A Study of the Moral, Political, and Educational
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AN HONEST HEART AND A KNOWING HEAD: A STUDY OF THE MORAL, POLITICAL, AND EDUCATIONAL THOUGHT OF JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU AND THOMAS JEFFERSON by JASON ROBLES B.A., University of California, San Diego, 2005 M.A., University of Colorado, 2007 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science 2012 This thesis entitled: An Honest Heart and a Knowing Head: A Study of the Moral, Political, and Educational Thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson written by Jason Robles has been approved for the Department of Political Science. David R. Mapel, Chair Horst Mewes Steven J. Vanderheiden Claudia Mills Ethan Putterman Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. Robles, Jason (Ph.D., Political Science) An Honest Heart and a Knowing Head: A Study of the Moral, Political, and Educational Thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson Thesis directed by Associate Professor David R. Mapel The picture of democracy we get from both Thomas Jefferson and Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one that is characterized by potentiality or possibility: the development of democracy and the cultivation of virtuous, republican citizens are processes of perpetual becoming, or perpetual improvement and progress towards an ideal form of freedom. My primary objective is to demonstrate an affinity in principle between the moral, political, and educational thought of Thomas Jefferson and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While similarity is demonstrable, I do not claim that Jeffersonian republicanism and Rousseauian republicanism are merely ideological or theoretical carbon copies; each is, in fact, distinct in its own right and the two are, at times, seemingly disparate, if not incompatible. Nevertheless, I suggest that the core of the Jeffersonian vision of republican government—perhaps best defined nearly four decades after Jefferson’s death by Abraham Lincoln as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”—sits comfortably alongside Rousseau’s theory. In fact, we might say that Jefferson’s theory is something of an indirect adaptation of Rousseau’s overly romanticized vision of a pastoral sort of republicanism—a much more practical adaptation to the unique circumstances of late eighteenth and early nineteenth century America, no doubt, but an adaptation nonetheless. Jefferson and Rousseau each embrace a notion of transcendent moral and political right and each subscribes to a natural rights philosophy informed by that standard. However, scholars either reject the Rousseauian overtones in Jefferson’s thought or fail to appreciate fully those facets of his thought that substantiate the heretofore unrecognized affinity between Rousseauian and Jeffersonian idealism. While there have been a few (misguided) attempts to show that Jefferson was, historically, quite the Rousseauist, that is not my aim; rather, I wish to show that Jefferson’s moral and political thought has more in common with Rousseau’s at the level of principle than many scholars (and perhaps Jefferson himself) seem ready to recognize. iii For Gene and Elliot ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am eternally grateful for my loving wife, Andrea, without whom this project would not have been possible. Her patience, confidence, and untiring support sustained me until the end, and I shall be forever in her debt. Amor meus amplior quam verba est. I am also especially grateful for the love and support of family and friends, especially my two children, Elliot and Sara; my dear friend and longtime partner in crime, David Agado; and my colleague and friend, Heather Roff (“better a nettle in the side of your friend than his echo”). I would like to thank my committee members: Horst Mewes, Steven Vanderheiden, Claudia Mills, and Ethan Putterman, as well as Michaele Ferguson, who commented on an earlier draft of Chapter Two and provided invaluable feedback. I would also like to thank the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies for their generous support. I would like especially to thank Andrew O’Shaughnessy and Peter Onuf, as well as the staff and research librarians at the Jefferson Library, particularly Jack Robertson, Anna Berkes, and Endrina Tay. I would also like to thank Nathalie Caron, Csaba Lévai, and all of the other research fellows and visiting scholars who provided me with invaluable feedback and assistance. And last, but certainly not least, I am grateful for the support and encouragement of my advisor and mentor, David Mapel. A bove majori discit arare minor. v CONTENTS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….. 1 I. ROUSSEAU’S REPUBLICAN IDEAL: VOLONTÉ GÉNÉRALE AND THE PRIORITY OF RIGHT…………………………………............ 15 II. FATHERS AS FOUNDERS AND FOUNDERS AS FATHERS: ROUSSEAU, CIVIC EDUCATION, AND THE PROBLEM OF MAKING CITIZENS AND MEN…………………………….……….…… 49 III. ROUSSEAUIAN ROMANTICISM IN THE MORAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON………………….… 84 IV. JEFFERSON AND THE IDEA OF PUBLIC RELIGION…………...…… 121 V. SENTINELS AND CYNOSURES: THOMAS JEFFERSON, AFFECTIONATE MENTORS, AND THE EDUCATION OF REPUBLICAN CITIZENS……………………………………………...… 152 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………... 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………...… 215 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………. 235 vi INTRODUCTION We of the United States are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when, by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from its use or direction more than they him.1 Born a citizen of a free State, and a member of the sovereign, the right to vote in it is enough to impose on me the duty to learn about public affairs, regardless of how weak might be the influence of my voice on them. Happy whenever I meditate about Governments, always to find in my inquiries new reasons for loving that of my country.2 I. The Sage of Monticello and the Enfant Terrible of the Enlightenment: Strange Bedfellows? My primary objective is to demonstrate an affinity between the moral, political, and educational thought of Thomas Jefferson and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While similarity is demonstrable, I do not claim that Jeffersonian republicanism and Rousseauian republicanism are merely ideological or theoretical carbon copies; each is, in fact, distinct in its own right and the two are, at times, seemingly disparate, if not incompatible. Nevertheless, I suggest that the core of the Jeffersonian vision of republican government—perhaps best defined nearly four decades after Jefferson’s death by Abraham Lincoln as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”— sits comfortably alongside Rousseau’s theory. In fact, we might say that Jefferson’s 1 Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 24 April 1816, in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), 1387. Hereafter, Writings. 2 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract, Preface, Book I, in The Basic Political Writings, trans. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1987). Hereafter, SC. 1 theory is something of an indirect adaptation of Rousseau’s overly romanticized vision of a pastoral sort of republicanism—a much more practical adaptation to the unique circumstances of late eighteenth and early nineteenth century America, no doubt, but an adaptation nonetheless. While I try to relate Jefferson’s republican vision to Rousseau’s by way of careful textual analysis, I do not mean simply to point out parallel or ostensibly parallel passages in the texts. Textual similarities do exist and I highlight them as needed. However, my primary aim is to call attention to the ways in which Rousseau and Jefferson overlap at the level of principle, or the ways in which their respective moral and political theories converge. It is my contention that an examination of either figure outside of their historical context is wholly inadequate. Likewise, simply studying Rousseau’s Social Contract or Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, will ultimately afford the reader very little in the way of a systematic understanding of either man’s moral and political philosophy. While Rousseau had the luxury of remaining aloof and virtually disengaged from public life, Jefferson did not. Jefferson’s theory might not always agree with his practice, but this much is to be expected, especially from a man who was wrapped up in the politics of revolution for the better part of two decades and who would, in one way or another, be embroiled in political controversy for the rest of his life. Another of my goals—an ambitious goal, to be sure—is to offer a more precise account of Jefferson’s moral and political thought. In particular, I mean to profile the coherence and unity of Jefferson’s thoughts on the relationship between natural rights, republicanism, and moral virtue. I seek to glean from Jefferson’s political philosophy a better understanding of his thoughts on the quality of character that is necessary to the 2 preservation of liberty and a democratic way of life.3 This entails an exploration of several facets of Jefferson’s thought: from his understanding of natural right and conventional right4 to the primacy of majority rule; his nuanced emphasis on the importance of civic virtue of a particular type and a separate, but no less significant emphasis on the importance of moral virtue; and the often overlooked (or at least underemphasized) notion of a rationalized or “republicanized” Christianity (something akin to Rousseau’s “civil religion”).