The Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series. Vol. 10: 1 May 1816 to 18 January 1817 ed. by J. Jefferson Looney et al., and: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series. Vol. 11: 19 January 1817 to 31 August 1817 ed. by J. Jefferson Looney et al. (review)

In 1816 Samuel Kercheval, an innkeeper from Stephensburg, Virginia, published a pamphlet demanding constitutional reform in Virginia. Kercheval called for a convention to reform the state’s constitution and to provide more equal representation for the state’s western counties. Kercheval sent a copy of his pseudonymous essay to Thomas Jefferson, “requesting that you will favor me with your opinion of the merits and demerits of the work enclosed” (Vol. 10, p. 162). Kercheval knew that, though retired, Jefferson remained among the state’s most influential politicians. Moreover, since Jefferson had played a role in the drafting of the state’s 1776 constitution, his support for reform of that compact would be particularly valuable. Jefferson responded on July 12 with a lengthy and thoughtful letter that has become a touchstone for understanding his late-life constitutional thinking.

The former president began his reply to Kercheval by asserting that, since he was retired, he had no wish to engage in current controversies and wanted his remarks to remain private. Jefferson wrote at great length about the drafting of the 1776 constitution and his opinion about its limitations. Jefferson conceded that when the 1776 constitution was adopted, “the abuses of monarchy had so much filled all the space of political contemplation that we imagined every thing republican which was not monarchy” (Vol. 10, p. 222). In their zeal to eliminate monarchy Virginians had neglected to pay attention to the form and function of a republic. They had not realized the “mother-principle” that “governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it” (Vol. 10, p. 222). After forty years’ experience it had become apparent to Jefferson that “our first constitutions had really no leading principle in them” (Vol. 10, p. 222). In order to redress the limitations of the 1776 constitution, Jefferson supported calling a constitutional convention to propose revisions to the document. He understood that constitutional change would be difficult and should not be undertaken lightly, but he also believed that tradition should not be an obstacle to progress. As he wrote to Kercheval:

Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. they ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: I belonged to it, and labored with it. . . . I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions. . . . but I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind

(Vol. 10, p. 226).

Slavery, of course, presented a challenge—moral, constitutional, political, and economic—to Jefferson’s faith in republicanism. While he professed his opposition to slavery in principle, he could not bring himself to take meaningful action against the institution. When Dr. Thomas Humphreys of Lynchburg sent Jefferson a detailed plan for compensated emancipation and colonization, Jefferson equivocated. He expressed broad support for emancipation and colonization but doubted that either could be achieved in his lifetime. Unlike the optimism he had expressed to Kercheval six months earlier, where slavery was concerned Jefferson had less faith in the younger generation. While he asserted his own antislavery sentiment (despite owning slaves himself), he lamented, “I have not perceived the growth of this...