Thomas Jefferson undoubtedly was one of the greatest intellectual influences in the founding of the United States. While he was not active in the making of the Constitution, except for the Bill of Rights, he did write the Declaration of Independence, and he was an influential statesman and President in the early years of the nation. Moreover, although Jefferson did not write any organized work detailing his entire political philosophy, he probably had more of a conscious philosophy behind his revolutionary ideas than some of the other founders, or at least that appears to be the common view. However, Jefferson did not draw his political philosophy from nowhere, and so in considering its value the question arises of what the principal source was. A good case can be made that it was the political philosophy of John Locke. Examining all similarities between the writings of Locke and Jefferson would be a task beyond the possible scope of this essay. Instead, the focus here will be first on the relation between the basic ideas of Locke and Jefferson on the nature of man, the nature of government, the idea of revolution, and finally law in society.

For John Locke, the point of primary importance about the nature of man seems to be the basic equality of all men. He states this unequivocally, affirming, "all men by nature are equal."[1] He describes the state into which men are born as follows: "A state . . . of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection."[2]

Thomas Jefferson was perhaps not always as eloquent on the topic of equality as Locke. However, the idea underlies his political philosophy, and he turned to it as the basis for introducing the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent."[3] As will become clear, this equality is the basis on which all else will be built in the philosophy of both Locke and Jefferson. In fact, Jefferson in his simple statement already points to the first consequence of equality, which was described somewhat by Locke, namely independence.

The logical connection between equality and independence is presumably too obvious too need very much explanation. It is not unreasonable to assume that if men are equal, one should not impose his will on another, and Locke and Jefferson certainly seem to have made that assumption. Freedom and independence are linked so closely with equality among men in the thought of Locke that they are commonly simply grouped together, with the assumption that they are implied by each other. He stresses these ideas repeatedly, referring to "mankind . . . being all equal and independent," and to the "equal Right that every man hath, to his Natural Freedom," and again to "men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent."[4] Jefferson, again, draws approximately the same conclusions from the equality in the nature of man on this point, writing: "We acknowledge that our children are born free; that that freedom is the gift of nature."[5] Furthermore, Jefferson states: "Every man . . . possess[es] the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature."[6]

Freedom and independence are excellent ideals. However, they can mean very different things depending on the content one gives them. Locke saw these things in terms of a few primary rights, the most basic being the right of self-preservation. "Men, being once born, have a right to their preservation."[7] This, though, is clearly not enough, and Locke later explains further what rights should accompany this:

Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontroled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature equally with any other man or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property--that is, his life, liberty, and estate--against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others as he is persuaded the offence deserves.[8]

The key rights, then, besides self-preservation, appear to be his right to liberty, apparently meaning actual physical liberty, and property. Here one cannot find a precise parallel in the Declaration, since only the first two rights are mentioned as primary there, where Jefferson says of all men: "from . . . equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[9]

It is difficult to say how much should be read into this departure from Locke by Jefferson. Property and the pursuit of happiness are two different things, though the latter would seem to include the former. Jefferson did include happiness within the goals of government, since he said elsewhere: "the freedom and happiness of man . . . are the sole objects of every legitimate government."[10] However, in this case it is only the pursuit of happiness by the individual that is in question, and all that seems certain is that Jefferson wants to make clear that men have broader freedoms than just that of property. The pursuit of happiness would seem to include almost anything, so perhaps this means that man has a right to be allowed to try to do anything which will bring him happiness, presumably excluding the violation of any other man's fundamental rights. This is an idea that is not entirely foreign to Locke, since he to sees as one of the purposes of forming a society the securing of "the things that contribute to the Comfort and Happiness of this life."[11] Thus, Locke was willing to extend this third right beyond property, and in mentioning civil interests he once lists "Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of Body; and the Possession of outward things, such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture, and the like."[12] Basically, then, there is still compatibility between Jefferson and Locke on this point, since both appear to be referring to some right to whatever it is that man requires for happiness.

With an understanding of Locke's view of man, it is simple to explain his view of government, which is derived directly from his view of man. The indications of how Locke will conceive of government have already come, in his comments on the right of men to punish those who violated their basic rights. If all men are free and independent, and all can act to preserve their own rights, then clearly the only way in which society and government can form is by agreement among men for the sake of more easily preserving their own rights. Locke says exactly this: "Man . . . seeks out and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estate."[13] This is the source of the power of governments: the individual power of every man to preserve his own rights, which he gives over to the government that these rights might be preserved better, and it is this specificity of its source and purpose that prohibits the power of government from being used arbitrarily or indiscriminately.

Political power is that power which every man having in the state of nature has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good and the preservation of their property. Now this power, which every man . . . parts with to the society in all such cases where the society can secure him, is to use such means for the preserving of his own property as he thinks good and nature allows him, and to punish the breach of the law of nature in others so as . . . may most conduce to the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind. So that the end and measure of this power . . . being the preservation of all of his society . . . it can have no other end or measure, when in the hands of the magistrates . . . and so cannot be an absolute, arbitrary power.[14]

On a practical level, what all this means is that the existence of every government is to be dependent on the consent of the governed. "No one can be . . . subjected to the political power of another without his consent," and "the liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established by consent."[15]

Jefferson does not necessarily develop his thought on this matter to the same extent that Locke does, but he follows the same progression as Locke from rights to government by consent, and indeed makes the link somewhat more directly. In considering these rights as goals of men, he wrote "to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[16] The particular point here that Jefferson stresses repeatedly is not the exact nature of the power given up by the individual, but simply the necessity of that consent. "All power is inherent in the people," so "the will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government."[17]

It may be noted here in passing that, despite the fact that virtually all of the important basic premises of Lockean and Jeffersonian thought have now been set out, the points just described are the first ones with which an opponent could easily disagree. Equality, freedom, and rights to life and liberty and so forth, are all things that seem almost undeniably good. However, in these descriptions of the philosophical origins of society, there is no denying that this society seems as if it could be a somewhat cold and selfish one. It is true that Jefferson and Locke speak in various places of the brotherhood of men and communal good will and other more conventionally social ideas, but it is difficult to see how any truly social impulses, in the sense of the orientation towards or concern for others that Christian society would demand, enter into the foundations of society. Both men more or less admit this, though not of course as a fault. Jefferson is weaker in his assertion of this, saying in a discussion of individual liberty only "if we are made in some degree for others, yet, in a greater, are we made for ourselves."[18] Locke is more blunt: "The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own civil interests."[19] One suspects from this that even their laudable ideas about freedom are probably built on a very individualistic view of freedom. Certainly, such an individualistic understanding is not surprising in Jefferson and Locke, but it is still perhaps worth pointing out that it is the first major step in their logic of political philosophy that seems unacceptable from a Christian viewpoint, and it is from this point onward that most opposing viewpoints would begin a criticism.

Returning to the progression of Lockean thought on government, there is once again an easy and almost self-evident step to be made from the doctrine of government only by common consent, that being the right to revolution:

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves or put into the hands of any other an absolute power over, the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands . . . and it devolves to the people; who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of the new legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security.[20]

The inevitable question here is, of course, who is to decide when the government has in fact broken trust with the people. For Locke, though, the answer is as inevitable as the question, because if the power originally belongs to the people, only the people can judge its use, and "every man is judge for himself, as in all other cases, so in this, whether another hath put himself into a state of war with him."[21]

This unilateral nature of the approval required for revolution seems somewhat problematic in practical terms. One might expect that if such a belief prevailed revolutions would be relatively frequent. Given this practical difficulty, it would not be surprising if Jefferson, the practical statesman, attempted to find another solution to the problem. However, this is not the case. In fact, the topic of revolution is one of the few where Jefferson probably has more to say than Locke. In writing again on the natural rights of man, Jefferson says in the Declaration: "Whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government . . . as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."[22] Furthermore, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."[23]

Having proclaimed revolution a public duty, Jefferson seems faced with the same problem as Locke, namely the possible frequency of revolutions. However, Jefferson not only admits this possibility, but actually embraces it. "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical . . . . It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[24] He goes so far as to say: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . . What signifies a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."[25] There is something a little cold-blooded in Jefferson's dismissal here of the loss of life that these revolutions will involve. Jefferson, though, is not finished at this point. He claims that he will not only approve the loss of relatively minor loss of life in such endeavors, but also allow mass slaughter on an impossible scale for such purposes: "Rather than it [the French Revolution] should have failed I would have seen half the earth desolated; were there but an Adam and Eve left in every country, it would be better than as it now is."[26] Here Jefferson has clearly allowed his views of man and government to carry him to a language of fanaticism about revolution that is almost incredible. Locke, while one might argue that his ideas on revolution are essentially the same, and indeed are the source of Jefferson's ideas, and would thus have similar results, does not seem to think in such extreme terms. If Locke was, as one might suspect, a more dispassionate thinker than Jefferson, then he might possibly have questioned the project of preserving the right to self-preservation of a handful of people by destroying the self-preservation of most of humanity.

Up to this point, only the general foundations of government in the political philosophies of Locke and Jefferson have been considered, and it is necessary to devote the most attention to these, since they form the basis for everything else. However, to this point little has actually been seen of what government and society would look like, so to speak, if Locke and Jefferson were allowed to construct the models for it. This may not be closely specified for them, because if they are in favor of a large measure of freedom, as seems clear, then there will be a wide range of things which will remain in the realm of individual free self-determinations, which almost by definition can vary widely. Still, common sense dictates that Locke and Jefferson do not wish for anarchy, and they will want certain laws and rules in place to preserve society in the state that they think best. What legal standards would govern the conduct of these people, now allegedly freed from the bondage of prior ages? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to examine the Lockean and Jeffersonian positions on the determination of laws in a society.

In the area of law, it has already been made clear that both Locke and Jefferson will wish the laws to protect the basic rights of man, and probably do little else, lest they should encroach on those rights. However, it remains to identify the factor that will determine how this is to be accomplished. Not surprisingly, for Locke it is once again the people. However, it cannot just be the people simply speaking, because experience tells any human being that there will never be unanimous agreement, and there must be in order for something to be done. Therefore, Locke must of necessity take some additional step, and he does so by turning to the majority. The original forming of a society does not necessarily require such a step, because it is not clear that Locke thinks that every individual must join any given society, but only that he thinks that as a practical matter every individual will want to join some society. Therefore, there can and perhaps must be unanimity among those forming a society precisely on the point of forming that society. However, once that society has formed, "every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it."[27] So, "the majority having . . . the whole power of the community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for the community . . . and executing those laws."[28]

This legislation by popular majority is another area that is somewhat problematic in the thought of Locke and many others. It is not self-evident that the majority should determine the law in a society, although it is often taken for granted. It would probably be difficult to construct a precise logical argument to prove that it was right for, in effect, the majority to rule the minority. However, there is not an apparent alternative if no power is permitted to hold undisputed claim over all the people, as seems to be the case for Locke and Jefferson. It is not surprising, then, that Jefferson agrees with Locke on the rule of the majority as supreme, and strongly states the importance of even the smallest majority. "The lex-majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote, as sacred as if unanimous, is the first of all lessons in importance."[29] However, in this area there may be a slight softening of Locke in the ideas of Jefferson, and if there is then it is a key one. Locke, although he favors toleration in areas such as religion, emphasizes the obligation of the individual to follow the majority, and does not seem to defend the rights of the minority against this supreme majority with as much vigor as Jefferson does. Jefferson called "a sacred principle" the rule "that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."[30] Further, even in the case of only one person, "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."[31] This is only one point, but if in fact it represents a point of real difference between Jefferson and Locke, even if only a difference in emphasis, it is obviously an important one.

The primary purpose here is simply to show that Jefferson did indeed follow closely the intellectual path of Locke in this area, sometimes so closely that he almost appears to copying from Locke. However, it is also significant in closing to remember the nature of what Jefferson borrowed. Certainly, some of what Locke holds is good. He starts from the principle of the equality of all men, upon which men of good will can presumably agree in some sense. Ideals of equal rights and freedom can also be seen as praiseworthy. However, Locke rapidly moves from these premises into a radically individualistic view of man, in which only self-interest motivates joining a society with other men. Here, perhaps, Jefferson is slightly less extreme, as he does not explicitly reject the role of more truly social impulses, although it is not clear that he explicitly admits such a role either. Still he follows roughly the same lines of thought, and continues on with Locke in upholding the social contract understanding of government that follows from this individualism, and the basic right to revolution that follows from that. Finally, Jefferson follows Locke into the principle of the supremacy of the majority, almost of necessity, since it seems no other power could be established under the political philosophy that has been described, without being considered illegitimate for denying the will of the people.

Certainly, there are modifications of Locke in Jefferson, and in some cases perhaps important ones, as in his emphasis on the rights of the minority. Undoubtedly, many more and maybe much larger, differences would appear if the many details in the arrangement of a society were considered, which were not included in the scope of this essay. However, the thought of Jefferson still appears to be fundamentally Lockean, and the thought of Locke is obviously liberal individualism. In contemplating the influence of Jefferson on the foundation of the United States, and the nature of that nation even into the present day, it should therefore be remembered that this influence is to a large extent the indirect influence of the philosophy of John Locke

Bibliography

Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Volume 1. Edited by Julian Boyd. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950.

Jefferson, Thomas. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy. Edited by Saul K. Padover. New York: New American Library, 1939.

Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Edited by James H. Tully. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by J.W. Gough. New York: MacMillan Company, 1946.

Notes

[1] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. J.W. Gough (New York: MacMillan Company, 1946), 54.

[2] Locke, Government, 4.

[3] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, ed. Julian Boyd (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950), 423.

[4] Locke, Government, 6, 54, 49.

[5] Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, ed. Saul K. Padover (New York: New American Library, 1939), 13.

[6] Jefferson, Democracy, 15.

[7] Locke, Government, 25.

[8] Ibid., 43.

[9] Jefferson, Papers, 423.

[10] Jefferson, Democracy, 154.

[11] John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. James H. Tully (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983), 47.

[12] Locke, Toleration, 26.

[13] Locke, Government, 63.

[14] Ibid., 87.

[15] Ibid., 60, 13.

[16] Jefferson, Papers, 424.

[17] Jefferson, Democracy, 33, 161.

[18] Ibid., 14.

[19] Locke, Toleration, 26.

[20] Locke, Government, 110.

[21] Locke, Government, 121.

[22] Jefferson, Papers, 424.

[23] Ibid., 424.

[24] Jefferson, Democracy, 19-20.

[25] Ibid., 20.

[26] Ibid., 20-21.

[27] Locke, Government, 50.

[28] Ibid., 66.

[29] Jefferson, Democracy, 34.

[30] Ibid., 34.

[31] Ibid., 18.