Thomas+Jefferson-the+Aristocrat+as+Democrat

AVG – In “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat,” Richard Hofstadter explains that Jefferson was simultaneously a prominent landowner in Virginia (an aristocrat) and a political leader who always tried to guide the country away from tyranny (a democrat). However, Hofstadter accepts some debatable conclusions and oversimplifications as facts during his argument.

Hofstadter argues that Jefferson had lofty ideas about democracy but did not present them publicly for fear of argument, because, as Hofstadter claims, Jefferson “hated vigorous controversy” (APT, 34). However, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson argues that Great Britain wanted to establish “absolute tyranny” (qtd. in //The Enduring Vision//, A-1) over America and engaged in “works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages” (qtd. in //The Enduring Vision//, A-2). Hofstadter’s claim that Jefferson “could not bear publicity” (APT, 34) is likely exaggerated given Jefferson’s willingness to write this important declaration. Furthermore, Jefferson’s rejection of Adams’ proposal of a political partnership and his subsequent role as the leader of the Republican opposition to Adams demonstrates that Jefferson was willing to engage in lengthy political rivalries (//Founding Brothers//, 186).

Near the end of his argument, Hofstadter concludes that Jefferson remained focused on human welfare throughout his life and states, “Jefferson valued people and found no wealth more important than life” (APT, 55). However, Jefferson condoned slavery as an economic necessity and himself owned hundreds of slaves (APT, 26). Hofstadter again exaggerates his claim; although Jefferson did promote the good of many Americans, it is an overgeneralization to conclude that he //always// subordinated economic concerns to the good of humanity.

VB -The United States Constitution was the framework for a young republic. The Constitution empowered the government, shifting the people’s allegiance from their state to their nation. However, with this shift, the people feared a loss of civil liberties. Advocates like Thomas Jefferson, demanded the creation of a bill of rights. Were his beliefs based on his support for the people or more personally motivated? Richard Hofstadter in his book, //The American Political Tradition//, postulates that Jefferson was a selfless man and cared much about the needs of the citizens. As exemplified in the Virginia Constitution, drafted by Jefferson, James Madison and George Mason, the republican principles of basic human rights and freedoms are emphasized. Jefferson’s convictions concerning the rights of the people illustrate his concern for all people and not just wealthy land owners. Although Jefferson came from a well-to-do family with high social standings, he rejected his mother’s social status. He embraced his father’s legacy of being a self-made man and aligned himself more with the common man. Resultantly, Jefferson’s political motivations were derived from this admiration and influenced the direction he wanted the government to proceed.

Alternatively, critics of Thomas Jefferson, present a more reasonable position. As referenced in Charles A. Beard’s, //Framing the Constitution//, Jefferson wanted a bill of rights to protect his own interests. This point can be made valid by analyzing Jefferson’s stand on the rights of plantation owners. Although Hofstadter contend that Jefferson worked to eliminate the Virginia aristocracy, in reality Jefferson only secured limitations on their holdings. Beard aligns Jefferson with the wealthy farmers, rather than with the common men of Virginia. Although both historians agree that Jefferson was a complex and ambiguous man, Charles A. Beard’s interpretation better defines the balance of Jefferson’s work. KEO- In “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat”, Richard Hofstadter attempts to disprove the myth that Thomas Jefferson was a militant democrat who tore apart Federalism at its roots. He asserts, instead, that Jefferson was a shy and passive man who was only trying to protect the natural rights of man. Hofstadter’s arguments are valid only to a certain extent. Hofstadter’s argument that Jefferson did not have the temperament of an agitator was, for the most part, valid. He says that, “[Jefferson] hated vigorous controversy, shrank from asserting his principles when they would excite the anger of colleagues or neighbors” (APT 34). This is supported by evidence in //Founding Brothers//. John Adams had described him as a “staunch advocate of independence who never uttered more than two or three sentences, even in committees” (67). This demonstrates his fear of being criticized for his ideas or creating controversy. He did overcome his reticent nature to assert his views in the Declaration of Independence, but there were already strong independent feelings in America as a result of a variety of factors, so he already had much support from the people. Hofstadter was not completely correct in stating that Jefferson was a, “benevolent slave master” (26). Although Jefferson did, at times, articulate his support for the abolition of slavery, many of his actions are inconsistent with this idea. In the NBC News clip “Discussion on Thomas Jefferson’s Presidency,” a letter is presented that was written by Thomas Jefferson to his son-in-law after he learned of the death of his slave, Jupiter. In the letter he said that “I am sorry for him as well as sensible he leaves a void in my administration which I cannot fill up.” He then continued to discuss the issue of who was going to bottle his cider now that the slave was gone. This shows great contradiction in Jefferson’s character. The fact that he was more concerned about his economic loss rather than the loss of a human being does not make him sound like a “benevolent slave master.” Hofstadter concludes the article with a quote from Jefferson to leave the reader with the impression that no matter how much Jefferson changed his policies, his belief in the inalienable rights of man would never change. However, there is a lot of information about Jefferson that does not support this statement. The author included some of this information in the article itself. He includes a quote from Jefferson in which he says, “Those who labor the Earth are the chosen people of God…corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age or nation has furnished an example” (APT 36). Jefferson implied that farmers had naturally higher morals than those involved in trade or commerce. The Constitution was written based on the assumption that all men had the same nature and Jefferson always spoke of men’s natural rights, but this quote clearly shows that he had strong beliefs that farmers were naturally better than others. This, and his reference to Native Americans as, “merciless Indian savages” (The Enduring Vision 155) are examples of Jefferson’s lack of consistency in his ideas on equality and rights. Overall, Hofstadter is successful in showing that Jefferson was not the militant anti-federalist that some people consider him to be, but his assertion that Jefferson always put the rights of every man first was an overgeneralization that was not completely accurate. CJD- Richard Hofstadter, in “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat,” portrays the third United States president as a man who had more liberal political convictions than most other leaders in his day. Backing up this argument is an assortment of facts that show Jefferson’s ambiguity not only in politics, but also in unrelated matters. Hofstadter in many ways negates his own argument by presenting information that shows the reader why Jefferson’s actions did not always support his democratic ideals.

Jefferson always believed in the inherent unalienable rights of man, even up until the end of his life (APT, 56). However, he inherited slaves from his wealthy family, and owned them his entire life. Hofstadter justifies this by explaining that Jefferson was in debt, therefore he was not capable of freeing his slaves. His home at Monticello, where he pondered the rights of men and drafted documents against oppression, was in essence a prison. This is an example of how Thomas Jefferson experienced internal conflicts while trying to build a new democratic nation.

The American Revolution brought many contradictions to light for Jefferson. The policies which the United States were to be founded upon had to go against the words drafted in the Declaration of Independence in order for the nation to last (//Founding Brothers//). Jefferson himself believed things that were not helpful to keep in mind during the Revolutionary Era. For instance, he “thought that a rebellion every twenty years was an excellent thing, and […] urged throughout his life that constitutions should be completely remade every twenty-five or thirty years” (APT, 32). When he helped build the foundations of the United States, Jefferson was not trying to make a temporary government that should be radically changed. He created a solid political structure that would ideally last hundreds of years. His ideas of constant revolution did not agree with the long-lasting nature of the American Constitution or even the amendable Bill of Rights. Jefferson was a torn man who struggled with liberal ideas in the midst of creating a republican government. SW- In “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat” Richard Hofstadter explains that Jefferson is a well-known aristocrat but that he has influential political ideas of his own. Hofstadter states that Jefferson had many views about economy and politics. He is a very skilled politician with many ideas but sometimes others idea’s were better than his. All of his views were opposed Alexander Hamilton’s views. In Jefferson’s view on the economy Hofstadter proves that Jefferson wanted an agrarian economy. Jefferson felt that Hamilton’s view on commerce was just like England’s. It helped commerce at the expense of the farmers. In the end Hamilton had the correct view on economy. Had Jefferson continued using his idea of an agrarian economy America would have fallen behind economically. Hofstadter presents an example of when Jefferson placed an embargo on Europe. This caused a depression on America and caused America to lose more money than if they had been in a war. Although it was good that he did not want America to depend on other countries, he should have made America make her own manufactured goods. Jefferson wanted an agrarian economy so he did not want manufacturing. But people need manufactured goods so it was either making them in America or depending on other countries to make the goods. Jefferson already showed that he did not want to depend on other countries, so he should have been supportive of manufacturing in America. Another reason why an agrarian economy was bad was because without technology there is no moving forward. America would have stayed behind while the rest of the world was developing more and more. During World War II America produced a lot of the materials that the world needed for war. America had been in the Great Depression and manufacturing brought them out of the recession. This showed that manufacturing was beneficial for an economy. Although being an agrarian country would have the advantage of supporting everyone with their need of food, examples against having an agrarian country are far greater than the examples in favor of an agrarian society. This is why it is good that Hamilton’s idea about the economy prevailed and why it is favorable that Jefferson finally realized it. Although Jefferson was only a landowner he also had great political ideas, but his ideas in politics were stronger than the ones in economy. checked


 * wweek** 2v

AJJ- In “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat”, Richard Hofstadter successfully persuades the reader to believe that Jefferson was a caring man who genuinely wanted to help the American people not by doing what he personally felt was right, but what the people believed was right. Jefferson’s high social status growing up became important to his political career because he learned to reject the lavish lifestyle of his mother. He appreciated the values and struggles of the common man and became their strongest political advocate of the time period. This was due to the inspiration he got from his father who was a self-made man. This social connection to his father became Jefferson’s biggest political influence. He always grew up with the view of himself as a common man despite his high social standing. Without Jefferson and his followers, who would eventually become the Republican party, arguing for a more strict interpretation of the Constitution, which was beneficial to the lives of the American agriculturalist, we would not have had compromise and drafted the Bill of Rights which guaranteed certain liberties to the American people. Without any argument we would have had a one party system which could have turned America into a monarchy.

Hofstadter also tries to disprove the claim that Jefferson was a man seeking to destroy the Federalist party. Jefferson was a shy man who kept to himself and would have never dreamed of such aggressive conflict. Jefferson knew that the two party system was necessary in order to keep America from being a monarchy. Though he emphasized extreme liberty he was tolerant of others views and of compromise with Federalist as evidence by his presidency where he was willing to compromise on many issues.

checked


 * week** 3

*** CCR- This post is in response to AVG’s posting on this subject last week. In your post, you stated that the author of “Thomas Jefferson: Aristocrat as Democrat” took oversimplifications and generalizations as fact. To this assertion I have two things to say: First, you have misinterpreted some of the claims made by Richard Hofstadter. Second, you have combated these arguments with oversimplification and generalization. You stated that because Jefferson willingly wrote the declaration of independence, the claim that he could not “bear publicity” is ungrounded. However the declaration of independence was not in anyway the publicity that Hofstadter is talking about. The declaration was written by Jefferson and a team of others not because they wanted to be in the limelight or be well known for declaring independence from England. The declaration was written because English tyranny had suppressed the American people for too long. The Declaration of Independence is not a valid example of Jefferson not being “afraid of controversy” either. The Declaration can not be compared to any other act passed during the Jefferson administration because unlike almost any single declaration or law passed in the history of the US, the Declaration was written both out of necessity and a desperate quest for freedom. Further, when you state that Hofstadter exaggerates his points because he does not see Jefferson’s willingness to do one thing or the other you fail to see the difference between being willing to do something you feel is necessary for the good of your country and wanting to do something that you think is good. While Jefferson was “willing” to oppose Adams, he would rather not have done so. Your argument is backed up by only one key fact that is not true and a misunderstanding that is the death of your case. Jefferson did hate publicity, and would rather not have had controversy in his life. The key determining factor is publicity out of necessity versus publicity for want of becoming famous.

*** SFH - Today some of Americans most respected are those ‘self made men’ who created their own position through their own work, not living off family legacies. Thomas Jefferson was one such ‘self made man.’ Despite his mothers societal connections and his assured social position, Jefferson followed his father’s more self sufficient mannerism as shown in Richard Hofstadter’s article “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat”. The article claims Jefferson to be a selfless man caring a great deal about the needs of the citizens fundamentally aligning himself with the common man especially in his campaign for presidency. Charles Carroll indicates Jefferson was even known to borrow funds to give to beggars, to help them on the right path. Consequently Jefferson’s political motives were derived from the ideology of the self-made/ common man and influenced the direction of America’s government. In Jefferson’s early years he wrote bills destroying primogeniture and entail, essentially refuting traces of Feudalism in American society and creating more opportunities for the middle class. As the two party system began to develop Jefferson’s Federalist opponents feared above all power lodged in the majority; but Jefferson feared power lodged anywhere else. The Bill of Rights which Jefferson assisted developing is a prime example of Jefferson’s desire to keep the power in the people. Two years before his death Jefferson wrote “nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” Yet some critics of Jefferson still present a more selfish view because of Jefferson’s stand on rights for plantation owners, his large landholdings and slave count. When it comes down to it although Jefferson may have had a double life, (a wealthy slave owner, and a ‘common man’ a president) few can refute Jefferson was a strong president at a time when America needed strong knowledgeable rulers to guide in creating a nation.

*** J.R.C.- In Richard Hofstadter’s article titled “Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat,” he portrays the idea that Jefferson was a bold democratic leader and a wealthy landowner, that also has many qualities that can be viewed as timid. Jefferson’s ambiguity not only in political devices, but unrelated manners as well, was used to back this statement, often presenting conflicting ideals that contradicted his democratic policies.

During Jefferson’s presidential term, he devised many bold democratic ideas, but in fear of stirring up any controversy, related to his timid nature. Hofstadter utilizes much factual information, presenting the outstanding claims made by Jefferson, all of which were backed by Jefferson’s hate for publicity. One may argue that Jefferson can in fact be bold in the eyes of the public by providing the signing of the Declaration of Independence for support, but in fact, Jefferson’s claims were backed by the other founding fathers. This allowed his accusations of the “British tyrannical government” to be traced back to the group of men, rather than him alone, eluding publicity. Jefferson despised the Federalist Party but due to his timid nature, never acted against them. Some may argue that Jefferson accepted their political views, but Hofstadter provides information, in an attempt to disprove this idea, that ultimately contradicts his argument. Hofstadter relentlessly emphasized Jefferson’s democratic ideals, but rarely commented on his tolerance of others.

In respect to Jefferson’s aristocratic life, he also lived a life of timid nature. Jefferson often spoke about the rights of man, but in turn owned a massive amount of inherited slaves, and kept them enslaved for his entire life. This reflects his timid nature, because he used his supposed lack of wealth to excuse his constant exploitation of slaves. Hofstadter’s constant relation to Jefferson’s wealth contradicted this idea, because Jefferson was a wealthy aristocrat, supporting the idea that he could, in fact, free his slaves.