34 I CHRONICLESnmake-over of Jefferson to please ourselvesnand to miss the main point,nwhich is that for JefiFerson — and hisnfollowers — the two were synonymousnand inextricable. It is self-evident innthe historical record for those who haveneyes to see, obvious to anyone whonwill read Jeiferson’s correspondencenthrough from the 1790’s to the 1820’snor who will examine the context—thenunderstanding of what his careernmeant to his supporters in his ownntime. And it is only thus that we cannresolve what many 20th-century commentatorsnhave seen as a contradictionnin Jefferson — the theoretical advocatenof freedom who engaged on othernoccasions in what an ACLU techniciannwould regard as acts hostile to civilnliberties. But there is no contradictionnbetween the Jefferson who invokednstate sovereignty against the federalnsedition law and the Jefferson whonapproved Virginia’s summary executionnof a Tory marauder. The contradictionnis in the eye of the beholdernwho attributes to Jefferson a set ofnassumptions which were not his own.nFrom the point of view of state sovereignty,nthe two positions are perfectlynconsistent and democratic. In his rolenas a public man he trusted Virginia,nand her sister and daughter states, tonexercise power responsibly when necessarynwithout permanent danger tonliberty. (He had his doubts aboutngreedy and self-righteous New Englandersnand certain other Americansnwho were too impressed by Old Worldnarrangements of authority or who hadntoo many plots and plans for the use ofnpublic power.) Late in life, when henwas no longer an active politician,nJefferson explicitly recommended thenuse of state interposition against unconstitutionalninternal improvementsnlegislation — not a question of civilnliberties and exactly what was forwardedna very few short years later bynCalhoun against the tariff.nNothing could be more wildly irrelevantnto Jefferson’s position — that libertynwas best preserved by protectingnthe free American social fabric fromnthe federal government, with such exercisesnof power as were unavoidablenleft to the wisdom of the people of thenstates — than that of the modern civilnlibertarian that freedom is somethingngranted by the federal Bill of Rightsnafter being wrested away from an untrustworthynstate majority. In fact, Jefferson’snview would still work: could wenrestore real federalism and limit thencentral government to war, diplomacy,nand a few other necessary commonnfunctions, we could come as close asnpossible in an imperfect world to settlingnour major social problems. Therenis, in fact, no other possible solution fornabortion, rampant crime, deterioratingneducation, and many other evils than anreassumption of power close to thenpeople. It is true we would lose Massachusettsnand a few other states of thenDeep North, as Jefferson always did,nbut most of the states would governnthemselves “reasonably,” could theyndecide without interference. But thisnwill never happen, not because of anyndefect in the Constitution but becausenof defects in the national character. Itnwould not in the least have surprisednJefferson that a people who are nonlonger a nation of independent andnpublic-spirited freeholders but a massnof consumers leavened by an occasionalnbusybody reformer would have difficultynin governing themselves “bynreason.”nHere we must admit that Jefferson’snwas a creative and speculative intellect,nwhich bruited a great many ideas in angreat many forms to a great manynpeople. Polite and imaginative andnfond of discussion, he often adaptednhimself to his correspondent in a speculativenvein, leaving the literal-mindednwith the impression that he agreednwith them. But Jefferson always perfectlynunderstood the difference betweenntheoretical speculation and thenreal world of American freeholders,nand as a public man he was eminentlynpractical and consensus-oriented, asnAlexander Hamilton discerned whennhe refused to countenance the effortsnof his fellow Federalists to steal thenelection of 1800 for the charmingnscoundrel Burr. Jefferson was, as wensaid, a complex man. The failure tondistinguish between the philosophernand the political leader has led some tonregard him as inconsistent or hypocriticalnand others to take his theoreticalnprojections as literal policy prescriptions.nBut there is really no problem ifnone takes care to understand the contextnof a quotation. Contrary to laternassumptions, it was not Jefferson thennnphilosophe who was revered and followednby his contemporaries and anmajority of several succeeding generationsnbut Jefferson the sane and balancednpublic man, not the author ofn”All Men Are Created Equal” but thenrepublican gentleman who had avertednFederalist usurpation. Cunninghamnpresents not this latter Jefferson butnrather that partial one who was pleasingnto international philosophes and tonthe more belated and lukewarm of hisnsupporters.nJefferson’s views on slavery, or rathernthe reaction to them by 20thcenturynintellectuals, or the 20thcenturynpublic for that matter, providena fascinating case study in emotionalnavoidance of simple and obvious historicalnfacts, in the great lengthsnthat people will go to rationalize fantasiesnthat they find comfortable.nCunningham’s approach is, again, thenconventional one, to emphasize Jefferson’snantislavery sentiments, which,nunfortunately, came to little. Thenwhole story is less comforting to thosenwho insist that figures of the past benlike them. There is, indeed, a certainnchildish willfulness in the Americannmind that insists on chastising personsnof other ages for not being like them,nor else pretending that they were.nWhich is a certain way not to learnnanything from history.nAs to slavery, Jefferson was born intonthe higher ranks of a social system thatnlong had been, was, and would longncontinue to be committed to it. Henbelieved, as did many others, and oftennsaid, that on balance the situation wasndeleterious to the commonwealth andnit ought to be done away with, if thisnwere possible without damage to othernvalues and interests. His speculationsnon the nature and relations of the racesnwere deeper, but not much different innconclusions than those of his neighborsnand most other Americans of his time.nHe was, like his neighbors, committednto keeping the issue in the controlnof those whose concern it was. Hisnfamous letter (to John Holmes) duringnthe Missouri controversy (“We have anwolf by the ears”) has been repeatedlynmisrepresented by those who prefernideological fantasy to accurate history.nWhat is usually emphasized about thenletter is that Jefferson was still committednto his antislavery sentiments, whichnis true but a misemphasis. In this letter.n