Ohio History Journal

THOMAS JEFFERSON'S VIEWS ON SLAVERY

 

 

BY C. B. GALBREATII

 

To one who has read the works of Thomas Jefferson

it would seem that there should be no question in regard

to his views of slavery.    Because such question has

been raised, reiterated and made a matter of public

record and because his attitude has been thus questioned

by many prominent in the early history of Ohio it may

not be out of place to review here the testimony offered

in regard to the real views that he entertained on this

important subject. A very definite statement on this

subject is found in the Life, Journals and Correspond-

ence of Manasseh Cutler, edited by William       Parker

Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler and published in 1888.

It read as follows:

Even with the prohibition in the Ordinance of July 13, 1787,

the attempt was made, under the auspices of Jefferson, at the

time of the adoption of the first constitution for the State of

Ohio, to introduce slavery into the state.  This effort was sup-

ported by Jefferson's favorite theory of state's rights.  The ad-

vocates of the measure claimed that, as soon as the state as-

sumed its own autonomy and became a sovereign among others,

it had the right to decide upon the provisions of an ordinance

which was the act of only one party, the general government.

The central and southern portions of the state then had a majority

of the population, and the labor of slaves would have suited the in-

terests of their fertile valleys, while the political prospects of the

new and rising "states' rights democracy" would have been ad-

vanced by holding out such a premium for emigration from Vir-

ginia and Kentucky.

The rejection of Jefferson's efforts, both in Congress and in

Ohio, was a deliverance from impending danger.

(184)

• 1
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery     185

The evidence upon which this declaration is made is

found in the Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, edited

by his daughter, Julia Perkins Cutler.     In describing

the consideration of the eighth article of the constitu-

tion of Ohio adopted in convention in 1802, Ephraim

Cutler, who was a delegate to the convention and a mem-

ber of the committee on the Bill of Rights, is quoted

as follows:

The eighth article, or bill of rights, as it is called, was com-

mitted, on the fourth day of the session, to Goforth, Dunlavy,

Browne, Baldwin, Grubb, Woods, Updegraff, Cutler, and Donal-

son.  A hasty report was made upon it, which was afterward

withdrawn; and the committee was directed to consider it their

duty to report it as the eighth article.

We met at President Tiffin's by special invitation. Our chair-

man, Mr. Browne, produced and read the first section, which was

agreed to without objection. An exciting subject was, of course,

immediately brought before this committee -- the subject of ad-

mitting or excluding slavery. Mr. Browne proposed a section,.

which defined the subject thus: "No person shall be held in slav-

ery, if a male, after he is thirty-five years of age; or a female,

after twenty-five years of age." The handwriting, I had no

doubt, was Mr. Jefferson's. I had a conversation with Governor

Worthington at Washington City, at the time that Congress

passed the law authorizing the convention; and he informed me

that he (Jefferson) had expressed to him that such, or a similar

article, might be introduced into the convention; and that he

hoped there would not be any effort made for any thing farther

for the exclusion of slavery from the state, as it would operate

against the interests of those who wished to emigrate from the

slave states to Ohio.

I observed to the committee that those who had elected me

to represent them there were very desirous to have this matter

clearly understood, and I must move to have the section laid on

the table until our next meeting; and to avoid any warmth of

feeling, I hoped that each member of the committee would pre-

pare a section which should express his views fully on this im-

portant subject.

The committee met the next morning, and I was called upon

for what I had proposed the last meeting. I then read to them

the second section, as it now stands in the constitution. Mr.

Browne observed that what he had introduced was thought by

• 2
 

186        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

the greatest men in the Nation to be, if established in our consti-

tution, obtaining a great step toward a general emancipation of

slavery, and was greatly to be preferred to what I had offered.

I then, at some length, urged the adoption of what I had pre-

pared, and dwelt with energy on the fact that the Ordinance of

1787 was strictly a matter of compact, and that we were bound

either to pass it (the section excluding slavery, or leave it, which

I contended would be the law, if not so defined by our own ac-

tion. Mr. Baldwin, the only practicing lawyer on the commit-

tee, said that he agreed with me that the ordinance was, in its

legal aspect, a compact; and, although many of his constituents

would prefer to have slavery continue in a modified form, he

would vote in favor of the section as I had reported it. Mr.

Browne, who was chairman of the committee, then called the

ayes and nays, and his report was negatived, and mine adopted,

the ayes being Baldwin, Dunlavy, Cutler, Goforth, and Updegraff;

nays, Browne, Donalson, Grubb, and Woods. Several efforts

were made to weaken or obscure the sense of the section on its

passage, but the Jeffersonian version met with fewer friends than

I expected.

Further testimony to the effect that Jefferson was

opposed to the provision prohibiting slavery in Ohio's

constitution of 1802 is presented in the Life and Times

of Ephraim    Cutler.    Governor Jeremiah Morrow        is

quoted as having received directly from Thomas Jeffer-

son a statement that the constitution should have ad-

mitted slavery in Ohio "for a limited period." Honor-

able Asahel H. Lewis, a member of the Ohio Senate,

1846-1847, is quoted as having written a letter to W.

P. Cutler under date of January 5, 1854, in which the

testimony of Governor Morrow is set forth as fol-

lows:

In answer to your note of the 31st inst., I state that in the

winter of 1846-7, as I think, I had several conversations with

the late Governor Jeremiah Morrow, who was then at Columbus.

These related in a considerable degree to the early history of

Ohio, the convention that formed the state constitution of 1802,

and the character of many of the leading men of the period. I

had then just read very attentively the journals of that conven-

• 3
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery       187

 

tion, and being interested in the subject, sought to elicit from him

such reminiscences as he had in relation to those points. In one

of these he stated that when he went to Washington as a mem-

ber of Congress, in 1803, he visited Mr. Jefferson; that their con-

versation turned upon the then new constitution of ()hio; that

Mr. Jefferson commended it highly in its main features, but

thought that the convention had misjudged  in some particulars.

One of these was in the structure of the judiciary, which Mr. J.

thought was too restricted by the constitution for the future

wants of the state, using, in this connection, the expression "they

had legislated too much". Another was the exclusion of slav-

ery. Mr. Jefferson thought "it would have been more judicious

to have admitted slavery for a limited period," "an opinion,"

added Governor Morrow, "in which I did not concur."   This

statement of the conversation with Mr. Jefferson was much more

full and minute, but, as I have not by me the memoranda I made

at the time, I can give only the substance. This, I am sure, is

correct.

I do not recollect that he told me the fact mentioned by you

respecting the section believed to have been drawn by Jefferson's

own hand, but am inclined to think I was informed of it by your-

self.

 

Colonel William E. Gilmore in his Life of Edward

Tiffin  in takes exceptions to the statement of Judge Eph-

raim Cutler in regard to "how the convention handled the

subject of negro slavery and dealt with the colored

race."   He declares that the attitude of the parties

named and the consideration of these two subjects have

"been most grossly misstated."    In support of this criti-

cism  he cites the official journal of the Constitutional

Convention and declares that while the meetings of sub-

committees were not recorded, "the transactions in com-

mittee of the whole convention and in the convention it-

self were fully recorded" and that "the official record

fails utterly to support the pretense of Mr. Cutler that

there was any struggle over the second section of the

Bill of Rights."  Mr. Gilmore is mistaken in his declara-

tion that the transactions of the convention and the

• 4
 

188       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

committee of the whole "were fully recorded."        In

fact these transactions are very meagerly recorded and

there is nothing in the official record to disprove any

material statement made in the portion of the Life

and Times of Ephraim    Cutler already quoted.    Of

course the statement with reference to Thomas Jeffer-

son's attitude toward the anti-slavery section of the

Bill of Rights is a matter of opinion.   The fact that

Judge Cutler was satisfied that Jefferson favored the

admission of slavery for a time in the new state is by

no means conclusive evidence on this subject. The re-

ported interview between Governor Morrow and Thomas

Jefferson is of course important, but it is evidence at

second hand and is not supported by manuscript testi-

mony over the signature of Jefferson himself.     It is

to be considered in the light of other testimony and the

statements of Jefferson that are not a matter of opinion

or reminiscence.

In Jefferson's Autobiography he declares that in

1769, when he was a member of the Legislature of

Virginia, he "made one effort in that body for the per-

mission of the emancipation of slaves, which was re-

jected."  In his original draft of the Declaration of

Independence he included an arraignment of King

George for inflicting the slave trade upon the colonies

using this language:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violat-

ing its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of dis-

tant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying

them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable

death in the transportation thither.  * * * Determined to

keep open a market where men should be bought and sold; he has

prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt

to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.

• 5
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery   189

The states of Georgia and South Carolina objected

to this indictment and it was stricken out.  It is, how-

ever, a testimonial not only to Jefferson's attitude toward

the slave trade, but toward the institution of slavery

itself.

The next important testimony to his attitude is

found in the Ordinance of 1784 for the government of

the Western Territory which he presented in the Con-

tinental Congress March 1, of that year.   This ordi-

nance contained the following provision:

That, after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said

states, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the

party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally

guilty.

 

The "said states" referred not only to the states to

be formed out of the territory northwest of the Ohio

River but all states to be formed out of the Western

Territory of the United States.

It was the purpose of Jefferson to limit the in-

stitution of slavery to the original thirteen states in the

hope that it would later be excluded gradually from these

states as well.

While the prohibition of slavery in this ordinance

was stricken from that instrument by the Continental

Congress it was supported by Jefferson and is an im-

portant evidence of his opposition to the institution.  It

was a forerunner of a similar provision, known as the

famous sixth article of compact, that became an import-

ant part of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited

slavery from the date of its adoption in all the territory

of the United States northwest of the Ohio River.

It is true that Jefferson was no longer a member of

• 6
 

190      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the Continental Congress when the Ordinance of 1787

was passed.

There have been different opinions as to the com-

parative merit of the prohibition of slavery originally

reported in the Ordinance of 1784 and the article of

compact actually passed in the Ordinance of 1787. The

former, which was introduced by Jefferson, included

all the Western Territory of the United States and be-

cause of this fact was apparently a greater limitation of

slavery.  It postponed, however, the prohibition until

the year 1801. The prohibition in the Ordinance of

1787 became immediately effective. If it had not gone

into effect until the year 1801 slavery would probably

have been established in all sections of the Northwest

Territory and it would have been very difficult to ex-

clude it. Different writers have declared that it would

not have been excluded at all and that Ohio would have

entered the Union as a slave state.  This is a matter

of opinion, however. Others have declared Jefferson's

prohibitory provision would have been much more ef-

fective, as it included all the western territory from the

lakes to the gulf. This, of course, must also remain a

matter of opinion. In view, however, of the controversy

over the question of slavery when Illinois and Indiana

were admitted into the Union even with the prohibition

of slavery in the Ordinance of 1787, it is extremely

doubtful whether states formed out of the entire West-

ern Territory if slavery had been permitted therein to

the year 1801, would have consented to its exclusion

after that date; and if they had not consented the action

of Congress would have been at least very problematic.

In the Continental Congress, as has been frequently

stated, the voting was by states. A majority of the dele-

• 7
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery        191

gates representing any state cast its vote on questions

before that body. The provision in the Ordinance of

1784 which prohibited slavery after the year 1800 failed

to receive the requisite vote and was stricken out of the

Ordinance. Ten states were then present and voting.

Six favored the provision; three opposed it; and the

delegation of Virginia, one of the three, was divided,

two of the delegates opposing and one favoring the pro-

hibitory provision. In commenting upon this action in

Paris for publication at a time following March 16,

1785, Jefferson wrote:

There were ten states present; six voted unanimously for it,

three against it, and one was divided; and seven votes being re-

quisite to decide the proposition affirmatively, it was lost. The

voice of a single individual of the state which was divided, or of

one of those which were of the negative, would have prevented

this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new coun-

try. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the

tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment!

But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent, and that the

friends to the rights of human nature will in the end prevail.

On the i6th of March, 1785, it was moved in Congress that

the same proposition should be referred to a committee, and it

was referred by the votes of eight states against three. We do

not hear that anything further is yet done on it!1

In further reference to the slaves of the United

States and divine punishment for the injustice imposed

upon them Jefferson concluded:

When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their

groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a

God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light

and liberality among their oppressors, or, at length, by his ex-

terminating thunder, manifest his attention to the things of this

world, and that they are not left to the guidance of a blind

fatality.²

1 H. A. Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 9, p. 276.

2 Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 9, p. 279.

• 8
 

192        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In 1781 he wrote his Notes on the State of Vir-

ginia.   He corrected and enlarged this in 1782. On

February 27, 1787, he published an edition of this work

which was somewhat widely circulated. In this he gave

expression very definitely to his attitude on slavery under

the somewhat obscure title of "Manners."

In this chapter he undoubtedly gives expression to

the opinions he entertained prior to the introduction by

him of the Ordinance of 1784 for the government of the

Western Territory of the United States.        An edition

of this work was published in June, 1801. This chapter

is retained, indicating that it expressed his convictions

up to that date. In the later editions, he makes no

apology for the opinions therein expressed, and indeed

as we shall see later, there is evidence that his views

were unshaken up to the time of his death.

The full text of this chapter is presented as it ap-

pears in the edition of 1801:

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 man-

ners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It

is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the man-

ners 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 cra-

dle 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. The parent storms, the child

looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in

• 9
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery        193

the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the 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 patriac of the other. For if a slave can have a coun-

try 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 gener-

ations 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 propor-

tion indeed are ever 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 consider-

ing 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 interfer-

ence! 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 pol-

icy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be con-

tented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind.

I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the pres-

ent 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 eman-

cipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be

with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

That Jefferson's attitude on the question of slavery

remained unchanged and that he favored the admis-

sion of Ohio into the Union with all the conditions im-

posed by the Ordinance of 1787 is further attested by

• 10
 

194      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

his approval of the enabling act for the admission of

Ohio into the Union, providing that the Constitutional

Convention should "form for the people of said state

a constitution and state government, provided the same

shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Ordinance

of the thirteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred

and eighty-seven, between the original states and the

people and states of the territory northwest of the river

Ohio."   By this specific provision the constitution of

the new state was to conform to all the articles of com-

pact embraced in the Ordinance, including, of course,

the one inhibiting slavery. This enabling act Thomas

Jefferson approved without registering, officially or

otherwise, any objection. It is significant also that up

to this date in his correspondence and writings he entered

no disclaimer of the views originally announced and

published in succeeding editions of his Notes on the

State of Virginia.

When Jefferson represented the United States at

Paris he wrote to M. Warville under date of February

12, 1788 a letter declining, for reasons that he stated, to

become a member of a society for the abolition of the

slave trade but at the same time declared:

You know that nobody wishes more ardently to see an aboli-

tion, not only of the trade but of the condition of slavery; and

certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacri-

fice for that object.

Reference has frequently been made by historians

to the so-called "Jefferson-Lemen Compact."    It is

claimed that Jefferson in 1784 met his friend, Rev. James

Lemen, and that after discussing the subject of slavery

for some time concluded that sooner or later an effort

would be made to fasten the institution on the North-

• 11
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery       195

western Territory.    According to the story, Jefferson

seems to have previously reached this conclusion and to

have thought that it would be wise to send Lemen to the

Territory to organize sentiment against the introduction

of slavery.   Lemen went west to carry out his part

of the compact.    The original documents setting forth

the relation between these two men, including a diary

kept by Lemen and letters written by Jefferson, are

no longer in existence. Copies of some of the papers

were made and are still available. Rev. James M.

Peck, an early Baptist minister of the Territory, left

a manuscript, it is said, which included copies of all

the important papers including an important letter from

Jefferson.   This letter was written to Robert Lemen,

a brother of James, under date of September 10, 1807.

In it Jefferson wrote:

If your brother James Lemen should visit Virginia soon, as

I learn he possibly may, do not let him return until he makes me

a visit. I will also write him to be sure and see me. Among all

my friends who are near, he is still a little nearer. I discovered

his worth when he was but a child and I freely confess that in

some of my most important achievements his example, wish and

advice, though then but a very young man, largely influenced my

action. This was particularly true as to whatever share I may

have had in the transfer of our great Northwestern Territory to

the United States, and especially for the fact that I was so well

pleased with the anti-slavery clause inserted later in the Ordi-

nance of 1787. Before anyone had ever mentioned the matter,

James Lemen, by reason of his devotion to anti-slavery principles,

suggested to me that we (Virginia) make the transfer and that

slavery be excluded; and it so impressed and influenced me that

whatever is due me as credit for my share in the matter is largely,

if not wholly, due to James Lemen's advice and most righteous

counsel. His record in the new country has fully justified my

course in inducing him to settle there with the view of properly

shaping events in the best interest of the people. If he comes

to Virginia, see that he calls on me.³

3 Willard C. MacNaul, The Jefferson-Lemen Compact, pp. 53-54.

• 12
 

196       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Jacob Piatt Dunn in his Indiana and Indianans re-

lates the story of the "Jefferson-Lemen Compact" at

length and seems to credit it as genuine and trustworthy.

Willard C. MacNaul presents the documents available

at the time relating to this compact in his monograph

read before the Chicago Historical Society in 1915.

In his carefully prepared and illuminating introduction

he admits that there are many doubts concerning the

alleged compact and the documents relating to it.   In

the opening portion of one paragraph he says:

How much of the current tradition is fact and how much

is fiction is hard to determine, as so little of the original docu-

mentary material is now available. The collection of materials

herewith presented consists of what purport to be authentic

copies of the original documents in question. They are put in

this form in the belief that their significance warrants it, and in

the hope that their publication may elicit further light on the sub-

ject.

Rev. James Lemen, a number of his sons and de-

scendants were ministers in the Baptist church, men

of high character and strongly opposed to slavery.  It

is difficult to believe that they or Rev. Peck would in-

tentionally make false statements in regard to these

documents.   In this connection, however, it must be

remembered that even Parson Weems who told the story

of Washington and the famous cherry tree is not now

regarded as a safe authority on the early life of "the

father of his country ;" and it seems rather singular that

Thomas Jefferson should have been supporting finan-

cially an agent in Illinois for years to work against the

introduction of slavery without leaving any evidence

of that fact in such shape as to be included in the volumi-

nous collections of his writings. Reference to this story

• 13
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery        197

is here included for the consideration of the reader at

what he may consider its probable historic value.

Jefferson's advocacy of colonization, the removal

of slaves when liberated to a colony especially set apart

for them, is set forth in his writings and correspondence.

In his comments on the changes of laws in Virginia after

the Declaration of Independence he states that the bill

providing for these modifications should have been

amended "to emancipate all slaves born after passing

the act." Such an amendment he tells us was prepared

"to be offered to the Legislature."   This provided

That they [the slaves] should continue with their parents to

a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage,

arts or science, 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, imple-

ments of household and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the

useful domestic animals, etc., to declare them a free and inde-

pendent 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 encour-

agements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why

not retain and incorporate the black 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 in-

juries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions

which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will di-

vide 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.⁴

He then  proceeds to    point out the     distinctive

characteristics of the negro race and to comment at

 

4 Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia, pp. 268-269.

• 14
 

198       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

length upon their color, their intellectual and moral

capacity and their condition compared with the slaves

of ancient history.     In conclusion   he declares that

"among the Romans emancipation required but one ef-

fort. The slave, when made free might mix with, with-

out staining the blood of his master." But with us,

in his opinion, a second step was necessary, "unknown

to history.   When freed, he (the slave) is to be re-

moved beyond the reach of mixture."⁵

In  his Autobiography Jefferson states that the

amendment was agreed upon, but "it was found that

the public mind would not yet bear the proposition."

He then records anew his conviction that the subject

demands early consideration and action:

Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or

worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book

of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less cer-

tain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same gov-

ernment. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of

distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the

process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably and in such

slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their

place be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the

contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder

at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example

in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This pre-

cedent would fall far short of our case.⁶

In the miscellaneous papers of Jefferson is found fur-

ther explanation and remarks on the failure of the pro-

posed amendment to the code of Virginia:

Of the two commissioners, who had concerted the amenda-

tory clause for the gradual emancipation of slaves, Mr. Wythe

could not be present, he being a member of the judiciary depart-

ment, and Mr. Jefferson was absent on the legation to France.

5 Ibid., p. 282.

6 H. A. Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 1, p. 49.

• 15
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery        199

 

But there were not wanting in that Assembly, men of virtue

enough to propose, and talents to vindicate this clause. But they

saw, that the moment of doing it with success was not yet arrived,

and that an unsuccessful effort, as too often happens, would only

rivet still closer the chains of bondage, and retard the moment

of delivery to this oppressed description of men. What a stu

pendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! who can en-

dure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, and death itself, in vin-

dication of his own liberty, and, the next moment be deaf to all

those motives whose power supported him through his trial, and

inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught

with more misery, than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to

oppose.⁷

 

In a letter to Mr. Barrow dated May 1, 1815, Jef-

ferson reaffirmed the views expressed in favor of the

emancipation and colonization of the slaves in the

United States. The desired end was to be accomplished,

in his opinion, by an appeal to the reason and conscience

of the master and the education of the slaves to fit them

for self government. On this phase of the subject he

said:

Both of these courses of preparation require time, and the

former must precede the latter. Some progress is sensibly made

in it; yet not so much as I had hoped and expected. But it will

yield in time to temperate and steady pursuit, to the enlargement

of the human mind, and its advancement in science. We are not

in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a superior

agent. Our efforts are in his hand, and directed by it; and he

will give them their effect in his own time. Where the disease

is most deeply seated, there it will be slowest in eradication. In

the northern States it was merely superficial, and easily corrected.

In the southern it is incorporated with the whole system, and re-

quires time, patience, and perseverance in the curative process.

That it may finally be effected, and its progress hastened, will

be the last and fondest prayer of him who now salutes you with

respect and consideration.⁸

 

⁷ Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 9, p. 279.

8 Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 7, pp. 456-457.

• 16
 

200       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

As late as February 4, 1824, he wrote to Jared

Sparks reaffirming his faith in colonization as the final

solution of the slavery question in the United States.

"In the disposition of these unfortunate people," he de-

clared, "there are two rational objects to be distinctly

kept in view."  The first of these was the establishment

of a colony on the coast of Africa. The colonies of

Sierra Leone and Mesurado he considered promising

well and worthy of support. The second object was

"to provide an asylum to which we can, by degrees,

send the whole of that population from among us, and

establish them under our patronage and protection as

a separate, free and independent people, in some coun-

try and climate friendly to human life and happiness."

He declared that he had ever deemed it entirely impos-

sible that any place on the coast of Africa should answer

this purpose. Continuing he wrote:

And without repeating the other arguments which have been

urged by others I will appeal to figures only, which admit no con-

troversy. I shall speak in round numbers, not absolutely accur-

ate, yet not so wide from truth as to vary the result materially.

There are in the United States a million and a half of people of

color in slavery. To send off the whole of these at once, nobody

conceives to be practicable for us, or expedient for them.

He continues his explanation of the difficulties at-

tending the transportation of slaves to the coast of

Africa and shows that the project is not only thoroughly

impractical but almost impossible. He reaffirms his

statements in behalf of colonization published in his

Notes on the State of Virginia forty-five years pre-

viously.  In conclusion he states among other things:

In the plan sketched in the Notes of Virginia no particular

place of asylum was specified; because it was thought possible,

that in the revolutionary state of America then commenced,

• 17
 

Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery     201

 

events might open to us someone within practicable distance.

This has now happened. St. Domingo has become independent,

and with a population of that color only; and if the public papers

are to be credited, their chief offers to pay their passage, to re-

ceive them as free citizens and to provide them  employment.

* * * I do not go into the details of the burdens and benefits

of this operation. And who could estimate its blessed effects?

I leave this to those who will live to see their accomplishment and

to enjoy a beatitude forbidden to my age. But I leave it with

this admonition, to rise and be doing. A million and a half are

within their control; but six millions (which a majority of those

now living will see them attain) and one million of these fighting

men will say, "We will not go."9

This brief survey, which does not include all the

views expressed by Thomas Jefferson on the subject

of slavery is believed to be sufficient to make clear his

attitude toward it.    He was himself the owner of

slaves and left a record of his intention to liberate them

under conditions favorable to the development of their

ability for self support.   There are references in his

writings other than those that have been quoted show-

ing that this subject was almost ever in his thoughts.

From   Monticello on August 28, 1797 he wrote to St.

George Tucker expressing the apprehension aroused by

the uprising of the negroes in St. Domingo. He hoped

that this might furnish an answer "to the difficult ques-

tion, whither shall the colored emigrants go?" and de-

clared "the sooner we put some plan under way the

greater hope there is that it may be permitted to pro-

ceed peaceably to its ultimate effect."    "But if some-

thing it not done," he added, "and soon done, we shall

be the murderers of our own children."

He seemed to regret that the problems involved in

the slave system of the South could not be finally solved

 

9 Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 7, pp. 332, 333,

334, 335.

• 18
 

202      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

through emancipation and colonization while he still

lived.  In his later days he was buoyed by the hope

that some way could be found by the rising generation

to settle the question of slavery without an appeal to

arms and that the bondmen might yet enjoy in full

measure the freedom and equality proclaimed for all

men in the Declaration of Independence.

A candid survey of Jefferson's views seems to lead

to certain definite conclusions. He was opposed to the

extension of slavery and there is no conclusive evidence

that he ever by word or official act did anything to en-

courage its extension to states where it did not already

exist.  He was not only opposed to its extension but

opposed to its continued existence in the states where

it had been established. No stronger arraignment of

the institution has been made, even by the ardent aboli-

tionists of succeeding years than he recorded in his

Notes on the State of Virginia, quoted on preceding

pages.  He considered the institution baleful in its

influence upon both master and slave and never receded

from or apologized for the opinions that he early ex-

pressed and continued to entertain to the close of his

illustrious career. He believed in colonization and

thought that the interests of the two races could be

best subserved under free institutions in lands widely

separated.

• 19