Abstract Jefferson’s Sons: Notes on the State of Virginia and Virginian Antislavery, 1760–1832 by Cara J. Rogers This dissertation examines the fascinating early life of Thomas Jefferson’s book, Notes on the State of Virginia, from its innocuous composition in the early 1780s to its appropriation as a political weapon by both pro and antislavery forces in the early nineteenth century. Initially written as a statistical introduction to Virginia for French readers, Jefferson’s book evolved into an intellectual tour de force that covered almost all facets of the state’s natural and political realms. As part of an antislavery education strategy, Jefferson also decided to include a treatise on the nature of racial difference, as well as a manifesto on the corrupting power of slavery in a republic and a plan for emancipation and colonization. In consequence, his book—for better or worse—defined the boundaries of future debates over the place of black people in American society. Although historians have rightly criticized Jefferson for his racism and failure to free his own slaves, his antislavery intentions for the Notes have received only cursory notice, partly because the original manuscript was not available for detailed examination until recently. By analyzing Jefferson’s complex revision process, this dissertation traces the ways in which his views on race and slavery evolved as he considered how best to persuade younger slaveholders to embrace emancipation. It then moves beyond Jefferson to examine contemporary responses to the Notes from white and black intellectuals and politicians, concluding with an attempt by Jefferson’s grandson to implement elements of the Notes’ emancipation plan during Virginia’s 1831-32 slavery debates. Acknowledgments My work on this dissertation has been characterized, from start to finish, by serendipity. As excited as I was to begin the doctoral program in history at Rice University, I had no idea how welcoming, supportive, and intellectually stimulating the environment would be. My deepest appreciation goes to professors W. Caleb McDaniel, James Sidbury, Carl Caldwell, Martin Wiener, and Kerry Ward. My colleagues Ashley Evelyn, Andrew Johnson, Maria Montalvo, Wright Kennedy, Wes Skidmore, Nate George, Sam Abramson, David Ponton, Rachael Pasierowska, Whitney Stewart and others made classes a pleasure and filled spare minutes with fascinating (only occasionally ridiculous) conversations. Sarah Paulus has been the best Rice mentor I could ask for. Wonderful administrators Lisa Tate, Bev Konzem, and Lydia Westbrook made sure that I kept on track. This project is the byproduct of generous research funding from Rice, as well as support from the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University. I owe much to archivists and librarians at the Library of Congress, University of Virginia, Rice University, College of William and Mary, UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, and the American Philosophical Society, among others. Shortly after graduating I will gratefully continue my research in Mr. Jefferson’s hometown as a fellow at the International Center for Jefferson Studies in Charlottesville, VA. Many thanks to the scholars who commented on papers over the years, particularly to the attendees of the British American Nineteenth Century Historians conference (2017); Cynthia Kierner, James Marten, and audience members at the Southern Historical Association conference (2017); and the Brooks Dissertation Forum attendees of the St. George Tucker Society (2015). Several scholars have gone out of their way to discuss my research, to my everlasting gratitude: Michael O. Emerson, Caleb McDaniel (who read almost every chapter twice and whose insight has been crucial every step of the way), Peter Onuf, Terry L. Meyers, Scot French, Christopher Curtis, Christa Dierksheide, and especially Kevin Gutzman, who has given me much excellent advice. The most serendipitous event of all was when John B. Boles agreed to become my advisor. Time spent discussing Jefferson with him has been one of the greatest unexpected pleasures of my life, and this project would not have been possible without his involvement and guidance. Finally, to my parents, who are literally the best: I ran this marathon, but you carried me over the finish line. Thank you. Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………….1 1 Antislavery Ideology at William and Mary…………………………23 2 Writing Notes on the State of Virginia……………………………...72 3 Authors in Paris: Printing the Notes………………………………..120 4 Alternatives to Slavery, 1785–1798……………………………….183 5 A Lasting Influence: The “Sons” Appropriate the Notes………….252 6 The Jeffersonian Legacy in Virginia, 1820–1832…………………300 Epilogue……………………………………………………………..331 Sources Consulted…………………………………………………...340 Bibliography…………………………………………………………346 1 Introduction In the winter of 1831–1832, Virginia effectively held a referendum on Thomas Jefferson. Not for the last time, political leaders on either side of a momentous American debate invoked the third president and his opinions in order to justify their preferred policy. On one side, supporters of slavery in the Assembly argued that Thomas Jefferson might have spoken about wishing for slavery’s end at one point or another, but those early musings were nothing more than the “day dream” of a “patriot and…philanthropist.” Jefferson had never truly believed emancipation to be practical, they declared, for if he had been committed to the idea he would have freed his own slaves at the time of his death. Moreover, they claimed that the “fragments” of a great man's thoughts “are not only valueless but dangerous.” Jefferson may have written against slavery, but now that he was gone it was even harder to imagine any way in which slavery could safely be ended; after all, “when Hercules died, there was no man left to lift his club.”1 On the other side of the debate, the opponents of slavery had an ace up their sleeves: Jefferson’s oldest and favorite grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, had recently been elected to the House of Delegates, and it was his emancipation proposal that had helped to stoke the fires of debate. Although he hated to speak in public almost as much as his grandfather had, Randolph rose on January 20, 1832, to counter the claims of the proslavery side. He felt compelled to speak up partly because his fellow delegates misunderstood his initial proposal as being that of “Mr. Jefferson” himself. Randolph reminded his colleagues that Mr. Jefferson’s emancipation plan had long been before the public, since it was detailed in his 1787 book Notes on the State of 1 John T. Brown of Petersburg, speech given in the Assembly on 18 Jan. 1832, in Erik S. Root, Sons of the Fathers: The Virginia Slavery Debates of 1831–1832 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010), 175. 2 Virginia.2 Randolph’s plan was inspired by his grandfather—not authored by him. Yet that did not mean, as some delegates implied, that Thomas Jefferson would not have approved of Randolph’s ideas. To rebut the claim that Jefferson’s antislavery musings were nothing more than a “day dream” of long ago, Randolph produced a letter that Jefferson had composed in 1814. A younger Virginian named Edward Coles had written to the recently retired president, asking him to take up a leading role in speaking out against slavery in Virginia. Jefferson had refused, citing his old age, but while doing so he had reiterated his commitment to ending slavery. More importantly, Jefferson had urged Coles to take up leadership on the issue himself: “I have considered the silence which prevails on this subject, as indicating an apathy unfavorable to every hope. Yet the hour of emancipation is advancing in the march of time….” Coles himself must “come forward in the public councils, become the missionary of this doctrine truly Christian…press the proposition perseveringly until its accomplishment.” Referencing William Wilberforce’s recent successes against the slave trade in England, Jefferson declared no good measure could fail if there existed people to fight for it. Eighteen years later, as Edward Coles watched approvingly from the gallery, Jefferson’s grandson used this correspondence as proof that Jefferson may only have “dreamed” of abolition—but that dream had “lasted a long time—some sixty years.” He had not freed most of his own slaves, but his public documents and private correspondence clearly showed that in “1770, 1814, 1824, he still deemed abolition indispensible.” If Jefferson were alive in 1832, Randolph said, he would have urged the delegates to vote for emancipation.3 2 Thomas Jefferson (hereafter “TJ”), Notes on the State of Virginia (London: Stockdale, 1787); Speech of Thomas J. Randolph, 20 Jan. 1832, in Sons of the Fathers, 215–224, quote at 215. 3 Speech of Thomas J. Randolph, 20 Jan. 1832, in Sons of the Fathers, 222. For evidence of Jefferson’s continued opposition to slavery at the end of his life, see Thomas Jefferson to William Short, January 18, 1826, from the Thomas Jefferson and William Short Correspondence, transcribed and edited by Gerard W. Gawalt, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.055_0829_0830. 3 Jefferson had no idea when he began work on the Notes on the State of Virginia in 1780 that it would still be a topic of debate in 1832, much less that its passages on race and slavery would remain at the center of our understanding of Jefferson today. He originally conceived of the project as a simple list of information about his home state, written in response to a questionnaire from the colonies’ French allies. The first version covered topics such as flora and fauna, climate, and population size. But the project became Jefferson’s favorite hobby over the ensuing years, which were some of the most challenging of his life. He continued to revise and expand his text while finishing his term as governor of Virginia in 1781, when the state was under British occupation and Jefferson himself was in hiding from enemy troops.