberty and pressed limits regarding presidential power. Even though this ex-president ruthlessly handled American Indians and Afro-Americans, the author views him as one of the most effective leaders of the US. Probably, the ability to intertwine such contradictory views makes Jefferson one of the most enigmatic presidents of America.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Thomas Jefferson was one of the Founding Fathers of the US and the author of the Declaration of Independence. Grown in a prosperous and aristocratic family, he received excellent education and inheritance to start and succeed in his own career. Jefferson’s personal qualities included communication skills, interest in various sciences, playing musical instruments, diligence in learning, and a strong desire to achieve democracy. He was a person of paradoxes, which made his personality complex to discover, while it is evident that his contribution to the history of the US cannot be overestimated.
References
Bickford, J. H., Lindsay, M., & Hendrickson, R. C. (2019). Trade books’ evolving depictions of Thomas Jefferson, America’s third President. Social Studies Research and Practice, 14(1), 40-63.
Meacham, J. (2013). Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. Random House.
Mullin, R. T. (2007). Thomas Jefferson: Architect of freedom. Sterling Publishing Company.
Thompson, C. B. (2019). John Locke and the American mind. American Political Thought, 8(4), 575-593.
Thomas Jefferson was a truly important figure in our nation’s history. He was one of our Founding Fathers, an author of the Declaration of Independence, the third president of United States, and a famous abolitionist. Although he was mostly known as an important leader of his country, he was also considered an active abolitionist.
During his presidency, his decisions had a profound impact on our nation’s political philosophy. Even though Thomas Jefferson was not a popular political leader during his time and was considered a radical figure, his opinion on slavery was widely accepted by many European countries. Thanks to Jefferson’s agreements with European countries, he was able to stop the importation of slaves to America.
Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson helped to establish Liberia in order to relocate African Americans to Africa. In this essay, I will use Notes on the State of Virginia to interpret and explore the political views and philosophy he used to create the republican form of government, as well as his radical opinion that slavery should be abolished in the United States. From the beginning of his presidency until his death in 1809, his leadership of America had a dramatic impact on our political and social structure.
Thomas Jefferson’s legacy began at the dawn of the Revolutionary War. He was already a well-known figure who vigorously attack the British rule in America.
In his main argument, Jefferson states “many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely to that form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism.”(Jefferson 264) Instead, he supports the idea that people needed to have the power to control their own government, and opportunity to express their own opinion about their government.
Furthermore, he felt that England’s Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and had no legislative authority in America. After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson continued to spread his ideology in the creation of our government. He thought that the people should not rely on their government because the government is the representative of the people.
In his mind, this was the way to create a true form of republican government, in which the people and their government are intertwined (Borden 103). When Jefferson became the third president of the United States during extremely partisan government and an unstable economy, this philosophy became widely popular and it was labeled Jeffersonian.
In 1801, Jefferson published his only full-length book: Notes on the State of Virginia (Onuf 65). This work describes Jefferson’s view on how to create a good government and a perfectly balanced society. He expresses the importance of the need for government reform. At the time of its publication, this work was significant for several reasons: first, the idea of reforming the government relied on the people, rather than the people relying on the government.
The second reason was the idea of creating a society where all races could be equal. The last reason was the idea of creating a national education system that could teach the people how to protect and defend their individual rights (Borden 79). These three issues were considered extremely radical at that time, and no other institutions or countries had ever promoted them.
Unlike the moral sense doctrine, Jefferson felt that the only way to secure a republic was to first secure individual rights. Although Jefferson had borrowed this idea from Locke, his idea was very different. The first difference was that Jefferson started with a more amiable view of human nature where one’s self-interest and moral duty are brought into closer alignment through the operation of an innate moral sense.
The second difference was that Jefferson rejected Locke’s hierarchy of the passions, which elevated one’s desire for comfortable self-preservation as the single source of individual rights. Jefferson concluded that pride and desire for self-government could also serve as a source for an individual’s right to be liberty.
The third difference was that Jefferson’s view on individual rights was not based on human selfishness, but the will to pursue happiness. (Braman 90) In other words to summarize these ideas is that one’s desire to do good unto others, therefore people are motivated to do good things. These changes had a dramatic impact on our present government, such that they created the government’s role in our society, which is to reinforce society’s moral sense.
In return, the people developed the pursuit of happiness and shouldered their moral obligation to run the government properly. (Braman 43) Therefore, it was vital for the government to educate its citizens and reinforce our moral senses to stabilize the society. The core of this philosophy and the changes it enacted created a Republican government that was a more positive form of government than classical liberalism.
As Jefferson tried to emphasize individual rights, he never forgot to address the importance of government to society. He argued that if a person chose to live in a society he or she must also agree to give up some of his or her rights. Without a civilization to enforce the equal rights of those who are physically weaker, natural societies tend to slide into barbarism. During the late 1790s, Jefferson’s administration took strong steps to shape our education system purpose the creation of public universities.
Since his main argument for the role of the government was to lead, he strongly believed in creating a national education system directed by the government because he felt that education was the key to resolving social injustices and creating an efficient way to balance the government and individual rights. Another main argument found in his writing was his promotion of an agrarian economy, which was unique at this time.
He based his continual insistence that a republic of farmers and agriculture was morally superior on the teachings of Aristotle, who had emphasized that a farmer’s purpose was just as important as an elite’s purpose, and that purpose for farmers is productivity which help to stable not just the economy but also the social structure.
In this book, Jefferson addressed this problem by suggesting that specialization of labor and increased economic flow come leads to problems such as social gap between the poor and the rich, which can cause social chaos. (Onuf 85) From this one is able to conclude that Jefferson advocated a non-commercial, self-sufficient agrarian economy populated with farmers.
Under his encouragement, the threshing machine was invented, new breeds of sheep were successfully introduced, and soil conservation through crop rotation was advocated.
Another main issue was slavery. In this book, he stated that the United States was trapped by a system inherited from the Old World and could do little to change. In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he inserted a clause condemning the Atlantic slave trade and blaming George III for his support of it. For Jefferson, the very purpose of creating a Republican form of government was to ensure human equality, but slavery was clearly a violation of naturally equal human rights.
Throughout his political career, Jefferson never abandoned this belief and he think that the only resolution of the problem would involve educating both masters and slaves. (Cogliano 78) Jefferson frequently mentions that his idea to abolish slavery not only needed to be reinforced by the government through use of force, but also that it was equally important to find an alternative way for people to abandon their old beliefs by educating them.
When Jefferson became the third president of the United States, he immediately passed a law that outlawed the further importation of slaves to the United States, which was the first step towards abolishing slavery in US history. He further outlawed any slavery in the West and established freeman guarantees policy to those states. (Onuf 190)
According to Jefferson, although slavery was unjust, when emancipation came at some date in the future, slaves and their descendants should not remain in the United States. In Jefferson’s mind, emancipation must be accompanied by the removal of former slaves from the country, and which he provided the answer by creating the nation of Liberia as a destination for the former slaves. (Cogliano 80)
In his book, Jefferson did draw a clear visible line of race, where he felt that whites are somewhat superior to the blacks. He states “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 possess different qualifications.” (Jefferson 270) This explains his belief that Blacks are inferior not because of their body chemistry or life experiences, they are inferior because nature created a difference that made them disadvantageous to Whites.
This can be seen as Jefferson’s belief that differences can cause inequality not because of nature but by Men. But we need to understand that his belief in creating a stable economy by promoting agriculture was deeply influence by this decision. It will be reasonable to think his first priority was to protect the interests and unity of our country and equality among races was second.
The significance of this letter is that it serves as an important piece of information that provides one with extended insight into the fundamental principle of Jeffersonian philosophy. It gives one valuable insight and illuminates the importance of the erudite political and social thought of America’s most influential and intellectual philosopher.
Although he was not an eloquent public speaker and an unpopular figure in his time, by establishing schools, championing social equality, and reshaping our government, his contributions to our society and government are very clear to us today.
Citation
Onuf, Peter S.The mind of Thomas Jefferson Charlottesville : University of Virginia Press, 2007.
Cogliano, Francis D.. Thomas Jefferson : reputation and legacy. Charlottesville : University of Virginia Press, 2006.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) are two authors who extensively dealt with the topic of revolution. The common definition of revolution is that it is an elementary change in power or a governmental configuration that takes place in a short period of time.
These two authors approached this issue from a different perspective by depicting revolution as being multifaceted. By exploring the books written by these two individuals, several similarities can be observed in their approach to revolutions and revolts despite them living in different times.
In his book titled “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau explores the topic of revolution in a more engaging manner by not particularly relating revolution to any major course of action, but rather to a spiritual call for the inviolability of principles in all issues. Thoreau explains civil defiance as the active rejection of certain regulations, demands and instructions of a regime or of an occupying authority, without consequential physical aggressions.
The most conspicuous issues of discussion in this book by Thoreau are the concern on government, war between conscience and collectiveness, war and slavery, and the blind obedience of the state or ruling circle.
As he tacked revolution through the subject of governance, Thoreau apparently concurs with the earlier work of Jefferson on the suitability of a government. Jefferson had argued that that the best type of government is the one that administrates the least and just like him, Thoreau agrees that best type of government is the one that does not govern at all.
Thoreau additionally states that people always have their way when it comes to governance by eventually having the kind of government that they are prepared or willing to have. By stating that the best government is one that does not govern, Thoreau does not imply that a government should not have an administrative structure but rather, that any government should make it a priority to satisfy the wishes and desires of it citizens.
The issue of revolting against the government is also tackled by Thoreau in his book “Civil Disobedience.” On this issue, Thoreau states that obedience to any government should not come automatically without much thought since obedience is mutual and should be earned instead of being offered unconditionally or automatically (Thoreau 4). Moreover, Thoreau suggests that obedience should never be extended to unjust governments which have little regard for the rights of their citizens.
Thoreau’s criticism of unjust governance can be connected to the rebellion by the Americans people during the independent era when they rebelled against the unjust colonial government. As one reads Thoreau’s book, it becomes apparent that he detests authoritative governments that are unjust to their citizens. According to him, when a government frequently tolerates acts of injustice, then its citizens are justified to stage a revolution that will see a change in the way they are governed and those who are to govern them.
Thoreau seems to agree that a revolution is justified should a majority feel like their government does not represent their wishes. He further states that such kinds of governments are those that choose to satisfy the rights of a few politicians at the expense of the citizens. He further warns that should the public choose to do nothing about such a situation, their government will continue disregarding their wishes (Thoreau 16).
Thoreau also explains that even an excellent form of administration is likely to be abused and misused if the citizens choose not to keep a close eye on the running of their government. His book gets even more interesting when he states that even in situations where a government seems to reflect the views of the majority, those in disagreement with their government need not fully obey it since the majority may hold the power but this does not imply that they are at all times right (Thoreau 47).
Thoreau, in addition explored the dilemma faced by soldiers in the Mexican-American war used war and slavery to explain why they (soldiers) could not engage in a revolution. He points out that the solders that participated in this war and ended up taking the lives of other individuals in the name of obedience. By the virtue of total submission to the state, these men ended up losing their human nature and became more of machines or tools of oppression that were at the service of some unprincipled man in command (Thoreau 52).
He then notes that the solders in this war could not see that they were being abused since they had families and dependants who depended on them. This he attributes to their fear of the government confiscating their properties and leaving them with nothing to support their dependants if they chose to revolt against the wishes of the government. Furthermore, they thought that if the government could not go ahead with its taxation and slavery plans, it would not have enough to pay them.
Thoreau was a strong opponent of both taxation and slavery for which he even went to jail for. He took his principles a step further by refusing to settle his taxes to the government and argued that if he did so, the government would utilize the same tax to finance the war which he was against. This action depicts Thoreau as an individual with a very strong personality who could go to great lengths to defend what he believed.
Just like Thoreau, Thomas Jefferson is known for tackling the issue of revolutions and also seems to encourage people to stand strong for what they believe in. In his book titled “The declaration of independence,” Jefferson brings out a radical definition of revolution by relating revolution to the uprising during the fight against the colonial forces headed by the English king.
Jefferson observes that when ruled by an unjust administration, there will always come the time when the citizens will find it necessary to challenge the tight grip of the oppressive regime with the aim of replacing it with self governance (Jefferson 388). He then states that when the laws given to people by God are taken away or censored by the authorities, then they need to revolt and demand for their rights.
The need to revolt, according to Jefferson, may be realized when other non-combative measures such as round table dialogue fail to bear any fruit. Jefferson seems to imply that failed talks portray a clear sign that more needs to be done and in such situations, citizens should demand for their rights through pressurizing the oppressive regime by all other means just as the American people did to attain independence from the British.
When it comes to governance, Jefferson seems to agree with Thoreau on the need of a just government. He notes that citizens should always have strong minds so they can confront their government whenever it takes the wrong direction in governance. He further states that without a strong mind, confronting the government will be difficult.
Jefferson also observes that every generation requires a revolution to address its most pressing needs and grievances, be it political or any other. When the desires of the multitude are realized either through dialogue or combative revolts, Jefferson claims the revolution was worth being spearheaded. (Jefferson 160)
From this article, it can be observed that the two prominent figures tackled the issue of revolution from similar perspectives.
Thoreau may have used the example of oppressive governments to state his point while Jefferson based his arguments on oppression from foreigners but the message that clearly comes out from their works of the two is the call for action by the citizens to defend their rights and freedom against oppressive forces. The influence of the works of both men outlasted the periods for which they were written.
Jefferson’s work inspired many generations that followed including Abraham Linkoln during the Civil war, Elizabeth Candy in her demands for the voting rights of women and most notably, Martin Luther King as he motivated African-Americans in their fight for their rights. Similarly, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” has been christened as one of the most influential American works (Karoubi 47).
Thoreau’s works also influenced many including prominent transcendentalists such as Gandhi and Dr. King, who both credited Thoreau as having greatly inspired them in their works.
Works Cited
Jefferson, Thomas and Fink, Sam. The Declaration of Independence. New York: Scholastic Inc publishers, 2002. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience. New York: Forgotten Books, 2008. Print.
Karoubi, Mohamed Taghi. Just or unjust war?: international law and unilateral use of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th century. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2004.
It is hard to imagine the pressure Congress worked under during the summer of 1776. The fact that the signers of the Declaration of Independence speculated among themselves that they might soon be “exalted on a high gallows” (Munves 1) was one indication, More seriously, as many as one hundred and thirty British ships had gathered in New York harbor, a city in which James Munves says gun powder was scarce. Most of the urgency that marked those days in July was caused by the need to get the Declaration out to all thirteen states so that the news would spread and rally everyone to the cause.
To this end, the draft of the Declaration accepted by Congress was printed up and sent out by couriers. Despite the pressure of time, the draft written by Thomas Jefferson, future president of the United States of America, was carefully revised before being printed, a fact that irritated Jefferson to the point where he made copies of his version to send to most of his friends as if trying to unite them behind a new Declaration. However, as I will show, although Jefferson might have been right in principle and the long run, he was wrong to think that his manuscript was the right one for that particular moment in history.
There were eighty-six changes in all, made by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and other members of the committee. Many were changes in capitalization, punctuation, and paragraphing but others altered the substance of Jefferson’s draft. Whereas Jefferson’s use of capital letters in the Declaration had been similar to modern practice, meaning that he capitalized only names and, according to Munves, in one case failed to capitalize “god,” the copy that emerged from John Dunlap’s printing press adhered to eighteenth-century practice in which “nouns were capitalized haphazardly for emphasis” (Munves 1).
Dunlap replaced ampersands with “and,” to which Jefferson probably had no objection. As a result, the printed copy has a haphazard look about it when compared to the coolly professional look and style of Jefferson’s, and a modern reader looks antiquated.
However, the members of the Congress had made substantive changes as well which, as most students of civics know, centered on the Declarations statements on relations with Great Britain and on the issue of slavery. To Jefferson, these changes were hard to forgive, and even though he signed the engrossed copy – in which these parts had been omitted — on the 2nd of August, 1776, he remained convinced that his version was superior to the official one.
Jefferson was wrong. The Congress was under pressure not just from the British who were preparing to crush their revolution, but also from its constituents, not all of whom were convinced independence was the best step to take. New York, for example, had not committed itself to independence and did not do so until sometime after the Declaration’s 4th of July issuance.
The initial reading of the Declaration in Philadelphia only attracted a small crowd of unemployed sailors and idlers who gathered around the rickety steeple which barely supported Philadelphia’s cracked bell, according to Munves, a reminder that the land had only recently been settled and was far from being able to match the British Empire’s power. The first printed copy of the Declaration galvanized the population, leading New York to exuberant celebrations and the tearing down of all signs of British dominance, proof of its effectiveness.
The printed copy of the Declaration was in the form of a broadside, one with which the public was familiar. Munves explains that the Declaration, at this stage, was propaganda for the cause of independence, and was meant to be read by and to soldiers, sailors, and the general public to unite them in a common cause. While Jefferson’s version would appeal to educated people, the kind of readers who do not need excessive capitalization to catch the full meaning of the text, most of the people to whom the first copy of the Declaration was addressed were far from well-educated and therefore needed all the guidance that could be provided.
The Declaration would mostly be read out to the public, making it necessary to indicate to the reader which words had to be emphasized. Additionally, where educated readers are used to texts employing long paragraphs, here it might discourage readers. That is why Dunlap capitalized the first full word of each paragraph. The engrossed copy could dispense with paragraphs altogether and be written by hand by calligrapher Timothy Matlack because its purpose was ceremonial. Matlack’s transcription errors and his erratic capitalization likewise did not make this version less effective. Only that first printed copy had to be appeal to the new republic’s citizens
Jefferson’s indignation at having his draft corrected was shared by a number of his friends, who agreed with him that “the Critics” had produced a version inferior to his. Richard Henry Lee, a representative of the Virginia convention, told Jefferson that the manuscripts had been “mangled,” and suggested that “this rage of change” was responsible for it, the same rage presumably that was behind the American Revolution. After that, Jefferson’s version ceased to be of interest.
As I have shown, Jefferson was wrong to write his Declaration for an educated public and to be read closely. He was right in principle to protest against Great Britain’s policy on slavery but wrong politically. Even his capitalization and punctuation showed that he had misjudged his public. Most of all, Jefferson was wrong to circulate his draft because in a small way he was undermining the authority of the Declaration which, by that time, had been engrossed and made into the law of the new republic.
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two political figures whose contrasting opinions about the United States’ politics and economy significantly affected America’s path of development. This division created a dual system the remnants of which exist to this day. The two men saw a very different future for the country based on the duties and powers of the federal and local governments. As a result, their influence on the industries and policies also varied.
Main body
Hamilton envisioned the U.S. under the guidance of a strong federal government that can interfere in and manage the economy of the country, believing that the concept of a single united nation is more important than the independence of its states (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Thus, he thought that a powerful central authority that could decide to support specific industries and improve local trade with import tariffs would create a stronger country. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that states should have more power, leaving the central government virtually devoid of any major responsibilities. His focus on local governments, economies, and militaries was rooted in the notion that the needs of people in various states cannot be the same (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Thus, state laws should be able to accommodate specific needs as opposed to having one source of authority that leads the whole nation.
These views of political power also impacted the men’s economic philosophies. It should be noted that Hamilton’s supporters were of urban origin, while Jefferson’s followers mostly came from rural regions (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Therefore, it was beneficial for merchants and manufacturers to have local industries that were controlled and supported by the government. Hamilton believed that commerce in the U.S. would become stronger if local goods were favored by customers, while imported products would be disregarded. Thus, he introduced the idea of having additional tariffs for imports, driving the local industry forward (Bakija et al. 4). As a contrast, Jefferson’s views were inspired by farmers who sold their crops and wanted to buy cheap products in return. The politician opposed the tariffs declaring that it would be unfair to interfere with the market relations. Thus, he believed in the economy free of governmental support or control.
Two fundamentally different opinions affected the politicians’ views on domestic and foreign policy. As noted above, Hamilton wanted to focus on local investments and create a nation with one shared objective. Jefferson opposed such interference and argued that the economy would be the most stable if it could operate and guide itself. After comparing the men’s beliefs about the country, it can be assumed that both contributed to the country’s dual system. However, Hamilton’s philosophy was possibly more influential, leaving traces in the modern government’s decisions. Jefferson’s beliefs continue to stay relevant to many Americans as can be seen in states’ ability to have some autonomy over their actions. Nevertheless, Hamilton’s view of a nation became a driving force for the creation of the contemporary American culture. People’s self-identification as Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans is a great example of that. Moreover, the federal government has some power over separate states.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that Hamilton’s approach to the country’s economy helped it to establish itself in the world. While the two Founding Fathers created many ideas, most of which are still used by modern Americans, the impact of Hamilton could be viewed as more significant. Both men, however, influenced the country immensely, developing the concept of competitiveness that possibly drove the nation forward and continues to impact the politics and economy of the U.S.
Works Cited
Bakija, Jon, et al. How Big Should Our Government Be? University of California Press, 2016.
Montgomery, Scott L., and Daniel Chirot. The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Made the Modern World. Princeton University Press, 2016.
Thomas Jefferson is regarded as one of the most influential figures in American history, having drafted the Declaration of Independence and shaped the foundational ideals of American democracy and the American dream. However, Jefferson’s political philosophy is marked by contradictions and complexities, particularly in his views on race and property. Reading selections from Jefferson’s Notes, Mathews’ “The Radical Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson,” and Richardson’s “Thomas Jefferson and Race” provide insights into these contradictions and their implications. Exploring the impact of Jefferson’s ideas, why understanding property and human nature is important in evaluating happiness and the role of government in pursuing it, and the contradictions that arise from his views on property and race.
Reading Jefferson’s, Mathews’, and Richardson’s essays reveals several implications. Jefferson’s political philosophy was multifaceted and radical. Jefferson’s ideas continue to shape debates about the role of government and citizenship, but slavery’s and racism’s legacies continue to shape the American Dream and the fight for equality and justice (Matthews, 2013). His opposing views on racial discrimination and preserving slavery highlight the ongoing difficulty of overcoming deep-seated racial prejudice and inequality (Richardson, 2001). In conclusion, both essays emphasize the complexities of Jefferson’s political philosophy in relation to the ongoing debates that have influenced the American Dream.
Jefferson’s views on human nature and property reveal a lot about his definition of happiness and the role of government in achieving it. According to Jefferson, the right to own property was a substantial natural right that determined individual freedom and liberty. He believed the government’s role was to protect this right by enacting laws and maintaining an enabling economic environment. Jefferson was inclined to the idea that happiness through liberty and support by the government would result in a thriving democracy based on the free exchange of goods and ideas (Jefferson, 1785). It is important to note, however, that Jefferson’s understanding of property and human nature was shaped by his social and economic context, including a deeply embedded system of racial slavery.
For several reasons, dismissing Jefferson’s views on race as a result of being a man of his time is historically incorrect. While at his time, many of Jefferson’s contemporaries held racist beliefs, this did not absolve him of responsibility for his own beliefs and actions. Jefferson enslaved people and defended slavery in his writings (Richardson, 2001). He also advocated for removing Native Americans from their land, demonstrating his commitment to white supremacy. To dismiss Jefferson’s views on race due to his time ignores how he actively perpetuated and benefited from racial oppression and inequality.
Jefferson’s understanding of property and race could be more consistent with his political philosophy. If property rights are the cornerstone of an ideal democracy, but property ownership is based on a system of racial slavery and inequality, then reconciling these two ideas is difficult (Richardson, 2001). Furthermore, Jefferson’s commitment to individual liberty and freedom is jeopardized by his participation in a system of racial oppression. In that case, it calls into question the sincerity and consistency of his broader political philosophy.
To conclude, Jefferson’s political philosophy’s contradictions and complexities highlight the challenges of constructing a truly democratic and equitable society that meets the American dream. The major drawback of his philosophy is supporting systems with deeply ingrained racial oppression and inequality. The evaluated essays give insight into how Jefferson’s ideas continue to shape American democracy and the ongoing struggle to reconcile the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice with the legacy of racism and oppression by exploring Jefferson’s views on happiness, government, and race.
References
Jefferson, T. (1785). Notes on the State of Virginia. W. W. Abbot (Ed.). University of North Carolina Press.
Matthews, R. K. (2013). The radical philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. American Political Thought, 2(1), 20–42.
Richardson, J. J. (2001). Thomas Jefferson and race. Journal of Politics, 63(3), 633–655.
The election of Thomas Jefferson served as a pivotal point in the contemporary history of the world. It was the first time the government surrendered its power to another political force via a popular election. What was usually achieved through blood, death, and revolution, was now achievable through votes and ballots. The party that lost the election left without putting up a fight and was not subjected to terror tactics upon leaving the office. This historical event reaffirmed the principles of the American political system. Thomas Jefferson’s address to the nation celebrates this occasion and interprets it within the scope of a limited government philosophy promoted by the Democratic-Republican Party.
This speech ended a potentially dangerous period in American history. Back then, the USA was very close to civil war. People were on edge due to opposite views on how the federal government should work. There was a fierce competition between the supporters of Thomas Jefferson and Hamiltonian Federalists, as both sides argued with one another over how much power should be given to the government. The DRP, which later became known colloquially as the Democrats, established the longest electoral continuity up to date. From Thomas Jefferson to Lincoln, all presidents of the US came from among their ranks, save for two.
Analysis
Jefferson’s inaugural address comes in the form of a noble acknowledgment of victory, despite the bitterness of the electoral campaign. He acknowledged that while all Americans had different opinions, they all had the same goal in mind – the prosperity of the nation. This loyalty transcended any ill will that may have been present during the most heated debates. “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.” With that, Jefferson acknowledged his opponents as equals and compatriots and reaffirmed the loyalty to the Constitution and everything it stood for, even if the parties did not always see eye to eye.
During his speech, Jefferson reminded everyone of the sacred principle that while the majority has the right to rule, it should exercise its power with rightfulness and reason, and never forget that the minority also possesses rights, which are protected by law and constitution. Violating them would have been an act of tyranny and oppression. These words shielded the Hamiltonians from harm and guaranteed no retribution.
Jefferson was a strong proponent of a minimal government, brought in place with the purpose of preventing people from harming one another, but otherwise not interfering with the way they go about their lives. In his speech, he reaffirmed his dedication to the ideals of personal liberty, and that the work of individual citizens and patriots would give the world “the strongest Government on Earth.”
Jefferson did not completely dismiss the virtues and strengths of a federal government, which was later proven during the Louisiana Purchase. He saw the individual state governments as a shield against anti-republicanism and tyranny. As he remarked, the federal government was to serve as an anchor of stability at home and an instrument of peace abroad.
With his speech encompassing both his supporters and his opponents, Jefferson managed to turn his victory into a victory for America and set a standard for inaugural addresses for many years forward.