ntury after the late 18th century. lincoln's union rested on common citizens and the potential to rise economically. not the guarantee but the potential. jefferson davis also believed in the union as safeguarding self-government and economic opportunity, but of course he also saw it as guaranteeing slavery in its expansion. both men celebrated the declaration of independence. that is lincoln's great founding document. in his view, it's the declaration. both invoked jefferson repeatedly and throughout their careers. jefferson's union was immense and very important. we're almost to you, peter. they resonated throughout the 19th century on both sides of the potomac river, or the ohio if you prefer. the united states put thomas jefferson on its 5 cent stamp in 2006. only two people preceded jefferson on the stamps.

jorge, of course would always have to be one of them, and the other was benjamin franklin, and the confederacy put him on his 10 cent stamp. the only person who landed on a confederacy stamp was jefferson davis, interestingly enough. this afternoon peter and i are going to have our conversation about jefferson's thinking about union and how his ideas were available for use or misuse by many different people in the decades between 1800 and 1880 peter. so why don't you talk for a few minutes about jefferson and union. >> just a few minutes? >> take as long as you want. it's rainy outside. nobody is going to play tennis. >> well, i'm a radio star, so i want you all to close your eyes. and suspend disbelief. >> peterson has on not only a jefferson tie but two jefferson pins. >> i would like to start with a quotation from jefferson, and

it's an interesting one. it's when he is talking about the declaration of independence as he's designing a reading list at university of virginia. gary and i used to do this together. we used to teach a course, the famous 701. that reading list included the declaration, of course. i didn't write it, the american people wrote it. i'm just channelling it. he channeled the american people. anyway, he said, what is the declaration? we want jefferson's simple definition of what the declaration is all about. he said, it's the fundamental act of union of these states. he says the declaration gave us union. now, as gary said just before, we don't -- that word means nothing to us now. what could he possibly have meant? why didn't he talk instead about all those wonderful things in

the second paragraph? oh all men are created equal. you've heard that one. government by consent, the american creed, as it's frequently been described, yet for jefferson there is something creedal about union. what i want to do is try to put union and his vision of republican government together because i think we and many critics in the 19th century, disassociated the two. now you say it's only referring mainly to what used to be called the labor movement in the 18th century in jefferson's time and into the 19th century as people credit -- as people criticized the union, they looked at its flaws. as william said this was death with this constitution. the union is associated with the constitution, not with the declaration.

and the constitution is the beginning of american politics. when we still had political life in this country, americans celebrated the constitution as this great reformed caucus in action, as one author called it, where sensible, realistic statesmen got together and they crafted the only possible -- miraculously, the only possible constitution that could embrace so many different states -- different labor systems, so much diversity. it was a compromise, in other words. words, as garrison suggested. to have union, you had to have compromise. any good historian will tell you that's the point of the union now. that's not what jefferson meant by union, though. for him it was the coming together of self-governing republics which in and of itself, the fact the states had

their own constitutions, were governing themselves, what a tremendous breakthrough for mankind, this idea of self-government. then showing their genius for union in the creation of new state governments, the first peoples in the modern world who govern themselves, then they built on that to create yet a more all-embracing union. union was part of the unfolding of the republican vision. there would be future unions. the union would expand. the union was dynamic. the union was process. the union was a movement toward a better world. because what it demonstrated -- we've talked about equality, we know how important that is we're all equal. but what is the point of equality? it enables you to consent. you can't consent if you're not equal. and what do you consent to? you consent to that which

enhances the welfare of mankind. because suddenly the people are governing themselves. they're not under the heel of did he despites and pinants. and i want to tell you this my fellow americans -- i'm getting worked up, i can tell. >> have a sip of water. >> i better. americans are just going to have to wait a minute. >> democratic government -- hold onto your seats -- is an engine for moral progress. i'm channelling jefferson, i'm channelling the enlightenment, the democratic enlightenment. once the people rule themselves government will improve, we will no longer have coerceive despotic

government, we will be governing ourselves. >> you can't have a union in there is any coercion. >> that's right. it's the point we'll come back to, gary -- >> maybe sooner than you think. >> really? >> we may not be linear here this afternoon. it may be sort of stream of consciousness, but go ahead for now. >> i'm going to make it quick. >> so it's a process. >> yes, it's a process. don't think of union as a fixed thing. it's not perfect. you heard what madison said, what they said about the federal constitution, more perfect. suggesting it's not most perfect, it's not perfect, it's getting better. because we don't understand yet what nature's god enjoins but we're figuring it out. i don't know if anybody out there is into natural religion and acknowledges nature's god unless you're a unitarian.

though they don't talk about nature's god in unitarian churches. i know i'm a lapsed unitarian. >> can you be be a lapsed unitarian? >> check it out. this is what you get. >> let me push you on something else right here. if this is a process and its things are going toward -- with any luck something that's even better, did jefferson think this could only be -- the union became very much an exceptionalist concept by the mid-19th century. is it that way in jefferson's mind or could this happen somewhere else? >> there is an exceptional dimension. you know the city on the hill idea that we've heard from ronald reagan as he was channelling john winthrop, that idea that the united states is an exemplary notion?

what's remarkable about the american people is -- these are the people who made the revolution -- is that they -- they're all literate, mostly, except in places like virginia. just joking. i come from new england. i can't help it. they're largely literate -- >> new england used to be important, didn't it? >> let's reenact the crisis here, colorado boy. colorado didn't exist okay? moving on. >> it actually did exist, new england just hadn't named it yet so they didn't think it existed. >> we know now why the union failed. so where was i going with this? >> i had asked you whether

jefferson's notion was an exceptionalist notion of what was happening in the colonies at that point. >> and jefferson does think that the americans have a unique opportunity to govern themselves because they are literate in the broadest sense of the word. they're civilly competent. there has been a high degree of local autonomy and self-government in the colonies and the revolution itself is testimony to the fact that americans are conscious of their rights and willing to fight for them. because this was a people's war. i don't believe all this but i'm just channelling jefferson. >> and lincoln called the civil war in people's context. >> and that's the important thing because that is the principal of republican government. we have now abandoned notions that we have little kings on earth who give rule to us who

are our political fathers without whom we could not exist. we have abandoned the great chain of being that suggests that some are born to rule and others are born to be ruled. what a magnificent idea but what a scary idea in the 18th century when the people are basically considered and i'm now quoting abigail adams -- rubbish. i just happened to be reading her recently but it's a common way of referring to ordinary people. the scum the demons. >> those in the middle of 19th century would have said nothing had changed, that the rest of the world didn't think ordinary people were capable of self-government. >> i think that's a key point when we compare ling spurgeon and -- lincoln and jefferson on union. you might say jefferson sees it as the first hope for mankind, that he has an enlightened idea that light will spread. it's almost a metaphor that's

natural, that suggests as the day daunzwns and as the light spreads across the land, people can see clearly. that notion of seeing clearly is very important. and the people are capable of seeing what they need to see. what they need to see to govern themselves. you don't have to be, as we say now, a nuclear physicist. you just have to be a democrat. no i'm just joking. i'm sorry out there. >> what about the notion of the union being perpetual that was so important by the mid-century to people who saw all of these qualities in union that made the united states exceptional? >> that's a great point, that point about perpetuity. the only thing jefferson thought should be perpetual were the fundamental principles or ideas on which the union was based. let me put it this way. we're going to get into this complicated development that's

really important over time. i want to introduce the key to jefferson's thinking about union, and that's federalism. and jeffersonian federalism is not what we have today. you have to understand his conception of political authority, legitimate political authority, begins in the family. we talk about family values today, but for jefferson, the family was the foundational republic on which larger republics would be built. i think it's important to get this down because it's going to explain, i think a lot of things that happened over the 19th century. for jefferson, federalism culminating in the union and perhaps in an expanding union, perhaps even a union of unions that will cover the world begins literally at home. in that foundational union of man and wife that creation of family that is the incubator of republican citizens in the next

generation. families combine togetherd together for jefferson had new england envy. gary obviously doesn't. he wished virginia had towns. what do we have in virginia? what did we have in virginia? counties. in which local oligarchs self-appointed themselves and gave rules through county courts. the only representative of institution was burgesses. most of them weren't contested and the ones that were contested were draungunken brawls. jefferson was familiar with this. he said what we need are towns so the fathers can get together. and on top of the towns, the counties. and then we go to a higher level, to the states. and then to the union, the

federal union. here's the key idea here. i'm going to throw this back at you. equality is crucial. we talked about before you can't have consent without equality. >> you cannot have coercion or it's not a union. >> every level of union whether it be on the town level the union of families or the county level, the union of towns those unions exist to preserve and perpetuate the equality of their constituent units. do you follow me? that's pretty straightforward. in other words the legitimacy, the value of the union of the town is that all families will be treated equally and have an equal voice in their own government. and you move up the ladder. that imperative remains and that is union depends on

preserving equality of constituent units because otherwise some are benefiting at the expense of others. that's another way of saying that some are ruling the others. you know the great problem with unions throughout our periods is the fear that it's going to be captured by the bad guys. one thing americans produce in great abundance is bad guys. >> this problem though of equality in the union -- did i step on your punchline there? >> no, i was waiting for a big response. >> oh okay. are you going to respond? i don't think they're going to. one thing, for example, that john c. calhoun wrestled with how do you maintain equality the equal treatment in all ways that matter, within a union where demographics were tilting power toward the non-slaveholding states.

>> that's, of course, the great nightmare of the slaveholders and their need to control, in fact, to capture which is precisely what they did because the federal government was dominated by slaveholders throughout its existence up to the civil war. so much so that by the time lincoln comes along and says, well, maybe we should agree not to let the area of the slave states expand then that's too much. that's violating the basic idea of union. here's the problem and i think it's what we try to reconcile as we talk about the problem of union. how can you have equality or liberty, you might put it autonomy independence and union? is there a tension between them? >> what's the line between compromise and coercion? they would have argued about that, too. you're saying you're compromising, and i'm saying

no, you're -- >> what i would suggest i'm going to try to channel jefferson here, is the way we resolve such quarrels is that public opinion becomes progressively more enlightened. that's what's so hard for us to believe in an era in which public opinion doesn't become more enlightened. >> that's the idea of an organically developing union, too. >> that's right. it will expand, and the idea that expansion means balancing free and slave states, that's insane. because jefferson honestly believes that slavery will eventually disappear. why will it disappear? not because of economic forces and market forces it's going to disappear because people are going to see that it's wrong. remember, the revolution was against despotic authority and jefferson doesn't have a great record on race and slavery, i can tell you that right now. we can talk more about it, if you like. but he does believe that the

fundamental teaching of the revolution, the basic principle of republican government, is equality, it's not coercion, it's consent, and slavery eventually that contradiction between a republic of slaveholders and the athenian mode is going to become too striking too conspicuous and americans would see. >> would he include everybody? >> no. the short answer on this as you know, for jefferson, the idea of the way he thinks about slaves is as a captive nation held unjustly. this is important. slaves don't deserve to be slaves. they're not naturally slaves. they are slaves because of --

jefferson would like to blame his predecessors for the slave trade. we have them but it's an evil institution. it's unjust. the solution is to end the state of war that is slavery. it is a state of war. it's a cold war of a violent coercive institution the antipathy of government. his fear is that young men will break up in slavery and that will be their school. they don't have public schools in virginia. instead they're going to learn how to be slaveholders. they'll learn to tyrranize people older than they are because they're white. that's horrible from jefferson's perspective. what we need to do is break the chains emancipate the slaves

and send them somewhere else. >> so he would have seen a union where black people would have been removed? >> they would have been removed. ultimately, this is in the best of all possible worlds, and jefferson is a patient guy. it could take generations. it's not going to happen in his lifetime. he keeps pushing the date off. but eventually, people will see the light and emancipate slaves and send them -- well, he doesn't know where. maybe the west indies maybe west africa but the freed people will govern themselves, and then as an independent self-governing people, they can form unions, a union among the enlightened republican nations of the world. we can divide black and white so that one day we can unite. >> lincoln embraced colonization as well until deep into the civil war. he didn't let go of it until

1864. >> what i want to suggest is the way race and nation are synonymous terms and jefferson is really thinking geopolitically about war and nations. all the things he said about slavery grow in wartime experience. slaves are dangerous to a future republic because they are a fifth common. when they have the opportunity, and this is the way slavery ended throughout the world in wartime they will seize it. >> nothing destabilizes slavery the way a war destabilizes slavery, whether it's the revolution or the war of 1812 along the chesapeake as alan has shown us, or the civil war where armies are great engines of emancipation workmoving through the confederacy. it's the worst thing that can happen to a slaveholder's world. >> so jefferson does believe in removing slavery.

they can become civilized. in other words, they can adopt farms. you're all desended from poke hont as -- pocahontas, if i'm not mistaken. >> i'm a 19th century guy. i have no idea what was going on with pocahontas. that's so early. it's very early. >> that's not really my period. >> many people as we move through the 19th century, would use thomas jefferson and would use him in the sectional debates to buttress arguments for the state rights within a union that has become unbalanced as a central government is threatening rights of the constituent parts. and they look to the virginia and kentucky revolutions.

what would jefferson say about that? >> he wasn't in his grave yet during the missouri controversy of 1819 '20 and '21, but he did some turning over nonetheless. because when it looked like the union would fall apart -- i don't know if you all know about the missouri controversy. it was whether or not missouri would be admitted as a slave state to the union. it ultimately was in tandem with the free state of maine one of the great states of our union. alan, shoutout to you. but this argument about the future of slavery was one that looked like it was creating a line of separation between those states with slaves and the so-called free states. and that fear of the capture of the federal government was intense for jefferson. jefferson's position was, in effect, oh give us time and we'll deal with our domestic --

key word -- domestic institution. it's none of your business. and eventually we'll deal with it. but when you threaten to destroy the union, which is what he thinks the restrictionists in the missouri controversy -- there's northern republicans, people in jefferson's own party and former federalists who are pushing for a limit on slavery. and, of course that's the trigger issue throughout the antebellum decades a limit on slavery. those people need to seize power, the restrictionists and subject the southern states to a colonial provincial status. they will be creatures of a strong federal government. whenever that happens, people start talking about it that's the return of the british empire.