Scholars in general have not taken seriously Thomas Jefferson(1743–1826) as a philosopher, perhaps because he never wrote aformal philosophical treatise. Yet Jefferson was a prodigious writer,and his writings were suffuse with philosophical content.Well-acquainted with the philosophical literature of his day and ofantiquity, he left behind a rich philosophical legacy in hisdeclarations, presidential messages and addresses, public papers,numerous bills, letters to philosophically minded correspondents(Adams especially), and his only book,Notes on the State ofVirginia. Scrutiny of those writings reveals a refined politicalphilosophy as well as a systemic approach to a philosophy of educationin partnership with it. Jefferson’s political philosophy and hisviews on education were undergirded and guided by a consistent andprogressive vision of humans, their place in the cosmos, and the goodlife that owed much to ancient philosophers like Epictetus, Antoninus,and Cicero; to the ethical precepts of Jesus; to coetaneous Scottishempiricists like Francis Hutcheson and Lord Kames; and even toesteemed religionists and philosophically inclined literary figures ofthe period like Laurence Sterne, Jean Baptiste Massillon, and MiguelCervantes. In one area, however, he was behindhand: his views on race,the subject of the final section.

• 1. Life and Writings
• 2. Deity, Nature, and Society
  • 2.1 The Cosmos
  • 2.2 Nature and Society
• 3. Morality
  • 3.1 Religion and Morality
  • 3.2 The Moral Sense
• 4. Political Philosophy
  • 4.1 The “Mother Principle”
  • 4.2 The “NaturalAristoi”
  • 4.3 Usufruct and Constitutional Renewal
  • 4.4 Revolution
• 5. Philosophy of Education
  • 5.1 A System of Education
  • 5.2 Education and Human Thriving
• 6. Race
• Bibliography
  • Primary Literature
  • Secondary Literature
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. Life and Writings

Thomas Jefferson was a born at Shadwell, Virginia, on April 13, 1743.His father, Peter Jefferson (1708–1757), was a farmer andsurveyor, and did much, from his own initiative and hard work, toimprove himself through reading and communal involvement. His mother,Jane Randolph (1721–1776), belonged to one of Virginia’smost distinguished families ([Au], p. 3). While we know that hisrelationship with his father was significant—for instance, heproudly added a map of Virginian, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvaniain hisNotes on the State of Virginia that was based on hisfather’s map—we know little about his relationship withhis mother. He aimed throughout the course of his own life, andsucceeded, in being much like his father in terms of industry,responsibility, punctuality, perseverance, and integrity, though helacked his father’s physical robustness. When his mother died,he wrote tersely and coolly in his pocket account book, “Mymother died at eight o’clock this morning [March 31], in the57th year of age.” Thereafter, he suffered for weeks fromviolent migraines (Kukla, 35). The death of his father, in contrast,proved to be a significant turning point in his life. At fourteenyears of age, he faced a dilemma with life-changing implications.“When I recollect that at fourteen years of age the whole careand direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely,” he wroteto grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph (24 Nov. 1808), “without arelative or friend qualified to advise or guide me, and recollect thevarious sorts of bad company with which I associated from time totime, I am astonished that I did not turn off with some of them, andbecome as worthless to society as they were.” Young Thomas wasleft without paternal guidance.

From 1752 to 1757, Jefferson studied under the Scottish clergyman,Rev. William Douglas, “a superficial Latinist” and“less instructed in Greek,” from whom he learned Frenchand the rudiments of Latin and Greek. With the death of his father in1757, Jefferson earned a substantial inheritance—some£2,400 and some 5,000 acres of land to be divided between himand younger brother, Randolph—and then began to study under Rev.James Maury, “a correct classical scholar” ([Au], p.4).

From 1760 to 1762, Jefferson attended William and Mary College andthere befriended Professor William Small. He wrote in hisAutobiography, “It was my great good fortune, and what probablyfixed the destinies of my life that Dr. Wm. Small of Scotland was thenprofessor of Mathematics, a man profound in most of the usefulbranches of science, with a happy talent of communication, correct andgentlemanly manners, & an enlarged & liberal mind.”Small, Jefferson added, had become attached to Jefferson, who becamehis “daily companion when not engaged in the school.” FromSmall, Jefferson learned of the “expansion of science & ofthe system of things in which we are placed” ([Au], pp.4–5). Small introduced Jefferson to lawyer George Wythe, who“continued to be my faithful and beloved Mentor in youth, and mymost affectionate friend through life,” and under whom Jeffersonwould soon be apprenticed in law—and Wythe introduced Jeffersonto Governor Francis Fauquier, governor of Virginia from 1758 till hisdeath ([Au], pp. 4–5). Small and Wythe especially would prove tobe cynosures to the young man. What is noteworthy here is thatJefferson gravitated toward some of the most prominent Virginians ofhis day, not toward his fellow students.

Upon leaving William and Mary (1762) and to the time he began hislegal practice (1767), Jefferson, under the tutelage of Wythe ([Au:5), undertook a rigorous course of study of law, which comprised forhim study of not just the standard legal texts of the day but alsoanything of potential practical significance to advance human affairs.For Jefferson, a lawyer, having a mastery of all things exceptmetempirical subjects and fiction, would be a human encyclopedia ofuseful knowledge. Advisory letters to John Garland Jefferson (11 June1790) and to Bernard Moore (30 Aug. 1814) show a lengthy and fullcourse of study, involving physical studies, morality, religion,natural law, politics, history, belle lettres, criticism, rhetoric,and oratory. Thereby, a lawyer would be fully readied for any turn ofevents in a case. As lawyer, Jefferson’s focus, David Konignotes, was cases involving property—e.g., the legal acquisitionof lands and the quieting of titles—and that, adds Konig, shapedhis political thinking on the need of the relative equal distributionof property among all male citizens for sound Republicangovernment.

As lawyer, Jefferson took up sixpro bono cases of slaves,seeking freedom. In the case of slave Samuel Howell in Howell v.Netherland (Apr. 1770), Jefferson argued, in keeping with sentimentshe would include years later in his Declaration of Independence,“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comesinto the world with a right to his own person, which includes theliberty of moving and using it at his own will.” The case wasawarded to Netherland, before his lawyer, George Wythe, could presenthis case (Catterall, 90–91). The court, it seems, was at thattime unprepared to hear of the natural equality of all men.

Jefferson would practice law till August 11, 1774, when he passed hispractice to Edmund Randolph at the start of the Revolutionary War.Jefferson’s gift for writing arguably made him much more suitedfor the political affairs of Virginia and the about-to-be-born UnitedStates than for legal matters (Holowchak 2019b, p. 55–56).

In 1769, Jefferson gained admittance to the Virginian House ofBurgesses. Delegates’ minds were, he said, “circumscribedwithin narrow limits by an habitual belief that it was our duty to besubordinate to the mother country in all matters of government”([Au], p. 5). Jefferson’s thinking inclined otherwise. Theexperience in the House of Delegates substantially shaped hisrevolutionary spirit.

On February 1, 1770, Jefferson lost most of the books of his firstlibrary when a fire razed his house at Shadwell. Of the loss of hisbooks, he wrote to boyhood friend John Page (21 Feb. 1770),“Would to god it had been the money [that the books cost and notthe books]; then had it never cost me a sigh!” He was to havetwo other libraries at Monticello in his life, which, because of hispassion for learning, centered on books. When he built his residenceat Poplar Forest early in the nineteenth century, he kept there anumber of books—focused on philosophy, history, and religion andin Petit Format by authors such as Ossian; the Greeks Homer, Plato,Demosthenes, Epictetus, Aurelius, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes,Pindar, Xenophon, Aesop, Plutarch, and Hippocrates; the RomansJuvenal, Livy, Tacitus, Lucretius, Horace, Seutonius, Ovid, andQuintus Curtius; the French authors Descartes, Voltaire, Fontaine,Pascal, Corneille, Moliere, Volney, Buffon, and Diderot; and theEnglish authors Bacon, Shaftesbury, Burke, Shakespeare, Hume, andMilton; collections of English and Italian poets; and an Edinburghversion of the Bible—for his own enjoyment.

Jefferson took as his wife Martha Wayles Skelton on January 1, 1772.In that same year, daughter Martha was born. In 1778, daughter Marywas born.

Upon retirement from law in 1774, Jefferson wrote Summary View of theRights of British America—“an humble and dutifuladdress” with complaints addressed to King George III ofEngland. The complaints concerned numerous American rights,contravened, and aimed at “some redress of these out greatgrievance” ([S], 16). Due to its trenchant tone—Jeffersongives the king a schoolmasterist lecture on how he, as servant and notproprietor of the people ought to behave ([S], 15)—it earnedJefferson considerable reputation among the more liberal congressmennot only as a gifted writer but also as a revolutionist.

Jefferson was elected to the Continental Congress in 1775 as itssecond youngest member. In his tenure in the Congress, he wouldparticipate in over 30 committees, often as their head (Holowchak,2019b, 62–63). He was soon invited to participate in a committeewith John Adams, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, and RobertLivingston to draft a declaration on American independence. It wasdecided that Jefferson himself should compose a draft. As John Adamswrites to Timothy Pickering (6 Aug. 1822) concerning his reasons forJefferson being the sole drafter of the document: “Reason 1st.You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head ofthis business. Reason 2nd. I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular;You are very much otherwise. Reason 3rd. You can write ten timesbetter than I can” (Adams). Jefferson called into questionAdams’ flattering account in an 1823 letter to James Madison(Aug. 30). “Mr. Adams [sic] memory has led him intounquestionable error. … The committee of 5 met, no such thingas a sub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed onmyself alone to undertake the draught.” For over two weeks,Jefferson worked on the Declaration of Independence in an upper-floorapartment at Seventh Street and Market Street in Philadelphia.

The document was intended to be “an expression of the Americanmind” and was put forth to the “tribunal of theworld.” Jefferson’s first draft listed certain“sacred & undeniable” truths: that all men are created“equal & independent”; that “from that equalcreation,” all have the rights “to the preservation oflife, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness”; thatgovernments, deriving their “just powers from the consent of thegoverned,” are instituted to secure such rights; and that thepeople have a right to abolish any government which “becomesdestructive of these ends” and to institute a new government, by“laying its foundation on such principles and organizing itspowers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect theirSafety and Happiness” ([D], 26).

Rigorous debate followed. Excisions and changes were made to reduceJefferson’s draft to some three-quarters of its original length,though the basic structure and the argument therein—a tightlystructured argument that begins with rights, turns to duties ofgovernment, and moves to a justification for revolutionary behaviorwhen citizens’ rights are consistently transgressed bygovernment—was unaltered. Thus, the Declaration contained therudiments of a political philosophy that would be fleshed out in thedecades that followed. The document, not thought to be significant atthe time, was approved on July 4, 1776, and it would become arguablythe most significant political writing ever composed.

Not long after Jefferson finished the Declaration on Independence, hewas appointed to a committee to revise the outdated laws of Virginia,as a result of a bill introduced to the General Assembly of Virginia.That was a hefty task, which Jefferson—as part of a committeecomprising also Thomas Ludwell Lee, George Mason, Edmund Pendleton,and George Wythe—began in 1776. Of the five, Lee and Masonexcused themselves, and revision, comprising 126 bills, was undertakenby Jefferson, Wythe, and Pendleton. Revision was completed in 1779, aperiod of not quite three years. Notable among the bills Jeffersondrafted, were Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge andBill for Religious Freedom. The latter was passed, with the proddingof James Madison, while Jefferson was in France as MinisterPlenipotentiary; the former, requiring educative reforms that demandeda system of public education, did not pass. The Virginian gentry, withready access to education at all levels, did not wish to funnel theirmoney for the education of the hoi polloi.

From 1779 to 1781, Jefferson began tenure as governor of Virginia.During his governorship, he reformed the curriculum of William andMary College by “abolishing the Grammar school,”eliminating the professorships in Divinity and Oriental languages, andsupplanting them with professorships in Law and Police; Anatomy,Medicine, and Chemistry; and Modern Languages ([Au], p. 5). He alsobegan his only book,Notes on the State of Virginia, in whichhe described the geography, climate, and people of Virginia and theirlaws, religions, manners, and commerce, among other things. The book,in general, was well received by his Enlightenment friends and dideven more to enhance his reputation as a gifted writer.

Jefferson’s wife Martha died on September 6, 1782.Overwhelmingly distraught, he found some consolation in an invitationto function as Minister to France—he needed to be away fromMonticello—which he did from 1784 to 1789. He ended the post atthe bidding of George Washington, who asked him to be his Secretary ofState—a post he held till 1793. Political disagreements betweenJefferson and Alexander Hamilton on political issues resulted information of the Republican and Federalist parties—the former,championing small, unobtrusive, and demassified government and strictconstructionism; the latter, larger, strong, and massified governmentand a willowy interpretation of the Constitution. After a briefretirement, Jefferson was elected Vice-President of the United Statesfor one term that ended in 1801, and then President of the UnitedStates, which lasted two terms. His presidency, which begantriumphantly with his conciliatory First Inaugural Address, washighlighted by the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the sizeof the country; the subsequent Lewis and Clark Expedition, which endedin 1806; and the failed Embargo Act of 1807, which aimed, among otherthings, to punish England during its war with France, by prohibitingexchange of goods. During his tenure as president, his daughter Mariadied (1804).

In retirement, Jefferson resumed his domestic life at Monticello,continued as president of the American Philosophical Society (aposition he held for nearly 20 years), and began activities that wouldlead to the birth of the University of Virginia, which opened one yearbefore his death. Irretrievably saddled with debt throughout hisretirement, he sold his library, approximately 6,700 books, toCongress in 1815 to pay off some of that debt. He died, as did JohnAdams, on July 4, 1826. On his obelisk, there was written, upon hisrequest ([E]: 706):

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
Of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia.

Jefferson wrote prodigiously. He penned some 19,000 letters. HepublishedNotes on the State of Virginia (English version) in1787. He wrote key declarations such as Summary View of the Rights ofBritish Americans (1774), Declaration of the Causes and Necessity ofTaking Up Arms (with John Dickinson, 1775), and the Declaration ofIndependence (1776); authored numerous bills; and wrote hisManualof Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the UnitedStates, a modified copy of which was still in use till 1977. Heput together two harmonies,The Philosophy of Jesus(1804)—no copies are known to survive—andThe Life andMorals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), by extracting passages fromthe New Testament. Last, Jefferson undertook late in life anautobiography (never completed), “for my own ready reference& for the information of my family” ([Au]: 3).

2. Deity, Nature, and Society

2.1 The Cosmos

Like many other contemporaries he read—e.g., Hutcheson, Kames,Bolingbroke, Tracy, and Hume—Jefferson was an empiricist, and inkeeping with Isaac Newton, a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. To JohnAdams (15 Aug. 1820), he writes, “A single sense may indeed besometimes decieved,^[1] but rarely: and never all our senses together, with their faculty ofreasoning.” Jefferson continues: “‘I feel: thereforeI exist.’ I feel bodies which are not myself: there are otherexistencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. Thisgives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void,or nothing, or immaterial space.” Given matter and motion,everything else, even thinking, is explicable. As all loadstones aremagnetic, matter too is merely “an action of a particularorganization of matter, formed for that purpose by it’screator.” Even mind and god are material. “To talk ofimmaterial existences is to talk of nothings.”

To Massachusetts politician Edward Everett (24 Feb. 1823), Jeffersonsays that observed particulars are found to be nothing butconcretizations of atoms. He cautions, “By analyzing toominutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loseshold.” That suggests a sort of pragmaticatomism—viz., atoms being merely arbitraryepistemological stopping points in the analysis of matter to keep themind from entertaining the dizzying thought of dividing withoutend.

Jefferson, however, was not a metaphysical atomist of the Epicureansort, but a nominalist like philosopher John Locke (1690). To NewJersey politician Dr. John Manners (22 Feb. 1814), he says:

Nature has, in truth, produced units only through all her works.Classes, orders, genera, species, are not of her works. Her creationis of individuals. No two animals are exactly alike; no two plants,nor even two leaves or blades of grass; no two crystallizations. Andif we may venture from what is within the cognizance of such organs asours, to conclude on that beyond their powers, we must believe that notwo particles of matter are of exact resemblance.

Humans categorize out of need, for the “infinitude of units orindividuals” outstrips the capacity of memory. There is groupingand subgrouping until there are formed classes, orders, genera, andspecies. Yet such grouping is man’s doing, not nature’s.^[2] Jefferson begins with biota—the system he questions is theSwedish botanist Carl Linnaeus’—and works his way down to“particles of matter.”

In Jefferson’s cosmos, which is Stoic-like in etiology, allevents are linked. The hand of deity is manifestly behind theetiological arrangements. Jefferson writes to Adams (11 Apr.1823):

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of theuniverse; in it’s parts general or particular, it is impossiblefor the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design,consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it’scomposition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held intheir courses by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces;the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands,waters, and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, each perfectlyorganized whether as insect, man or mammoth; it is impossible not tobelieve, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to anultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion,their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in theirpresent forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms.

The language of perception is in keeping with his empiricism; thelanguage of feel, with his appropriation of philosophers Destutt deTracy’s (1818/1827: 164) and Lord Kames’ (1758: 250)epistemology. Appeal to an ultimate cause implies a demiurge, of whosenature little can be known other than its superior intelligence andoverall beneficence.^[3] There is nothing here or in any other cosmological letters to suggestthat deity privileges human life any more than, in David Hume’swords, “that of an oyster” (1755 [1987]: 583).

Jefferson continues in his 1823 letter to Adams. Deity superintendsthe cosmos. Some stars disappear; others come to be. Comets, withtheir “incalculable courses”, deviate from regular orbitsand demand “renovation under other laws.” Some species ofanimal have become extinct. “Were there no restoring power, allexistences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all shouldbe reduced to a shapeless chaos.”

What precisely does divine superintendence entail?

William Wilson argues that the “‘cut’ ofJefferson’s mind” demands theism—divineinterpositionism. He writes:

Calling him a deist registers great misunderstanding of that mind. Butthe root of his thinking remained Newtonian, including its belief inan omnipresent divine activity in nature. The God of deism from thispoint of view would be a complete abstraction. As the statisticianreduces a person of flesh and blood to a mere integer, so the deistreduces God to a functionary of no real description who abandonsnature to a well-ordered dust. (Wilson 2017, 122)

It is unlikely that divine superintendence—i.e., extinction andrestoration—implies supernatural intervention in the naturalcourse of events (e.g., TJ to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 25 Sept.1816, and TJ to Daniel Salmon, 15 Feb. 1808). It is probable that anatural capacity for restoration exists in certain types of matter inthe same way that mind, for Jefferson, is in certain types of matter(Holowchak 2014a). Deity’s superintendence is likely thecapacity for pre-established cosmic self-regulation comparable in somesense to the work of a thermostat in regulating the temperature of a building.^[4] Following Lord Bolingbroke, whose views fromPhilosophicalWorks he “commonplaced” early in life ([LCB]:40–55), Jefferson believed that to posit that God needed tointervene in cosmic events to keep aright them (e.g., by sending downJesus to save humanity) was to belie the capacities of deity. God,thought Bolingbroke, and Jefferson’s god owed more toBolingbroke than to any other thinker, got things right the firsttime.

2.2 Nature and Society

How for Jefferson does man leave the state of nature and enter intosociety? Jefferson appeals to nature in what one scholar calls a“middle landscape” manner (Marx 1964: 104–5). Thehappiest state for humans is one that seeks a middle ground betweenwhat is savage and what is “refined.” Jefferson’svision, thinks Marx, is Arcadian. Jefferson’s aim, earlywritings indicate (e.g., TJ to James Madison, 20 Dec. 1787 and [NV]:290–91), was for America to be a pastoral society that had thefreedom of primitivism, because it was neither materialist normanufacturing and it had an abundancy of land. America, because it wasneither primitive nor uncultured, could have the trimmings of culturedsocieties, without their degenerative excesses.

Jefferson’s natural-law theory is Stoical, not Hobbesian orRousseauian. For Jefferson, the basal laws of nature that obtain whenman is in the state of nature are roughly the self-same laws thatobtain in civil society. They are also roughly the same basal lawsthat obtain between states.

The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in thestate of nature, accompany them into a state of society, and theaggregate of the duties of all the individuals composing the societyconstitutes the duties of that society towards any other; so thatbetween society and society the same moral duties exist as did betweenindividuals composing them, while in an unassociated state, and theirmaker not having released them from those duties on their formingthemselves into a nation ([F]: 423).

The ideological frame that allows for social stability is in theDeclaration of Independence, in which Jefferson lists two self-evidenttruths: the equality of all men and their endowment of unalienablerights.

“Equality” for Jefferson comprises equality of opportunityand moral equality. Equality of opportunity recognizes the differencesbetween persons—e.g., talents, prior social status, education,and wealth—and seeks to level the playing field throughrepublican reforms such as introduction of a bill to secure humanrights; elimination of primogeniture, entails, and state-sanctionedreligion; periodic constitutional renewal; and an educational reformfor the self-sufficiency of the general citizenry. To remedy theunequal distribution of property, Jefferson advocates in his DraftConstitution for Virginia that 50 acres of property go to every male Virginian^[5] ([CV]: 343). Moral equality is based merely on observation that eachperson is born with a moral-sense faculty, roughly the equal of allother persons as in the manner of seeing or hearing (e.g., TJ to PeterCarr, 10 Aug. 1787). Moral equality recognizes that each humandeserves equal status in personhood and citizenship, hence again theneed of republican reforms of the sort listed above.

Rights are held to obtain, whether or not holders recognize them, andthey have a moral dimension apart from their obvious legal dimension.There are, for instance, the moral obligations to obey the law and torecognize and uphold the rights of others.^[6]

Jefferson, mostly following Locke, mentions three unalienable rightsin the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and pursuit ofhappiness. The right to life constitutes a right to one’s ownpersonhood. The rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness (Lockelists property instead of happiness) entail self-determination throughlabor, art, industry, and self-governance. Government has no right tocontrol the lives of its citizens or dictate a course of happiness.Therein lies the foundation of Jeffersonian liberalism.

There is also the right to revolution, which entails the right toabolish any tyrannical form of government, given long abuses.

3. Morality

3.1 Religion and Morality

The right to the pursuit of happiness implies governmentalnon-intervention in citizens’ personal affairs and that entailsthat all persons are free to worship as they choose. Since religion isa matter between a man and his deity (e.g., TJ to Miles King, 26 Sept.1814), no one owes any account of his faith to another. Moreover,legislature should make “no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thusbuilding a wall of separation between church and state ([DB]: 510).^[7]

Being personal, religion ought not to be politicized. When the clergyengraft themselves into the “machine of government,” theyprove a “very formidable engine against the civil and religiousrights of man” (TJ to Jeremiah Moor, 14 Aug. 1800). Jeffersonholds in esteem the example of the Quakers, who live without priests,are guided their internal monitor of right and wrong, and eschewmatters inaccessible to common sense. Belief can only rightly beshaped by “the assent of the mind to an intelligibleproposition” (TJ to John Adams, 22 Aug. 1813).

The true principles of morality are the “mild and simpleprinciples of the Christian philosophy” (TJ to Gerry Elbridge,29 Mar. 1801)—the principles common to all right-intendedreligions. Jefferson writes to Thomas Leiper (21 Jan. 1809):

My religious reading has long been confined to the moral branch ofreligion, which is the same in all religions; while in that branchwhich consists of dogmas, all differ, all have a different set. Theformer instructs us how to live well and worthily in society; thelatter are made to interest our minds in the support of the teacherswho inculcate them.^[8]

Thus, the principles common to all religions are few, exoteric, andthe true principles of morality.^[9]

Though chary of sectarian religion due to the empleomania of sectarianclerics and a sharp critic of Christianity in his youth ([NR]),“Christianity,” deterged of its political trappings andmetaphysical verbiage, in time became special to Jefferson (e.g., TJto John Adams, 12 Oct. 1813 and 24 Jan. 1814). He states to Dr.Benjamin Rush (21 Apr. 1803):

I am a Christian, in the only sense [Jesus] wished any one to be;sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others;ascribing to him everyhuman excellence; & believing henever claimed any other.

Jesus’ teachings make up the greatest moral system, and Jesus is“the greatest of all the [religious] reformers.”^[10] To Benjamin Waterhouse (26 June 1822), Jefferson writes:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness ofman. 1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect. 2. That thereis a future state of rewards and punishments. 3. That to love God withall thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

Consequently, Jesus’ message comprises love of god (being one,pace Calvin, not three), love of mankind, and belief in anafterlife of reward or punishment.

There is a complication in a lettter to Thomas Law (13 June 1813).There he considers the “foundation of morality” andentertains several possibilities, one of which is love of God.“This [love of God] is but a branch of our moral duties, whichare generally divided in to duties to God and duties to man.” Hethen adds: “Whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It isidle to say, as some do, that no such being exists.”

The passage is customarily taken by scholars as Jefferson’s commitmentto moral atheism. Arthur Scherr (2014) takes Jefferson’smention of “the morality of the Atheist” as evidence ofmorality being indifferent to belief in God. Jefferson, Scherrnotes, mentions the unquestioned virtue of atheists likeD’Alembert and Diderot. Mike Zuckert (2011, p.66), referring to Jefferson’s advisory letter to nephewPeter Carr (10 Aug. 1787), writes, “The moral sense doctrine, inthe very crudeness and simplicity in which it is put here, isJefferson’s way of assuring Carr that—contrary toDostoevsky’s famous dictum—the moral life is perfectlysecure without God and without religion. It is well provided for bynature.” Thomas Kidd (2022, p. 199) agrees. “[Jefferson]insisted that atheists could be moral.”

Holowchak (2020a, pp. 59–61) argues otherwise.

Moral atheism is an impossible reading, as to be genuinely moral is tofulfill our moral duties to both God and others. ... When Jeffersonrefers to the “morality of the Atheist,” he is merelyacknowledging that an atheist can bebehaviorally similar, ifnot behaviorally identical, to a true religionist—an atheist canbe morality-abiding, even virtuous insofar as his actions towardothers are virtuous. Each might, for instance, be beneficent towardothers and act with respect and perhaps even love for the cosmos andall things in it. The difference is that the true religionist,qua moralist, will see the hand of God in all that herespects and loves, and that makes a significant difference, even ifit is only a cognitive difference. Yet that cognitive difference ismammoth. It separates a true moralist from a morality-abidingatheist.

Despite his commitment to the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels,Jefferson thought that much in the Bible was redundant, hyperbolic,bathetic, absurd, and beyond the bounds of physical possibility (e.g.,TJ to John Adams, 28 Oct. 1813). That was confirmed by inspection of alate-in-life “harmony” Jefferson constructed,The Lifeand Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), in which the virginbirth, miraculous cures, and resurrection were excised. Christ wasneither the savior of mankind nor the son of God, but the great moralreformer of the Jewish religion. As the title suggests, the workwholly ignored the Old Testament ([B]).

Even after he purged the New Testament of its corruptions—in hisown words, after he plucked, in an oft-used metaphor, the diamondsfrom the dungheap (TJ to John Adams, 12 Oct. 1813, and TJ to)—to try both to make plain Jesus’ true teachings and togive a credible account of the life of Jesus, Jefferson did notcompletely follow Jesus’ uncontaminated teachings. WhenJefferson expressed his own view on the branches of morality (truereligion), he did not mention belief in an afterlife, as did Jesus.^[11] His 1814 letter to Law mentions belief in an afterlife merely asone of the correctives to lack of a moral sense, along withself-interest, the approbation of others upon doing good, and therewards and punishments of laws. Given that, along with hisout-and-out commitment to materialism and given the evidence of fourletters that unequivocally express skepticism apropos of an afterlife,^[12] and given that he and his wife wrote about the “eternalseparation” they were about to make on her deathbed, it isprobable, asserts one scholar, that he did not believe in an afterlife(Holowchak 2019a, pp. 128–32). So, belief in an afterlife, oneof the chief teachings of Jesus, was likely not an essential part ofmorality for Jefferson. In contrast, Charles Sanford, noting thatJefferson appeals to the hereafter in several letters and addresses,offers a small-step argument in defense of belief in an afterlife.“‘The prospects of a future state of retribution for theevil as well as the good done while here’ [are] among the moralforces necessary to motivate individuals to live good lives insociety.” He adds: “Jefferson had begun with theconviction that God had created in man a hunger for the rights ofequality, freedom, and life and a desire to follow God’s morallaw. It was only a small step further to believe that God had alsocreated man with an immortal soul” (152).^[13]

Finally, Jefferson later in life claimed to be a Unitarian. What did“Unitarianism” mean for him?

Jefferson finds the notion of three deities in one inscrutable, andtherefore physically impossible. Here he falls back on his naturalism.He allows nothing inconsistent with the laws of nature, gleanedthrough experience. The sort of Unitarianism Jefferson promotes is nota religious sect, but instead a manner of approaching religion. Of hisUnitarianism, Jefferson asserts to John Adams (22 Aug. 1813),“We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order ofpriests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, andsay nothing about what no man can understand, nor thereforebelieve.” To Dr. Thomas Cooper (2 Nov. 1822), Jeffersoncontrasts Unitarians with sectarian preachers, so Unitarians can begrasped as persons living fully in accordance with the dictates oftheir moral sense faculty. To Benjamin Waterhouse (8 Jan. 1825),Jefferson states that Unitarianism is “primitive Christianity,in all the simplicity in which it came from the lips of Jesus.”Such letters show plainly that monotheism, incomplexity, andnon-sectarianism are dependent issues. Jefferson made purchase ofmonotheism because it and benevolence were key tenets of Jesus’uncorrupted teachings. Those two tenets, letters indicate, were theframework of his Unitarianism, or of any right religion.

3.2 The Moral Sense

For Jefferson, morality was not reason-guided, but dictated by a moralsense. Here he followed Scottish empiricists,^[14] such as William Small (Hull 1997: 102–5 and [Au]:4–5)—the only non-minister at William and MaryCollege—Francis Hutcheson, and especially Lord Kames.^[15]

To nephew Peter Carr (19 Aug. 1785), Jefferson says that the god-givenmoral sense, innate and instinctual, is as much a part of aperson’s nature as are the senses of hearing and seeing, or asis a leg or arm. Jefferson’s comparisons to hearing and sightinvite depiction of the moral sense tied to a bodily organ, like theheart (TJ to Maria Cosway, 12 Oct. 1785). Like strength of limbs, ittoo is given to persons in a greater or lesser degree, and can be madebetter or worse through exercise or its neglect.

A letter to daughter Martha (11 Dec. 1783) suggests the moral senseworks spontaneously, without any input of reason. The language of“feel,” used also in his letter to John Adams (15 Aug.1820) when Jefferson writes of feeling his own existence and also theexistenc is critical.

If ever you are about to say any thing amiss or to do any thing wrong,consider before hand. You will feel something within you which willtell you it is wrong and ought not to be said or done: this is yourconscience, and be sure to obey it.^[16]

One ought to resist the temptation to act viciously in circumstanceswhen vice will not be detected. He tells Carr (19 Aug. 1785) to actalways and in all circumstances as if everyone in the world werelooking at him. Jefferson bids grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph (24Nov. 1808) to appeal to moral exemplars before acting, and he listsSmall, Wythe, and Peyton Randolph. “I am certain that this modeof deciding on my conduct, tended more to correctness than anyreasoning powers I possessed.” Thus, one can use the moral senseunerringly, or relatively so, if one disregards the intrusions ofreason and assumes that all of one’s actions are under thescrutiny of cynosures—i.e., there will be no temptation to actfrom the pressure of peers. In another letter to Carr (10 Aug. 1787),Jefferson disadvises his nephew to attend lectures on moral philosophyand appeals counterfactually to a ham-handed creator. “He whomade us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules ofour moral conduct a matter of science.” Here and elsewhere,^[17] Jefferson is explicit that reason is uninvolved in moral“judgments.”

Not everyone possesses a moral sense. Napoleon, he tells Adams (25Feb. 1823), is an illustration. To Thomas Law (13 June 1814),Jefferson says that want of the moral sense can somewhat be rectifiedby education and employment of rational calculation, but sucheducative remedies are blandishments not aimed to encourage morallycorrect action, because that is impossible without a moral sense, butto discourage actions with pernicious consequences. In short, onewithout a moral sense can be induced or shaped to behave as if havinga moral sense, though such actions would merely be consistent withmorally correct actions, not be morally correct actions.

Finally, the function of reason, he says in his 1787 letter to Carr,is “in some degree” to oversee the exercise of the moralfaculty, “but it is a small stock which is required forthis”. Reason might function, thinks one scholar, (1) toencourage or reinforce morally correct action,^[18] (2) to keep the moral sense vital and vigorous, (3) to instill thefirst elements of morality in children through exposure to history,(4) to allow for cultural sensitivity to morally retarded cultures,(5) to continue moral advance through reading history as adults, (6)to help make plain the rights (especially derivative rights) ofhumans, (7) to form general rules to serve as rough guides human action,^[19] and (8) to encourage moral improvement through breeding for morality(Holowchak 2017a, 177–80). None of those functions, however,directly involves reason in moral “judgments.”

Jefferson also believed, following the lead of many thinkers of hisday—e.g., Francis Ferguson, John Millar, Lord Kames (1798 and1774), William Robertson, Claude Adrien Helvétius, the Marquisde Condorcet, and Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot—that humans weremorally progressing over time (e.g., TJ to John Adams, 11 Jan. 1816,and TJ to P.S. Dupont de Nemours, 24 Apr. 1816). There were, however,periodic glitches—periods of moral stagnation or decline. Thebelligerence between England and France in Jefferson’s lateryears was to him evidence of such decline. Still, such moraldeclinations, considered overall, were temporary setbacks or“retrogradations,” not genuine declinations. In a letterto Adams (1 Aug. 1816), he writes that the Americas will show Europethe path to moral advance.

We are destined to be a barrier against the returns of ignorance andbarbarism. Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders, and tohobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priest andkings, as she can.

Thus, moral progress is movement, prompted by embrace of liberty andrespect for humans’ rights, toward the ideals of love of deityand love of humanity through beneficence—the ideals taught bestby Jesus.^[20]

4. Political Philosophy

4.1 The “Mother Principle”

In his First Inaugural Address (1801), Jefferson lists the“essential principles of our Government” in 15doctrines—perhaps his first attempt at a definition ofrepublicanism ([I₁]: 494–95).

1. Equal and exact justice to all men, irrespective of political orreligious persuasion;
2. peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, withoutentangling alliances to any;
3. Federal support in the rights of states’ government;
4. preservation of constitutional vigor of the Federalgovernment;
5. election by the people;
6. absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority;
7. a well-disciplined militia;
8. supremacy of the civil over the military authority;
9. light taxation;
10. ready payment of debts;
11. encouragement of agriculture and commerce;
12. the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at thebar of the public reason;
13. freedom of the press;
14. protection byhabeas corpus and trial by juriesimpartially selected; and
15. freedom of religion.

Fifteen years later in a series of letters, Jefferson again grappleswith a definition of “republicanism.” To P.S. Dupont deNemours (24 Apr. 1816), Jefferson lists nine “moralprinciples” upon which republican government is grounded.

I believe with you that morality, compassion, generosity, are innateelements of the human constitution; that there exists a rightindependent of force; that a right to property is founded in ournatural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy thesewants, and the right to what we acquire by those means withoutviolating the similar rights of other sensible beings; that no one hasa right to obstruct another, exercising his faculties innocently forthe relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature; that justice isthe fundamental law of society; that the majority, oppressing anindividual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by actingon the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society; thataction by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach andcompetence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately,and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic;that all governments are more or less republican in proportion as thisprinciple enters more or less into their composition; and that agovernment by representation is capable of extension over a greatersurface of country than one of any other form.

Among the nine principles, the seventh,

Action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach andcompetence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately,and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of arepublic,

comes closest to the essence of republicanism. To John Taylor (28 May1816), Jefferson attempts a “precise and definite idea” ofrepublicanism:

A government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally,according to rules established by the majority.

He adds,

Every other government is more or less republican, in proportion as ithas in this composition more or less of this ingredient of the directaction of the citizens.

To Samuel Kercheval (12 July 1816), Jefferson gives his “motherprinciple”:

Governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the willof their people, and execute it.

He adds,

A government is republican in proportion as every member composing ithas his equal voice in the direction of its concerns (not indeed inperson, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, orsmall township, but) by representatives chosen by himself, andresponsible to him at short periods).

Such writings suggest the following “barebones” definitionof “republic” for Jefferson, or a “Jeffersonianrepublic”:

A government is a Jeffersonian republic if and only if it allows allcitizens ample opportunity to participate politically in affairswithin their reach and competency; it employs representatives, chosenand recallable by the citizenry and functioning for short periods, foraffairs outside citizens’ reach and competency; it functionsaccording to the rules (periodically revisable) established by themajority of the citizens; and it guarantees the equal rights, inperson and property, of all citizens.

The definition is barebones for several reasons. First, it does notfully capture the normative essence of Jefferson’s descriptionof what is “proper for all conditions of society” in hisletter to Dupont de Nemours. Yet it is not normatively neutral, as itspeaks of equality of opportunity for each citizen to participate ingovernment and it guarantees equal rights. Second, the definitionignores the partnership of politics and science, which is part ofJefferson’s conception of a republic. Jefferson insisted onperiodic revisions of the Constitution at conventions to accommodatechanges in the peoples’ will, when suitably informed. Suchchanges were not arbitrary, but dictated mostly by advances in science.^[21] Jefferson writes to Samuel Kercheval (12 July 1816), “The lawsand constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the humanmind.” Thus, a republic for Jefferson is essentially progressiveand scientific, not static and conservative.

Thus, Jeffersonian republicanism is aschema for governmentby the people, not anyparticularsystem ofgoverning. It is not wedded to any particularconstitution—constitutions, Jefferson is clear, are merelyprovisional representations of the will of the people at the time oftheir drafting (TJ to George Washington, 7 Nov. 1792)—but to theprinciple of government representing the will of the people, suitablyinformed. That is in part why Jefferson says in his First InauguralAddress that for the will of the majority to be reasonable, it must berightful ([I₁]: 493).^[22] Thus, Jeffersonian republicanism is essentially in partnership withscience.

Jefferson’s attempts at defining “republic” and hisnine moral principles “proper for all conditions ofsociety” shows that republicanism is a political philosophy. ForJefferson, republican governing is essentially progressive, and beinggovernment of and for the people, it aims at involving all citizens totheir fullest capacity. Over the centuries, he recognized, humanpotentiality had been stifled by coercive governments. Instantiationof republican governing, thus, was an attempt to impose the minimalpolitical structure needed to maximize human liberty, free humanpotentiality, and ensure the political ascendency of the“naturalaristoi,” the talented and virtuous, andnot the “artificialaristoi,” the wealthy andwellborn.

4.2 The “NaturalAristoi”

Jefferson’s republicanism was both democratic and meritocratic.It was democratic in that it aimed roughly to have no persondisadvantaged at the start of life. That would be the same for Blacks,who were the equals of all others in moral sensibility—hence,their desert of equal rights and equal opportunities. Democraticrepublicanism demanded recognition of moral equality and equality ofopportunity. Yet Jefferson realized that each person’s dreams,intelligence, and talents varied greatly. Thus, Jeffersonianrepublicanism was also meritocratic in that all persons were allowedto do with their life what they saw fit to do with it, so long as indoing so they did not disallow others the opportunity of doing whatthey saw fit to do. The most talented and virtuous, he assumed, wouldnaturally strive to exercise fully their talents and virtue throughpolitics and science.

Jefferson roughly recognized two classes of people: laborers andlearned (TJ to Peter Carr, 7 Sept. 1814). His distinction, however,was not determined by birth or wealth, as it was by most others of hisday, but by merit. To John Adams (28 Oct. 1813), Jefferson writes:

There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this arevirtue and talents.

He adds,

There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong tothe first class.

What Jefferson claims here is that the traditional, centuries-oldclass distinction, founded on birth or wealth, is in effectpolitically obsolete. What makes men “best” are talent(i.e., skill, ambition, and genius) and virtue.

Jefferson then tells Adams that the naturalaristoi comprise“the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, thetrust, and government of society.” He adds that that governmentis best which allows for “a pure selection of these naturalaristoi into the offices of government.” Through“instruction, trust, and government,” the naturalaristoi will be not only political officials, but alsoteachers, trustees, and practitioners or patrons of science.^[23]

To ensure that political offices will be held by the naturalaristoi, there must be,inter alia, public access togeneral education and free presses for dissemination of information tothe citizenry. With the citizenry generally educated, one has,Jefferson continues to Adams, merely “to leave to the citizensthe free election and separation of thearistoi from thepseudo-aristoi,” and “in general they will electthe real good and wise.”^[24] That is much preferable to the centuries-old method of allowing thewealthy and wellborn to govern, century after century, at the expenseof the people.

4.3 Usufruct and Constitutional Renewal

For Jefferson, constitutions, unlike the rights of men, are alterable,in conformance to the level of progress of a state. Thus,constitutions are to be replaced, altered, or renewed pursuant tohumans’ intellectual, political, and moral progress.

To James Madison (6 Sept. 1789), Jefferson writes:

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another… is a question of such consequences as not only to meritdecision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.^[25]

Beginning with the evident proposition—“the earth belongsin usufruct to the living”—Jefferson aims to prove thatthe deeds of each generation, defined by a nineteen-year period,^[26] ought to be independent (or relatively so) of each other. Moreover,“usufruct” implies that each generation has an obligationto leave behind their property to the subsequent generation at leastin the same condition in which it was received. For instance, anydebts one incurs while owning some land are not to be inherited byanother—e.g., a son—who obtains possession of that landafter the former passes. What applies to individuals applies to anycollection of individuals.

To instantiate the principle, there must be a period of adjustment.Present debts will be a matter of honor and expediency; future debtswill be constrained by the principle. To constrain future debts, aconstitution ought to stipulate that a nation can borrow no more thanit can repay in the span of a generation. Temperate borrowing would“bridle the spirit of war,” inflamed much by the neglectof repayment of debts.

Usufruct theoretically fits neatly with Jefferson’s notions ofpolitical progress and of periodic constitutional renewal. Concerningthe latter, he writes to C.F.W. Dumas (10 Sept. 1787):

No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires atthe end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of forceand not of right.

At the end of nineteen years, the period of a generation as determinedby mortuary tables in Jefferson’s 1789 letter to Madison, therewill be a constitutional convention, at which defects in laws can beaddressed and changes can be made.^[27] Should the principle of usufruct be adopted, republican governmentwould have a built-in mechanism for obviating revolutions.^[28] Without the debts and wars of one generation passed on to the next ina Jeffersonian republic and with that republic’s constitutionbeing renewed each generation to accommodate the needs and advances ofthe next generation, Jefferson thinks, the stage is set for politicalprogress.

James Madison wrote a lengthy letter several months later (4 Feb.1790) in reply to Jefferson’s usufruct letter, and politelyproffered “some very powerful objections.” Jefferson neveranswered that letter, though he never renounced generationalsovereignty.

4.4 Revolution

Even well-intended governments can still go astray. Jefferson writesin his Declaration of Independence,

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, itis the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institutenew government, laying it’s foundation on such principles, &organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem mostlikely to effect their safety & happiness ([D]: 26).

However, long-standing governments ought not to be changed “forlight & transient causes,” otherwise one risks supplantationof a corrupt government with another that is equally or more corrupt.Yet

when a long train of abuses & usurpations pursuing invariably thesame object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,it is [citizens’] right, it is their duty to throw off suchgovernment, & to provide new guards for their future security([D]: 26).

In his Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson statesthat for revolution to occur, there needs to be “manyunwarrantable encroachments and usurpations” ([S]: 3). Headds,

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of aday; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, andpursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainlyprove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery([S]: 7).

Therefore, a government becomes destructive when its abuses andusurpations are (1) many and long, (2) directed to the same end, and(3) clearly indicative of despotism.

For Jefferson, some amount of turbulence is one of the consequences ofliberty. The “manure” of blood is needed for healthygoverning because those governing will tend over time, Jefferson saysto William S. Smith (13 Nov. 1787), to govern in their own interests,if not carefully watched. Moreover, those governed will assumemistakenly that rights once granted will be rights always granted. So,rebellion is the mechanism whereby those governing, Jefferson tellsJames Madison (30 Jan. 1787), are periodically reminded thatgovernment in a Jeffersonian republic is of and for thepeople—that is, that the will of the majority, fittinglyeducated, is the standard of justice.

The turbulence of which Jefferson speaks in the letters to Smith andMadison are illustrations of rebellion, says Holowchak (2019a,73–76), not revolution. In contrast, revolution for Jefferson,following his Declaration, is a complex phenomenon. Unlike arebellion, it is never to be undertaken for slight reasons or becauseof singular cases of governmental abuse. The difference, forHolowchak, is one of scope, size, and persistency. Rebellions, oftenviolent, are generally quick signals to government concerning abuses,usually parochial. Revolutions, essentially violent, are long-term,well-planned, complex attempts at overthrowing a government, deemedhabitually abusive.

Mirkin interprets Jefferson otherwise. He does not distinguish betweenrebellion and revolution, but distinguishes between “two levelsof revolt”: populist rebellions and elitist threats ofrebellion. The former, exemplified by Shays’ Rebellion and theWhiskey Rebellion, are local and presumably non-moral issues. Thelatter, exemplified by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, arelarger, morality-grounded issues (e.g., transgression of rights), andbecause of that, there is a persistency to them (64–65).

One thing is clear. Revolutions or elitist rebellions, for Jefferson,are larger, more persistent, and more complex than rebellions orpopulist rebellions. To John Adams (4 Sept. 1823), Jefferson writes ofthe beginning, sustainment, and resolution of revolutions. “Thegeneration which commences a revolution can rarely compleat it.Habituated from their infancy to passive submission of body and mindto their kings and priests, they are not qualified, when called on, tothink and provide for themselves, and their inexperience, theirignorance and bigotry make them instruments often, in the hands of theBonapartes and Iturbides to defeat their own rights andpurposes.” Revolutions cannot be expected to establish asustainable, free government in the first effort.

Moreover, the revolutionary generation is generally suited to beginand sustain the revolution, Jefferson continues in the letter toAdams, but not to resolve it. It is, for Jefferson, incapable offixing a viable republican constitution. There are, thus, generationalresponsibilities for a Jeffersonian revolution to succeed. The role ofthe first generation is inchoation. Subsequent generations mustsustain and complete the initial effort to usurp the coercivegovernment. In the final stage, there is implementation of aconstitution, reflective of and beholden to the will of thepeople.

It is because of the complexity and cost, in terms of human lives,that Jefferson maintained that revolutions ought only to be undertakenin cases of extreme, consistent despotism. As he writes in hisDeclaration ([D]: 19), “When a long train of abuses andusurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design toreduce them [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right,it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide newGuards for their future security.” Still, he thought that theywere “mechanisms” needed in republican governments, forthere is a human tendency for those in power to be seduced by thatpower (TJ to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar. 1821).

5. Philosophy of Education

Jefferson’s views on education fit hand in glove with hispolitical philosophy.^[29] To facilitate a government of and for the people, there must beeducational reform to allow for the general education of the citizenryfor fullest political participation, to enable citizens to carry ondaily affairs without governmental intervention, and to funnel themost talented and virtuous to a first-tier institution like theUniversity of Virginia.

The sources of Jefferson’s views on education were many. Fromthe French, Jefferson learned that education ought to be equalitarian,secular, and philosophically grounded (Arrowood 1930 [1970]:49–50). He likely studied the works of Condorcet, La Chalotais,Diderot, Charon, and Turgot, and was influenced by men such asLafayette, Correa de Serra, Cuvier, Buffon, Humboldt, and Say.Moreover, Jefferson corresponded with or read the works of Britons andAmericans such as John Adams, Priestley, Locke, Thomas Cooper, Pictet,Stewart, Tichnor, Richard Price, William Small, Wythe, Fauquier,Peyton Randolph, and Patrick Henry (Holowchak 2014b, 69). Thateducation ought to be scientific and useful was emphasized by WilliamSmall at William and Mary College as well as his uptake of theempirical philosophers of his day and their disdain of metempiricalsquabbling.

5.1 A System of Education

Jefferson’s educational views are spelled out neatly in fourbills proposed to the General Assembly of Virginia (1779), in his Billfor Establishing a System of Public Education (1817), in his RockfishGap Report (1818), and in key letters to correspondents—e.g.,Peter Carr (19 Aug. 1785), John Banister (15 Oct. 1785), William GreenMunford (18 June 1799), Joseph C. Cabell (14 Jan. 1818), NathanielBurwell (14 Mar. 1818), John Brazier (24 Aug. 1819), and JohnBreckinridge (15 Feb. 1821).

When Jefferson, Pendleton, and Wythe undertook the task of revisingthe laws of Virginia in 1776, Jefferson drafted four significantbills—Bills 79 to 82.

I consider 4 of these bills … as forming a system by whichevery fibre would be eradicated of ancient or future aristocracy; anda foundation laid for a government truly republican.^[30] ([WTJ5]: 44)

That system, says Alan Taylor (p. 222), was “a top-downeducational program for Virginia’s improvement.” Holowchak(2014b), following the general drift of Jefferson’s liberal politicalphilosophy, that the focus was ever on generally educating themasses.

Bill 79 proposed to create wards or hundreds, each of which would havea school for general education in which “reading, writing, andcommon arithmetic should be taught” ([BG]). Virginia was to besubdivided in twenty-four districts, each of which would have a schoolfor “classical learning, grammar, geography, and the higherbranches of numerical arithmetic” ([BG]). Bill 80 proposed tosecularize William and Mary College and add to its curriculum byenlarging its “sphere of science” ([BWM]).^[31] Bill 81 proposed to create a public library for Virginia forscholars, elected officials, and inquisitive citizens ([BL]). Bill 82,the only bill that would eventually pass (1786), proposed to disallowstate patronage of any particular religion ([BR]; [Au]:31–44).

Jefferson made it clear (TJ to George Wythe, 13 Aug. 1786) that Bill79—concerning implementation of wards and ward schools—was“the most important bill of our whole code”, as it was the“foundation … for the preservation of freedom andhappiness” in a true republic. It was the key to engendering thesort of reforms needed for Jeffersonian republicanism—reformsaimed at an educated and thriving citizenry.

It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but inthe hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with acertain degree of education,

he says to George Washington (4 Jan. 1786). “Wherever the peopleare well-informed, they can be trusted with their owngovernment,” he writes to philosopher Richard Price (8 Jan. 1789).^[32]

Yet Jefferson’s trust in the people was not unconditional. Henever asserted categorically that government for and of the peoplemust, or even can, work. Experience had shown him that governments inwhich officials were not elected by and beholden to the people did notwork—i.e., they were ultimately unresponsive to the needs of thepeople—and so he often called republicanism an“experiment” or “great experiment” (TJ to JohnAdams, 28 Feb. 1796, and WTJ5: 484). If citizens’ rights were tobe respected and defended and if governors were not to govern in theirown best interest but as stewards of the citizenry, all citizensneeded a basic education—hence, the indispensability ofward-school education.

5.2 Education and Human Thriving

Given two rough classes of citizens, the laborers and the learned,Jefferson recognized two levels of education ([R]: 459–60). Thelaborers—divided roughly into husbandmen, manufacturers, andcraftsmen—needed to conduct business to sustain and improvetheir domestic affairs. Thus, they needed access to primary education.The learned needed access to college-level (Jefferson’sintermediary grammar schools) and university-level education. To PeterCarr (7 Sept. 1814), Jefferson writes,

It is the duty of [our country’s] functionaries, to provide thatevery citizen in it should receive an education proportioned to theconditions and pursuits of his life.

Needs are not all personal. People are, for Jefferson, socialcreatures, republics are progressive, and thus, citizens havepolitical duties. Education is critical. “If the condition ofman is to be progressively ameliorated, as we fondly hope andbelieve,” writes Jefferson to the French revolutionary MarcAntoine Jullien (6 Oct. 1818), “education is to be the chiefinstrument in effecting it.” To fit and function in a stable,thriving democracy, all citizens are expected to know and assume aparticipatory role to the best of their capacities.

To promote both fullest political participation and moral progress,Jefferson realized that educational reform had to be systemic. In aletter to Senator Joseph C. Cabell (9 Sept. 1817), Jefferson outlinessix features of that system.

1. Basic education should be available to all.
2. Education should be tax-supported.
3. Education should be free from religious dictation.
4. The educational system should be controlled at the locallevel.
5. The upper levels of education should feature free inquiry.
6. The mentally proficient should be enabled to pursue education tothe highest levels at public expense.

Only a system could offer all citizens an education proportioned totheir needs: the laborers, a broad, general education; the learned, aneducation suited to their idiosyncratic needs (Bowers 1943: 243 andWalton 1984: 119). Jefferson gets across that point to academicianGeorge Ticknor (25 Nov. 1817) in the manner of Bacon by limning theimportant truths—“that knowledge is power, that knowledgeis safety, and that knowledge is happiness.”

Overall, observation showed that human capacities were greatlyunderdeveloped (TJ to William Green Munford, 17 June 1799).Consequently, education needed to tap into untapped human potential inmorally responsible ways.

As well might it be urged that the wild and uncultivated tree,hitherto yielding sour and bitter fruit only, can never be made toyield better; yet we know that the grafting art implants a new tree onthe savage stock, producing what is most estimable both in kind anddegree. Education, in like manner, engrafts a new man on the nativestock, and improves what in his nature was vicious and perverse intoqualities of virtue and social worth ([R]: 461).

Human perfectibility, for Jefferson, was a matter of improvedefficiency of living, which implied not merely progress in the fieldsof human health and human productivity through discoveries andlabor-saving inventions, but also and especially moral improvement.Moral improvement was much more important than exercise of rationality(e.g., TJ to Maria Cosway, 12 Oct. 1786). Pure rationality was amatter of humans abstracting from reality; moral sensibility was amatter of humans immersed in reality.

Still Jefferson thought courses in morality were unneeded, if notinjurious, for moral improvement was not a matter of honingrationality. “I think it lost time to attend lectures in thisbranch,” Jefferson writes to Carr (10 Aug. 1787), for moralsensing is independent of reason. That of course was consistent withthe empiricism of his day—e.g., Lord Kames and David Hume.Nonetheless, Jefferson inNotes on the State of Virginia hasa role for education in moral development. The first stage ofeducation is not the time to encourage critical engagement withmaterial like the Bible, for human rationality is not sufficientlydeveloped, but instead a time when children should store historicalfacts to be used critically later in life. While doing so, the“elements of morality” can be instilled. Such elementsteach children, says Jefferson in Aristotelian fashion, that

their own greatest happiness … does not depend on theircondition in life in which chance has placed them, but is always theresult of a good conscience, good health, occupation [i.e., industry],and freedom in all just pursuits ([NV]: 147).

Moral “learning” is, thus, less a matter of ingesting anddigesting moral principles to apply to circumstances—there wereno inviolable principles for Jefferson, as morality was a matter ofsensing the right thing to do in circumstances—but of placingfaith in the capacity of one’s moral sense to“decide” the right course of action without the corruptiveinfluence of reason or peer pressure. It was also a matter ofencouraging children, through study of history and works of moralfiction, to learn to act on what they feel (TJ to Martha Jefferson, 11Dec. 1783, TJ to Peter Carr, 19 Aug. 1785 and 10 Aug. 1787).

Because of the subordination of rationality to morality, educationmust be useful. It must engender effective, participatory citizenryand political stability. Jefferson always insisted on the practicalityof education, because his take on knowledge was Baconian.^[33] Consider what Jefferson says to scientist and physician Edward Jenner(14 May 1806) on behalf of the “whole human family” forhis discovery of a vaccine for small pox.

Medecine has never before produced any single improvement of suchability. Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood wasa beautiful addition to our knowledge of the animal economy, but on areview of the practice of medicine before & since that epoch, I donot see any great amelioration which has been derived from thatdiscovery, you have erased from the Calendar of human afflictions oneof it’s greatest. Yours is the comfortable reflection thatmankind can never forget that you have lived.

Yet every scientific discovery is potentially fruitful. “Nodiscovery is barren; it always serves as a step to somethingelse” (TJ to Robert Patterson, 17 Apr. 1803). Thus, even themore scientifically sterile facts might someday prove of humanuse.

“Useful” for Jefferson was broad and with normative implications.^[34] A complete education for Jefferson would produce men who were

in all ways useful to society—useful because intelligent,cultured, well-informed, technically competent, moral (thisparticularly), capable of earning a living, happy, and fitted forpolitical and social leadership (Martin: 37).

Useful implied social and political activity. Male citizens ofgreatest virtue and greatest genius would contribute by participationin science, in education, and in the most politically prominentpositions. Lesser citizens would contribute more modestly and mostlyat local levels through, for illustration, jury duty, participation inmilitia, and voting for and overseeing elected representatives.

Finally, education for Jefferson was a way of living. Its aim was togive persons the tools they would need to make them socially andpolitically involved, free, self-sufficient, and happy. As KarlLehmann (201–2) notes:

To Thomas Jefferson, school would never be a “finishing”agency. From each stage, man would have to move on in a never endingprocess of self-education…. The narrow professional who had buta technical knowledge of his little vocational area was a curse tohim. Education had to be broad in order to assure the freedom andhappiness of man.

6. Race

Jefferson’s views on race have been the focus of considerablediscussion in the secondary literature.^[35] Those views, which would be considered today as racist, were likelyinfluenced by the views of the leading naturalists of his day. In thatregard, he was the product, not ahead, of his time.

Most of the discussion of Jefferson’s views on Blacks concernshisNotes on the State of Virginia. In Query XIV, Jeffersonwrites, “In memory [Blacks] are equal to the whites”([NV]: 139). “In reason,” Jefferson says, “[Blacksare] much inferior [to Whites], as I think one could scarcely be foundcapable of tracing and comprehending the investigations ofEuclid” ([NV]: 139). He adds, “Never yet could I find thata black had uttered a thought above the level of plainnarration” ([NV]: 140). “In imagination [Blacks] are dull,tasteless, and anomalous,” and that is evident in their art. Inmusic, Blacks have accurate ears “for tune and time,” aregenerally more gifted than Whites, and are capable of a “smallcatch,” as illustrated by their talent with the“Banjar,” a guitar-like instrument “brought …from Africa.” “Whether they will be equal to thecomposition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicatedharmony, is yet to be proved.” Despite their misery, which“is often the parent of the most affecting touches ofpoetry,” they have “no poetry” ([NV]: 40–41and 288n10).

Inferiority of mind and imagination, he adds, is also confirmed, inJefferson’s estimation, by “the improvement of the blacksin body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with thewhites,” and that “has been observed by every one, andproves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of theircondition of life” ([NV]: 141). Here he may be referencing“observations” in scientific texts of his day in hislibrary.

In morality, Jefferson admits, Blacks are the equals of allothers.

We find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, andas many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence,gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.

What he takes to be their “disposition to theft,”Jefferson explains thus: “The man, in whose favour no laws ofproperty exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect thosemade in favour of others.” Might not a slave “justifiablytake a little from one, who has taken all from him” ([NV]:142).

All such conclusions, Jefferson says, are provisional: They have theconfirmation of observation, but Blacks as well as “redmen” hitherto have not been the subjects of natural history.

The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason andimagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify ageneral conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subjectmay be submitted to the Anatomical knife, to Optical glasses, toanalysis by fire or by solvents. How much more then where it is afaculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes theresearch of all the senses; where the conditions of its existence arevarious and variously combined; where the effects of those which arepresent or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add too, as acircumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade awhole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which theirCreator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said,that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes theraces of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by usas subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspiciononly, that the blacks … are inferior to the whites in theendowments both of body and mind ([NV]: 143).

Though he stated that Blacks and Native Americans had not been thesubjects of natural history, there was a large body of literature byleading naturalists of his day—e.g., Swedish biologist CarlLinnaeus ([1758] 1808), Oliver Goldsmith ([1774] 1823), and“Georges” Cuvier ([1817] 1831)—to which Jeffersonhad access and which he doubtless assimilated. That literature viewedBlacks and Native Americans as inferior to white Europeans, and theoverall tendency was to associate darker skin with increased inferiority.^[36] Prominent philosophers like David Hume (1755 [1987]: 208n10), AdamSmith (1759 [1982]: 208), and C.F. de Volney in (1802 [2010]: 68) alsoasserted the inferiority of Blacks and Native Americans.

This smattering of the “science” of Jefferson’s timeshows that some of the most esteemed scientists held that Blacks andNative Americans, considering each as a race or subspecies of humans,were regarded as inferior or defective.^[37] Jefferson owned and was informed by most of that literature, since hetended to be aware of recent developments in all of the sciences. ThusJefferson’s “observations” were tainted by the“observations” or prejudgments of the authorities of hisday. Despite his view of them as inferior, he recognized Blacks, asmoral equals of all others, had the same rights as all other men. Hewrites to Bishop Grégoire (25 Feb. 1809):

Whatever be [Blacks’] degree of talent it is no measure of theirrights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others inunderstanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property ofothers.

Nonetheless, Jefferson’s view of Native Americans wasinconsistent with those naturalists who viewed them too as a raceinferior to Europeans, and that requires some explanation. In QueryXIV of hisNotes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson offers abrief analysis of Native Americans as a race. Not having had the“advantages” of exposure to European culture that Blackshave had, still Native Americans “often carve figures on theirpipes not destitute of design and merit” ([NV]: 140). Theircarvings and drawings “prove the existence of a germ in theirminds which only wants cultivation.”^[38] He continues,

They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such asprove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing andelevated. ([NV]: 140)

One may wonder how much “advantage” Jefferson imaginesBlacks should demonstrate on account of their exposure to the“culture” of their oppressors while enslaved. ButJefferson maintains that though “most of [the Blacks in America]have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their ownsociety” and have had little direct exposure to sciences and thearts,

many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves ofthe conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to thehandicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always beenassociated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and allhave lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated toa considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of thebest works from abroad ([NV]: 139–40).

Thus, Jefferson’s assessment of Blacks differs from hisassessment of Native Americans. It is unclear whether that differenceis natural or nurtural. The intimation inNotes on the State ofVirginia and in a letter to Edmund Coles (25 Aug. 1814) isnatural, though in other letters (e.g., TJ tp Benjamin Banneker, 30Aug. 1791, and TJ to Bishop Grégoire, 25 Feb. 1809), thesuggestion is nurtural, though deficiencies are so pronounced thatthere can be no rapid change of situation. With Native Americans, thescenario is otherwise.

There is also a sentiment commonly expressed in the secondaryliterature (e.g., Risjord 2002: 50–1) that Jefferson had apersonal, or political, interest in defending Native Americans that hedid not have for Blacks. Buffon—perhaps the greatest naturalistof his day—argued that since the continent of North America wascolder and wetter than that of Europe,^[39] its biota, Native Americans included, were inferior ([NV]: 48).Consequently, “the savage” was feeble, glabrous,passionless, and compared to Europeans, was sexually less potent, lesssensitive, and more timid, among other things ([NV]: 58). AbbéRaynal added that what was true of Native Americans would eventuallyprove true of any Europeans transplanted in America ([NV]: 64).Jefferson put considerable effort into refuting Buffon and Raynal([NV]: 60–64), which he did, as most scholars concede (e.g.,Peden 1954: xxiii), with remarkable success, though his aim wasfurther, open discussion more than it was refutation ([NV]: 54).

One thing seems clear, however. His mistaken views of Blacks and hisviews of Native Americans shaped his political thinking.Jefferson’s political vision was of an American nation that waswedded to liberty, happiness, and mostly agrarian living, thatinstantiated irenic republican governance, and that would in timeserve as a model for other parts of the globe (Holowchak 2017b,131–51, and 2024, chap. 10). That vision, for success, requiredin his eyes the fullest cultivation of genius and morality in theyouthful nation (McCoy 1980: 136). Native Americans, it seems, passedon both accounts. Blacks, however, were, on his view, wanting inintelligence. Thus, only Native Americans could be integrated into thefledgling nation, which held the prospect of covering, as an“empire for liberty,” the North American continent (TJ toJames Madison, 27 Apr. 1809) and perhaps even the South Americancontinent (TJ to James Madison, 24 Nov. 1801). In Jefferson’sview, Blacks could not be integrated. First, “ten thousandrecollections, by the black, of the injuries they havesustained” over many decades and their large numbers, especiallyin the Southern states, make possible, perhaps even probable, “arevolution of the wheel of fortune [and] an exchange ofsituation” in which “the Almighty has no attribute whichcan take side with us in such a contest” ([NV]: 138 and 163).Second, Jefferson imagined that admixture of black blood with whiteblood would taint the offspring, and thereby threaten the success ofhis republican experiment. So, every slave would eventually have to be“removed beyond the reach of mixture” ([NV]: 137–38and 143). Thus, he thought everyone would be best served if Blackswere educated, emancipated, and expatriated; so too would Whites. Theprocess of emancipation and expatriation was shared by numerous othersof Jefferson’s day, hence formation of the American ColonizationSociety, which was supported by esteemed members such as JamesMadison, John Randolph, and Henry Clay. Jefferson added education, andby that he meant the teaching of some productive craft and perhapsbasic math and reading and writing.

What, however, of Jefferson’s views and actions on theelimination of slavery?

We do know that Jefferson consistently spoke out loudly against theinstitution of slavery and that, as lawyer and politician, he workedhard toward its eradication. He, for instance, undertook sixprobono cases on behalf of slaves, seeking freedom, and neverdefended the rights of a slaveholder. He crafted spirited declamationsof slavery in his Summary View ([S] 115–16), initial draft ofthe Declaration of Independence ([Au] 22), hisNotes on the Stateof Virginia ([NV]: 162–63), and in several letters.

Yet as he matured, Jefferson did little to advance the issue, becausehe believed that that effort might be more harmful than beneficial.The time, he consistently said, was not right. As early as 1805 (TJ toWilliam Burwell, Jan. 28), he expresses skepticism concerning theeradication of slavery.

There are many virtuous men who would make any sacrifices to effectit, many equally virtuous who persuade themselves either that thething is not wrong, or that it cannot be remedied, and very many withwhom interest is morality [i.e., those who recognize its immorality,but think sympathy is equivalent to action]. The older we grow, thelarger we are disposed to believe the last part to be.

To Edward Coles (25 Aug. 1814), he writes of the “generalsilence” on slavery as indicative of public apathy among youngergenerations.

I have overlived the generation with which mutual labors & perilsbegat mutual confidence and influence. This enterprise [abolition ofslavery] is for the young; for those who can follow it up, and bear itthrough to its consummation.

He even castigates Coles when the latter considers emancipation of hisown slaves—a precipitous act.

The laws do not permit us to turn them loose, if that were for theirgood: and to commute them for other property is to commit them tothose whose usage of them we cannot control. I hope then, my dear sir,you will reconcile yourself to your country and its unfortunatecondition.

Jefferson’s mistaken views on Blacks and his refusal uponretirement to do more to eliminate the institution of slavery haveprompted considerable critical discussion in the secondary literature(see fn. 38). On the one hand, most see Jefferson as racist. McColley(1964), Cohen (1969), Miller (1977), and Dawidoff (1993) argue thatJefferson’s racial views were hypocritical rationalizations forhis slaveholding and large living. Finkelman (1994), O’Brien(1996), and Magnis (1999) state that Jefferson was driven by aprofound hatred of Blacks. On the other hand, Levy (1963), Mayer(2001), Burstein (2005), and Holowchak (2020b) argue that thoughJefferson held false views concerning Blacks, it is anachronistic tocall him a racist, as ignorance concerning racial differences bycommoners and scientists was at the time rife. Jefferson, ultimately,was a product of the ignorance and prejudgments of his time.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

General

• WTJ1:The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being hisAutobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and OtherWritings, Official and Private: Published by the Order of the JointCommittee of Congress on the Library, from the Original Manuscripts,Deposited in the Department of State, 9 vols., H.A. Washington(ed.), Washington: Taylor & Maury, 1853–54.
• WTJ2:The Works of Thomas Jefferson,12 vols., P.L.Ford (ed.), New York: Putnam, 1902.
• WTJ3:The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,DefinitiveEdition, 20 vols., A.A. Lipscomb and A.E. Bergh (ed.),Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907.
• WTJ4:The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 42 Vols. (to date),J. Boyd et al. (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press,1950–present.
• WTJ5:Thomas Jefferson: Writings, M.D. Peterson (ed.),New York: Library of America, 1984.
• WTJ6:Early History of the University of Virginia, J.W.Randolph (ed.), Richmond, VA: C.H. Wynne, 1856.
• WTJ7:The Scholars’ Thomas Jefferson: Vital Writings ofa Vital American, M. Andrew Holowchak (ed.), Wilmington, DE:Vernon, 2021.

Specific Works

• [Au] Autobiography, in WTJ5: 1–101.
• [B] Jefferson’s Bible, in Holowchak 2019c: 29–90.
• [BG] Bill 79: Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,1779, in WTJ7: 279–85. [BG available online]
• [BL] Bill 81: A Bill for Establishing a Public Library, 1779,WTJ7: 291–92. [BL available online]
• [BP] Bill for Establishing a System of Public Education, 1817, inWTJ7: 294–306.
• [BR] Bill 82: Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1779, inWTJ7: 153–54. [BR available online]
• [BWM] Bill 80: A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the Collegeof William and Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for ItsSupport, 1779, WTJ7: 286–91. [BWM available online]
• [CV] Draft Constitution for Virginia, 1776, in WTJ5:336–45.
• [D] Declaration of Independence, 1776, in WTJ7: 26–30.
• [DB] Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, 1802, in WTJ5:510.
• [E] Epitaph, in WTJ5: 706.
• [F] Opinion on the French Treaties, 1793, in WTJ7: 40–50. [[F] available online]
• [I₁] Inaugural Address, 1801, in WTJ7: 55–59. [I₁ available online]
• [L] Letters, in WTJ1, WTJ2, WTJ3, WTJ4 or WTJ5:711–1517.
• [LCB] Literary Commonplace Book,1989, ed. Douglas L. Wilson,Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book, Princeton:Princeton University Press.
• [NR] Notes on Religion, in WTJ4, Vol. 1: 555–58.
• [NV]Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785, in ThomasJefferson,Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State ofVirginia, William Peden (ed.), Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press, 1954.
• [R] Rockfish Gap Report, 1818, in WTJ7: 306–13. [[R] available online]
• [S] Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1774, in WTJ7:3–16.

Secondary Literature

• Adams, J., 1822, “Letter to Timothy Pickering,” 6August 1822,”Founders Online, National Archives. [Adams 1822 available online]
• Arrowood, C.F., 1930 [1970],Thomas Jefferson and Education ina Republic, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc..
• Binger, C., 1970,Thomas Jefferson: A Well-Tempered Mind,New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
• Boles, John B., 2017,Jefferson: Architect of AmericanLiberty, New York: Basic Books.
• Bolingbroke, H., 1752,Reflections concerning Innate MoralPrinciples, London: S. Blandon.
• Bowers, C., 1943, “Jefferson and the Freedom of the HumanSpirit”,Ethics, 53(4): 237–45.
• Burstein, A., 2005,Jefferson’s Secrets, New York:Basic Books.
• Catterall, Helen Tunnicliff, ed., 1968,Judicial CasesConcerning American Slavery and the Negro, Vol. 1, New York:Octagon Books, Inc.
• Chinard, G., 1929,Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle ofAmericanism, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press,1962.
• Cohen, W., 1969, “Thomas Jefferson and the Problem ofSlavery”,Journal of American History, 3:503–26.
• Cunningham, N.E., 1987,In Pursuit of Reason: The Life ofThomas Jefferson, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress.
• Cuvier, G., 1817,The Animal Kingdom, Arranged in Conformitywith Its Organization, vol. 1, H. M’Murtrie (trans.), NewYork: G & C & H Carvill, 1831.
• Dawidoff, R., 1993, “The Jeffersonian Option”,Political Theory, 21(3): 434–52.
• Destutt de Tracy, A.L.C., 1818/1827,Élémentsd’Ideologie, vol. 5, Bruxelles: Courcier.
• Dixon, R., 2013, “Thomas Jefferson: A Lawyer’s Path toa Legal Philosophy”, in Holowchak 2013d: 15–39.
• Erikson, E., 1974,Dimensions of a New Reality: JeffersonLectures 1973, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Ferguson, A., 1767,An Essay on the History of CivilSociety, London.
• Finkelman, P., 1994, “Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: TheMyth Goes On”,The Virginia Magazine of History andBiography, 102(2): 193–228.
• Gaustad, E.S., 1984, “Religion”, in Peterson 1984:277–93.
• Gish, D., and D. Klinghard, 2017,Thomas Jefferson and theScience of Republican Government: A Political Biography of Notes onthe State of Virginia, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
• Goldsmith, O., 1774,An History of the Earth, and AnimatedNature, 8 vols., Philadelphia: Edward Poole, 1823.
• Greene, J.C., 1958, “Science and the Public in the Age ofJefferson”,Isis, 49(1): 13–25.
• Gutzman, K.R.C., 2017,Thomas Jefferson, Revolutionary: ARadical’s Struggle to Remake America, New York: St.Martin’s Press
• Helo, A., 2013,Thomas Jefferson’s Ethics and thePolitics of Human Progress, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
• Helvétius, C.A., 1810,Treatise on Man: HisIntellectual Faculties and his Education, W. Hooper, M.D.(trans.), London: Albion Press.
• Holowchak, M.A., 2014a,Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering HisUnique Philosophy and Vision, Amherst, NY: PrometheusBooks.
• –––, 2014b,Thomas Jefferson’sPhilosophy of Education: A Utopian Dream, London: Taylor &Francis.
• –––, 2017a,Thomas Jefferson, Moralist,Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., Inc.
• –––, 2017b,Jefferson’s PoliticalPhilosophy and the Metaphysics of Utopia, Leiden, TheNetherlands: Brill.
• –––, 2019a,The Cavernous Mind of ThomasJefferson, An American Savant, Newcastle upon Tyne: CambridgeScholars.
• –––, 2019b,Thomas Jefferson:Psychobiography of an American Lion, Hauppauge, NY: Nova SciencePublishers.
• –––, 2019c,Jefferson’s Bible: Textwith Introduction and Critical Commentary, Berlin: DeGruyter,2019.
• –––, 2020a, American Messiah: TheSurprisingly Simple Religious Views of ThomasJefferson, Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press.
• –––, 2020b,Rethinking ThomasJefferson’s Views on Race and Slavery: “God’sjustice can not sleep forever”, Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars.
• –––, 2024,“The Disease ofLiberty”: Thomas Jefferson, Liberty, and History, APhilosophical Analysis, Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press.
• Hull, G., 1997, “William Small 1734–1775: NoPublications, Much Influence”,Journal of the Royal Societyof Medicine, 90(2): 102–5.
• Hume, D., 1755 [1987],Essays: Moral, Political, andLiterary, Eugene F. Miller (ed.), New York: Liberty Fund,1987.
• Hutcheson, F., 1726,Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas ofBeauty and Virtue, Wolfgang Leidhold (ed.), Indianapolis: LibertyFund, 2004. [Hutcheson 1758 available on line]
• James, M., 2012, “Race”,The Stanford Encyclopediaof Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/race/>.
• Jordan, W., 1969,White over Black: American Attitudes towardthe Negro, 1550–1812, Baltimore: Penguin Books.
• Kames, Lord (Henry Home), 1758,Essays on the Principles ofMorality and Natural Religion, London, 2^ndedition.
• –––, 1774,Sketches of the History ofMan, vol. 3, Edinburgh, 1813.
• –––, 1798,The Gentleman Farmer, being anAttempt to Improve Agriculture by Subjecting It to the Test ofRational Principles, Edinburgh, 4^th edition.
• Kidd, T., 2022, Thomas Jefferson: A Biography of Fleshand Spirit, New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Konig, D.T., 2016, “Thomas Jefferson and the Practice ofLaw,”Encyclopedia Virginia, Virginia Foundation forthe Humanities.
• Kukla, John, 2007,Mr. Jefferson’s Women, New York:Vintage Books.
• Lehmann, K., 1965,Thomas Jefferson: American Humanist,Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1994.
• Levy, L., 1963,Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The DarkerSide, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Linné, C. (Linnaeus), 1808,A General System ofNature, vol. 1, William Turton (trans.), London: Lackington,Allen, and Co., 1858.
• Locke, J., 1690 [1964],Essay concerning HumanUnderstanding, A.D. Woozley (ed.), New York: New AmericanLibrary.
• Magnis, N., 1999, “Thomas Jefferson and Slavery: An Analysisof His Racist Thinking as Revealed by His Writings and PoliticalBehavior”,Journal of Black Studies, 29(4):491–509.
• Malone, Dumas, 1948,Jefferson the Virginian, Boston:Little, Brown and Company.
• –––, 1951,Jefferson and the Rights ofMan, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• –––, 1962,Jefferson and the Ordeal ofLiberty, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• –––, 1970,Jefferson the President: FirstTerm, 1801–1805, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• –––, 1974,Jefferson the President: SecondTerm, 1805–1809, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• –––, 1981,The Sage of Monticello,Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
• Martin, E.T., 1952,Thomas Jefferson: Scientist, NewYork: H. Schuman.
• Marx, L., 1964,The Machine in the Garden: Technology and thePastoral Ideal in America, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
• Mayer, D.N., 2001, “The Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings Mythand the Politicization of American History: Individual Views of DavidN. Mayer concurring with the Majority Report of the ScholarsCommission on the Jefferson-Hemings Matter”, <available online>.
• McColley, R., 1964,Slavery in Jeffersonian Virginia,Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• McCoy, D., 1980,The Elusive Republic: Political Economy inJeffersonian America, Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress.
• McLaughlin, J., 1988,Jefferson and Monticello: The Biographyof a Builder, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Merkel, W.G., 2012, “A Founding Father on Trial:Jefferson’s Rights Talk and the Problem of Slavery during theRevolutionary Period”,Rutgers Law Review, 64(3):595–663.
• Millar, J., 1806,The Origins of the Distinction of Ranks: Or,An Inquiry into the Circumstances which Give Riser to Influence andAuthority, in the Different Members of Society, Edinburgh,4^th edition.
• Miller, J.C., 1977,The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson andSlavery, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
• Mirkin, H., 1972, “Rebellion, Revolution, and theConstitution: Thomas Jefferson’s Theory of CivilDisobedience,”American Studies, 13(2):61–74.
• Montesquieu, 1758,The Spirit of Laws, Thomas Nugent(trans.), London, 3^rd edition.
• Neem, J., 2013, “Developing Freedom: Thomas Jefferson, theState, and Human Capability”,Studies in American PoliticalDevelopment, 27(1): 36–50.
• O’Brien, C.C., 1996,The Long Affair: Thomas Jeffersonand the French Revolution, 1785–1800, Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
• Onuf, P.S. (ed.), 1993,Jeffersonian Legacies,Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
• –––, 2007,Mind of Thomas Jefferson,Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
• Peden, W., 1954, “Introduction”,Notes on theState of Virginia, in Thomas Jefferson,ThomasJefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, William Peden(ed.), Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press:xi–xxv.
• Peterson, M.D., 1960,The Jefferson Image in the AmericanMind, London: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1965, “Thomas Jefferson and theNational Purpose”,Proceedings of the American PhilosophicalSociety, 105(6): 517–20.
• –––, 1970,Thomas Jefferson & the NewNation:A Biography, London: Oxford University Press.
• ––– (ed.), 1984,Thomas Jefferson: AReference Biography, New York: Charles Scribner’sSons.
• Risjord, N.K., 2002,Thomas Jefferson, Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield.
• Robertson, W., 1777/1855,The History of the Discovery andSettlement of America, New York: Harper & Brothers.
• Sanford, C.B., 1984,TheReligious Life of ThomasJefferson, Charlottesville: The University Press ofVirginia.
• Scherr, A., 2014, “Thomas Jefferson versus theHistorians: Christianity, Atheistic Morality, and theAfterlife,”Church History, 83(1): 60–109.
• ––– , 2016,Thomas Jefferson’s Imageof New England: Nationalism versus Sectionalism in the YoungRepublic, Jefferson, NC: McFarland Publishers.
• Sheridan, E.R., 1983, “Introduction”, inJefferson’s Extracts from the Gospels, Dickinson W.Adams (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press: 3–42.
• Shuffleton, F. (ed.), 2009,The Cambridge Companion to ThomasJefferson, New York: University of Cambridge Press.
• Sloan, H., 1993, “‘The Earth belongs in Usufruct tothe Living,’” in Onuf 1993: 281–315.
• Smith, A., 1759 [1982],The Theory of Moral Sentiments,Indianapolis: Liberty Classics.
• Smith, J.E., 1977, “Philosophical Ideas behind the‘Declaration of Independence’”,RevueInternationale de Philosophia, 31(121/122): 360–76.
• Stanton, L., 2009, “Jefferson’s People: Slavery atMonticello”, in Shuffleton 2009: 83–100.
• Taylor, A., 2019, Thomas Jefferson’sEducation, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Temperly, H., 1997, “Jefferson and Slavery: A Study in MoralPerplexity”,Reason and Republicanism: ThomasJefferson’s Legacy of Liberty, G.L. McDowell and S.L. Noble(ed.), Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 85–99.
• Turgot, A-R-J., 1750 [1973],A Philosophical Review of theSuccessive Advances of the Human Mind, inTurgot on Progress,Sociology and Economics, R.L. Meek (ed.), Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1973.
• Volney, C.F., 2010 [1802],The Ruins, Thomas Jefferson(trans.), Fairford, England: The Echo Library.
• Walton, C., 1984, “Hume and Jefferson on the Uses ofHistory”,Philosophy and the Civilizing Arts, C. Waltonand J. Anton (eds.), Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, pp.389–403.
• Wiencek, H., 2012, “Thomas Jefferson: SlaveMaster,” American History, (October):26–33.
• Wilson, William, 2017, “The Myth of Jefferson’sDeism,”The Elusive Thomas Jefferson: Essays on the ManBehind the Myths, ed. M. Andrew Holowchak and Brian W. Dotts,Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 118–129.
• Zuckert, M., 2011, “Thomas Jefferson and NaturalMorality,”Thomas Jefferson, the Classical World, and EarlyAmerica, ed. Peter S. Onuf and Nicholas P. Cole, Charlottesville:University of Virginia Press.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

• Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson
• Books by Thomas Jefferson
• Thomas Jefferson: Monticello
• Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
• Online Library of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson

Related Entries

civic education |civic humanism |equality: of opportunity |Hume, David |moral sentimentalism |race |reparations, Black |republicanism |rights: human |Scottish Philosophy: in the 18th Century