Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power (66 page)

V
IRGINIA
'
S
PUBLIC
FINANCES
Harrell,
Loyalism in Virginia,
22–25.

THE
MONEY
THAT
PL
ANTERS
OWED
CREDITOR
S
Ibid., 26–29.

SUCH
DEBTS
WERE
N
OW
“
HEREDITARY
”
Ibid., 26.

V
IRGI
NIANS
OWED
AT
LEAST
IBID.

NEARLY
HALF
THE
TOT
AL
IbID.

I
N
M
AY
1774, J
EFFERSON
A
ND
P
ATRICK
H
ENRY
Ibid., 26–27. The measure failed, Harrell wrote, because the “conservatives … were not yet ready for the leadership of these radicals. In October, 1777, when the principles of rifle democracy were supreme, a law was passed which provided in part for the sequestration of these debts.” (Ibid., 27.)

J
OHN
W
AYLES
DIED
I
N
1773
Sloan,
Principle and IntereST,
14.

ESTATE
WORTH
£30,000
IBID.

L
ARGEST
CREDITOR
, F
AREL
L
AND
J
ONES
Ibid. There was also a contested £6,000 charge against Wayles over a shipment of slaves. (Ibid., 14.)

DECIDED
T
O
BREAK
UP
Ibid., 15.

J
EFFERSON
'
S
LIABILITY
IbiD., 16.

WAS
NOT
SOLELY
ECONOMIC
The economic issues at play in the Revolution is, of course, a subject of long and ferocious debate. Known as the “progressive interpretation” (or the “Beardian interpretation” after the historian Charles Beard), it can be summarized, as Esmond Wright pointed out in 1966, with the following quotation from Louis M. Hacker: “The struggle was not over high-sounding political and constitutional concepts: over the power of taxation and, in the final analysis, over natural rights: but over colonial manufacturing, wild lands and furs, sugar, wine, tea and English merchant capitalism within the imperial-colonial frame-currency, all of which meant, simply, the survival or collapse of work of the mercantilist system.” (Wright,
Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution,
114–15.) Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., offered a more nuanced view, arguing that the emphasis of interpretation should be on “the clashing of economic interests and the interplay of mutual prejudices, opposing ideals and personal antagonisms—whether in England or in America—which made inevitable in 1776 what was unthinkable in 1760.” (Ibid., 103.) For selections of Hacker's and Schlesinger's arguments, see ibid., 103–42.

My own view is that economics clearly—even self-evidently—played a critical role for Jefferson and many others. It would be folly to deny this, for arguments about power and rights are obviously of a piece with matters of property and wealth. I do not believe, however, that the American Revolution was only about the rich preserving their riches. Harrell (to whom I am indebted for his work on this subject in relation to Virginia) put it well, noting that pointing out the economic factors was not to

underestimate the political theories involved in the American Revolution, to question the devotion of Washington, the patriotism of Henry, or the political astuteness of Jefferson. But an examination of the constitutional principles that appealed to leading citizens does not afford a complete explanation of the momentous movement which transformed Virginia, the most ultra-British colony in North America, into a staunch supporter of the Revolutionary doctrines. Lands to the west, claimed by Virginia under charters, won from France partly by Virginia men and with Virginia money, and sorely needed by Virginia in 1775, were being exploited by an irresponsive government—bartered and pawned to court favorites, politicians, and speculators. The rapid contraction of the currency to meet the demands of the British trading interests and the ruinous trend of Virginia exchange accentuated the diverse economic interests of the colony and the mother country. The planters were hopelessly in debt to the British merchants. Current political theories in the colonies and the economic interests of the planters were in harmony. (Harrell,
Loyalism in Virginia,
28–29.)

Also illuminating is Jack P. Greene, “William Knox's Explanation for the American Revolution,”
William and Mary Quarterly,
3d ser., 30, no. 2 (April 1973): 293–306.

B
EFORE
1729,
NO
ROYAL
GOVERNOR
Harrell,
Loyalism in Virginia
, 4. I am indebted to Harrell for these statISTICS.

GOVERNORS
INTERVENED
FEWER
THAN
IBID.

BETWEEN
1764
AND
1773,
THERE
WERE
IBID.

ANNOUNCED
THE
B
OSTON
P
ORT
A
CT
PTJ,
I, 106.

AGREE
D
“
WE
MUST
BOLDLY
”
IBID.

JO
INED
J
EFFERSON
IN
THE
C
OUNCIL
C
HAMBER
IbID.

“W
E
W
ERE
UNDER
[
THE
]
CONVIC
TION
”
Ibid. “No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distresses in '55, since which a new generation had grown up,” Jefferson said, alluding to a difficult period in the French and IndiaN WAR.

“
RUMMAGED
”
THRO
UGH
R
USHWORTH
'
S
COLLE
CTION
IBID.

“
COOKED
UP
A
RESOLUTION
”
IBid.

FROM
“
THE
EVILS
OF
CIVIL
WAR
”
Ibid. The proclamation passed on Tuesday the twenty-fourth; on Thursday the twenty-sixth, Lord Dunmore called the House to the Council Room where the document had originated. The governor was direct. “I have in my hand a paper published by order of your House, conceived in such terms as reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament of Great Britain; which makes it necessary for me to dissolve you; and you are dissolved accordingly.” (Ibid.) Off the burgesses went to the Raleigh, from which, on May 27, 1774, they called for a “general congress … to deliberate on those general measures which the united interests of America may from time to time require.” (Ibid., 108.)

Then, on Sunday the twenty-ninth, came a plea from Boston: All the colonies, Massachusetts hoped, would join in what amounted to an economic boycott of Great Britain through nonimportation and nonexportation agreements. (Ibid., 110.) At ten o'clock on Monday morning, Peyton Randolph summoned the remaining burgesses to the Raleigh (there were, both the resolution and
The
Virginia Gazette
reported, twenty-five still in the area), where the group chose a moderate course. Under Randolph's leadership, the Virginians said they would schedule a meeting of “the late Members of the House of Burgesses” for August 1. An “Association against Importations,” the Monday caucus said, would “probably be entered into” once enough burgesses arrived back in Williamsburg, and “perhaps against Exportations also after a certain time.” (Ibid.)

The caution was understandable. With so many burgesses out of town, the remaining legislators could not risk the appearance of usurpation nor were they yet ready to contemplate all-out war. On that day in late May 1774, Peyton Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others were declining to commit themselves until they absolutely had to. The exports—tobacco, really—were the key. To end that trade would cost Virginia untold economic and political pain. Just before leaving Williamsburg for Monticello on the thirty-first, Jefferson added his name to the call for the August 1 meeting: “We fixed this distant day in hopes of accommodating the meeting to every gentleman's private affairs, and that they might, in the meantime, have an opportunity of collecting the sense of their respective counties.” (Ibid., 111.)

AWARE
OF
THE
ST
AKES
Ibid., 111.

M
ONTICELLO
'
S
C
HERRIES
HAD
RIPENED
GB,
55.

A
LETTER
TO
THEIR
CONSTITUENT
S
PTJ,
I, 116–17.

THE
R
EVEREND
C
HARL
ES
C
LAY
Ibid., 117.

“
THE
NEW
CHU
RCH
”
ON
H
ARDWARE
R
IVER
Ibid., 116.

THE
“
PLACE
 … 
THO
UGHT
THE
MOST
”
IBiD.

“T
HE
P
EOPLE
MET
GENERALLY
”
Jefferson,
WritiNGS,
9.

THE
FREEHOLDERS
OF
A
LBEMARLE
PTJ,
I, 117–19.

C
OMPOSED
BY
J
EFFER
SON
Ibid., 119.

“
THE
COMMON
RIG
HTS
OF
MANKIND
”
Ibid., 117.

“
WE
WILL
EVER
BE
READY
”
IBID.

AN
IMMEDIATE
BAN
Ibid., 117–18. As he drafted the Albemarle resolutions he also wrote a proposed Declaration of Rights for the approaching August 1 meeting. (Ibid., 119–20.)

FR
ESH
CUCUMBERS
AND
LE
TTUCE
GB,
56.

INSTRUCTIONS
TO
THE
DELEGATES
PTJ,
I, 121–37. See also Anthony M. Lewis, “Jefferson's ‘Summary View' as a Chart of Political Union,”
William and Mary Quarterly,
3d ser., 5, no. 1 (January 1948): 34–51. Kristofer Ray, “Thomas Jefferson and ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British North America,' ” in Cogliano, ed.,
A Companion to Thomas Jefferson,
32–43, is also valUABlE.

W
ITH
THESE
PAGES
PTJ,
I, 121–37.

“
THAT
OUR
ANCEST
ORS
”
Jefferson,
Writings,
105–6.

CONCLUDED
WIT
H
A
PASSAGE
Ibid., 121.

“I
T
IS
N
EITHER
OUR
WISH
”
Ibid., 121–22.

STR
ICKEN
WITH
DYSENTERY
Jefferson,
WritiNGS,
9.

WITH
TWO
COPIES
IbID.

T
HE
ASSEMBLED
BURGESSES
APPLAUDED
PTJ,
I, 671.

HAND
-
PULLED
PRESS
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, http://www.history.org/almanack/life/trades/tradepri.cfm (accessed 2012).

“W
ITHOUT
THE
KNOWLEDGE
”
PTJ,
I, 672.

“I
T
IS
THE
INDISPE
NSABLE
DUTY
”
IBID.

G
EORGE
W
ASHINGTON
PAID
3
S
9
D
IBID.