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)
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withdrawn; and the committee was directed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
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-
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
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.
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
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-
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.
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
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
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-
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.