Transcripts For CSPAN3 Thomas Jeffersons Union 20150216

With union. For lincoln and most republicans the union was a sort of mystical perpetual indivisible eternal thing. Stephen dug zblas whoouglas the regular democratic candidate that year stated over and over that no matter what else happens the union had to be preserved. John c. Breckenridge says the constitution and equality of the states are symbols of everlasting union. And the fourth candidate old john bell, lo ran as candidate of the Constitutional Union party didnt talk about anything else. They didnt even have a platform. Their platform was in their title. It was union. And the constitution. Union comes up so often during this century which is not peters perfect century but it is his second favorite century after the late 18th century. Lincolns vision of union rested on free labor and a voice in selfgovernment for common citizens and the potential to rise economically. Not the guarantee but the potential. Jefferson davis also believed in the union as safeguarding selfgovernment and Economic Opportunity but of course he also saw it as guaranteeing slavery in its expansion. Both men celebrated the declaration rfdeck clarollar declaration of independence. Both invoked jefferson repeatedly and throughout their years. Jeffersons ideas regarding union were complex and immensely important. They resonated throughout the 19th century on both sides of the Potomac River or the ohio, if you prefer. The United States put thomasjefferson on its 5cent stamp in 1856. Only two people preceded jefferson on stamps in the United States. Jorge, of course always would have to be one of this em. The other one was benjamin franklin. The confederacy put him on their 10cent stamp in 1861. The only person who landed on a confederate stamp before jefferson was Jefferson Davis, interestingly enough. This afternoon peter and i are going to have our conversation about jeffersons thinking about union and how his ideas were available for use or misuse by many different people in the decades between 1800 and 1880 peter. So why dont you talk for a few minutes about jefferson and union . Just a few minutes. Take as long as you want. It is rainy outside. No ones going to play tennis. Well, im a radio star so i want you all to close your eyes and suspend disbelief. Peter has not only a jefferson tie no. You got to see it. But two jefferson pins. Well gary id like to start with a quotation from jefferson and its an interesting one. Its when hes talking about the declaration of independence as hes designing a reading list at the university of javirginia. Gary and i used to teach a course, the famous 701. That reading list included the declaration, of course. Oh, i didnt write it. The American People wrote it. Im just channeled it. He said what is the declaration . We want jeffersons simple definition of what the declaration is all about. He says it is the fundamental act of union of these states. He says the declaration gave us union. Now, as gary said just before, we dont that word Means Nothing to us now. What could he possibly have meant, why did he say it. Why didnt he talk instead about all those wonderful things in the second paragraph. Oh all men are created equal. Youve heard that one. Government by consent. The american creed, as its frequently been described. Yet for jefferson there is something creedal about union. What i want to try to do is put union and his vision of republican government together because i think we and many critics in the 19th century dissociated the two. Now you say it is only referring maybe to what used to be called the Labor Movement in the 18th century, in jeffersons time and into the 19th century as people criticized the union they looked at its flaws. People like William Lloyd garrison said this is a covenant with death, with hell, this constitution. The union is associated with the constitution not with the declaration and the constitution is the beginning of american politics. When we still had political life in this country americans celebrated the constitution as this great reform caucus in action, as one author called it where sensible, realistic states men got together and they crafted the only possible miraculously, the only possible constitution that could embrace so many different states, different labor systems so much diversity. It was a compromise in other words. As garrison suggested, to have union, you had to compromise. Every good historian will tell you thats exactly the point of the union right now. Thats not what jefferson meant by union though. For him, it was the coming together of selfgoverning republics which in and of itself, the fact that the states had their own constitutions, were governing themselves, what a tremendous breakthrough for mankind, in idea of selfgovernment. And then showing their genius for union in the creation of new state governments the first peoples in the modern world who govern themselves. Then theyve built on that to create yet a more allembracing union. Union was part of the unfolding of the republican vision. There would be future unions. The union would expand. The union was dynamic. The union was processed. The union was a Movement Toward a better world because what it demonstrated weve talked about equality. We know how important that is. Were all equal. But what is the point of equality. It enables you to consent. You cant consent if youre not equal. And what do you consent to . You consent to that which enhances the welfare of mankind. Because suddenly the people are governing themselves. Theyre not under the heel of despots and pirates. Now selfgovernment. And i want to tell you this ply fellow americans im getting worked up now. You can tell. Have a sip of water. I better. Americans, youre just going to have to wait a minute. Democratic government. Hold on to your seats. Is an engine for moral progress. Im channeled jefferson. Im channeled the democratic enlightenment. Once the people rule themselves, government will improve. We will no longer have coercive despotic governments. We will be governing ourselves. You cant have a real union if theres in any oars atcoercion at all. Well come back to that. Maybe sooner than you think. Really . We may not be linear here this afternoon. It may be sort of stream of consciousness but go ahead for now. Its a process. Dont think of union as a fixed thing. Its not perfect. You heard what madison said. What they said about the constitution. More perfect. Suggesting its not most perfect. Its not perfect. Its getting better. Because we dont understand yet what natures god enjoins but were figuring it out. I dont know if anybody out there is into natural religion and acknowledges natures god unless you are a unitarian. They dont talk about natures god in unitarian churches. I know im lapsed unitarian. Can you be a lapsed unitarian . Check it out. This is what you get. From what youre saying, let me push you on Something Else right here. If this is a process and its things are going toward, with any luck something thats even better with be did jefferson think this could only be i mean the union became very much an exceptionalist concept by the mid 19th century. Is it that way in jeffersons mind . Could this happen somewhere else . There is an exceptional dimension. You know the city on the hill idea that weve heard from Ronald Reagan as he was channeled John Winthrop that idea that United States is an exemplary nation the example suggests that others can follow. But follow is the key word. They will become more enlightened in the fullness of time. Whats remarkable about the American People is these are the people who made the revolution is that they theyre all literal mostly, except in places like virginia just joking. I come from new england. I cant help it. Theyre largely literal. New england used to be important. Didnt it . Coll boy coll didnt exist. Okay . All right. Moving on. It actually did exist. New england just hadnt named it yet so they didnt think it existed. You know now why the union failed. All right. So where was i going with this . I had asked you whether jeffersons notion was an exceptionalist notion of what was happening in the colonies at that point because it became very much that. Right. And jefferson does think that the americans have a unique opportunity to govern themselves because they are literate in the broadest sense of the word. Theyre civically competent. Theres been a high degree of local autonomy and selfgovernment in the colonies and the revolution itself is testimony to the fact that americans are conscious of their rights and willing to fight for them. Because this was a peoples war. I dont believe all this but im just channeled jefferson. Lincoln called the civil war a peoples contest. And thats the important thing. Because that is the principle of republican government. We now have abandoned notions that we have little gods on earth, kings who give rule to us who are our political fathers without whom we could not exist. We have abandoned the great chain of being that suggests that some are born to rule and others are born to be ruled. What a magnificent idea. But what a scary idea in the 18th century when the people are basically considered and im now quoting Abigail Adams rubbish. I just happened to be reading her recently. But it is a common way of referring to ordinary people the scum lincoln and many other unionists in the mid 19th century would have said nothing had really changed, that the rest of the world still didnt think that ordinary people were capable of selfgoverning. I think thats a key point when we compare lynn son and jefferson on union. Lincoln sees that this is the last best hope of mankind. You might say that jefferson sees it as the first best hope for mankind. That he has this enlightenment idea that it will spread. Light will spread. Its almost a metaphor thats natural, that suggests as the day dawns and as the light spreads across the land, people can see clearly. That notion of seeing clearly is very important. And the people are capable of seeing what they need to see. What they into ed to see to govern themselves. You dont have to be, as we say now, a nuclear physicist. You just have to be a democrat no just joking. What about the notion of the union being perpetual, that was so important by mid century to people who that saw all of these qualities in union that made the United States exceptional . Thats a great point. That. Point about perpetuity. The only thing that jefferson thought should somebody perpetual were the fundamental principles or ideas on which the union was based. And let me put it this way. Were going to get into this complicated development thats really important over time. I want to introduce the key to jeffersons thinking about union. And thats federalism. Jeffersonian federalism is not what we have today. You have to understand that his conception of political authority, legitimate political authority, we talk about family values today, but for jefferson, the family was the foundational republic on which larger republics would be built. I think its important to get this down, because its going to explain i think a lot of things that happen over the 19th century. For jefferson federalism culminating in the union and perhaps in an expanding union, perhaps even a union of unions that will cover the world begins literally at home. And that Foundational Union of man and wife, the creation of a family which is the incubator of republican citizens in the next generation. Families combine together for jefferson had new england envy. Gary obviously doesnt. He wished virginia had towns. What do we have in virginia. What did we have in virginia . Counties. In which local clerks selfappointed themselves, and gave rule through parish vestrys, through county courts. The only Representative Institution was the house of burgesss. And those elections, 90 of them werent contested. And the ones that were contested were drunken brawls because thats the way you treated voters its a pretty sorry story. Jefferson was familiar with this. He said we need towns so the families, the fathers can get together. And on top of the towns, counties. And then we go to a higher level, to the states and then to the union, the federal union. Heres the key idea. Well throw this back at you. Equality is crucial. We talked before about you cant have consent without equality. And every you cannot have coercion. No. Every level of union, whether it be on the town level the union of families or the county level, the union of towns, those unions exist to preserve and perpetuate the equality of their constituent units. Do you follow me . Thats pretty straightforward. The legitimacy, the value of the union of the town is that all families will be treated equally and have an equal voice in their own government. And you move up the ladder that imperative remains. And that is union depends on preserving equality of constituent units, because otherwise, some are benefiting at the expense of other thats another way of saying that some are ruling others. You know, the great problem with unions throughout our periods is the fear that its going to be captured by the bad guys. And one thing americans produce in great abundance is bad guys. This problem, though of equality within the union, did you have another did i step on your bunch line there . No, i was waiting for a big response. Oh, okay. Are you going to respond . I dont think theyre going to. One thing that for example john c. Calhoun wrestled with, how do you maintain what he would have called equality, equal treatment in all the ways that matter, within a union where demographics were tilting power toward the nonslave holding states. Thats, of course, the great nightmare of the slave holders. And their need to control, in fact to capture which is precisely what they did, because the federal government was dominated by slave holders throughout its existence up to the civil war. So much so that by the time lincoln comes along, and says, maybe we should agree not to let the area of the slave states expand, then thats too much. Thats violating the basic idea of union. Heres the problem i think its what we would try to reconcile as we talk about the problem of union, how can you have equality or liberty you might put it, autonomy independence and union . Is there attention between them . Thats what i mean by and where do whats the line between compromise and coercion, they would have argued about that too. You say im compromising. What im going to suggest to you, im going to try to channel jefferson here the way we resolve such quarrels is that Public Opinion becomes progressively more enlightened. And thats whats so hard for us to believe in an era in which Public Opinion doesnt become more enlightened. Thats the idea of an organic developing union too. Thats going to right, it will expand. And the idea that expansion means balancing free and slave states, thats insane. Because jefferson honestly believes that slavery will eventually disappear. And why is it going to disappear, not because of economic forces and market forces. Its going to disappear because people are going to see that its wrong. Remember the revolution was against authority and jefferson doesnt have a great record right now. He does equality, coercion slavery, contradiction between a republic of slave holders is going to become too striking too conspicuous, and americans will see its in their best interest. Will he have argued for equality among the white citizenry or would he have included everybody . No, he wouldnt. The short answer on this as you know is that for jefferson the idea of the way he thinks about slaves is as a captive nation, held unjustly, this is important. Slaves dont deserve to be slaves, theyre not naturally slaves, they are slaves because of what jefferson would like to blame george the third and his predecessors because we have them. But it is an evil institution, its unjust. The solution is to end the state of war that is slavery. It is a state of war, its a cold war of a violent coercive institution. His big concern about slavery is that young men in virginia will grow up in a world of slave holders and that will be their school. They dont have Public Schools in virginia in the antebellum period. Instead theyre going to learn to school slave holders. People as old as we are because of race privilege, because theyre white, thats horrible. He needs to break this down. He would see a union down the road where black people would have been removed . They would have been removed. This is in the best of all possible worlds. And jeffer soons a patient guy. It could take generations. Its not going to happen in his lifetime. He keeps pushing the date off. Eventually people will see the light and emancipate slaves and send them he doesnt know where, maybe the west indies maybe west africa. In the best of all possible future worlds. The former slaves, the freed people will govern themselves, and then as an independent selfgoverning people, they can form unions. The union among the enlightened republican nations of the world we can divide black and white so that one day we can unite. Lincoln embraced colonization as well . Yes. Until deep into the civil war. Didnt go over until 1812. The depth of race prejudice i want to suggest the way race and nation are synonymous terms and hes jeffersons really thinking geo politically about warring nations and all the things he says about slavery grow out of his wartime experience. Slaves are dangerous to the fut turt of the republic, because theyre a fifth column, because when they have the opportunity and this is how slavery is ended throughout the world, in wartime, they will seize it. Nothing is more nothing destabilizes swlavry the way a war destabilizes slavery. Whether its the revolution or the war of 1812 along the chesapeake or the civil war where the armies are great engines of emancipation. Its the worst thing that can happen to a slave holders world. Jefferson does believe in the separation of races for native americans, they can become civilized they can become white in other words and they can adopt farming ways and become effectively whites. After all, all good virginians, we probably have a few in the room youre all decendents of pocahontas if im not mistaken. Im a 19th century guy i have no idea what was going on with pocahontas. Thats so early. Many people as we move through the 19th century would use Thomas Jefferson in the sectional debates to but res arguments for state rights, in a system, within a union that has become unbalanced as the government is threatening rights of the constituent parts. What would jefferson say about that . Well, he wasnt in his grave yet during the missouri controversy, but he did some turning over nonetheless, because when it looked like the union would fall apart, i dont know if you all know about the missouri controversy it was weather or not missouri would be admitted as a slave state to the union it ultimately was in tandem with the free state of maine, one of the great states of our union. But this argument about the future of slavery was one that looked like it was creating a line of separation between those states with slaves and the socalled free states. And that fear of the capture of the federal government was intense for jefferson. Jeffersons position was in effect oh, give us time and well deal with our domestic institution. Its none of your business. And eventually well deal with it but when you threaten to destroy the union which is what he thinks the restrictionists in the missouri controversy, theres northern republicans, people in jeffersons own party who are pushing for a limit on slavery, thats the trigger issue throughout the antibell um decades. Those people mean to seize power, and subject the Southern States to a colonial provincial status they will be creatures of a strong federal government whenever that happens, people Start Talking about thats the return of the British Empire, this is evil you can see from jeffer southerns logic why he would be so acute when i sensitive to threats to the equal status of the Southern States, because what he says to the restrictionists in the missouri controversy is youre telling us that we dont have republican governments that were not perfect republics because we have slaves most of the states, even the north still have slaves but that your commitment to the institution of slavery makes you less than a republic. And the guaranteed clause of the constitution according to the restrictionists article guarantees republican government to all the states. And so now youre saying, all states are not created equal. There are the real republics the northern states that are getting rid of slavery. And then there are these slave holding hybrids. Hybrids werent a good thing in those days. In the south. So that that notion of equality is really crucial. What i want to suggest here, and i talk about that federalist and business, look forward and outward with jefferson from the founding of the republic and federalism looks like the secret, its going to unfold, the whole world will one day be embraced by this republican vision. Its the means by which we have it both ways. It only works if you really find a balance between the center and the localities. Right, and you all have to share the same set of beliefs, this may be the ultimate naive tay of the enlightment project. Ill tell you what the key beliefs are, equality, consent, that those ideas we still cherish, we all agree on that republican, its the declaration were celebrating, not the constitution. Its the declaration that Jefferson Davis referred to when he said all the Southern States are doing is asserting their right to selfdetermination in 1860 61. Yes. What i would say to you is that the collapse of the union, i talked about jefferson turning over prematurely in his not yet grave. If the union splits then the revolution was pointless. Then the United States is pointless. And ill tell you why. Because as soon as you break up the union, well whats to stop the fragmentation from continuing. Well, it will continue. Thats what lincoln would have said. What do you get when you get a disUnited States. You take union for granted now. We dont define awlorng sectional lines any more. Well, we do actually, but on a micro level, ive been taught there are a lots of lewd people in the red states. I dont believe many people believe in secession any more. Heres the dilemma its the collective security problem. And in an an arcy which is the technical word an anarchy, we achive some kind of temporary quill ib reum, those states are in nature with each other, which means a state of war. They may not be fighting but one day they will. During the period of the founding in the 1780s this was the great argument. You need to strengthen the union, and make it more perfect lest the United States become disunited and become an image of europe. Why did we even bother to try to form a new nation if the best we can do is create a knockoff version of europe. Pretty pathetic well be at war with each other. Guess what happens when theres war, my fellow republicans . When theres war, have you to exercise power. It exaggerates the executive power, military power. You get military industrial complexes, nations at war are nations that have a lot of problems with liberty because all you liberty lovers out there are a bunch of sub versive terrorists. Do you follow me . You need to preserve im trying to keep up. Yes, i am. I was trying to explain the simple point you and i talk together for years and im having little flashbacks as we go along here. He is not going to send me out of the room, as he did during one of our seminars. This is my time. Only for ten minutes. And then he came back. If a union cannot involve coercion, how would jefferson have looks at the resolution of the American Civil War, is that a worthwhile union put back together after this not that hes against bloodling. This is a lot much blood in the American Civil War a reconstituted union that lincoln would have said is the youth yn, what would his response to that be . Lincoln could have persuaded him it was a good thing the Union Lincoln celebrates, the union that your men your people, the winners the good folks, the good guys. Colorado counties are named after union generals, unlike counties in new england. Because our counties were already named by that point. Think about it for a minute, the union that lincoln wants to preserve, thats a perfect thing that needs to be preserved, hes not looking forward to expansion, in fact the republican platform is to end expansion if it means more slave states. Well, it means to end expansion of slavery. It doesnt mean to end expansion of the nation . It probably does because of the political impasse, doesnt it . I dont know, the union is perfect. It needs to be preserved and i think something has happened to the idea rather than looking forward expansively were now protecting a great nation. Dominant in its continent, even prospectively in its hemisphere, this is this great nation has a manifest destiny. We squander that great advantage, we forfeit it we risk relapsing into a state of war. We need to preserve this thing its sacred, and there is an element to this an element of a static quality to it. Something to be. I think if you read lincoln early in the civil war you may get more of a sense of its being static. He would have talked about, getting rid of slavery is improving the union. Its the kind of union that jefferson would have agreed with. I think thats right. He is not eager to integrate. He wants to preserve. His experience in illinois, indiana and kentucky convinceds him it was possible. I think thats right. He is beyond that by the end of the civil war. I do think what motivates lincoln is a sense of that great destiny for the nation. The fact that it is a republican is important. I think lincolns Great Service to jefferson is to redeem him. Theres a dimension of lincolns thinking thats captured in the gettysburg address and elsewhere, this republic needs to be preserved as we said before, for lincoln, the last best hope of mankind for jefferson, more hopeful, perhaps, the first best hope. I gather from some of the things youve said about jefferson, that he really did believe that if things didnt work out that perhaps some unions would fail and others would rise, lincoln didnt believe that, he believed if this one failed the ideas of selfgovernment and of Economic Opportunity would simply be gone and the forces would have reasserted themselves. I think lincoln and jefferson agreed on this jeffersons response to the missouri controversy, if we cant find an equitable compromise some way that respects the rights of all Member States if we cant be reassured about that then all hell will break loose. Theres no point to this experiment in republican government, it failed, thats a key word experiment. We call them scientists. Its the founders the way we like to think about them. This is a great seminar, constitutional convention, theyre coming up with this brilliant plan and theyre going to see how it works. Maybe it doesnt work maybe the experiment fails 37 what does that say about the future of mankind. What lincoln does is what jefferson believed would happen naturally but it didnt. Namely, the end of slavery. And coercion force was needed to do that. And that is a tragic failure from jeffersons perspective. The represent tour of a union let them go. How long would that last. Thats a tragic failure as well. Perhaps a greater failure, because at least if he preserved the shell of the union, perhaps it can rehabilitate itself. Perhaps free government can emerge in the wreckage. How upset do you think he would have been he being jefferson, at some of the constitutional questionable actions that lincoln took, that seemed at odds with the spirit and the letter of the constitution. There are two ways to think about it. The way jefferson uses executive power himself and that is, jefferson does not fetishize the constitution. He doesnt say that my hands are bound because of the constitution, because theres something greater than the constitution at stake, and that is the very existence of the United States of america. The first law of nature. And remember i invoke natures god, natural religion, the first law of nature is selfpreservation. The nation fails, the nation dies, then the constitution is a museum piece. You can put it on a 14e68 in the library and read it at your leisure, but its dead. Constitution Means Nothing. He would have you think jefferson would have thought, okay, you have your priorities in order there . I think union looks different looking forward, looking back. So does the idea of the nation i think its implicit in jeffersons thinking about the American People as being dedicated to liberty. Does jefferson link union and nation in his mind. By the time of the civil war theyre deployed interchangeably interchangeably. Theyll drop all of them in the same far graph. Its a wonderful question the idea of a nation is implicit in the notion of popular sovereignty and selfdetermination that is an idea of the people as an organic hole. A great family of families, i talked about the importance of family before but by the time we get to lincoln at medicine tourry and beyond this is the great period of romantic nationalism, theres something about the nation as its organic hole that supersedes subsumes individuals, it subsumes everything. Your identity is a national identity. It trumps everything else. Well for some people. For some people for many people. We dont want to exaggerate it, because lincoln is not about to abolish states though he would love to abolish those Southern States, he believes in the federal distribution of authority. He believes in the compromises that were worked out in the constitution, all thats important to him. But the most important thing is the dedication to that shared principle, commitment to republican government, that makes us one people. Jefferson would be reluctant to make that final move toward that great super human thing as a nation, and we are libertarian americans hold on to notions that are at odds with that. Where would he have come down on the argument about the origins of the union does the union arise from the people does it arise from the colony states . Im going to throw you another possibility. Fire away. All right well enwhitened philosophers are famous for looking forward to a better future. But you cant look forward without looking backward, and when jefferson tried to define what liberty was he looked back to the original social contract. He also looked back to the British Empire and this is my answer to you and it complicates in a notion of states rights being foundational. Because the states are in the context of British Empire a joke. They are not independent. They are free riders on Imperial Protection americans love their kings. They are monarchists until theyre not. Until they become republicans, because their king is making war against them. What americans want, and i think this is the deep model for jeffersons commitment to union what the americans want is their version of the British Empire. One in which you can have it always. You can have local liberty, you can have courts responsive to local juries. You can determine land policy within your colony, you can determine labor systems within your colony. You have Trading Opportunities with the emporium of the planet. You are enriched by the imperial connection and you are free riders on the collective security afforded by the military and naval mite of the British Empire. Thats what you want. Only now youre going to call it something different. Youre going to call it republican, youre going to say it doesnt come from any king it comes from us, the people. We can do this without the king. But the predicate of doing it without the king is to form a union among those former provinces. George washington im fascinated by all this now, are you going to answer my question . Which are you accusing me of being unresponsive . No im accusing you of being yourself, which is one of the things i really like about you. You often spin off in directions, and people wonder, but i that was good about the empire, right . I was transfixing. Let me bring you back. If we put it to mr. Jefferson, whether the union derived from the people or from the states. Put it within those terms were not in the empire any more, weve already settled that. That i think is the template, and youll grant that. Ive already granted it. And ill give you another answer. Youre on the clock. Ive been talking about nature. Natures guide ive been right here. All right then, thank you for being there for me. It is natures decree that this continent be the domain of this great free people. Yes, the states are the instruments of rule of land policy, labor policy they do the important things that we nido mefticily, we need a strong union so that we can dominate the hemisphere, if not the world. We have to be strong and we have to be united to be strong, the answer is both it is a people that is a product of and relates to that great land and territory, this is let me coin this phrase, natures nation. Those are synonymous terms, natures people. The first people in modern history, who conform this is hard for us environmentalists to take seriously the first people in modern history who have ruled themselves in accordance with natures laws, and, therefore have exploited the great riches through the improvement of nature. Now, we think nature should be saved from improvers and developers. We have rather different ideas today about how gaya is at risk many h. I thought we were all part of the youre so 1840s. To say people the American People, yeah, id say at the end of the day, jefferson would. I mean he doesnt would say yes, the American People. Thats that was a short answer. Once again, he agrees with lincoln, or lincoln agrees with him . I think so. I want lets come back, you brought up Something Else i want to pursue, another thread i want to pull here. That is in terms of the union is going to expand its natural future would be expansionist. What would jefferson did jefferson believe that peoples who did not look like western europeans could be brought in as functioning parts of the union . What would he have thought of incorporating all the people that lived in the half of mexico that the United States an exed in 1948 . I think it was a would have been a real problem for him, given the state of political and Civic Development and what we now call latin america, and he he wouldnt have said they were real republicans . No, no. Even though they called themselves republics . National selfdetermination, a kind of faux liberation theres no capacity in those peoples, thats why he predicts there will be military dictator ships, theyre only used to long term spanish rule, catholic rule would make it impossible in his view. And for north america of course the wonderful thing about north america is that it was virgin land. As he says in his inaugural address. He said theres land enough for the thousands to the thousands of americans out there. Its a blank space. Of course he knows that youre going to have to displace a few indians, asimulate a few others. There are plenty of people out there. But in his vision, there is this progress of civilization against barberism and savagery submitting, subjecting the land to higher use. Yielding more from it whats more with native american societies is that they dont reproduce enough they dont reproduce enough because native men spend all their time hunting and abusing their women. So theyll never move past that static stable point of barberism. The future is in the progress of civilization, this is what he embraces, and moving across the territory hes not seized with the kind of collective guilt that comes with the red legend in america the condemnation of indian lands and again side and instruction of native cultures that doesnt bother him. He would have accepted territorial expansion into these kinds of places but then would have pushed for some kind of relocation of the populations . Thats what happened. Andrew jackson implements. I dont just mean in im speaking in terms of the acquisitions from mexico and other i think he would say, and this is to give jefferson his due, he doesnt think that the other peoples of the world, less educated, less developed, maybe not with our exceptional qualities, thinking of americans as being really with the british. And after all, this is british america. He does think that the rest of the world one day could catch up. How it would do so, my guess is that he would suggest the emergence over time of confederations in all the populous areas of the world the progress of republican government would be fitting, i mean, he survived long enough lived long enough. Take a very long time. Even for the french Common People, he thought they were 200 years behind . That was his estimate, he said, were six years behind france. But as soon as they publish their books and send them across the ocean well catch up. But our Common People, this is a vote for democracy, our Common People are 200 years ahead of their french counterparts. Forward republican yeah, well, they can be republicans, jefferson was not optimistic the french could create a republic, and it seems they had trouble they created how many republics, five . So jefferson is both a universalist and exceptionalist thats another thing we have to put into our paradox or contradiction we have to resolve. This is a people uniquely capable of governing themselves, in doing so they demonstrate eternal truths about human nature and Human Potential that will be fulfilled in the fullness of time across the world. Liz baron talked about Andrew Johnson and the crisis of impeachment. Andrew johnson called himself a jeffersonian. He said he loved jeffersonian theory about government and the bedrock of that was a small government, nonintrusive. Hes used by lots of people who take that view. Thats his union. His union is a union well the idea to take consent to its logical mean what does it mean . In some ways, enlightened people spontaneously form unions. Maybe to better understand it, we have to think about the scottish enlightenment philosophy. We have to think about the new account of human nature which is remarkably democratic in its implications, that is all of us have that kind of moral sense. Thats crucial for politics, for Understanding Society itself, because what it means is that we do not have to be ordered governed and constrained to do the right thing. Maybe the epitome of this enlightenment is the very idea of a market of transactions among equals to which all consent that are beneficial. When you think about the purity and the economists cant get over the purity of their account of the market, its a beautiful thing to behold, when has it ever existed in all its beauty, no, it doesnt. Only its its a fugitive thing, its an aspiration, a hope, that idea that we could be drawn together. Not out of sordid selfinterest, this is where mandeville and those economists can vulgarize the best of adam smiths moral philosophy, we come together to achieve higher things better things, not only for ourselves because the first coming together is to form the family for others for those people who we raise, our children. And that i think is crucial, for jefferson is obsessed with generations, with progress of generations. Things will get better over time. You cant imagine that the rising generation would ever be less enlightened than its predecessor. You cant imagine that people could become ignorant and stupid and selfish. Im going to pick up on generations, which is one of the words you used a minute ago, because i want to bring in each of the other subjects of this lecture series, and u. S. Grant was one of those subjects this is what grant wrote on the great accomplishment of the civil war. What saved the union was the coming forward of the young men of the nation, they came from their homes and fields as they did in the time of the revolution giving everything to the country to their devotion we owe the salvation of the union. So long as our young men are animated by this spirit, there will be no fear for the union, where did jefferson put the citizen soldiers of the revolution in his calculus of credit. Theyre centrally important. The idea of the citizens holder is very much a jeffersonian coinage. He didnt fight the war, he may not have thought about citizen soldiers if he had been involved in the war more directly. But he celebrated. He could have asked his friend james monroe. Yes, and hamilton was full of contempt for him because he didnt put his life on the line. Thats what we do. Jefferson in his inaugural address, which i think is the central document for understanding this philosophy, talks about how the United States has the strongest government on earth which is a remarkable thing for him to say at a time when there are 2,000 people in the army and theres no great government insight or out of sight. It doesnt exist. He thinks it has enormous strength, what hes talking about again so much of the enlightened vision has to do with potential what will happen. Its the fact that the revolution is a great moment of the revolution i think this is what grant is evoking. Theres nothing stronger. Nothing more powerful than a United People at war to preserve the things that matter most to them that would be their families, thats why apple pie, motherhood, all those things, those images of why we fight those homely images, thats what makes us powerful. Thats the vision that jefferson conjures up and grant echos. And its also you could say, the technology of mobilization in the modern world, getting people to die for you mastered by the french perhaps in the first great war. We now have the social technology to get people out to do these things, we dont need to kill waste our own peoples lives, we can do it remotely with drones and things like that that great force though comes from the people. The force grant is talking about is not a coerced force, hes talking about hes not coerced but it coerced them its coerces, it is not coerced. Theres a draft labor in the war, the majority of the soldiers were volunteers. Hes tying them to the revolution and putting them at the center of things. I think thats right, and its an interesting thing the core of this enduring idea of National Power and greatness and lib ertl its people who will sacrifice everything. And not be soldiers any more. Thats the key theyre not really soldiers. They disappear, because a Permanent Military industrial daze a problem. It can be to repeat this theme again captured, if its a technology, a toolan instrument that can be used by whoever has control of the government, then were all at risk, i think thats of course what we live with in the modern world, the capacity is now there, and the capacity is not that the young men will rise up, take their swords and go to war, the capacity now is much greater than that, and it doesnt rely even on our consents much less our participation. The image of the citizen soldiers, powerful one, we have to is and i think Many Americans today do ask does it describe in any meaningful way who we are as a people today . This citizen soldiery is different. We have a professional military now, yes. And thats the antithisis of what grants talking about here. Lincoln may have preserved and redeemed jeffersons union, by means that jefferson would have seen as a contradiction in term s terms but grant giveses this notion of a peoples war, and if the people need to fight that war, i think this is the important thing jefferson was perfectly willing to fight wars, you had to know who your enemies were. The most horrifying thing is that your enemies are your countrymen. And that was the thing that so Many Americans had difficult with. That was his war. Thats the revolution, and that is the revolution they were fighting its the same theyre both civil wars. You need that to identify that thing against which youre fighting, whether its loyalists, these anglo americans who wouldnt give up on their kings. Or at least in the north for a while, you can demonize the slave holders for forcing this war on a liberty loving people. The war of 1812, you could demonize new england . Whoa you could. We said we were going to leave 20 minutes for questions at the end. Its 4 38 03 unless you have a parting thought no. They may come up in the course of questions. If you dont have any questions, well keep talking were capable of filling how much time we have. If you have a question raise your hand and someone will appear with a microphone and put it in front of you. This is really problematic. Mike, have you to ask the first question many theres one right behind you. Oh, i have so many questions. Would you identify yourself . Im an ameritus professioner in the History Department. Ive been in the speaker series. The parallel you were trying to draw between lincoln and jefferson seems to me off base in this respect or maybe its because you didnt mention it aat all for lincoln and republicans of the 1850s, the basic principle of republicanism was the majority rule ss and the minority has to acquiesce. You cannot just quit if you lose an election what did jefferson think about the idea of majority rule which runs against equality . Its a great question, its the mother principle of republican ism republicanism the majority of whom, and if its a National Majority to aggregate to bring in lincoln to the presidency its insister pretted as a move thats going to lead to the loss of liberty or rights on the state level. Those majorities on the state level will no longer be capable of enjoying and exercising their rights. In other words, its the assumption that and this was always a problem, its why you had to oirk straight the machinery of the federal system to make sure you never had Something Like this happen. That is a lincoln. You had to achieve a kind of balance, which of course, was a balance that favored slave holders. Lets be honest about it you had to sustain that balance in order to sustain the illusion that this was the kind of union that the founders imagined. I was just thinking, you talk about the importance of jeffersons first inauguration, dont you think that were all federalists, were all jeffersonians, the point is to tell the federalistic that you may have lost but were no threat . Worse than that he says, the federalist, how does he define federalism in the rest of the address . He says, federalists are people who believe in states rights. He just turns it on its head. We wont persecute the leaders of the federalists, well just make laughing stocks out of them. They will not lose their support. Majority rule is foundational. No question about it. Gary was eluding to this. Thats why i was so difficult to pin down on the states of people business. Thats the problem in a nutshell. Jefferson wants it both ways. The majority rule on all levels. Were expecting questions at some point that dont come from the department of history. But for now well have our second question. Im brian bellow and i direct the National Fellow ship here in the History Department at uva. And a cohost with peter, back story with the American History guys. Im getting in many more words this way. Federalism begins in the family, and gary pressed you on the ability of jeffersons notion as union as it moves forward. I want to take you back to the family and jeffer southerns understanding of the relationship between a husband and wife, for instance. And his vision to how that would progress toward equality . It wouldnt. I feel compelled to explain that answer. Jefferson was a selfdefined patriarch. The form of government at the family level is the norm of government thats projected on to a whole kingdom. But it is confined as nature means it to be confined to the family where there is, according to nature a division of labor. And just as there must be a single voice with respect to the larger world representing that unit, whether its a representative or the father. The father is the representative he must have authority over his own domain. Theres a wonderful quotation from the jeffersons in 1816 in which he talks about the series of from the ward to the county on up. But he goes backwards to the plantation or farm itself where nobody has a right to interfere in the affairs of the farmer or planter on his own property. Dont mess with it thats his way of protecting slavery. Thats the practical implication of it. But the principle is the principle this is the foundation, a foundation a Hard Foundation where theres no ambiguity of who rules as there is in modern families instead its absolutely clear you can build on those rocks, thats a solid foundation, and thats nature that decrees that, in case you wondered. Over your left shoulder. I dont know in this is too close close. Im class of 71. Is that still too close . We think thats no we think thats wonderful. Thank you. I wanted to get back to some of the original premise. Following on what brian said, among other things this notion that equality and coercion cant co exist it strikes me that coercion can exist without equality. Equality cannot exist without coercion, that at some point the consensus is taken somebody wins it somebody loses and theres coercion. Going back to what brian said, it starts in jeffersons family and his world, the mail role, possibly his concept might include the tidewater of the piedmont, that was his country until he was a minister of evidentiary, thats how he saw himself. Right. And i wanted you to take up the issue of male sufferage, we talked about how great it was to be white. Lets not assume for any moment that all whites had votes for the first 40 50 years here, they have 100 acres or 25 acres in a house sufficient wrath coercion and equality seem to be the go go hand in hand ultimately in strengthening a union. That is expanding the sufferage. Absolutely. Jefferson sees the evolution of the electorate as moving toward sufferage. No doubt about it. His chief complain the is not only that it lacks local selfgovernment. But that the tidewater is badly over represented. And to the extent that that is true, people in the paidment and beyond are underrepresented and therefore, under the thumb or rule. And he thinks that needs to be rectified. His progressive ideas about the evolution of the republican government include the electorate, the expansion of the union, the creation of new states, which offers new opportunities for families to establish themselves. A class of whites would be excluded. Its not as if you can freeze frame that moment of 1776. Except to the extent the spontaneous outpouring of all men, many of whom couldnt vote. Thank you. Hi, i have nothing to do with the History Department or the university of virginia other than my love for the center. And our oldest son graduating from the university with a degree in english and history. But my question is with regard to the civil war. Do you think for a moment that if we did not have it, the Southern State would eventually relinquish that problem because of the mechanization. No that problem being slavery . Yes. No, i think we would have had the distinction of being the last western nation to get rid of slavery. We would have been after brazil, it was thriving making the transition from cash crop agriculture into all other elements of the economy by the mid 19th century. It used to be a comforting notion that slavery was on its way out, it was not on its way out. You can tell by the price of slaves, the civil war, and one of the problem ss was, would southerners be able to aspire to slave ownership. The price of slaves is the most sensitive indicator of the value, its literally value. I think its important to do lincoln, his critic and fellow unionists with this vision of republican government, its not that it was normative in the 19th century, you could say things were moving in the other direction. You could say it, because they were, they were moving in the other direction. You feel bad for the 20th century which you were responsible. The really nasty 20th cen duri. And yeah. The big one measure one measure of the 1860 census is our wonderful friend that tells us all kinds of things about the United States in the 1860s, that census tells us that wealth in slaves was about 3 billion. Wealth in all manufacturing. All railroads put together in the United States was 2. 2 billion in 1860. The amount of wealth controlled by slave holders was unbelievably large in 1860. And the two wealthiest states per1860 were South Carolina and mississippi. Which had in common they were the only states with an absolute majority of enslaved people in 1860. I mean, there slavery was not going anywhere in the United States. You know, the Insurance Companies have been apologizing, travelers and others for having been implicated in the institution of slavery. They were selling Life Insurance to slave holders to insure their very valuable property. The wall street people would have been all over this, you know . This is not a this goes way back. And the 19th century gives us is moving toward racial hierarchy. Toward a conception of what kipling called white mans burden. Thats in the 1890s he coins that phrase. And that is this notion that the civilized, nordic types needed to exercise a paternal rule over darkerskinned people. The idea of natural rights maybe this is the key thing and the key point about lincoln and jefferson. An idea that comes out of the enlightenment and nearly dies at the hands of people like jeremy benttham and others who say, natural rights, nonsense upon stilts. Its all power its all positive, its all what you can do and what you can enforce. That force youre talking about law is only good if you can back it up. And this is this is not a happy time. Where we have the race problem in america as americans understand it. What are you going to do with all these black people . Youve got the labor problem in britain. What do you do with all these massive numbers of irish people who are out of work . The misery of manchester. But of course, hardthinking, realistic, 19th Century Progressive types say, thats just the price of the progress of civilization, which they had their own ways of measuring. Its really a pretty horrible century. And i guess the 20th centurys bad too, i know. Im not going to take much more of this attacking the 19th century. Ive about reached my limit. Youre going to make natural rights youre going to make a plea for the 18th century for gods sake . Im saying thats the claim you can make through lincoln is that you kept that idea alive of republican government and natural rights. All men are created equal. Thats nothing to us. I dont know what we make of it. But it meant a lot toward lincoln. When you lean toward me and point should i pay extra attention . I was pointing over here, this guy over here. Heres one more question right here, then i think we will have reached our ending point. Martha williams, history maim but not history in new england. All right okay now my question is changing the subject. I learned something new today. I wasnt aware that jefferson had such a keen sensitivity to the fact that new england had towns. And less so down here. Yeah, definitely town envy. Since we have such an urban rural divide in our country now id like you to address the idea of not only new england towns but in your day that youre talking about serious urban culture clique. Philadelphia, big old boston, most dynamic of all, the dutch influence in new york and the highly tolerant society. Its not as prevalent in the rural areas. And id like you to see what you can do about that. Theres a lot of pathos in jeffersons beliefs in progress moral progress, economic development. Theres a nice exchange he has with his granddaughter ellen who travels to new england, as billy knows. And retraces a route that her grandfather had taken 30 years earlier in the company of james madison. When Northern New England was still pretty much a wilderness, underdeveloped. Ellen went to these same areas and found it absolutely remarkable. The roads were good, the hotels were good. There was a church in every town. There were schools. It was the very image of the Republican Society fulfilled. And the contrast with jeffersons virginia at that moment, they commented on this. When you approached monticello, it was as if you had to make it through these scruffy woods through a kind of wilderness, it wasnt clear whether it had reverted to an overgrown area around monticello. You could look from monticello, you would see you would see many farms. But you wouldnt see the kind of landscape, a republican landscape. And of course this was at the very time garys talking about the prosperity of the institution of slavery. It left an ugly imprint on the land. Virginia itself at this period was probably best at producing slaves, better at producing slaves than anything else. Because there was such a voracious appetite for slaves further to the south. This was not an image of republican progress. And yes, jefferson did understand and see this kind of urbanity. Its not big cities. Big cities are bad, theyre sick, nasty places to go to youll die theyre unhealthy. But a kind of a civic landscape, in many ways new england was perfect except for the new englanders. Thats right. And on that note. Id like to thank you all very much for coming out on a nasty day. You all had a hand out on your seats that tells you whats coming up in the 20th century, a version what was weve been doing in the 19th century here. I hope you will attend all of those and remain good friends of the Miller Center and travel home safely. Thanks for coming. Thank you, peter. With live coverage of the u. S. House on cspan and the senate on cspan2, here on cspan3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and Public Affairs events. And then on weekends cspan3 is the home to American History tv with programs that tell our nations story. Including six unique series. The civil wars 150 the anniversary, visiting battle fields and key events. American artifacts, touring museums and Historic Sites to discover what artifacts reveal about americas past. History bookshelf with the bestknown American History writers. The presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nations commanders in chief. Lectures in history with top College Professors delving into americas past. And our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the cities. Cspan3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us on tv like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. The Political Landscape has changed with the 114th congress. Not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house, and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, theres also 108 women in congress, including the first africanamerican republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. Keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on cspan. Org. The congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information there, including Voting Results and statistics about each session of congress. New congress, best access, on cspan cspan2, cspan radio, and cspan. Org. Each week American History tvs reel america brings you archival films that help tell the story of the 20th century. Each family upon arrival at a Relocation Center was assigned to a singleroom compartment about 20 by 25 feet. Barren unattractive. A stove, a lightbulb cots mattresses, and blankets. Those were the things provided by the government. The familys own furniture was in storage on the west coast. Scrap lumber, perhaps some wall board, and a great deal of energy curtains, pictures, drapes. Depending on the own familys own ingenuity and taste. Others took what they received and made the best of it. Boy scouts who usually provide the color guard for the American Flag which floats over each center are typical of the memp organizations who are prominent in each Relocation Center. Theres a uso club to provide entertainment for the japaneseamerican soldier hot come to the center to visit their families or friends. Girl scouts, campfire girls Parent Teacher associations the red cross. The evacuees belong to these organizations in their former homes and transplanted them to the centers. The boy scout drum and bugle corps here is leading a Harvest Festival parade, marking the high point of the successful season of farm production. Everyone turns out to view the beauty queen to see the welldecorated floats and to join in the good time that goes with the full day of celebration. While they have many things in common with ordinary american communities, in the really important things Relocation Centers are not normal and probably never can be. Home life is disrupted. Eating, living, and working conditions are abnormal. Training of children is difficult. Americanism, taught in the schools and churches and on the playgrounds, loses much of its meaning in the confines