Comparing Jefferson And Washington

Jefferson and Washington’s adherence to political pragmatism, therefore, are more similar than not. In these separate instances, both political leaders acknowledged the uselessness and impracticality of any emancipationist legislation passing, as the elected officials were not yet ready to begin the process of manumission. Still, Jefferson and Washington acknowledged that legislative authority reigned supreme over radical measures of emancipation. This clearly reflects their ideological belief in a democratic republic government. However, it also reflects their realistic understanding that the path towards emancipation and social change could only ever occur through the legislature given the republican government, and that radical emancipation

was doomed to fail precisely because of how the government was founded. Unfortunately, Jefferson and Washington were correct. They were, perhaps, not unmitigated hypocrites but uninspired abolitionists gravely aware that their revolutionary and republican model of a representative democracy was not yet compatible with another revolution—the complete abolition of slavery.
Though Washington and Jefferson ideologically are immensely similar in their support for politically pragmatic methods of emancipation, there are key differences between the two leaders. Washington, at the very least, revealed his disdain for slavery when he privately relinquished the institution of slavery and distanced himself from the evils in full acknowledgement that liberty and bondage were incompatible ideals. At the end of his life, Washington posthumously manumitted his slaves in his will. Though Washington never aggressively pushed others to do the same, he at least showcased his genuine moral revelation. Jefferson, contrastingly, maintained full ownership of his enslaved labors and never manumitted them. Thus, the charges of hypocrisy against Jefferson ring far truer than the criticisms against Washington. Similarly, critics who accuse Jefferson of racism hold merit. Though his plan for colonization was pragmatic in that it strengthened the chances of emancipationist legislation passing, it still was defended with unquestionably racist reasoning. This, then, exposes a subtle difference between the political pragmatists. Though both Washington and Jefferson were politically pragmatic and aware of what legislation was achievable in terms of voting, Jefferson’s later plan for emancipation included a paradoxically unfeasible and racist amendment for colonization. Jefferson’s caveat of colonization certainly bolstered the chance of emancipation passing in the legislature, but in effect such an idea was infeasible. Washington, however, never once broke with his skeptic pragmatism and refused to support any plan unless it could occur in practice and pass in the legislature. Additionally, Washington supported plans free of racist ideology.
It is evident that Jefferson and Washington, both realists, rejected emancipationist strategies that bypassed the legislature. This reflects their pragmatism, as they knew this was the only way for social change to occur in a representative republic. However, Washington and Jefferson were both impassioned advocates of a republican government, and believed in the efficacy of a democratic republic. This republican system of governance in America, defended by Jefferson and Washington, made radical and sudden emancipation impossible as the elected representatives refused to emancipate the enslaved. The broader intellectual and ideological framework of republicanism, therefore, was a key ingredient that helped to create the American paradox. Jefferson, a believer in popular sovereignty, wrote “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves” Jefferson, however, believed that popular sovereignty reigned supreme not in a direct democracy but in a representative democracy. In fact, Jefferson outright rejected direct democracy when he described such a system of governance as “elective despotism” Jefferson preferred a representative government with individual states instead, and wrote that “the will of a people will be an effective ingredient”. Ironically, however, the will of the people prevented sudden emancipation from passing in the legislature as the enslaved were not given political and civil rights. As the elected white representatives were motivated to maintain the system of slavery, chances of legislative and democratic success were minimal. Jefferson, cognizant of this and the slow process of change that occurs under a republican government, wrote that it is “difficult…to move or inflect the great machine of society” Jefferson, despite his occasional frustration with a republican government, still defended the ideals and reasoning behind such a system of governance.
This understanding, then, helps to unravel the American paradox. Jefferson—familiar with the fact that total abolition would take some time in the legislature—was unwilling to sacrifice his ideological belief in a republican government, despite his moderate annoyance that change happens slowly in a democratic republic. Evidently, Jefferson’s ideological propensity towards a representative republic was in tension with his disdain for slavery. Jefferson, in the same letter, wrote that it was “impossible to advance the notions of a whole people suddenly to ideal right”. In the end, however, Jefferson’s ideological devotion to republicanism and belief in a democratic republic trumped his grievances with slavery. Indeed, Jefferson wrote to his friend “you know that nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition not only of the trade but of the condition of slavery… but I am here as a public servant, and those whom I serve having not yet been able to give their voice against this practice, it is decent for me to avoid too public a demonstration of my wishes to see it abandoned” Here, Jefferson’s paradoxical apathy on the issue of slavery becomes easier to understand. Jefferson, an abolitionist, wanted to emancipate the enslaved but only through the slow democratic process on which the country was founded.
Jefferson, in his commitment to a republican government, strongly supported states’ rights over a monarchial federal government.

However, the American republican model of governance that gave power to individual states exasperated the impracticality of emancipation, and prevented Jefferson from pursuing more radical forms of emancipation. Secretly drafted by Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolution reflects Jefferson’s ideological inclination towards confederalism and strong state rights. In his early draft, Jefferson wrote “that the several states composing the U.S. Of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government but… the residuary mass of right to their own self-government” However, many of the colonial planters who were elected to hold office and represent the interest of the states refused to support emancipationist legislation to secure their own economic interests, and those who depended on plantations for profit. Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, for example, defended slavery in a public speech. He noted that “we of the South, will not, cannot, surrender our institutions” Wanting to prevent a federalist tyranny, Jefferson prioritized the autonomous supremacy of the states. Yet in doing so, Jefferson gave a disproportionate amount of power to state representatives, and, ironically, prevented enslaved laborers from obtaining their freedom. In effect, Jefferson’s steadfast philosophy of republicanism and a

representative democracy with strong state rights became the antithesis of Jefferson’s libertarian vision. Still, if Jefferson were to support more radical or even federal steps towards emancipation, he would have had to forgo his republican ideology.
Some historians argue that George Washington’s adhered to a conventional federalist philosophy, but this ignores his predominantly republican inspired values. Washington did, however, stray from Jefferson when he wrote that “the primary cause of our disorders lie in the different state governments, and in the tenacity of that power, which pervades the whole of their system”. Perhaps somewhat prophetically, Washington predicted the inflammatory complications that would arise out of the states’ rights debate. Washington’s desire for a decently sized federal government, however, stemmed from an overwhelming fear that the people would exercise their will incorrectly. In a letter to Lafayette, Washington warned of a tyrannical majority. He wrote “it is one of the evils of democratical governments that the people, not always seeing & frequently mislead, must often feel before they can act right”. Jefferson himself, the archetype of republicanism, corroborated this notion when he wrote that Washington “did not harbor one principle of federalism… he sincerely wished the people to have as much self-government as they were competent to exercise themselves. The only point in which he and I ever differed opinion was that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people” This anecdote by Jefferson should rebuke the notion that Washington was unapologetically federalist. Though Washington certainly failed to be the republican ideologue that Jefferson was, republican ideals heavily inspired Washington’s political ideology. It would be erroneous, therefore, to assert that Washington was a straightforward federalist in the same vein as Alexander Hamilton.
Washington’s belief in classically republican ideals of popular sovereignty meant that he could only accept slow, realistic and democratic forms of emancipation.

In his Farewell Address, Washington said “the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions or government” In an address to Congress, Washington reiterated his support for the concept of popular sovereignty when he said that to succumb to a large judiciary branch would be to “violate the fundamental principle of our Constitution which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail” These statements, which reveal Washington’s belief in the concept of popular sovereignty, mirror Washington’s earlier statements about the importance of emancipation passing in the legislature. Washington, therefore, not only supported democratic emancipation legislation for pragmatic reasons but because it reflected the will of the people. Washington confirmed this ideological sentiment in a letter to John Francis Mercer, writing that emancipation was one of his “first wishes” but only if it was a plan “adopted by the legislature…by which slavery…may be abolished in slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees” This, importantly, illuminates an important facet to Washington’s individual paradox. Namely, the synthesis of his two predominant ideologies: republicanism and pragmatism. Washington overwhelmingly wanted realistic plans for gradual emancipation, precisely because his

ideological belief in the legislature necessitated such pragmatism. Washington, like Jefferson, knew that the people in a democratic republic were slow to advance socially progressive measures. In a letter to Lafayette, Washington wrote that “it is to be lamented nevertheless that the remedies are so slow”. For Washington to remain consistent in his ideological disdain of slavery and support of popular sovereignty, he had to remain realistic and lower any visionary expectations for radical emancipation. Instead, Jefferson had to accept the slow evolution of the popular majority as the only realistic path for manumission.
The Founding Fathers who envisioned our democracy secured us a country with many liberties. Paradoxically, however, they failed to guarantee the freedom of the enslaved laborers that created such a dominant nation. With the passage of the 13th amendment, America would eventually abolish the institution of slavery entirely in 1865. If we are to accept the words of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, such a provision was certainly a constitutional amendment that the two could rally behind. Yet the two passed away, far before they could ever see such a historic piece of legislation pass democratically. Perhaps, they envisioned an inevitable abolition of slavery but knew that emancipationist legislation was futile. George Washington never spoke out on the issue publicly, nor did he push for others to manumit their enslaved laborers. Thomas Jefferson, likewise, could not be described as anything but a tepid abolitionist. Their paradoxical apathy, their abstract condemnation of slavery and lack of practical reform, reveals itself when considering their fervent ideological beliefs. Both pragmatists and proponents of republican thought, neither statesmen were willing to forgo their own impassioned philosophies to pursue radical forms of emancipation. Moreover, their belief in the power of popular sovereignty and in a representative democracy ensured that the path to emancipation, and that all other forms of progressive social change, would take an immense amount of time. As such, realistic expectations to emancipation were necessary. These ideological beliefs, which competed with their hatred of bondage, eventually won out. The result of such an ideological tension was the American paradox of slavery and liberty.