Reflecting on Jefferson as America Approaches 250 Years Since the Declaration of Independence

As the United States nears the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it’s hard not to focus on its author, Thomas Jefferson. He once suggested that the Declaration wasn’t just a standalone masterpiece but a reflection of the American spirit. His role was to articulate that essence, shaping how it would be viewed for generations.

Jefferson is perhaps one of the most debated figures among the Founding Fathers. In recent years, it feels like our cultural narrative has begun to distance itself from him. If you survey educated Americans about which founder they admire most, the name “Washington” often comes up. Washington seems, well, like the safer choice.

A successful Broadway production, Hamilton, has openly sought to elevate Alexander Hamilton’s status over Jefferson. Likewise, a 2008 HBO miniseries on John Adams showcased the life of Jefferson’s federalist rival from New England. Even figures like Ben Franklin appear to be gaining more recognition than Jefferson for their entrepreneurial spirit and self-starter qualities.

However, Jefferson, a slaveholder from Virginia, managed to capture the true essence of the American Revolution through the lens of Abraham Lincoln. While Jefferson had no direct hand in crafting the Constitution, this year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, a document that celebrates the ideals of freedom.

There’s an interesting relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution. Some argue the Declaration embodies the philosophy behind the revolution, while the Constitution serves as its legal framework. The Declaration captures the spirit, whereas the Constitution outlines the specifics. When the Constitution leaves things unclear, where do we turn for clarity? The Declaration, naturally.

Lincoln famously illustrated this relationship with the metaphor of “apples of gold in a picture of silver,” suggesting that the Declaration is the golden apple and the Constitution is the silver frame. As Lincoln pointed out, “Photography was made for apples, not apples for photography.”

Let’s examine the Declaration afresh and appreciate how it lies at the heart of American ideals. Oddly enough, we can use common modern critiques of Jefferson to further our understanding of his significance. By addressing this deconstruction of his character, we can uncover the depth of his declaration.

The Declaration begins with the assertion that “All men are created equal,” and that they possess “certain unalienable rights,” possibly some of the most impactful words in history, rivaling those found in religious texts.

The Constitution, ratified a little over a decade after the Declaration, was inspired by these very words. Many subsequent amendments, such as the Fourteenth Amendment—promoting “equal rights under the law” after the Civil War—seem to reaffirm the equality principles found in Jefferson’s statement.

However, conventional wisdom prevalent in schools today often depicts Jefferson as embodying the contradictions of the Founders. Some progressives argue he was the most hypocritical of them, highlighting that a man who professed equality owned slaves himself.

This raises a question: Did Jefferson not recognize the stark contradiction between his principles and the reality of slavery in early America? Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision, suggested that Jefferson and the others couldn’t have possibly meant that “all men are created equal.” Their actions, he argued, spoke louder than their words.

This view has been echoed by modern progressive jurists and historians, who argue that the Founders betrayed their ideals, claiming they were “eloquently asserting human brotherhood one moment and denying it to their black brethren the next.”

Defenders of Jefferson and the Founding Fathers contest this perspective. While it’s easy for some to say that Jefferson was simply “a man of his time,” it’s vital to remember that many contemporaries opposed slavery outright, even in the South. Take Washington; though he owned slaves, he ensured they were freed upon his death, contrasting with Jefferson’s actions.

Instead of defending Jefferson as an individual, my focus is on the Declaration itself and on understanding the Founders’ difficult decisions regarding slavery—despite their proclaimed belief in equality. The goal is to see how we might exonerate Jefferson, allowing us to challenge the entire progressive critique of the Founding.

If we take another look at the Declaration, we note it states that governments derive their authority from the “consent of the governed.” This democratic principle is crucial but often overlooked, just as vital as the claim of equality.

Consider the dilemmas faced by the Founders. Progressives often argue that the original Constitution should have outlawed slavery outright. Yet, slavery was legal in all the states that sent representatives to Philadelphia in 1789. How could these representatives possibly outlaw slavery without the consent of the people they represented? Would they really be expected to oppose the wishes of their constituents? That would effectively undermine democracy before it even had a chance to take root.

Moreover, representatives knew well that many states would not have joined the union if slavery had been banished outright. Some might have, but a significant number wouldn’t. If those who opposed slavery had taken a firmer stance, perhaps a few states would have rejected it, or else slavery would have remained an unfulfilled aspiration vulnerable to the whims of noble ideals, without a tangible founding to support such aspirations.

Jefferson noted regarding slavery that “We have a wolf by the ear, and we can neither catch him nor release him safely.” Asking politicians to take actions they were incapable of implementing is, frankly, unreasonable. It’s only natural to expect them to navigate the best possible path given their circumstances. In Jeffersonian terms, the “wolf” would remain under control until a secure resolution was possible.

Lincoln illustrated that while the Founders acknowledged slavery, they simultaneously established a framework grounded in anti-slavery principles. The Founders, as Lincoln put it, “declared.” That framework remained viable and ready to be executed when conditions allowed.

Lincoln’s view of Jefferson wasn’t unique; abolitionist Frederick Douglass shared a similar perspective. He argued that slavery was a temporary construct associated with the new Constitution, granted by the Founders, including Jefferson, as a necessary evil for future removal. Martin Luther King Jr. echoed these sentiments in his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech.

While it’s clear Jefferson fell short of his ideals, denying his significance in shaping the nation is, well, shortsighted. His Declaration laid the groundwork for both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, serving as a cornerstone of rights and democratic principles today.

Figures like Lincoln, Douglass, and King recognized Jefferson’s pivotal role in harmonizing the concepts of human equality and national consent, helping America evolve into a country that makes the ideal of equality more attainable than anywhere else in the world.