Tag: Thomas Jefferson

The mythology of the founding fathers often portrays them as a harmonious band of brothers united in noble purpose. The reality was far messier—these brilliant, ambitious men engaged in bitter personal feuds that sometimes threatened the very republic they were creating. In some ways, the American revolution was as much of a battle of egos as it was a war between King and colonists.

The Revolutionary War Years: Hancock, Adams, and Washington’s Critics

The tensions began even before independence was declared. John Hancock and Samuel Adams, both Massachusetts firebrands, developed a rivalry that simmered throughout the Revolution. Adams, the older political strategist, had been the dominant figure in Boston’s resistance movement. When Hancock—wealthy, vain, and eager for glory—was elected president of the Continental Congress in 1775, the austere Adams felt his protégé had grown too big for his britches. Hancock’s request for a leave of absence from the presidency of Congress in 1777 coupled with his desire for an honorific military escort home, struck Adams as a relapse into vanity. Adams even opposed a resolution of thanks for Hancock’s service, signaling open estrangement. Their relationship continued to deteriorate to the point where they barely spoke, with Adams privately mocking Hancock’s pretensions and Hancock using his position to undercut Adams politically.

The choice of Washington as commander sparked its own controversies. John Adams had nominated Washington, partly to unite the colonies by giving Virginia the top military role. Washington’s command was anything but universally admired and as the war dragged on with mixed results many critics emerged.

After the victory at Saratoga in 1777, General Horatio Gates became the focal point of what’s known as the Conway Cabal—a loose conspiracy aimed at having Gates replace Washington as commander-in-chief. General Thomas Conway wrote disparaging letters about Washington’s military abilities. Some members of Congress, including Samuel Adams, Thomas Mifflin, and Richard Henry Lee, questioned whether Washington’s defensive strategy was too cautious and if his battlefield performance was lacking. Gates himself played a duplicitous game, publicly supporting Washington while privately positioning himself as an alternative.

When Washington discovered the intrigue, his response was characteristically measured but firm. Rather than lobbying Congress or forming a counter-faction, Washington leaned heavily on reputation and restraint. He continued to communicate respectfully with Congress, emphasizing the army’s needs rather than defending his own position. Washington did not respond with denunciations or public accusations. Instead, he handled the situation largely behind the scenes. When he learned that Conway had written a critical letter praising Gates, Washington calmly informed him that he was aware of the letter—quoting it verbatim.

The conspiracy collapsed, in part because Washington’s personal reputation with the rank and file and with key political figures proved more resilient than his critics had anticipated. But the episode exposed deep fractures over strategy, leadership, and regional loyalties within the revolutionary coalition.

The Ideological Split: Hamilton vs. Jefferson and Madison

Perhaps the most consequential feud emerged in the 1790s between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, with James Madison eventually siding with Jefferson. This wasn’t just personal animosity—it represented a fundamental disagreement about America’s future.

Hamilton, Washington’s Treasury Secretary, envisioned an industrialized commercial nation with a strong central government, a national bank, and close ties to Britain. Jefferson, the Secretary of State, championed an agrarian republic of small farmers with minimal federal power and friendship with Revolutionary France. Their cabinet meetings became so contentious that Washington had to mediate. Hamilton accused Jefferson of being a dangerous radical who would destroy public credit. Jefferson called Hamilton a monarchist who wanted to recreate British aristocracy in America.

The conflict got personal. Hamilton leaked damaging information about Jefferson to friendly newspapers. Jefferson secretly funded a journalist, James Callender, to attack Hamilton in print. When Hamilton’s extramarital affair with Maria Reynolds became public in 1797, Jefferson’s allies savored every detail. The feud split the nation into the first political parties: Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. Madison, once Hamilton’s ally in promoting the Constitution, switched sides completely, becoming Jefferson’s closest political partner and Hamilton’s implacable foe.

The Adams-Jefferson Friendship, Rivalry, and Reconciliation

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson experienced one of history’s most remarkable personal relationships. They were close friends during the Revolution, working together in Congress and on the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence (though Jefferson did the actual writing). Both served diplomatic posts in Europe and developed deep mutual respect.

But the election of 1796 turned them into rivals. Adams won the presidency with Jefferson finishing second, making Jefferson vice president under the original constitutional system—imagine your closest competitor becoming your deputy. By the 1800 election, they were bitter enemies. The campaign was vicious, with Jefferson’s supporters calling Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character” and Adams’s allies claiming Jefferson was an atheist who would destroy Christianity.

Jefferson won in 1800, and the two men didn’t speak for over a decade. Their relationship was so bitter that Adams left Washington early in the morning, before Jefferson’s inauguration. What makes their story extraordinary is the reconciliation. In 1812, mutual friends convinced them to resume correspondence. Their letters over the next fourteen years—158 of them—became one of the great intellectual exchanges in American history, discussing philosophy, politics, and their memories of the Revolution. Both men died on July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, with Adams’s last words reportedly being “Thomas Jefferson survives” (though Jefferson had actually died hours earlier).

Franklin vs. Adams: A Clash of Styles

In Paris, the relationship between Benjamin Franklin and John Adams was a tense blend of grudging professional reliance and deep personal irritation, rooted in radically different diplomatic styles and temperaments. Franklin, already a celebrated figure at Versailles, cultivated French support through charm, sociability, and patient maneuvering in salons and at court, a method that infuriated Adams. He equated such “nuances” with evasiveness and preferred direct argument, formal memorandums, and hard‑edged ultimatums. Sharing lodgings outside Paris only intensified Adams’s resentment as he watched Franklin rise late, receive endless visitors, and seemingly mix pleasure with business, leading Adams to complain that nothing would ever get done unless he did it himself, while Franklin privately judged Adams “always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.” Their French ally, Foreign Minister Vergennes, reinforced the imbalance by insisting on dealing primarily with Franklin and effectively sidelining Adams in formal diplomacy. This deepened Adams’s sense that Franklin was both overindulged by the French and insufficiently assertive on America’s behalf. Yet despite their mutual loss of respect, the two ultimately cooperated—often uneasily—in the peace negotiations with Britain, and both signatures appear on the 1783 Treaty of Paris, a testament to the way personal feud and shared national purpose coexisted within the American diplomatic mission.

Hamilton and Burr: From Political Rivalry to Fatal Duel

The Hamilton-Burr feud ended in the most dramatic way possible: a duel at Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, 1804, where Hamilton was mortally wounded and Burr destroyed his own political career.

Their rivalry had been building for years. Both were New York lawyers and politicians, but Hamilton consistently blocked Burr’s ambitions. When Burr ran for governor of New York in 1804, Hamilton campaigned against him with particular venom, calling Burr dangerous and untrustworthy at a dinner party. When Burr read accounts of Hamilton’s remarks in a newspaper, he demanded an apology. Hamilton refused to apologize or deny the comments, leading to the duel challenge.

What made this especially tragic was that Hamilton’s oldest son, Philip, had been killed in a duel three years earlier defending his father’s honor. Hamilton reportedly planned to withhold his fire, but he either intentionally shot into the air or missed. Burr’s shot struck Hamilton in the abdomen, and he died the next day. Burr was charged with murder in both New York and New Jersey and fled to the South. Though he later returned to complete his term as vice president, his political career was finished.

Adams vs. Hamilton: The Federalist Crack-Up

One of the most destructive feuds happened within the same party. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were both Federalists, but their relationship became poisonous during Adams’s presidency (1797-1801).

Hamilton, though not in government, tried to control Adams’s cabinet from behind the scenes. When Adams pursued peace negotiations with France (the “Quasi-War” with France was raging), Hamilton wanted war. Adams discovered that several of his cabinet members were more loyal to Hamilton than to him and fired them. In the 1800 election, Hamilton wrote a fifty-four-page pamphlet attacking Adams’s character and fitness for office—extraordinary since they were in the same party. The pamphlet was meant for limited circulation among Federalist leaders, but Jefferson’s allies got hold of it and published it widely, devastating both Adams’s re-election chances and Hamilton’s reputation. The feud helped Jefferson win and essentially destroyed the Federalist Party.

Washington and Jefferson: The Unacknowledged Tension

While Washington and Jefferson never had an open feud, their relationship cooled significantly during Washington’s presidency. Jefferson, as Secretary of State, increasingly opposed the administration’s policies, particularly Hamilton’s financial program. When Washington supported the Jay Treaty with Britain in 1795—which Jefferson saw as a betrayal of France and Republican principles—Jefferson became convinced Washington had fallen under Hamilton’s spell.

Jefferson resigned from the cabinet in 1793, partly from policy disagreements but also from discomfort with what he saw as Washington’s monarchical tendencies (the formal receptions and the ceremonial aspects of the presidency). Washington, in turn, came to view Jefferson as disloyal, especially when he learned Jefferson had been secretly funding attacks on the administration in opposition newspapers and had even put a leading critic on the federal payroll. By the time Washington delivered his Farewell Address in 1796, warning against political parties and foreign entanglements, many saw it as a rebuke of Jefferson’s philosophy. They maintained outward courtesy, but their warm relationship never recovered.

Why These Feuds Mattered

These weren’t just personal squabbles—they shaped American democracy in profound ways. The Hamilton-Jefferson rivalry created our two-party system (despite Washington’s warnings). The Adams-Hamilton split showed that parties could fracture from within. The Adams-Jefferson reconciliation demonstrated that political enemies could find common ground after leaving power.

The founding fathers were human, with all the ambition, pride, jealousy, and pettiness that entails. They fought over power, principles, and personal slights. What’s remarkable isn’t that they agreed on everything—they clearly didn’t—but that despite their bitter divisions, they created a system robust enough to survive their feuds. The Constitution itself, with its checks and balances, almost seems designed to accommodate such disagreements, ensuring that no single person or faction could dominate.

SOURCES

National Archives – Founders Online

https://founders.archives.gov

2. Massachusetts Historical Society – Adams-Jefferson Letters

https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-jefferson

3. Founders Online – Hamilton’s Letter Concerning John Adams

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0110

4. Gilder Lehrman Institute – Hamilton and Jefferson

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/alexander-hamilton-and-thomas-jefferson

5. National Park Service – The Conway Cabal

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-conway-cabal.htm

6. American Battlefield Trust – Hamilton-Burr Duel

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/hamilton-burr-duel

7. Mount Vernon – Thomas Jefferson

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/thomas-jefferson

8. Monticello – Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia

https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia

9. Library of Congress – John Adams Papers

https://www.loc.gov/collections/john-adams-papers

10. Joseph Ellis – “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation”

https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/joseph-j-ellis

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Thomas Jefferson: The Philosopher Who Played Hardball

By John Turley

On January 2, 2026

In History, Politics

Here’s the thing about Thomas Jefferson that doesn’t always make it into the history textbooks: the guy who wrote those soaring words about liberty and limited government? He was also one of early America’s most skilled—and sometimes underhanded—political operators.

It’s surprising when you think about it. Jefferson genuinely believed in transparency, virtue in public life, and keeping government small. He wrote beautifully about these ideals. But when it came to actual politics? He played the game as hard as anyone, often using tactics that directly contradicted what he preached.

Jefferson’s public philosophy was straightforward. He thought America should be a nation of independent farmers—regular people who owned their own land and weren’t dependent on anyone else. He worried constantly about concentrated power, whether in government or in the hands of wealthy financiers or merchants. He believed people should be informed and engaged, and that government worked best when it stayed out of people’s lives.

His Declaration of Independence wasn’t just pretty rhetoric—it laid out a genuinely revolutionary idea: governments only have power because people agree to give it to them, and when governments stop serving the people, those people have the right to change things.

The Reality: How Jefferson Actually Operated

Here’s where it gets interesting. While Jefferson was writing about virtue and transparency, he was simultaneously running what today we’d recognize as opposition research, planting stories in the press, and organizing political operations—sometimes against people he was supposed to be working with.

The Freneau Setup: Paying for Attacks

The most blatant example happened in 1791. Jefferson was serving as Secretary of State under George Washington, which meant he was part of the administration. At the same time, he arranged for a guy named Philip Freneau to get a government job—technically as a translator. The real purpose? To give Freneau money to run a newspaper that would relentlessly attack Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists.

Think about that for a second. Jefferson was using his government position to fund media attacks on his own colleagues. When people called him out on it, he basically said, “Who, me? I have nothing to do with what Freneau publishes.” But the evidence shows Jefferson was actively encouraging and directing these attacks.

John Beckley: The Original Campaign Fixer

Jefferson also worked closely with John Beckley, who was essentially America’s first professional political operative. Beckley coordinated messaging, spread information (and sometimes misinformation) about opponents, and helped build the grassroots organization that would eventually become the Democratic-Republican Party.

This wasn’t a gentlemanly debate about ideas. This was organized political warfare—pamphlets, coordinated newspaper campaigns, and opposition research. Jefferson and Jame Madison quietly funded much of this work while maintaining public images as above-the-fray philosophers. We can’t know exactly what Jefferson said in every private conversation with Beckley, but the circumstantial evidence of coordination is convincing.

The Hamilton Rivalry: Ideological War

Jefferson’s conflict with Hamilton was both philosophical and deeply personal. Hamilton wanted a strong federal government, a national bank, and close ties with Britain. Jefferson saw all of this as a betrayal of the Revolution—a step toward creating the same kind of corrupt, elite-dominated system they’d just fought to escape.

But rather than just making his arguments publicly, Jefferson worked behind the scenes to undermine Hamilton’s policies. He encouraged Madison to lead opposition in Congress. He fed stories to friendly newspapers. He coordinated with Republican representatives to block Federalist initiatives.

The philosophical disagreement was real, but Jefferson’s methods were pure political calculation.

Turning on Washington: The Ultimate Betrayal?

Maybe the most damaging thing Jefferson did was secretly working against George Washington while still serving in his cabinet. By Washington’s second term, Jefferson had convinced himself that Washington was being manipulated by Hamilton and moving the country toward monarchy.

Jefferson stayed in the cabinet, maintaining cordial relations with Washington in person, while privately organizing resistance to administration policies. He encouraged attacks on Washington in the press. He coordinated with opposition leaders. And he did all of this while Washington trusted him as a loyal advisor.

When Washington found out, he was devastated. The betrayal broke their relationship permanently.

The Burr Situation: Using People

Jefferson’s handling of Aaron Burr shows just how pragmatic he could be. Jefferson never really trusted Burr—thought he was too ambitious and unprincipled. But in 1800, when Jefferson needed to win the presidency, Burr was useful for delivering New York’s votes.

After winning, Jefferson kept Burr as vice president but froze him out of any real power. Once Burr’s usefulness ended (especially after he killed Hamilton in that duel), Jefferson completely abandoned him, eventually supporting an unsuccessful prosecution for treason.

Deceiving Congress

Another example of Jefferson’s political manipulation was the Louisiana Purchase. This was a massive land acquisition that doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson knew that under the constitution he had no clear authority to acquire territory for the United States. He was able to secure the purchase by keeping it secret from both congress and his political opponents until after it was finalized. This allowed him to avoid a debate that could have derailed the deal. Does this sound familiar?

So, What Do We Make of This?

Here’s the uncomfortable question: Was Jefferson a hypocrite, or was he just being realistic about how politics actually works? Jefferson’s political manipulation was not always ethical, but it was effective. He was able to use his skills to achieve many of his political goals.

You could argue he was doing what he thought necessary to prevent Hamilton’s vision from taking over—that the ends justified the means. You could also argue that by using underhanded tactics, he corrupted the very democratic processes he claimed to be protecting.

My speculation: I think Jefferson was aware of the contradiction and wrestled with it. His private letters show moments of self-justification and lingering doubt. But ultimately, he kept doing it because he believed his vision for America was too important to lose by playing nice.

The Bottom Line

Thomas Jefferson remains one of our most brilliant political thinkers. But he was also willing to play dirty when he thought the stakes were high enough. That duality—beautiful ideals combined with hardball tactics—might actually make him more relevant today than ever. Because let’s be honest, that tension between principles and pragmatism hasn’t gone away in American politics.

Understanding both sides of Jefferson helps us see that even the founders we most revere weren’t simple heroes. They were complicated people operating in a messy political reality, trying to build something new while fighting over what that something should be.

The evidence for Jefferson’s political maneuvering is extensive and well-established by historians. Some interpretations of his motivations involve educated speculation, but the actions themselves are documented in letters, newspaper archives, and contemporary accounts.

Reference List

Primary Sources

Founders Online – National Archives https://founders.archives.gov/

Digital collection of correspondence and papers from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison. Essential for Jefferson’s own words and contemporaneous accounts of his political activities.

Library of Congress – Thomas Jefferson Exhibition https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/

Comprehensive digital exhibition covering Jefferson’s life, philosophy, and political career with original documents and interpretive essays.

Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia – Monticello https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/

Scholarly resource maintained by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, covering specific topics including Jefferson’s relationships with Aaron Burr and other political figures.

Secondary Sources – Books

Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Press, 2004.

Pulitzer Prize-winning biography that extensively covers the Jefferson-Hamilton rivalry and Jefferson’s behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, including the Freneau affair. Particularly strong on the 1790s conflicts within Washington’s cabinet.

Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. New York: Penguin Press, 2010.

Provides Washington’s perspective on Jefferson’s activities within his administration and the betrayal Washington felt when learning of Jefferson’s covert opposition.

Ellis, Joseph J. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

National Book Award winner that explores Jefferson’s contradictions and complexities, particularly the gap between his philosophical writings and political practices.

Ferling, John. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2013.

Detailed examination of the ideological and personal conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton, showing how their struggle shaped early American politics and party formation.

Isenberg, Nancy. Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr. New York: Penguin Books, 2007.

Comprehensive biography of Burr that includes extensive coverage of his complex relationship with Jefferson, from their 1800 alliance through Jefferson’s eventual abandonment of his vice president.

Pasley, Jeffrey L. The Tyranny of Printers: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001.

Scholarly examination of how newspapers and partisan press became political weapons in the 1790s, with detailed coverage of Jefferson’s relationship with Philip Freneau and the National Gazette.

Secondary Sources – Journal Articles and Academic Papers

Sharp, James Roger. “The Journalist as Partisan: The National Gazette and the Origins of the First Party System.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 97, no. 4 (1989): 391-420.

Academic analysis of Freneau’s National Gazette and its role in forming political opposition, including Jefferson’s involvement in funding and directing the publication.

Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. “John Beckley: An Early American Party Manager.” The William and Mary Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1956): 40-52.

Scholarly examination of Beckley’s role as America’s first professional political operative and his work organizing Jefferson’s political machine.

Historiographical Note

The interpretation of Jefferson’s political behavior has evolved over time. Earlier biographies (pre-1960s) tended to minimize or excuse his behind-the-scenes maneuvering, while more recent scholarship has been willing to examine the contradictions between his philosophy and practice more critically. The works cited above represent current historical consensus based on documentary evidence, though historians continue to debate Jefferson’s motivations and whether his tactics were justified given the political stakes he perceived.

Declaring Independence: The Origin of America’s Founding Document

By John Turley

On June 30, 2025

In History, Politics

When Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, we imagine fireworks, flags, and a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence. We think we know the story—The Continental Congress selected Thomas Jefferson to write the declaration. He labored alone to produce this famous document. Congress then approved it unanimously and it was signed on the 4th of July.

But the truth is far different and more complex. The story behind this iconic document—the how, who, and why of its creation—is just as explosive and illuminating as the day it represents. Far from a spontaneous outburst of rebellion, the Declaration was the product of political strategy, collaborative writing, and a shared sense of urgency among men who knew their words would change the course of history.

Setting the Stage: Why a Declaration?

By the spring of 1776, the American colonies were deep in conflict with Great Britain. Battles at Lexington and Concord had already been fought. George Washington was attempting to transform the Continental Army into a professional fighting force. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense had ignited widespread public support for full separation from the British Crown. The Continental Congress had been meeting in Philadelphia, debating how far they were willing to go. By June, the mood had shifted from reconciliation to revolution.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced a resolution to the Continental Congress declaring “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” The motion was controversial—some delegates wanted more time to consult their colonies. But most in Congress knew that if independence was going to happen, it needed to be explained and justified to the world, so they created a committee to draft a formal declaration.

The Committee of Five

On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” to write the declaration. The members were:

Thomas Jefferson of Virginia
John Adams of Massachusetts
Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania
Roger Sherman of Connecticut
Robert R. Livingston of New York

This was not a random selection. Each man represented a different region of the colonies and had earned the trust of fellow delegates. Jefferson was relatively young but already known for his eloquence. Adams was an outspoken advocate of independence. Franklin brought wisdom, wit, diplomatic experience, and international prestige. Sherman brought New England theological perspectives and legislative experience, while Livingston represented the more moderate New York delegation and brought keen legal insight.

Jefferson Takes the Pen

Although it was a group project on paper, the heavy lifting fell to Thomas Jefferson. The committee chose him to draft the initial version. Why Jefferson? According to John Adams, Jefferson was chosen for three reasons: he was from Virginia (the most influential colony), he was popular, and, Adams admitted, “you can write ten times better than I can.”

Jefferson wrote the draft in a rented room at 700 Market Street in Philadelphia. He leaned heavily on Enlightenment ideas, especially those of John Locke, emphasizing natural rights and the notion that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. He also borrowed phrasing from earlier colonial declarations, including his own A Summary View of the Rights of British America and borrowed extensively from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.

The Editing Process: Group Work Gets Messy

After Jefferson completed the initial draft (likely by June 28), he shared it with Adams and Franklin. Both men suggested revisions. Franklin, ever the editor, softened some of Jefferson’s sharpest attacks and corrected language for flow and diplomacy. His most famous contribution was changing Jefferson’s phrase “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to the more secular and philosophically precise “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Adams contributed to structural suggestions and to tone. He also contributed to the strategic presentation of grievances against King George III, understanding that the declaration needed to justify revolution in terms that would be acceptable to both colonial readers and potential European allies.

Sherman and Livingston played more limited but still meaningful roles. Sherman, with his theological background, helped ensure the document’s religious references would appeal to Puritan New England, while Livingston’s legal expertise helped refine the constitutional arguments against British rule. Otherwise, their involvement in the actual content of the declaration was likely minimal.

The revised draft was presented to the full Continental Congress on June 28, 1776. What followed was a few days of intense debate and revision by the entire body.

Congress Takes the Red Pen

From July 1 to July 4, the Continental Congress debated the resolution for independence and edited the Declaration. Jefferson watched as more than two dozen changes were made to his prose. The Congress cut about a quarter of the original text, including a lengthy passage condemning King George III for perpetuating the transatlantic slave trade that would have sparked deep division among the delegates, especially those from Southern colonies.

Other modifications included strengthening the religious language, toning down some of the more inflammatory rhetoric, and making the grievances more specific and legally grounded. Congress made 86 edits, removing about a quarter of Jefferson’s original content. Jefferson was reportedly frustrated by the changes, calling them “mutilations,” but he recognized that compromise was the cost of consensus

Approval and Promulgation

Despite the extensive revisions, the core of Jefferson’s vision remained intact and on July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted in favor of Lee’s resolution for independence. That’s the actual date the colonies officially broke from Britain. John Adams even predicted in a letter to his wife that July 2 would be celebrated forever as America’s Independence Day. He was close—but the official adoption of the Declaration came two days later.

On July 4, 1776, Congress formally approved the final version of the Declaration of Independence. Contrary to popular belief, most of the signers did not sign it on that day. Only John Hancock, as president of Congress, and Charles Thomson, as secretary, signed then. The famous handwritten version, now in the National Archives, wasn’t signed until August 2. But the document approved on July 4 was immediately printed by John Dunlap, the official printer to Congress.

These first copies, known as Dunlap Broadsides, were distributed throughout the colonies and sent to military leaders, state assemblies, and even King George III. George Washington had it read aloud to the Continental Army. This rapid dissemination was crucial to its impact, as it was needed to rally public support for the revolutionary cause and explain the colonies’ actions to the world.

Legacy and Impact

The Declaration wasn’t just a break-up letter to the British Crown—it was a manifesto for a new kind of political order. Its assertion that “all men are created equal” would echo through centuries of American history, invoked by abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights leaders, and more.

The creation of the Declaration of Independence demonstrates that even the most iconic documents in American history emerged from collaborative processes involving compromise, revision, and collective wisdom. While Jefferson deserves primary credit for the document’s eloquent expression of revolutionary ideals, the contributions of his committee colleagues and the broader Continental Congress were essential to creating a text that could unite thirteen diverse colonies in common cause.

This collaborative origin reflects the democratic principles the declaration itself proclaimed, showing that American independence was achieved not through the vision of a single individual, but through the collective efforts of representatives working together to articulate their shared commitment to liberty, equality, and self-governance. The process that created the Declaration of Independence thus embodied the very democratic ideals it proclaimed to the world.

Today, the Declaration of Independence is enshrined as one of the foundational texts of American democracy. But it’s worth remembering that it was created under immense pressure, forged by committee, and edited by compromise. Its authors knew they were taking a dangerous step. As Franklin quipped at the signing, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

What Would Jefferson Think About Inserting Religion Into Public Education?

By John Turley

On January 13, 2025

In Commentary, History

Jefferson on Religion

Thomas Jefferson had strong views on the separation of church and state, and based on his writings, it’s likely that he would have opposed any attempt to inject religion into public education. Jefferson’s views on religion were deeply influenced by Enlightenment principles, particularly the era’s emphasis on reason, skepticism of traditional authority, and commitment to individual liberty.

While Jefferson respected personal religious beliefs, he believed religion should remain a private matter, free from government influence. His 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom declared it immoral to compel anyone to support or participate in religious activities, emphasizing individual choice in matters of faith. This stance guided his actions, including the disestablishment of the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia after the Revolution.

He famously wrote about the need for a “wall of separation between Church & State” in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. This idea became one of the foundational principles behind the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.

Although Jefferson was not opposed to religious belief, he supported individual freedom of conscience and he was adamant that religion should be a personal matter, not one enforced, promoted, or influenced by the government.

Religion in Education

When it came to education, Jefferson was passionate about public schooling and saw it as essential to maintaining a democratic society. He believed in the importance of a secular education system that promoted knowledge and reasoning. Jefferson envisioned public education as a way to cultivate informed citizens who could participate in self-governance.

Jefferson’s University of Virginia reflected these ideals, excluding religious instruction and ensuring a secular educational environment. He insisted that religion be studied alongside philosophy and ethics, rather than as a doctrinal subject.

If Jefferson were to assess attempts to inject religion into public education today, it’s reasonable to assume he would view such efforts as a violation of the principles of religious freedom he worked to establish. Jefferson would likely argue that public education, funded by taxpayer dollars and serving people of diverse religious backgrounds, should remain secular to respect the individual rights of all citizens. For him, blending government and religion risked infringing on personal freedoms and undermining the equality of all citizens under the law.

He would probably agree with later interpretations of the Constitution, such as Supreme Court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state in the context of public schools. These decisions typically uphold the principle that government institutions, including public schools, should not promote or endorse any particular religion.

Thomas Jefferson’s views on religious freedom, the separation of church and state, and public education suggest that he would strongly oppose any attempt to inject religion into public education. He believed that the role of public schools was to educate citizens in a way that fosters critical thinking, civic engagement, and respect for individual liberties, including the right to practice any religion or none at all. For Jefferson, keeping religion out of public institutions was essential to preserving a free and diverse society.

Jefferson’s unwavering commitment to individual liberty and reason over dogma continues to resonate, emphasizing the enduring value of secular education in fostering democratic principles.

What Would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Think About Our Current Political Climate?

By John Turley

On October 16, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

In considering what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might think of today’s political situation, it’s tempting to view their perspectives through the lens of nostalgia, believing that the founders had an idealistic vision that, if followed, would have prevented many modern problems. It’s impossible of course to know what they may have thought about our current environment. Certainly, such things as a 24-hour news cycle on cable television and social media would have been beyond their comprehension. While both men lived in a vastly different era, their writings and philosophies give us a sense of how they might respond to the polarization and tensions we witness today.

George Washington: A Warning Against Partisanship

George Washington was deeply concerned about the rise of factions in the United States. (Political parties as such were unknown at the beginning of our republic.) In his famous Farewell Address in 1796, he warned that factions could lead to division and weaken the unity of the country. Washington was worried that faction (party) loyalty would surpass loyalty to the nation, creating conflict between groups and impairing the ability of government to function for the common good. He feared that excessive partisanship would “distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” leaving the nation vulnerable to foreign influence and internal discord.

If Washington could observe today’s political environment, he likely would be saddened by the partisanship which dominates political discourse. The gridlock, belligerent rhetoric, and divisiveness we experience today demonstrate the appropriateness of his concern. Washington would likely advocate for a return to greater civility, urging Americans to focus on the common good and to set aside factionalism for the sake of national unity. While political parties have become integral to our system, Washington would likely still press for cooperation, mutual respect, and compromise among all groups.

Thomas Jefferson: Liberty, Democracy, and the People’s Role

Thomas Jefferson, while more supportive of political parties than Washington, had his own complex views about governance. Jefferson believed in the power of the people to govern themselves and was a passionate advocate for liberty, democracy, and decentralization. He distrusted concentrated power, whether in government, or economic institutions, and feared that it could lead to tyranny. Jefferson was famously a champion of agrarianism and believed that widespread participation in the democratic process was the best defense against corruption and the loss of liberty.

Jefferson, while a proponent of states’ rights and individual liberties, might view polarization as a threat to democratic ideals if it stifles dialogue and compromise. He believed in the potential for free men to govern wisely, but would caution against the erosion of civil discourse that might follow the rise of extreme factionalism

Faced with the highly charged political debates of today, Jefferson would likely express concern over the increasing centralization of power in government, banks, and large corporations. He would, without doubt, be troubled by the outsized influence of money in politics.

Jefferson was also a firm believer in education as a cornerstone of democracy; he would stress the importance of an informed electorate, particularly in an age where misinformation can spread rapidly.

However, Jefferson was no stranger to political conflict, having played a central role in the fiercely partisan battles of his time. He understood the value of vigorous debate but would probably urge that such debate remain focused on the core democratic principles of liberty, justice, and equality rather than devolving into personal attacks.

Media and Civil Discourse

Of course, it is impossible to know what Washington and Jefferson would think about the current role of media, particularly social media which would be beyond anything in their experience. Washington felt strongly aggrieved by the attacks upon him in the newspapers of the time. He felt unfair attacks would undermine national unity. Jefferson, on the other hand, was a strong proponent of freedom of the press. He was also very adept at the use of newspapers to accomplish political means.

However, it is likely that both would caution against the dangers of misinformation and partisan bias to distort public perception. Most likely both would emphasize the need for a responsible press that distinguishes between fact and opinion and supports a healthy democracy. Both would be opposed to using false or misleading statements to influence the public.

Unity and Civic Responsibility

Despite their differences, both Washington and Jefferson would likely agree on one thing: the importance of unity and civic responsibility. They envisioned a country where citizens were deeply involved in a participatory government, contributing not just with votes but with informed, constructive dialogue. Washington would call for a spirit of national unity above party lines, while Jefferson would insist that the preservation of liberty relies on active and informed participation from the public.

Both founders would encourage a healthier, more cooperative political environment, one where differences are respected and not allowed to fracture the country. They would likely see today’s polarization as a threat to the very ideals they fought to establish, and both would urge Americans to remember their shared values.

Conclusion

In short, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while men of their own time, had insights that are still relevant today. Neither man could have predicted the exact nature of modern politics, but their wisdom offers enduring guidance: political disagreements must not undermine the unity, liberty, and civic responsibility that are the foundation of the American experiment. We owe it to them not to lose the promise of the American Revolution.

The Contradictory Life of Thomas Jefferson

By John Turley

On March 18, 2023

In Commentary, History

Part I, Liberty and Slavery

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These stirring words that Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence put forth a clear statement of his political philosophy. Unfortunately, the man behind the words is not nearly so self-evident. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, he is a riddle wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma. Biographer Joseph Ellis referred to him as The American Sphinx.

He was a man of the enlightenment, but he was also a man clearly bound to the brutal slave economy. He dreamed of a bucolic America peopled by hardworking yeoman farmers while he lived the life of a wealthy British aristocrat. He abhorred the thought of banks and bankers but spent his entire life mired in debt. He wrote and spoke often of the need to avoid factionalism in politics but was a skillful practitioner of political intrigue. He constantly argued against expansion of governmental power but as President, without having the authority, he undertook to expand the United States to more than double its size.

So, how do we reconcile the words with the man? Perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the best we can do is try to understand the world in which he lived and the circumstances that led him to take such contradictory positions in his political and personal life. Tens of thousands of pages have been written trying to understand and explain Thomas Jefferson. Now, I’m only going to look briefly at his relationship to slavery. In a later post I’ll be looking at Thomas Jefferson as the master of political manipulation.

Of the many contradictions in Thomas Jefferson’s life, his relationship to slavery is the most difficult to reconcile. One of his first cases after becoming a lawyer was to represent a slave seeking his freedom on the grounds that his grandmother was a mulatto which would require him to be in bondage only until age 31. In an argument to the Virginia court Jefferson said, “Everyone comes into this world with the right to his own person, this is what is called personal liberty and is given them by the author of nature, under the law we are all born free.”

Both the judge and the jury were outraged that Jefferson would propose freeing a slave. The judge refused to hear any further such talk and ruled against Jefferson’s client. According to historian Winston Groom the fact that Jefferson had such a position at that time (1770) is considered significant and was a milestone in the evolution of his thought.

About that same time Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses and he introduced an act that would allow masters to govern emancipation of their slaves rather than having to seek the permission of the courts and the royal officers. This was met with strong opposition and did not pass. It is significant that Jefferson did not pursue either the court case or the legislation.

As a member of the Continental Congress, Jefferson prepared an amendment to the Ordinance of 1784 (a precursor to the Northwest Ordinance) stipulating the freedom of all children born to slaves after a certain date but requiring that they be deported to either the Caribbean or Africa. This amendment failed by a single vote in Congress. Reflecting on the decision Jefferson wrote: “Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man and heaven was silent in that awful moment”. But Jefferson was to remain silent as well!

To Jefferson it was unimaginable that free whites and free blacks could live together peaceably. Even years later when writing about it he said that it was “inconceivable [then] that the public mind would bear this proposition, nor will it bear at this day”. He also wrote “Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it or worse will follow, nothing is more surely written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” According to Jefferson’s biographer Jon Meacham, he was never able to move public opinion on slavery and his powers failed him and they failed America.

As president, Jefferson signed a law making it a crime to import slaves. But at the same time, he believed that if slaves were set free, they must be deported to Africa or the Caribbean. Most of his contemporaries agreed; they felt that American slavery was equivalent to “holding the ear of a tiger”, but they saw no way to let go.

So again, we return to the question of how to reconcile Jefferson the philosopher with Jefferson the enslaver. Jefferson was a man who enjoyed luxury and the finer things in life. Today he is viewed as a wealthy planter. However, he was what we would now consider cash poor. All his wealth was tied up in property and his slaves were a large portion of that property. His land was heavily mortgaged, and his slaves were his collateral. Jefferson’s wife was the daughter of a wealthy man and when her father died Jefferson inherited his 135 slaves and his land, which was also heavily mortgaged. He also inherited his father-in-law’s other considerable debts. He worried constantly about his financial status, yet he could not control his lavish spending. Freeing his slaves would have lost him the collateral against which his many loans were guaranteed.

Jefferson recognized the evil of slavery but also benefited greatly from it. He was unable to give up his comfortable life even while bemoaning the institution which made it possible. His relationship with Sally Hemmings has been a subject of much debate and is beyond what I can address here but if you are familiar with her story, you know that this a singular example of Jefferson’s inability to subordinate his desires to his principles.

During his lifetime he freed only two of his slaves and in his will, he freed only an additional three. This compares to some other founders who freed all their slaves in their wills. Perhaps he recognized that freeing his slaves would have resulted in an immediate foreclosure on his beloved Monticello.

It is long been axiomatic among historians that people should be judged by the time in which they lived. Jefferson was a man of his times, an exceptional man without doubt. However, his was a time that was consumed by one of the great evils of history. And that evil will always reflect on his memory. Each of us will have to make our own decision about Thomas Jefferson.

Grumpy opinions about everything.

Tag: Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Feuds: When America’s Heroes Couldn’t Stand Each Other

Thomas Jefferson: The Philosopher Who Played Hardball

Declaring Independence: The Origin of America’s Founding Document

What Would Jefferson Think About Inserting Religion Into Public Education?

What Would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Think About Our Current Political Climate?

The Contradictory Life of Thomas Jefferson