Thomas Jefferson's Complicated Legacy As a Statesmen
Thomas Jefferson is one of the most admired men in American history. Jefferson’s actions as a Founding Father created for himself a legacy of advocacy for democracy and individual rights that has resulted in national recognition, such as the Jefferson Memorial and a spot on the nickel. In today’s world, critics of the federal government exercising too much power look all the way back to Jefferson as the defiant hero against tyranny. Yet Jefferson’s actions as president were a direct reversal of his policies as a Founding Father, perhaps placing a tarnish on his legacy.
Jefferson as a Founding Father
In the late 1760s and early 1770s, Great Britain, plagued by debt due to the French and Indian War, constricted its colonial grasp on its American colonies. Upset by the overhead interference, the colonists resisted British rule. In July of 1776, the resistance movement culminated with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, condemned Britain’s colonial dominance while championing individual liberties in the face of tyrannical government. Echoing the ideas of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, Jefferson reasoned that the role of government was to uphold these civil liberties. Jefferson’s arguments in the Declaration of Independence established the foundation for the contentions he would make over the next twenty five years.
His arguments climaxed in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention when delegates met in Philadelphia to address concerns surrounding a weak federal government. It was at this convention that Jefferson, alongside James Madison, spearheaded the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists rallied against ratification of the Constitution’s draft because they feared that the strong federal government created by the Constitution could threaten civil liberties -- an understandable fear given their subjugation under the British crown. They proposed the Bill of Rights in order to address these concerns (Foner 224). The desire to protect individual liberties fell in line with the principles Jefferson upheld in the Declaration of Independence; the rights he felt the colonists were deprived of as Englishmen were the rights he desired to protect in the new nation, and he felt that a strong government posed the biggest threat.
The debates held at the Constitutional Convention would expand over the following fifteen years. In these years, Jefferson and Madison developed their dissent into an opposing political party, the Republican Party. Jefferson would go head-to-head with Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton throughout this period on the topic of federalism and visions of America’s future. Jefferson, who believed in an agrarian America, consistently advocated for states’ rights and strict constructionism, the belief that the power given to the government came only from what was explicitly stated in the Constitution. Hamilton, on the other hand, was a loose constructionist, claiming that the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers. While the Federalists built up the power of the federal government under this principle, “Jefferson and his growing party accused Hamilton of secret designs to reestablish aristocracy and monarchy…” (McColley).
The National Bank
Inter-party disputes reached their climax with the debate surrounding Hamilton’s national bank. As Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton called repeatedly for the establishment of a national bank in order to finance the nation’s industrial development, pick up states’ debts, and to stabilize the nation’s credit. Jefferson, however, stated that the creation of the bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not mention a nation bank or explicitly specify that the government had the power to create a bank (Foner 224). Jefferson’s standpoint on the issue was an expression of his strict constructionism.
The Kentucky Resolution
Jefferson also opposed Federalists’ policies to expand the power of the federal government with his Kentucky Resolution, drafted in 1798. In the 1790s, particularly under the Adams administration, Federalists passed a series of laws to suppress criticism and opposition to the federal government, among which were the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. Ever-threatened by excessive federal power, Jefferson felt that these laws infringed upon First Amendment rights and therefore deemed them unconstitutional. In the Kentucky Resolution, Jefferson said: “The several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those [states], of all unauthorized acts....is the rightful remedy” (“Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions”). The Kentucky Resolution provided more foundation for the states’ rights argument against federal power, as Jefferson declared in his doctrine that states had the right to nullify a federal law they deemed unconstitutional in their boundaries. The Kentucky Resolution serves as further evidence of Jefferson’s support for states’ rights, his prioritization of civil liberties, and his distrust for strong federal government.
Jefferson as President
When Jefferson took office in 1801, he followed up on his beliefs as a Founder: his support for states’ rights, his prioritization of civil liberties, and his distrust for strong federal government. His initial actions as president were to decentralize the federal government, and he did so by reducing the size of the military, lowering taxes, expanding majority rule, and directing the nation towards agrarianism (Yoo 422). But concurrently during his presidency, Jefferson -- perhaps surprisingly -- took numerous actions that administered the power of the executive branch beyond what was enumerated in the Constitution, contradicting the very principles that made him one of America’s most revered Founding Fathers.
Jefferson and the Judiciary
As president, Jefferson did not adhere to the balance of powers doctrine -- a central component of the Constitution that he had heeded so faithfully hitherto. Instead of following the decisions of the judicial branch on important social issues -- customary according to the Constitution -- Jefferson attempted to change judiciary personnel in order to alter the outcome of key cases. In 1803, for example, Jefferson tried to remove John Pickering, a Federalist judge in New Hampshire; Jefferson even wrote letters to have Pickering removed from the bench, ultimately succeeding in doing so. Additionally, Jefferson postponed Supreme Court terms and repealed granted judgeships (Yoo 428). He also established the principle of executive privilege -- the power of the president to withhold documents even in instances of court intervention. Executive privilege and the notion that members of the executive branch have the power to withhold documents are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. While numerous scholars don’t consider Jefferson’s actions toward the judiciary branch as unconstitutional, “Jefferson’s confrontation with the courts gave birth to yet another broad invocation of executive power” (Yoo 429). This exercise of executive power deviates from Jefferson’s distaste for power bestowed to the federal government as a Founding Father.
The Louisiana Purchase
The highlight of Jefferson’s presidency is often regarded as the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson grew interested in purchasing the territory after Spain gave the territory to France in a treaty in 1800. In 1803, he sent delegates to France to buy part of the territory in order to prevent future armed conflicts. The delegates were instructed that they only had $10 million to spend, but after learning that Napoleon was interested in selling the entire territory for $22 million, the delegates negotiated a deal for $15 million for the entire territory. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory is often regarded as Jefferson’s greatest accomplishment and one of the most important developments in American history: the 830,000 square miles of land that were purchased doubled the size of the United States and paved the way for a period of westward expansion (Bomboy). And all of this was accomplished while staying neutral with Britain and France -- who were involved in another dispute -- and without any armed conflict (Yoo 435-426).
Yet Jefferson’s decision to purchase the territory violated his strict constructionist view. The ability to purchase territory from foreign nations is not listed in the Constitution (Austin). Jefferson was aware of this: in a letter to John Dickinson, another Founding Father, he wrote, “The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it. It has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this” (Bomboy). Despite the fact that Jefferson was afraid of going beyond the powers afforded him to in the Constitution and the fact that he saw the need for a constitutional amendment, he went ahead and proposed a treaty to Congress to purchase the land. In doing so, he admitted to John Breckinridge, his good friend in the Senate, that the Louisiana Purchase was an “act beyond the Constitution” (Yoo 439). Jefferson’s reservations about the acquisition are redolent of the stance he held during the late 1700s on the power afforded to the federal government, but his decision to proceed with the purchase shows that as president, he transgressed the principles he had preached hitherto.
The Embargo Act
In addition to the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson’s exercise executive power came to an extreme with his passing of the Embargo Act. During the early 1800s, as Britain and France were involved in a naval conflict, both nations pursued a policy of impressment against American sailors in order to sway America’s neutrality. Jefferson countered this action with the Embargo Act of 1807. The law closed all American ports and banned foreign exports. In order to enforce the law, Jefferson had to monitor shipping activity all across the country. He recruited the support of the navy and local police and armed forces. These authorities seized property without due process; neither warrants or judicial review were required by Congress to search for goods (Yoo 448-449). This was a serious violation of civil liberties. In enforcing this policy, Jefferson violated inalienable rights outlined in the same Bill of Rights that he fought for with Madison. Jefferson’s Embargo Act, considered tyrannical by some, brought his presidency to a close with an action that dramatically countered the principles he had preached prior to the start of his presidency.
Jefferson partly justified his exercise of executive power through the notion that the government could go beyond the Constitution when acting for the public good (Yoo 439). When this argument is applied to the Louisiana Purchase, however, it remains ambiguous whether the purchase was for public good. On one end, the land-grab paved the way for westward expansion and helped to ensure the nation’s security. Conversely, the acquisition led to the expansion of slavery and thus sectionalism and political tension. Moreover, the acquisition fit Jefferson’s vision of an agrarian nation, so perhaps there were personal motives on Jefferson’s part.
Jefferson’s Legacy
In the modern political realm, Jefferson is often looked at as a model of standing up against executive overreach. Those who feel the federal government has too much power look back to Jefferson, citing his defense of civil liberties and his wariness of tyranny. They must understand that legacy, however, has been tarnished by Jefferson’s executive overreach. It’s erroneous, therefore, to point to Jefferson as the resistor to a strong federal government when his policies as president required the exercise of executive power.
But maybe there’s a lesson in Jefferson’s actions. Perhaps Jefferson’s reversal on the principles he established as a Founding Father is evidence that the president must do what’s best for the country -- even when that contradicts his beliefs. In our political climate today -- a climate that is succumbing more and more to partisan politics -- politicians refuse to stand down from their beliefs in order to resolve crippling issues. Jefferson did just this, and perhaps that is the political genius of Thomas Jefferson and the reason why he should be revered in American history.
Works Cited
Austin, Michael. "Thomas Jefferson and the Great Executive Overreach." IVN.us, Independent Voter Project, 30 Jan. 2014, ivn.us/2014/01/30/thomas-jefferson-great-executive-overreach/.
Bomboy, Scott. "The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson’s Constitutional Gamble - National Constitution Center." National Constitution Center, 20 Oct. 2018, constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-louisiana-purchase-jeffersons-constitutional-gamble.
Foner, Eric, 1943- author. Give Me Liberty! : an American History. New York :W.W. Norton & Company, 2014.
McColley, Robert. “Thomas Jefferson.” Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, 2019. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=ers&AN=86193832&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Shesol, Jeff. "The Founders Look at Modern America." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, 30 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/books/review/joseph-j-ellis-american-dialogue.html.
Yoo, John. "Jefferson and Executive Power." Boston University, Boston University Law Review, 2008, www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/yoo.pdf.
“Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.” Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2018. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=ers&AN=114325054&site=eds-live&scope=site.
