Was Jefferson a Good President and Founding Father?

[WPADEM]

I long considered Thomas Jefferson to be a great President given his allowing the Louisiana Purchase. But then I learned more about his Presidency, especially his trade policies during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the more I soured on him. And I have to disagree with his belief that America's future was being an Agrarian nation rather than a nation of merchants.

And then there's his infatuation with France. The problem with that is, the British controlled the seas and were our largest trading partner. And Jefferson seems to have not understood this to the detriment of his Presidency and Nation.

What does everyone else think?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Yes, because while Jefferson did not intend to encourage economic development, his policies actually did so. The early 19th century was ironic in that way: the Federalists, who intended to encourage economic growth, had policies that discouraged it, while the Democratic-Republicans, who intended to discourage economic growth, had laissez faire policies that encouraged it. Separately, of course Jefferson was a great Founding Father for other reasons, namely his positive influence on liberty and the constitution, as well as his authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

[NewYorkExpress]

Fun fact about Thomas Jefferson: It's believed Jefferson is our only President to be on the Autism Spectrum.

https://autism-advocacy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, because while Jefferson did not intend to encourage economic development, his policies actually did so. The early 19th century was ironic in that way: the Federalists, who intended to encourage economic growth, had policies that discouraged it, while the Democratic-Republicans, who intended to discourage economic growth, had laissez faire policies that encouraged it. Separately, of course Jefferson was a great Founding Father for other reasons, namely his positive influence on liberty and the constitution, as well as his authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

This is true but more so because of his protectionism than because of his lassiez-faire policies.

He bankrupted the NE Merchant class via the Embargo, thus clearing the way for the rise of the NE Textile industry. The Embargo also acted as "infant-industry" protectionism against Britain for these rising textile mills and the War of 1812 under Madison had a similar effect.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I've probably written more words on this forum about Thomas Jefferson than any other person, and for good reason: he was a complicated guy. I don't have the time or inclination to pull off another 2,600 word effortpost at the moment, but some general thoughts:

1) Jefferson's economic vision is generally misunderstood, often deliberately by pop historians looking to superimpose Civil War era divisions on the founders. Jefferson's agrarianism did not preclude the presence of commerce and manufacturing, and indeed the former was essential to the Jeffersonian economy: you can't be a nation of farmers without someone to sell your grain surplus. At a time when 9/10 Americans lived on farms and voting rights were tied to land ownership, Jefferson favored policies aimed at increasing the ranks of independent small farmers in order to achieve a more even distribution of wealth and power in the new republic. We can think of this as a kind of precursor to the free labor ideology of the 1850s, which was itself a precursor to the American Dream of the 1950s. The disagreement between Hamilton and Jefferson was between English-style mercantilism on the one hand, and laissez faire capitalism on the other. One of these would end up being the dominant liberal economic system of the nineteenth century, and it is not Hamilton's plan.

2) Jefferson was certainly naive to believe that the United States could remain a nation of small independent farmers and that laissez faire capitalism would create a more equal and democratic society, but to me this overlooks the far more serious problem with Jefferson's worldview, which is that it was predicated on the large-scale expulsion of American Indians from their native lands in the West. The history of U.S.–Indian relations is complicated and Washington/Adams also got their hands dirty, but in broad terms the Republican economic vision could not exist without the extermination or removal of Indian nations in the Northwest and Southeast to make room for white settlers. Jefferson personally played a critical role as president in promoting the policies that led to war in the Northwest by 1811 and the expulsion of American Indians from the region after 1815. IMO this is a much bigger deal than Jefferson failing to foresee the rise of industrial capitalism fifty years before the fact, especially since Hamilton really didn't either.

3) The slavery stuff is obviously a big deal, and while Jefferson made some early attempts at abolishing slavery during the Revolution (including a 1784 bill in the Confederation Congress that would have outlawed slavery in all U.S. territory, including the future states of the Deep South) after 1790 these mostly fall off and as Jefferson aged he grew only more cynical on the issue. As president he signed the bill to outlaw the transatlantic slave trade but made no effort to outlaw slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, and in retirement grew increasingly more reactionary, at the end of his life advocating the unhinged and self-serving theory that spreading slavery into more states somehow weakened the institution. Having read many of his letters and public writings upon the subject, it is hard not to see the image of a man who recognized that acting on his convictions would be extremely personally inconvenient, and so invented a philosophical framework to justify his inaction. Had Jefferson used his enormous political capital during his lifetime to attack slavery directly, or even freed his own slaves, it's very possible the antislavery movement would have picked up steam sooner and saved hundreds or potentially thousands from dying in bondage. Instead he made no effort to extricate himself from the institution and advocated an "antislavery" position that ensured nothing would ever be done on the issue during his lifetime. The facts are damning, and incredibly disappointing.

4) The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, Jefferson's early and consistent advocacy for public education, his contributions to the progress of science and the arts, and his generally pro-immigrant stance are all positive aspects of his legacy that should not be ignored. Likewise, contrary to how he is sometimes portrayed, Jefferson was not an ideologue and was capable of changing his mind as new evidence came to light: his decision not to scrap the Bank of the United States upon becoming president, made on the advice of his secretary of the treasury, Albert Gallatin, is probably the most prominent example of this. Jefferson opposed Hamilton's elitist social philosophy but came to see elements of the financial system he put in place could be a force for good; his advocacy for federally funded internal improvements, paid for by a tax on the wealthy, should be totally unsurprising to anyone familiar with his thinking.

5) Specifically with regards to the Embargo, it was a poor policy born from a desire to avoid war with Britain —a clumsy attempt at economic sanctions in the early nineteenth century. Every president of this period has at least one stupid decision to their name (the Alien and Sedition Acts, the War of 1812, the Panic of 1819 ...) so I think we can cut Jefferson a little slack to the extent we're grading on a curve.

On the whole, a very mixed bag, which is why I tend to think asking whether Jefferson was a "good" president or founding father rather misses the point. He was a significant leader, he was an indispensable figure in the American Revolution, and we would not be the country we are today without him. There are obviously good parts and bad parts to that.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Yes, because while Jefferson did not intend to encourage economic development, his policies actually did so. The early 19th century was ironic in that way: the Federalists, who intended to encourage economic growth, had policies that discouraged it, while the Democratic-Republicans, who intended to discourage economic growth, had laissez faire policies that encouraged it. Separately, of course Jefferson was a great Founding Father for other reasons, namely his positive influence on liberty and the constitution, as well as his authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

This is true but more so because of his protectionism than because of his lassiez-faire policies.

He bankrupted the NE Merchant class via the Embargo, thus clearing the way for the rise of the NE Textile industry. The Embargo also acted as "infant-industry" protectionism against Britain for these rising textile mills and the War of 1812 under Madison had a similar effect.

The textile industry would have risen regardless, like it did in Britain. Jefferson's "protectionism" (more complicated than that in practice, though I'll agree that it worked similarly economically) was not the policy aspect of his that encouraged development, it was his support for laissez faire.

[WPADEM]

I've probably written more words on this forum about Thomas Jefferson than any other person, and for good reason: he was a complicated guy. I don't have the time or inclination to pull off another 2,600 word effortpost at the moment, but some general thoughts:

1) Jefferson's economic vision is generally misunderstood, often deliberately by pop historians looking to superimpose Civil War era divisions on the founders. Jefferson's agrarianism did not preclude the presence of commerce and manufacturing, and indeed the former was essential to the Jeffersonian economy: you can't be a nation of farmers without someone to sell your grain surplus. At a time when 9/10 Americans lived on farms and voting rights were tied to land ownership, Jefferson favored policies aimed at increasing the ranks of independent small farmers in order to achieve a more even distribution of wealth and power in the new republic. We can think of this as a kind of precursor to the free labor ideology of the 1850s, which was itself a precursor to the American Dream of the 1950s. The disagreement between Hamilton and Jefferson was between English-style mercantilism on the one hand, and laissez faire capitalism on the other. One of these would end up being the dominant liberal economic system of the nineteenth century, and it is not Hamilton's plan.

2) Jefferson was certainly naive to believe that the United States could remain a nation of small independent farmers and that laissez faire capitalism would create a more equal and democratic society, but to me this overlooks the far more serious problem with Jefferson's worldview, which is that it was predicated on the large-scale expulsion of American Indians from their native lands in the West. The history of U.S.–Indian relations is complicated and Washington/Adams also got their hands dirty, but in broad terms the Republican economic vision could not exist without the extermination or removal of Indian nations in the Northwest and Southeast to make room for white settlers. Jefferson personally played a critical role as president in promoting the policies that led to war in the Northwest by 1811 and the expulsion of American Indians from the region after 1815. IMO this is a much bigger deal than Jefferson failing to foresee the rise of industrial capitalism fifty years before the fact, especially since Hamilton really didn't either.

3) The slavery stuff is obviously a big deal, and while Jefferson made some early attempts at abolishing slavery during the Revolution (including a 1784 bill in the Confederation Congress that would have outlawed slavery in all U.S. territory, including the future states of the Deep South) after 1790 these mostly fall off and as Jefferson aged he grew only more cynical on the issue. As president he signed the bill to outlaw the transatlantic slave trade but made no effort to outlaw slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, and in retirement grew increasingly more reactionary, at the end of his life advocating the unhinged and self-serving theory that spreading slavery into more states somehow weakened the institution. Having read many of his letters and public writings upon the subject, it is hard not to see the image of a man who recognized that acting on his convictions would be extremely personally inconvenient, and so invented a philosophical framework to justify his inaction. Had Jefferson used his enormous political capital during his lifetime to attack slavery directly, or even freed his own slaves, it's very possible the antislavery movement would have picked up steam sooner and saved hundreds or potentially thousands from dying in bondage. Instead he made no effort to extricate himself from the institution and advocated an "antislavery" position that ensured nothing would ever be done on the issue during his lifetime. The facts are damning, and incredibly disappointing.

4) The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, Jefferson's early and consistent advocacy for public education, his contributions to the progress of science and the arts, and his generally pro-immigrant stance are all positive aspects of his legacy that should not be ignored. Likewise, contrary to how he is sometimes portrayed, Jefferson was not an ideologue and was capable of changing his mind as new evidence came to light: his decision not to scrap the Bank of the United States upon becoming president, made on the advice of his secretary of the treasury, Albert Gallatin, is probably the most prominent example of this. Jefferson opposed Hamilton's elitist social philosophy but came to see elements of the financial system he put in place could be a force for good; his advocacy for federally funded internal improvements, paid for by a tax on the wealthy, should be totally unsurprising to anyone familiar with his thinking.

5) Specifically with regards to the Embargo, it was a poor policy born from a desire to avoid war with Britain —a clumsy attempt at economic sanctions in the early nineteenth century. Every president of this period has at least one stupid decision to their name (the Alien and Sedition Acts, the War of 1812, the Panic of 1819 ...) so I think we can cut Jefferson a little slack to the extent we're grading on a curve.

On the whole, a very mixed bag, which is why I tend to think asking whether Jefferson was a "good" president or founding father rather misses the point. He was a significant leader, he was an indispensable figure in the American Revolution, and we would not be the country we are today without him. There are obviously good parts and bad parts to that.

The thing to remember about Jefferson is he is one of our more prominent examples of a President who found that reversing their predecessors policies was easier said than done. When he won his election he proclaimed it represented a return to the values of 1776. He was largely unable to do so. Yet he accepted the Louisiana Purchase, for which he must be commended for.

I wasn't sure how else to phrase the question.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The thing to remember about Jefferson is he is one of our more prominent examples of a President who found that reversing their predecessors policies was easier said than done. When he won his election he proclaimed it represented a return to the values of 1776. He was largely unable to do so. Yet he accepted the Louisiana Purchase, for which he must be commended for.

I wasn't sure how else to phrase the question.

Sure, but I think what this overlooks is how much more Jefferson cared about ends than means. It would have been very possible to disestablish the B.U.S. in 1801 had he wished to do so; the recharter of the Bank in 1807 was defeated in the Senate, with Vice President Clinton casting the tiebreaking vote against recharter! Gallatin was able to convince Jefferson that some features of the Hamiltonian financial system could be useful in making a return to the "principles of '76." On other issues, such as taxation and military spending, Jefferson represented a clear break from the Washington and Adams administrations.

The Louisiana Purchase is a great example of Jefferson prioritizing ends (American acquisition of a vast western tract which could one day become farms for free white settlers) over means (liberal interpretation of the constitution). The conflict between "Jefferson the strict constructionist of 1798" and "Jefferson the National Republican of 1803" is generally overblown and representative of the overemphasis of ethereal debates over constitutional niceties in much popular history, whereas in fact class self-interest was a much bigger motivator for most voters (and so the politicians they elected).

[Vice President Christian Man]

One of my favorites and the best president of the 19th century.

[Aurelius]

As a Founding Father he was indisputably excellent. Author of the Declaration of Independence and consistent advocate for freedom of conscience and individual liberty. He was away in France during the framing of the Constitution and had way less to do with that than most people think, and was only a tepid advocate of its adoption. That's not the be all and end all though - Monroe in the Virginia state legislature fought against its ratification and still turned out to be one of our best early Presidents.

As a President he was very good. It's no coincidence that politicians of all stripes and from all parties tried to portray themselves as Jeffersonians for most of the following century. Part of this was symbolic - his triumph in 1800 over the increasingly reactionary Federalists was widely seen as the inauguration of a new age of popular republicanism - but his actions also contributed immensely to American strength and self-sufficiency. Ignoring his strict constructionist scruples to quickly authorize the Louisiana Purchase, when Napoleon was looking for any excuse to back out and any dithering over a constitutional amendment would have provided him that opportunity, was a key move. The Purchase contributed greatly to America's strength and over time solidified our ability to rely more on ourselves. The Embargo, while undoubtedly painful in the short term, was a crucial good-faith effort to avoid the war that later became unavoidable and forced out of sheer economic necessity a huge growth in American domestic industry, making us less dependent on the whims of European great powers going forward. (Not during Jefferson's presidency, but it's common among historians to regard the War of 1812 as a mistake. I see it as a crucial event. We spent the first 40 years of our independence battered around like a plaything between the Great Powers. Our position at the end of the war was for all intents and purposes a victory from American perspectives - the only failure being the western war-hawks' hopes for Canada - and combined with the symbolic value of the Battle of New Orleans, it forced Europe to accept that we were a nation worthy and demanding of respect, sovereignty, and equal treatment. No longer were we a mere collection of weak polities clinging to the Atlantic Ocean and looking eastward for all our needs.)

In his retirement he did become more reactionary. The theory he had about weakening slavery by spreading it to more places, as Truman mentioned, I can't help but reading through a lens of self-interest. His own state of Virginia would have been the prime beneficiaries of this, because they had way more slaves than they knew what to do with and would have been able to profit richly from such a move. It's possible that the same self-interest had been behind his advocacy for banning the African slave trade, but that was such a positive and important move that I don't want to read too much into it. Despite all this, he still retained the core ideals that made him a great statesman, as demonstrated through his stewardship of the University of Virginia.

The short but impactful book "Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Ideology of the 1790s" by Joyce Appleby is a great look at the ideas that propelled Jefferson into the Presidency in 1800. Yes, he idealized a society of self-sufficient, independent yeoman farmers but there was a lot more to his worldview than that.

Side question: the biography I read of Jefferson (the Jon Meacham one) was a huge disappointment and I learned way less than I had hoped. Anyone got recommendations for a better single-volume bio?

[LBJer]

One of my favorites and the best president of the 19th century.

Better than Lincoln?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, because while Jefferson did not intend to encourage economic development, his policies actually did so. The early 19th century was ironic in that way: the Federalists, who intended to encourage economic growth, had policies that discouraged it, while the Democratic-Republicans, who intended to discourage economic growth, had laissez faire policies that encouraged it. Separately, of course Jefferson was a great Founding Father for other reasons, namely his positive influence on liberty and the constitution, as well as his authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

This is true but more so because of his protectionism than because of his lassiez-faire policies.

He bankrupted the NE Merchant class via the Embargo, thus clearing the way for the rise of the NE Textile industry. The Embargo also acted as "infant-industry" protectionism against Britain for these rising textile mills and the War of 1812 under Madison had a similar effect.

The textile industry would have risen regardless, like it did in Britain. Jefferson's "protectionism" (more complicated than that in practice, though I'll agree that it worked similarly economically) was not the policy aspect of his that encouraged development, it was his support for laissez faire.

But what are the marginal differences as such? Jefferson didn't abolish the Bank of the US for instance and any policies of the 1790s that Jefferson abolished were of minimal scope compared to what he kept as Truman pointed out. The thing that had the most consequential impact on the economy during this period, was the Embargo and it was an overt departure from his own stated principles on the question.

Also England created the Bank of England in 1689 and operated under the navigation acts and various other protectionist policies until the early 19th century. The first protective measures on textiles were instituted by Henry VIII IIRC. Previous to that, England was basically wool resource colony for the benefit of of NW European textiles in the Benelux and along the Rhine river trade.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Louisiana Purchase is a great example of Jefferson prioritizing ends (American acquisition of a vast western tract which could one day become farms for free white settlers) over means (liberal interpretation of the constitution). The conflict between "Jefferson the strict constructionist of 1798" and "Jefferson the National Republican of 1803" is generally overblown and representative of the overemphasis of ethereal debates over constitutional niceties in much popular history, whereas in fact class self-interest was a much bigger motivator for most voters (and so the politicians they elected).

Also people like to draw simplistic lines through historical figures to justify their own actions in later periods. Because subsequent debates on those points are greater consequence and tenor, this means that previous distinctions that were much more minute by comparison, end up being blown out of proportion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The disagreement between Hamilton and Jefferson was between English-style mercantilism on the one hand, and laissez faire capitalism on the other. One of these would end up being the dominant liberal economic system of the nineteenth century, and it is not Hamilton's plan.

Hamilton was more of a "developmental capitalist" then an outright mercantilist, but that was certainly the argument made against him. It occupies a similar space, and has a similar outlook on foreign trade, as well as condoning internal economic intervention, but a developmental capitalist would favor far more "freedom of trade" (as in profession and commercial activities internally as opposed to outward trade policy) in terms of domestic policy than a mercantilist would. One would also have to parse these hairs in terms of "British Mercantilism" prior to say Adam Smith in Britain and that of the French under say Louis XIV, which was the apex of mercantilism.

[Vice President Christian Man]

One of my favorites and the best president of the 19th century.

Better than Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln did some good things, but I'm not sure if we would've seen the abolishment of slavery or the idea of African-American civil rights come to pass if it wasn't for Jefferson. Like most people in Virginia he was a slave owner, but he was a humane one and banned new imports of slaves, which was the first step to eventually ending slavery.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

One of my favorites and the best president of the 19th century.

Better than Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln did some good things, but I'm not sure if we would've seen the abolishment of slavery or the idea of African-American civil rights come to pass if it wasn't for Jefferson. Like most people in Virginia he was a slave owner, but he was a humane one and banned new imports of slaves, which was the first step to eventually ending slavery.

So, um ... this is one of the worst takes I've ever seen. I say that as someone who has written about Jefferson's early antislavery activities extensively, including in this very thread!

(1) Most people in Virginia were not slaveowners. Most white people in Virginia were not slaveowners. Most white men in Virginia were not slaveowners. Jefferson's membership of the Virginia gentry by definition made him exceptional.

(2) Jefferson's reputation as a "humane slaveowner" is built almost entirely on scholarship that was debunked sixty years ago, including an infamous early edition of the Jefferson Papers which deliberately omitted instructions for slaves at Monticello to be beaten in Jefferson's handwriting. Jefferson employed violence, family separation, and the threat of sale to keep "his people" in line. I don't know what criterion you are using; Jefferson's treatment of the enslaved people on his plantations was not unusual, but neither by that very fact was it humane.

(3) Jefferson did not support civil rights for black Americans, whether they were free or enslaved. He did not believe a peaceful multiracial society was possible, an opinion he makes clear in Notes on the State of Virginia. The movement for black civil rights drew heavily on the language and principles of the Declaration of Independence, but as Jefferson himself said, the Declaration did not include any "new arguments" and instead summarized what was already "self-evident" to the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies. Crediting him with inventing the idea of civil rights is absurd.

(4) While it was not Jefferson's intention, abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade probably strengthened slavery in the long run, and Jefferson took no action to prohibit the internal slave trade. Jefferson's consistent opposition to the slave trade is one of the more compelling examples from his antislavery record, but your claim goes too far in this direction.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is an "excerpt" of  4 AM wonder of mine sent as a message of sorts responding in more detail on matter that was discussed on discord a couple of nights prior. The general gist of controversy regarded Coolidge's relationship to Lincoln politically speaking, but Jefferson also came up and since I emphasized the point about Coolidge bypassing Jefferson and going to early American and Great Awakening Religious influences for the same concepts that Jefferson espoused, it is relevant to a point that Truman made above. I also referenced the British tradition of liberty, the writings of John Locke etc etc, as another avenue to appeal to "Jeffersonian tradition", without having to invoke him directly.

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

https://youtu.be/6r1Kwj0vK7c?t=2271

On Coolidge and Jefferson
As the video above emphasizes, Coolidge drew upon the religious influences that built a tradition of freedom even way before the Revolution. This squares a critical circle and a dance of political necessity, because while Wilson loathes Jefferson, the Democrats still acclaim to be his brain child equally with Jackson, holding "Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners" etc, so Wilson's task is to nuke Jefferson's legacy, while at the same time nominally coopting him for his own sake.

Coolidge on the other hand comes from a party that blends a Jeffersonian view of liberty, with that of a Hamiltonian approach to the economy and finance, as well as a rejection of radical arbitrary governance. One that he embraces even on the economic front, as evidenced at least in terms of his support for the Republican system of Protection, though obviously not much more beyond that. So Coolidge cannot necessarily wrap his arms around Jefferson the way you could, or the way most Republicans would not have a problem with today where we are further removed from the more problematic aspects of Jeffersonianism and the deleterious impacts of such on the Republican Coalition as it existed at the time (Agrarianism was certainly more in line with WJB then Coolidge or McKinley, that doesn't even get into what Jefferson did on religion or the alarming embrace of French Revolutionary radicalism, which post 1917 would look horrifying to many in Coolidge's Party).

So instead Coolidge embraces the principles espoused by Jefferson by skirting Jefferson and drawing on religious sources, which would be comfortable and familiar to many Yankee belt Republicans (Edwards, Hooker et al). Coolidge also doesn't seem to take the approach, at least in this speech, common place among modern conservatives, which is to say linking the American Revolution to the Glorious Revolution and John Locke. Obviously there is no problem in doing so, and nothing in doing so would be problematic today as linking both classical liberal and Protestant religious inspired sources comes as no great problem today obviously. However, at the time, the latter would be far more politically advantageous, especially when England is still somewhat suspect in American historiography and so much Republican tradition is built on opposing the geopolitical interests of Britain right up to about 1900, as recent for Coolidge as 911 is to us.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

Jefferson was hugely important to the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, in part from necessity: there was a real danger that the new organization would be dismissed as Whiggism 2.0, which would alienate the free soil Democratic element and defeat any effort to form a big-tent antislavery party. Beyond mere opportunism, the ethos of egalitarian democracy and individual liberty as articulated by Jefferson was a powerful counterargument to proslavery that could resonate with both committed abolitionists and racist whites who nevertheless did not want their states overrun by slavery. The Homestead Act was of course an old Jacksonian policy repackaged as the epitome of free labor ideology, wrapped in Jeffersonian rhetoric about the independent yeoman farmer. As for non-extension, the Wilmot Proviso was essentially the same policy Jefferson had advocated in 1784 (before later abandoning it during the Missouri controversy) and fit nicely with the American conception of the West as a place for poor men to go and better themselves. It's not an accident that this new party called itself "Republican" or that the Declaration of Independence featured prominently in the 1856 platform.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

Jefferson was hugely important to the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, in part from necessity: there was a real danger that the new organization would be dismissed as Whiggism 2.0, which would alienate the free soil Democratic element and defeat any effort to form a big-tent antislavery party. Beyond mere opportunism, the ethos of egalitarian democracy and individual liberty as articulated by Jefferson was a powerful counterargument to proslavery that could resonate with both committed abolitionists and racist whites who nevertheless did not want their states overrun by slavery. The Homestead Act was of course an old Jacksonian policy repackaged as the epitome of free labor ideology, wrapped in Jeffersonian rhetoric about the independent yeoman farmer. As for non-extension, the Wilmot Proviso was essentially the same policy Jefferson had advocated in 1784 (before later abandoning it during the Missouri controversy) and fit nicely with the American conception of the West as a place for poor men to go and better themselves. It's not an accident that this new party called itself "Republican" or that the Declaration of Independence featured prominently in the 1856 platform.

The Jeffersonian tradition was an essential launching pad for the Republicans to articulate their message against the Slave power, and while that doesn't go as far as was stated above regarding Lincoln's relative stature, it is an important relationship.

As for the question, yes without Jeffersonian tradition, the ability of the anti-slavery movement to succeed would have been in much deeper trouble, but at the same time Jefferson's legacy was actively being invoked by both sides, so his existence doesn't produce a relative superiority over Lincoln because of that.

Lincoln is by far the superior President because while people continue to try and own him and argue over his relationship with say the radicals and such forth, there is no tearing Lincoln's legacy in two such that two sides of a Civil War could both be fighting in his name and with some degree of credibility in doing so (the 1776 versus 1798 paradigm with Jeffersonianism).

[Aurelius]

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

Jefferson was hugely important to the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, in part from necessity: there was a real danger that the new organization would be dismissed as Whiggism 2.0, which would alienate the free soil Democratic element and defeat any effort to form a big-tent antislavery party. Beyond mere opportunism, the ethos of egalitarian democracy and individual liberty as articulated by Jefferson was a powerful counterargument to proslavery that could resonate with both committed abolitionists and racist whites who nevertheless did not want their states overrun by slavery. The Homestead Act was of course an old Jacksonian policy repackaged as the epitome of free labor ideology, wrapped in Jeffersonian rhetoric about the independent yeoman farmer. As for non-extension, the Wilmot Proviso was essentially the same policy Jefferson had advocated in 1784 (before later abandoning it during the Missouri controversy) and fit nicely with the American conception of the West as a place for poor men to go and better themselves. It's not an accident that this new party called itself "Republican" or that the Declaration of Independence featured prominently in the 1856 platform.

And of course the increasingly reactionary pro-slavery movement plays a role in this too. By that time you had ideologues all over the country, not just in the Deep South, asserting that the Declaration was not worth the paper it was written on - a Senator from Indiana, for example. And there had been a growing strain of proslavery thought, as exemplified by people like Fitzhugh and a newspaper in Richmond whose name I forget, advocating that slavery was the ideal state for the vast majority of people of all races, not just blacks. Without having read deeply into this specific thing, I have to imagine that it dramatically increased the amount the average white laboring Northerner felt threatened by the slave power. The positive-good camp, and the accommodationists who repeatedly bent over backwards to appease them, had so thoroughly trashed the Declaration and the ideas behind it that it was just there waiting as easy bait for any political group who wanted to take it up as their mantra again.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Jefferson's slavery record had a lot to do with his personal situation.  He could not free his slaves
because he was in debt for most of his later life and his slaves were assets for his creditors. 

Washington, on the other hand, was not in debt and was able to free his slaves in his will.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Don't know enough about Jefferson's actual Presidency to comment on that, but as a thinker and individual I find him the most all-round interesting of the American founding fathers. Certainly has a strong case to be considered the most important/influential American ever, which is a sort of recommendation in itself. But of course the acquiescence to slavery will always tarnish him.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

Jefferson was hugely important to the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, in part from necessity: there was a real danger that the new organization would be dismissed as Whiggism 2.0, which would alienate the free soil Democratic element and defeat any effort to form a big-tent antislavery party. Beyond mere opportunism, the ethos of egalitarian democracy and individual liberty as articulated by Jefferson was a powerful counterargument to proslavery that could resonate with both committed abolitionists and racist whites who nevertheless did not want their states overrun by slavery. The Homestead Act was of course an old Jacksonian policy repackaged as the epitome of free labor ideology, wrapped in Jeffersonian rhetoric about the independent yeoman farmer. As for non-extension, the Wilmot Proviso was essentially the same policy Jefferson had advocated in 1784 (before later abandoning it during the Missouri controversy) and fit nicely with the American conception of the West as a place for poor men to go and better themselves. It's not an accident that this new party called itself "Republican" or that the Declaration of Independence featured prominently in the 1856 platform.

And of course the increasingly reactionary pro-slavery movement plays a role in this too. By that time you had ideologues all over the country, not just in the Deep South, asserting that the Declaration was not worth the paper it was written on - a Senator from Indiana, for example. And there had been a growing strain of proslavery thought, as exemplified by people like Fitzhugh and a newspaper in Richmond whose name I forget, advocating that slavery was the ideal state for the vast majority of people of all races, not just blacks. Without having read deeply into this specific thing, I have to imagine that it dramatically increased the amount the average white laboring Northerner felt threatened by the slave power. The positive-good camp, and the accommodationists who repeatedly bent over backwards to appease them, had so thoroughly trashed the Declaration and the ideas behind it that it was just there waiting as easy bait for any political group who wanted to take it up as their mantra again.

Indeed, indeed. The senator from Indiana in question was John Pettit, who exclaimed during the debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act that the Declaration of Independence was based on a "self-evident lie." The extent to which southern reactionaries accepted the antislavery characterization of Jefferson's philosophy and disowned any association with that most famous sentence can be seen in the Cornerstone Speech, where Stephens describes Jefferson's (real or supposed) belief in the equality of all men as a fatal flaw in his reasoning, one which the Confederacy has corrected with their constitution. And of course this was great news for the antislavery movement, who could now take on the mantle of "defenders of the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers" —a strategy pioneered by Salmon Chase in his Liberty party days, who recognized that associating abolition with the founders did far more to win over converts to the cause of antislavery than Garrisonian histrionics about a "covenant with death and an agreement with Hell."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

Jefferson was hugely important to the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, in part from necessity: there was a real danger that the new organization would be dismissed as Whiggism 2.0, which would alienate the free soil Democratic element and defeat any effort to form a big-tent antislavery party. Beyond mere opportunism, the ethos of egalitarian democracy and individual liberty as articulated by Jefferson was a powerful counterargument to proslavery that could resonate with both committed abolitionists and racist whites who nevertheless did not want their states overrun by slavery. The Homestead Act was of course an old Jacksonian policy repackaged as the epitome of free labor ideology, wrapped in Jeffersonian rhetoric about the independent yeoman farmer. As for non-extension, the Wilmot Proviso was essentially the same policy Jefferson had advocated in 1784 (before later abandoning it during the Missouri controversy) and fit nicely with the American conception of the West as a place for poor men to go and better themselves. It's not an accident that this new party called itself "Republican" or that the Declaration of Independence featured prominently in the 1856 platform.

And of course the increasingly reactionary pro-slavery movement plays a role in this too. By that time you had ideologues all over the country, not just in the Deep South, asserting that the Declaration was not worth the paper it was written on - a Senator from Indiana, for example. And there had been a growing strain of proslavery thought, as exemplified by people like Fitzhugh and a newspaper in Richmond whose name I forget, advocating that slavery was the ideal state for the vast majority of people of all races, not just blacks. Without having read deeply into this specific thing, I have to imagine that it dramatically increased the amount the average white laboring Northerner felt threatened by the slave power. The positive-good camp, and the accommodationists who repeatedly bent over backwards to appease them, had so thoroughly trashed the Declaration and the ideas behind it that it was just there waiting as easy bait for any political group who wanted to take it up as their mantra again.

Indeed, indeed. The senator from Indiana in question was John Pettit, who exclaimed during the debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act that the Declaration of Independence was based on a "self-evident lie." The extent to which southern reactionaries accepted the antislavery characterization of Jefferson's philosophy and disowned any association with that most famous sentence can be seen in the Cornerstone Speech, where Stephens describes Jefferson's (real or supposed) belief in the equality of all men as a fatal flaw in his reasoning, one which the Confederacy has corrected with their constitution. And of course this was great news for the antislavery movement, who could now take on the mantle of "defenders of the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers" —a strategy pioneered by Salmon Chase in his Liberty party days, who recognized that associating abolition with the founders did far more to win over converts to the cause of antislavery than Garrisonian histrionics about a "covenant with death and an agreement with Hell."

Radicals via their excess would necessarily come to turn on some of their most heretofore effective weapons and concepts for their side, thereby ceding them and the language of their preservation to the other side. In this sense it is not the "Constitutional Unionists" that are seeking to the preserve the union and the constitution and the founder's intent in 1860, so much as they are trying to bring 1840 forward in time to 1860. On the contrary, it is to Lincoln, the more moderate opponent of slave power (relative to say Seward), that the Jeffersonian mental can thus be picked up and ran with.

That the Republicans moved to the center on the slavery question (the center of opinion in states comprising a majority of the electoral college I would note), at the exact same time that the South had gone full extremist, created the opening for a "moderately, anti-slavery coalition" to come to existence in the North in 1860. Such would not have been possible, without the South's extremism, as we have both noted and thus likewise as we have both noted, the South were the architects of their own undoing.

[Aurelius]

That being said Lincoln did invoke Thomas Jefferson directly and the Republicans did in large measure emphasize the aspirational elements of the Declaration and seek to put them on a more equal footing with the Constitution.

Jefferson was hugely important to the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, in part from necessity: there was a real danger that the new organization would be dismissed as Whiggism 2.0, which would alienate the free soil Democratic element and defeat any effort to form a big-tent antislavery party. Beyond mere opportunism, the ethos of egalitarian democracy and individual liberty as articulated by Jefferson was a powerful counterargument to proslavery that could resonate with both committed abolitionists and racist whites who nevertheless did not want their states overrun by slavery. The Homestead Act was of course an old Jacksonian policy repackaged as the epitome of free labor ideology, wrapped in Jeffersonian rhetoric about the independent yeoman farmer. As for non-extension, the Wilmot Proviso was essentially the same policy Jefferson had advocated in 1784 (before later abandoning it during the Missouri controversy) and fit nicely with the American conception of the West as a place for poor men to go and better themselves. It's not an accident that this new party called itself "Republican" or that the Declaration of Independence featured prominently in the 1856 platform.

And of course the increasingly reactionary pro-slavery movement plays a role in this too. By that time you had ideologues all over the country, not just in the Deep South, asserting that the Declaration was not worth the paper it was written on - a Senator from Indiana, for example. And there had been a growing strain of proslavery thought, as exemplified by people like Fitzhugh and a newspaper in Richmond whose name I forget, advocating that slavery was the ideal state for the vast majority of people of all races, not just blacks. Without having read deeply into this specific thing, I have to imagine that it dramatically increased the amount the average white laboring Northerner felt threatened by the slave power. The positive-good camp, and the accommodationists who repeatedly bent over backwards to appease them, had so thoroughly trashed the Declaration and the ideas behind it that it was just there waiting as easy bait for any political group who wanted to take it up as their mantra again.

Indeed, indeed. The senator from Indiana in question was John Pettit, who exclaimed during the debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act that the Declaration of Independence was based on a "self-evident lie." The extent to which southern reactionaries accepted the antislavery characterization of Jefferson's philosophy and disowned any association with that most famous sentence can be seen in the Cornerstone Speech, where Stephens describes Jefferson's (real or supposed) belief in the equality of all men as a fatal flaw in his reasoning, one which the Confederacy has corrected with their constitution. And of course this was great news for the antislavery movement, who could now take on the mantle of "defenders of the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers" —a strategy pioneered by Salmon Chase in his Liberty party days, who recognized that associating abolition with the founders did far more to win over converts to the cause of antislavery than Garrisonian histrionics about a "covenant with death and an agreement with Hell."

Radicals via their excess would necessarily come to turn on some of their most heretofore effective weapons and concepts for their side, thereby ceding them and the language of their preservation to the other side. In this sense it is not the "Constitutional Unionists" that are seeking to the preserve the union and the constitution and the founder's intent in 1860, so much as they are trying to bring 1840 forward in time to 1860. On the contrary, it is to Lincoln, the more moderate opponent of slave power (relative to say Seward), that the Jeffersonian mental can thus be picked up and ran with.

That the Republicans moved to the center on the slavery question (the center of opinion in states comprising a majority of the electoral college I would note), at the exact same time that the South had gone full extremist, created the opening for a "moderately, anti-slavery coalition" to come to existence in the North in 1860. Such would not have been possible, without the South's extremism, as we have both noted and thus likewise as we have both noted, the South were the architects of their own undoing.

I'm near the end of a multivolume biography at Lincoln and I can't stop scratching my head at the most outré radicals who opposed all the war measures necessary to bring about emancipation of the slaves. Even William Lloyd Garrison, who in the 1830s and 1840s seemed more interested in his own moral purity than in actually helping the people who were slaves, came around during the civil war!

Lincoln really was a master statesman in leading from behind and very deliberately, step by step, bring the public around to a course of events that had been deeply unpopular just a few years before, but was necessary both morally and out of sheer national survival.