Introduction
Thomas Jefferson, a key architect of American independence and the third President of the United States, is often celebrated for his advocacy of liberty and human rights. However, his ownership of slaves and failure to abolish the institution present a stark contradiction, particularly in light of his writings that explicitly condemn slavery. This essay explores why Jefferson pursued slavery despite recognising its moral wrongs, drawing on his reflections in Query 18 of Notes on the State of Virginia (Jefferson, 1785) and comparing the draft and final versions of the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson, 1776). From the perspective of studying race in history, this analysis highlights the intersections of economic interests, political pragmatism, and societal norms in perpetuating racial hierarchies. The essay argues that Jefferson’s actions were influenced by personal economic dependencies, political compromises, and the broader racial ideologies of the era, which undermined his stated principles. Key sections will examine Jefferson’s acknowledgment of slavery’s immorality, the revisions to the Declaration, and the underlying reasons for his persistence with the institution, before concluding with broader implications.
Jefferson’s Acknowledgment of Slavery’s Immorality
In Query 18 of Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson articulates a profound moral unease with slavery, linking it directly to the fragility of national liberties. The quoted passage reveals his belief that slavery erodes the divine foundation of rights, as it removes the “conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God” (Jefferson, 1785, p. 169). Here, Jefferson invokes a theological argument, suggesting that divine justice will inevitably address such violations. This reflects a clear awareness that slavery contradicts the Enlightenment ideals of equality and natural rights that he championed. Indeed, as a student of race in history, one can see this as part of a broader pattern where white intellectuals critiqued slavery in theory while benefiting from it in practice, arguably to soothe their consciences without enacting change.
Jefferson’s writings elsewhere reinforce this knowledge. For instance, he described slavery as a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” on America (Jefferson, 1785, p. 170). However, his rhetoric often stopped short of immediate action, focusing instead on gradual emancipation tied to deportation of freed slaves, which betrayed underlying racial prejudices. Historians like Finkelman (2014) argue that Jefferson’s views were informed by pseudoscientific notions of racial inferiority, where he posited that Black people were inherently different and unfit for integration into white society. This limited his critical approach, as he failed to fully challenge the racial hierarchies that justified slavery. Furthermore, Jefferson’s personal life—owning over 600 slaves during his lifetime—highlights the disconnect between his words and deeds. In the context of race history, this exemplifies how Enlightenment thinkers could intellectually oppose slavery while embedding it within economic and social structures, thereby perpetuating racial exploitation.
The passage from Query 18, written in the 1780s, also serves as a reflective moment post-Independence, where Jefferson trembles at the prospect of divine retribution. This fear underscores his recognition of slavery’s unsustainability, yet he did not free his own slaves en masse, citing financial debts as a barrier (Wiencek, 2012). Therefore, while Jefferson clearly knew slavery was wrong, his pursuit of it raises questions about the interplay of morality and self-interest, which the revisions to the Declaration of Independence further illuminate.
The Draft and Final Versions of the Declaration of Independence
A pivotal example of Jefferson’s complex stance on slavery emerges in the evolution of the Declaration of Independence. In the original draft penned by Jefferson in 1776, he included a scathing indictment of King George III for perpetuating the slave trade: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere” (Jefferson, 1776). This clause framed slavery as a British-imposed evil, aligning with Jefferson’s broader narrative of colonial victimhood. However, it was excised from the final version adopted by the Continental Congress on 4 July 1776, primarily due to objections from southern delegates whose economies relied on slavery (Boyd, 1950).
This removal is significant in understanding why Jefferson pursued slavery despite his convictions. As the primary author, Jefferson acquiesced to the deletion, prioritising political unity over moral purity. From a race history perspective, this compromise entrenched slavery within the new nation’s foundational document, normalising racial subjugation. Historians note that the draft’s anti-slavery rhetoric was more aspirational than actionable; Jefferson himself did not push vigorously for its retention, suggesting his commitment was tempered by pragmatic concerns (Finkelman, 2014). Moreover, the final Declaration’s emphasis on “all men are created equal” rings hollow when juxtaposed with the omission, as it implicitly excluded enslaved Africans from this equality.
The revisions also reflect broader colonial dynamics. Southern colonies, including Jefferson’s Virginia, were economically dependent on slave labour for tobacco and other crops, making abolition politically untenable. Boyd (1950) highlights how delegates from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to withdraw support if the clause remained, forcing a concession that preserved the union at the expense of racial justice. Jefferson’s later defenses, such as in his autobiography, downplayed his role in the removal, claiming it was a regrettable necessity (Jefferson, 1821). However, this indicates a pattern where Jefferson rationalised inaction, allowing slavery to persist. In studying race in history, this moment illustrates how foundational American texts were shaped by racial compromises, embedding systemic inequalities that would fuel future conflicts like the Civil War.
Reasons for Jefferson’s Pursuit of Slavery
Despite his clear knowledge of slavery’s wrongs, Jefferson’s pursuit of it can be attributed to a combination of economic necessities, societal norms, and personal hypocrisies. Economically, Jefferson was deeply entangled in the plantation system; his Monticello estate relied on slave labour, and he accumulated debts that made emancipation financially risky (Wiencek, 2012). For example, upon inheriting slaves, he viewed them as assets rather than individuals, even selling some to settle debts. This dependency highlights how slavery was not merely a moral issue but an economic cornerstone of the early American republic, particularly in the South.
Societally, Jefferson operated within a context where slavery was normalised and legally sanctioned. Eighteenth-century Virginia’s laws treated slaves as property, and challenging this could invite social ostracism or political downfall. Furthermore, Jefferson’s racial views, as expressed in Notes on the State of Virginia, included beliefs in Black inferiority, such as claims of inherent differences in intellect and beauty (Jefferson, 1785). These ideas, influenced by contemporary pseudoscience, arguably justified his inaction, as he advocated for emancipation only with expatriation, fearing racial mixing.
Politically, Jefferson’s ambitions required compromises. As a leader in the Revolution and later politics, he navigated alliances with pro-slavery factions to achieve goals like independence and territorial expansion. Finkelman (2014) critiques this as “the American paradox,” where liberty for whites was built on the denial of rights to Blacks. However, Jefferson’s limited critical approach meant he rarely confronted these contradictions head-on, instead deferring solutions to future generations. In race history studies, this reflects how elite white figures perpetuated racial hierarchies through inaction, contributing to enduring inequalities.
Conclusion
In summary, Thomas Jefferson’s recognition of slavery’s immorality, as evident in Query 18 and the draft Declaration of Independence, was undermined by economic dependencies, political expediency, and ingrained racial prejudices. The removal of the anti-slavery clause from the Declaration exemplifies how compromises prioritised unity over justice, while Jefferson’s personal life reveals a failure to align actions with principles. From a race in history perspective, this highlights the limitations of Enlightenment thought in addressing racial exploitation, often reinforcing rather than dismantling it. The implications are profound: Jefferson’s legacy underscores the need for critical examination of how moral rhetoric can mask systemic racism, informing contemporary discussions on reparations and racial equity. Ultimately, his trembling for his country proved prescient, as slavery’s injustices culminated in national division, reminding us that divine or historical justice, indeed, does not sleep forever.
References
- Boyd, J. P. (1950) The Declaration of Independence: The evolution of the text. Princeton University Press.
- Finkelman, P. (2014) Slavery and the founders: Race and liberty in the age of Jefferson. 3rd edn. Routledge.
- Jefferson, T. (1785) Notes on the State of Virginia. Printed for John Stockdale.
- Jefferson, T. (1776) Draft of the Declaration of Independence. Available at: Library of Congress (Manuscript Division).
- Jefferson, T. (1821) Autobiography. In: Ford, P. L. (ed.) The writings of Thomas Jefferson. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
- Wiencek, H. (2012) Master of the mountain: Thomas Jefferson and his slaves. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
(Word count: 1247, including references)
