Jefferson's Invitation to a Democratic Morality

Relevant Texts: Inauguration address of Thomas Jefferson The election of 1800 has been referred to by some as the first peaceful transfer of power between political parties in the modern world. Thomas Jefferson, the victor of that election, referred to the election results as “the revolution of 1800,” probably because there was doubt at the time that such as transition was possible without bloodshed. Fully appreciating this fact can be difficult for generations of Americans so used to the peaceful transfer of power both here and in so many places around the globe. Jefferson, however, does not take this for granted -- and in his innauguration address, not only discusses the importance of democratic transfers of power, but further discusses a vision for social discourse that I here suggest could be described as a democratic morality. Perhaps the most important aspect of Jefferson’s inauguration address is its offering of a distinct image of the status of the United States of America. For one, Jefferson is speaking to a nascent nation. Having commercial relationships with other nations is an accomplishment. Having a functional constitution is an accomplishment. A good portion of his address concerns the anxiety relating to the election cycle through which he has just passed. He points out that the exhaustion and tension that campaigners can have after a vigorous campaign, saying: “animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think.” This animation and exertions now must be put aside to “unite in common effort for the common good.” Jefferson further says that says that although the majority has rights to institute its will, it must institute reason to, safeguarding the rights of those in the minority. He further refers to the importance of “restoring social intercourse.” Although great historical speeches are worth readings in and of themselves regardless of the historical context, the historical context cannot be ignored when trying to understand why a particular speech has become part of history. The election of 1800 was hotly fought. It was the first time in the modern world that two political parties with numerous disagreements about the shape of its country had challenged each others legitimacy to govern without coming to blows. Here, appreciating the historical context strengthens our appreciation of the text itself. The text itself is a call to peaceful democratic engagement. It favors animated political discourse, a recipe for disaster and violence when the participants involved are not committed to democratic principles. Thus, it provides a vision for a vibrant democratic republic, one which has animated discourse, unafraid of free thought and debate, and also able to accept the consequences of the majority’s victory. Jefferson could have easily taken another approach, one that did not advocate for restoring social discourse or safeguarding the rights of those in the minority. Although I’m not jaded enough to suggest that Jefferson’s own words in the Declaration of Independence were mere puffery, I am asserting that there is a natural tension between governing and advocating democratic principles, minority rights, and social intercourse. In 1801, democratic principles, minority rights, and social intercourse were not features of functioning governments. Even in the United States, despite the institution of the Bill of Rights, the Alien and Sedition Acts were made law. Jefferson thus advocates the importance of free speech, including the rights of those who wish to dissolve the union or change its republican form, as “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” For the past 200 years, this value has been embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and has been the subject of ongoing debate and litigation. However, an inauguration address is not a legal brief. The audience is not a select group of statesmen. Instead it is the general population. Thus, we needn’t read the concepts in their legal contexts, but as they would affect a general population. A general population encouraged to respect free speech and social discourse is being directed towards applying the morality of democracy to their daily living. By morality of democracy, I mean: respecting other’s views, being able to disagree without being disagreeable or violent, recognizing that others mean well even when their approaches to matters are drastically divergent. Thus, Jefferson concludes his talk by subtlely inviting others into what I am referring to morality of democracy. To those who are his political opponents or might become his political opponents, he “ask[s] [their] indulgence for [his] own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.” Realistically, Jefferson’s words may be seen in two lights. On one hand, he is simply advocating for his political supporters to advance his political causes against those who oppose his actions due to not perceiving the full context of his actions. On the other hand, he is going a step further by asking everyone, friend and foe alike, to recognize that regardless of whether one sees or agrees with the full context of his actions, recognize that he is acting in the best interest of the country, and thus truly inviting the application of the democratic morality to his very time and place.