In a revealing letter penned in 1820, Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s Founding Fathers and the third President of the United States, expressed profound concerns about the Missouri Question to John Holmes. This letter, now a significant historical document, illuminates the anxieties surrounding the issue of slavery and its potential to fracture the burgeoning Union. Jefferson’s words serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of the nation during this period and the deep divisions that threatened to tear it apart.
The Missouri Question, centered around the admission of Missouri into the Union, ignited a fierce debate regarding the expansion of slavery. Jefferson, writing to John Holmes, a prominent political figure of the time, described his alarm with vivid imagery, likening the issue to “a fire bell in the night.” This metaphor encapsulates the sudden and terrifying awakening to a danger that Jefferson believed could be fatal to the nation. He confessed that he had retreated from public affairs, content in the belief that the country was in capable hands. However, the Missouri issue jolted him back into a state of concern, perceiving it as “the knell of the Union.”
Jefferson’s letter to John Holmes underscores his belief that the Missouri Compromise, while temporarily quelling the immediate crisis, was merely a “reprieve” and not a “final sentence.” He foresaw that drawing a “geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political,” would create an indelible division. This line, referring to the demarcation between free and slave states, once established in the minds of men driven by “angry passions,” would be perpetually reinforced and deepened with every future conflict. Jefferson understood that the Missouri Question was not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper, more fundamental conflict within the nation.
While deeply troubled by the institution of slavery, Jefferson’s primary concern in this letter to John Holmes was the preservation of the Union. He stated unequivocally, “there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way.” He even suggested that the economic value of enslaved people was a “bagatelle” compared to the existential threat to the Union. Jefferson contemplated the possibility of emancipation and expatriation, indicating a willingness to consider radical solutions if they could be achieved gradually and with shared sacrifice.
However, Jefferson also grappled with the complexities of the situation, famously describing it as “we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” This powerful analogy to John Holmes highlights the dilemma: neither immediate abolition nor the perpetuation of slavery seemed to offer a safe path forward. Jefferson recognized the conflicting demands of “justice” and “self-preservation,” acknowledging the moral imperative to address slavery while also fearing the consequences of disrupting the social and political order.
In his correspondence with John Holmes, Jefferson argued that the diffusion of slavery, rather than its restriction, might paradoxically improve the condition of enslaved people and facilitate eventual emancipation. He reasoned that preventing the movement of enslaved people between states would not reduce the overall number of enslaved individuals. Instead, spreading them over a larger area could lessen their individual hardship and distribute the “burthen” of emancipation across a broader population. This perspective, while controversial, reflects Jefferson’s complex and often contradictory views on slavery.
Furthermore, Jefferson stressed the importance of states’ rights in the context of the Missouri Question. He argued to John Holmes that Congress’s attempt to regulate the condition of people within a state was an overreach of federal power. He asserted that each state held the “exclusive right” to govern its internal affairs, including the status of its inhabitants. For Jefferson, federal intervention in matters like slavery was not only unconstitutional but also a dangerous infringement upon state sovereignty, further fueling sectional tensions.
In concluding his letter to John Holmes, Jefferson lamented the potential failure of the American experiment. He expressed his fear that the sacrifices of the revolutionary generation would be “thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons.” His “only consolation” was the prospect of dying before witnessing the potential collapse of the Union. Jefferson urged his contemporaries to “dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away” against abstract principles, appealing for unity and caution against actions that could lead to national “suicide” and betray the hopes of the world. He ended by commending John Holmes as a “faithful advocate of the Union,” underscoring the value he placed on Holmes’s efforts to preserve the nation amidst this crisis.
Jefferson’s letter to John Holmes remains a vital document for understanding the tumultuous period of the Missouri Compromise and the profound anxieties surrounding slavery in early America. It reveals Jefferson’s deep-seated fears for the future of the Union and his complex, often paradoxical, views on the issue of slavery. His urgent plea for unity and his warning against division continue to resonate, offering valuable lessons for navigating similar challenges in contemporary times.
