Nature and Its Elements: The Native American as Object of Study

23Thomas Jefferson’s thinking is based on an empiricist and particularist epistemology. Jefferson reframes the Cartesian cogito as, “I feel, therefore I am”. [50] Following the example of Locke’s concept of the tabula rasa, the senses are the only mode of access to reality. [51]

24Such a nature, apprehended through sensory experience, is endowed with every potentiality for excellence. It is the foundation of everything, and a worthy object of study in itself. [52] The product of this nature—such as the natural constitution of man and all that it enables—will always be greater than any purely human or artificial product—such as a Constitution or a form of government. This nature, however, can only be understood in terms of its peculiarities or individualities, which require the intellectual work of classification into general categories, grouped by features sharing similar characteristics. This classification then facilitates scientific discussion. In Jefferson’s view, a possible system had been put forward by the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, which, although not definitive or perfect, provided an acceptable basis for discussion in the scientific world, and particularly in the sphere of natural history. He compared it to the classification system proposed by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, which he considered to be eclectic and likely to confuse those who used it as a means of communication. [53] His Notes on the State of Virginia also form a system of classification, taking as a starting point Virginian nature and its possibilities. The sixth “Query” in the volume is devoted to the metals, plants, and animals of this southern state. The native peoples are also classified as natural elements, still untouched by “culture” and its corruptive elements.

25For Jefferson, nature separates and liberates contexts from order and tradition. It opens up possibilities that are accessible and attainable by the individual who is allowed to freely deploy his abilities. [54] To develop the nation, future possibility must take priority over the past, and the Native American, who like Virginian nature is available for development, is clearly part of the potential of the future. This explains the structure of Jefferson’s Notes, which begin with the natural world and its possibilities, associated with the future development of the state, in “Queries” I-VII. These sections are followed by observations on the current situation, namely, the present and its characteristics, including slavery, in “Queries” VIII-XXII. The last section discusses the achievements of the past, which are relegated to the end of the volume because they are the least relevant according to Jefferson; this is “Query” XXIII. The Native American is related to the first two groups of Query. In the first place, the relationship with the Native American belongs to the natural order and implies future potential, in terms of the development of both territory and civilization. The relationship with the Native American, then, is governed by natural law and the rights associated with it. Furthermore, Native Americans have a valid legal relationship with the present context through the treaties that they negotiate and sign. [55]

26Following the example of anthropologists Benjamin Smith Barton [56] and Charles White, Jefferson was interested in the origins and culture of the North American peoples. In this area, he only partially subscribes to Linnaeus’s thesis, acknowledging the uniformity of the natural world as well as a certain hierarchical ordering of its elements, in line with the biblically inspired Great Chain of Being. “Races” are no exception. For Linnaeus and Jefferson, God has created a hierarchy of human beings; in their understanding, for example, black people are clearly behaviorally inferior: they are indolent, capricious, and easily impassioned. [57] However, like Charles White, Jefferson adopts a polygenist position in relation to race, and attempts to trace the origin of Native Americans through a study of their dialects. [58] He considers it essential to study the Native American in order to understand America and the country’s development. As an example of humanity in its original or natural state, the Native American embodies the potential of humanity, and therefore of America. Jefferson wrote to William Ludlow in 1824 that a philosopher traveling from the Rockies to the east of the continent would be able to observe the stages of civilization. This belief in evolution by stages is fundamental in Jefferson’s understanding of progress. [59]

27Thomas Hallock points out that curiosity in itself does not constitute a true respect for the other, nor a sincere concern for his good. [60] During the revolutionary era, in A Summary View (1774) and the Declaration of Independence (1776), Jefferson views Native Americans as brutal and bloody savages, devoid of humanity, who had been mercilessly set upon the colonies and their inhabitants by England, thus devastating the frontier. However, the support given by a number of tribes to the revolutionary cause subsequently gave Jefferson a respect for these groups, which made him adopt a more egalitarian language, as for example in 1781 when he held talks with Jean-Baptiste Ducoigne, leader of the Kaskaskia people. [61] At the time of the Declaration, however, the colonies were in danger and had to protect themselves against an aggressive metropolis that was blocking access to the West. The language used by Jefferson in relation to Native Americans embodies this tension. But, subsequently, what does Jefferson really think of the Native American, who, despite all his “faults”, is nonetheless a human?

28At this point in my argument, it is useful to turn to Jefferson’s vision of the African-American, who will also be further discussed at a later stage. Jefferson recognizes that the African-American is a person, and as such has natural rights, such as the right to be master of himself and the right to happiness. As early as 1769, he and his colleague Richard Bland had attempted to set in place a colonial bill allowing the emancipation of privately owned slaves, an attempt that would not succeed because of opposition in the House of Burgesses by plantation owners. The following year, as described above, Jefferson defended the indentured slave Samuel Howell by pleading, using Lockean precepts, that every man is born free and has the right to be his own master. [62] After Independence, Jefferson was one of three members of a committee to revise the state’s legislative procedures, and thus helped to draft an amendment—which was not, however, proposed or adopted—to Bill 51 on Slavery, intended “to provide for gradual emancipation and colonization” by African-Americans of a territory outside the geographical area of the US. [63] His efforts in the name of emancipation would continue with two preliminary texts: firstly, the Declaration of Independence, and then the Ordinance of 1784, with the first seeking to prohibit the slave trade and the second the expansion of the “peculiar institution” in the new states. A third draft text, that of a Constitution that Jefferson wanted to propose in 1783 to the legislative bodies of Virginia, also contained a proposal to emancipate slaves. Finally, once he was president, he lobbied Congress to abolish the slave trade as soon as possible. [64] Jefferson argued that:

29

The love of justice and the love of country plead equally the cause of these people, and it is a moral reproach to us that they should have pleaded it so long in vain, and should have produced not a single effort, nay I fear not much serious willingness to relieve them & ourselves from our present condition of moral & political reprobation. [65]

30For Jefferson, man is a creature endowed with rights that are proportional to his nature, or more specifically to his physical, moral, and intellectual constitution. Freedom is fundamental, because it permits, and indeed drives, development and progress. Accordingly, Jefferson asserts at the end of his life (in 1824) that, “nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man”. [66] This natural equality was being hindered by England, and Jefferson insists that English individuals cannot restrict the freedom of the colonies without placing themselves in a state of war with them. [67] By denying their freedom, the English were seeking to enslave the colonists. According to Locke, it was against the spirit of the English nation to encourage such a situation:

31

Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation. [68]

32This is precisely the grounds upon which Jefferson also denounces the veto imposed by the king on colonial laws seeking to abolish slave trafficking, a veto that goes against universal natural rights. [69] In 1786, Jefferson also drew the attention of Benjamin Hawkins to the importance of respecting the rights of Native Americans, arguing mainly in terms of collectives, or more specifically of communities whose relations, as we see in Locke, are regulated by natural law, as is the case between two individuals living in their natural condition. For Jefferson, this is a question of the moral honor of the United States, [70] which had not been entirely rigorous in pursuing its principles in relation to rights and their protection. There had generally been “little reflection on the value of liberty”, and circumstances made it difficult “to carry them [the colonists and citizens] to the whole length of the principles which they invoke for themselves”. [71]

33The individual, according to Locke, is endowed with the faculty of “understanding” in order to be able to determine his own course. [72] Jefferson recognizes this capacity in Native Americans, both in terms of morality and rationality. [73] Natural law is pertinent to the natural constitution of the Native American, and its regulations are equally as accessible to him as to the European, and therefore more so than to the African-American. [74] Jefferson agrees on this point with the conclusions drawn by Linnaeus. The native of America, in his natural condition, possesses the same potentiality as that of the “civilized” man in the same condition. The moral capacity to live collectively is the proof thereof, and is moreover confirmation of the rights of the Native American; this would also be the case for the “inferior” African-American race developing within their own context. [75]

34Jefferson recognizes that the Native American possesses the two fundamentals of morality, namely “that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature”; [76] the same is true of the moral guide that is dictated by “their genius and mental powers”, [77] which are incarnated, for example, in the eloquence of the Cayuga chief Logan, whose oratorship Jefferson prefers to that of Demosthenes and Cicero. [78] Thus, when the Comte de Buffon, to whom we will return, denied the physical, moral, and intellectual equality of the Native American, Jefferson does not hesitate to insist that, “for the honor of human nature, [this example of the Native American] has no original”. [79] This recognition of the capacity for morality includes the Native American among those rightly claiming self-rule, which, as acknowledged by Jefferson and his friend Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress, is the foundation of Native American collective government. [80] The Native American is thus ruled by the provisions of natural law and rights. The less regulated nature of their collective systems adheres to natural law more closely than the excessive regulation that is typical of European systems, which can often prove to be restrictive of freedom. [81] The lack of legislation within the tribes is really rooted, according to Locke, in their demographic weakness and in the virtual nonexistence of private property, which means there is little need to control the passions and the desire to acquire. [82] In short, unlike the Africans, the Native American “race” is the equal of Europeans in terms of potential, as were the peoples living to the north of the Alps in Europe before the arrival of the Romans. [83] The three are part of the same species, but are hierarchized by virtue of environment, for the Native American, and, for the black man, mainly by virtue of his nature. [84]

35Other studies do not accept this. Barbara Arneil concludes that Locke and Jefferson’s vision of the Native American is based strictly on the idea of private property and relationship to the land. She claims that, since labor creates land ownership, it also creates political society, which exists only by virtue of the former. This process defines the spaces belonging to those who have rights, that is to say, those who are party to the terms of consent—and this group does not include the Native American. Arneil says that Jefferson “used [Locke] to great effect in undermining the aboriginal claim to land by virtue of occupancy”. [85]

36Matthieu Renault, meanwhile, refutes the idea that Jefferson or Locke had such a respectful and progressive vision of the Native American. He claims that, for Locke, morality is based on reason and experience, rather than on the passions and custom. [86] The purpose of education is precisely to form virtuous individuals, whose reason controls the passions; [87] individuals capable of using their faculties—through their labor and their judgment or consent—to prioritize the primary goal, which is their preservation of life. According to Renault, Locke thus limits this domain of knowledge, namely “consensual” knowledge, to rational and educated individuals, and thereby to those who own property. Only these individuals are regulated by the provisions of natural law; only they have rights. Rationality deposes nature, which is not worthy of respect as it does not have anything to protect. “Consent” has nothing to do with this. No protection is justified for the person who is not worthy of rights, because he is incapable of exerting his reason to prioritize his aim of preservation of life, which involves the acquisition and development of property. [88]

37According to Renault, Jefferson is an adherent of this vision. As Roger Wilkins asserts, this mode of thinking views the concept of “natural law” as a theoretical and political tool created in the seventeenth century to defend the wealthy classes against absolutist monarchy and aristocratic power. [89] Renault tends to downplay certain passages of Locke’s two political treatises and their effect on Jefferson. [90] In the treatises, the philosopher acknowledges that the Native American community has a political dimension, albeit unsophisticated. He recognizes the following: 1) that the Native Americans constitute nations that are capable of collectively promoting their own interests; 2) that they have basic political structures in place; 3) that they enjoy a condition of sovereignty since they collectively decide upon policies of war, peace, and trade, and consequently form agreements and alliances, making treaties by means of oaths that fall under natural law since they imply relationships between nations; [91] 4) that their groups comprise individuals who consider themselves to be equals and to be individually capable of evaluating and consenting to authority in relation to their interests; and 5) that they have a basic understanding of property, which conforms to the idea of usufruct and invokes rights under natural law. [92] The domain of rational consent, or in other words political society, is not therefore applicable only to a certain mode of use of a territory.

38Locke and Jefferson recognize that the Native Americans govern themselves, and thus escape the chaos that is characteristic of the natural state. They therefore have the capacity to understand natural law and its regulations, and thus to be moral beings. They therefore come under natural law by virtue of their nature—and not of their property—and this is why they are worthy of respect. [93] The theory of property does not therefore disable the concepts of “collectivity” and “humanity”. It is natural constitution that determines the right to respect, and even black people are acknowledged to have the right to their freedom, because while they are certainly viewed in this mode of thought as “inferior” they are no less human. The “races” all have equality of rights, even if they are not equal; this is not affected by either their habitation—as in Buffon—or their education or relationship to the land—as in Arneil and Renault. For Jefferson, the political collectivity will certainly be restricted in scope by the potentiality of a “race”, but within the rational order of nature there is no model whereby a species loses its proper natural rights because of its habitat.

39

It would be erring therefore against that rule of philosophy, which teaches us to ascribe like effects to like causes, should we impute [a natural variation] to any imbecility or want of uniformity in the operations of nature. [94]

40The Native American chief Logan is proof of the natural comparability between Native American and white man; proof too of the potential of the American nature. Natural law demands equality and respect.

The Native American Nation

41Accordingly, both the Native American individual and his community are respected by virtue of their capacity for moral and political autonomy. America is therefore bound by the “moral duties” [95] of one political society towards any other that governs itself in a rational or republican manner, namely in accordance with the majority vote, which is the natural law of any legitimate society; [96] and this shall apply to its proceedings both in its internal affairs—such as the distribution of annuities—and external affairs, such as the conclusion of treaties and alliances. [97] Diplomatic relations must then be conducted in accordance with the formal procedures set out by the state. The primary aim of diplomacy shall be to maintain peace and obtain the consent of the tribes to any national development within their territories, and even to encourage them to request the development of those territories. A border that is defined by “mutual consent” would thus separate two sovereign entities whose relationship is regulated by “the law of nations”—the idea of “fairness” must therefore determine any action related to territorial appropriation. [98] Jefferson promised the Choctaws that “we take from no nation what belongs to it” and “we consider your lands as belonging fully to yourselves”. [99]

42One of the intended aims was in fact to distance himself from English colonialist policies, which denied both political sovereignty and economic freedom. Under the factories system instigated by the governments of George Washington and John Adams, trade relations had to be fair. Profit was a less important objective than was the creation of a climate of confidence that would subsequently facilitate territorial agreements. While he was Secretary of State, Jefferson declared to President Washington that:

43

I consider our right of preemption of the Indian lands, not as amounting to any dominion, or jurisdiction, or paramountship whatever, but merely in the nature of a remainder after the extinguishment of a present right, which gave us no present right whatever, but of preventing other nations from taking possession, and so defeating our expectancy; that the Indians had the full undivided and independent sovereignty as long as they choose to keep it, and that this might be forever. [100]

44According to Jefferson, the historical relationship between the state of Virginia and the peoples living within and beyond its borders was respectful, particularly in the process of purchasing territory. [101] Despite the lesser degree of political development among the Native Americans, and despite their usufructuary way of life, Jefferson’s vision of the relationship maintained with these communities does not fall outside the moral space of natural law, as claimed by Renault. The theologian Francisco de Vitoria is fundamental to Jefferson’s thinking on this point. De Vitoria considers that the Native American nation is fully “rational” and sovereign in his territory, and that the event of “discovery” does not yield any rights over him. The only justification for a European power to attack this nation would be if it undermined the principles of natural law by limiting the movement or trade of European nations and the evangelization of populations, or by conducting “immoral” practices such as cannibalism: in short, only if the Native American nation were to commit the acts of which Jefferson was accusing England. [102] Jefferson therefore indicated to General Andrew Jackson in 1803 that the Union’s policies towards the Native Americans must be “equally for the interest of the Indians and ourselves”. [103]

45The act of consenting to any given policy, as in the processes of treaty-making, is a sign of a collective sovereignty. [104] It is the sign of a community whose members are equipped with “moral feelings and the reason of all honest men” [105] allowing them to consent in relation to their preservation of life and interests, with respect for the other, both individually and collectively. Indeed, as Jefferson asserts to François Jean de Beauvoir, Marquis de Chastellux (in 1785), the Native American has the same level of intellect as the “whites in the same uncultivated state”, [106] or in other words in their pre-civilized state. Their natural constitution thus makes the Native Americans worthy of respect, for it places them under natural law; it makes them fit to govern themselves as well as to progress.

46However, for both de Vitoria and Jefferson, it is clearly the “discoverer” who judges whether or not the Native person respects natural law. This implies a concept of “progress”, whereby a civilized party judges the behavior of a party that is not as evolved. In the same way, this “discoverer” can preempt territory to the exclusion of other “advanced” nations, as well as regulate its trade. These legal rights are exclusive to him. The “discoverer” is therefore the one who judges whether or not to extend his civil or judicial jurisdiction to the uncivilized party; judging also whether or not to wage war on him depending on his degree of “morality”. [107] Can this be described as a true relationship of “equality”? Moreover, is the Jeffersonian vision of the American future—which can only be fulfilled by means of the appropriation, privatization, and intensive exploitation of land—not jeopardized by the fact that the Native American is sovereign over the lands he lives in and that he can choose whether or not to give them up? For Jefferson, the Native American at the time in question was certainly free to choose whether or not to yield; but America was not free to choose how to make use of “its” spaces: it must cultivate them in order to prosper and develop. We must therefore ask how Jefferson incorporates this “respectable” Native American into his liberal vision of the American future.

A Liberal Relationship with the Land: Source of Racial and National Progress

47Jefferson seeks to use the science of his time to justify his racial vision. However, his theories sometimes appear somewhat irregular when compared to those of thinkers such as Linnaeus or even de Vitoria, especially with regard to the former, who believed that the uniformity of the human species facilitates progress by means of a change to the environment. [108] Jefferson fully accepts this fact only for the Native American.

48Jeffersonian theory relating to this group, and indeed to Virginian nature, whose elements he examines in table format, seems to be based on stricter and more vigorous rules than his theories about the African-American. Indeed, Jefferson sometimes appears to be uncertain about the natural equality or inequality of the black man. In 1791, he tells Benjamin Banneker, a black mathematician from Maryland, that he hopes that the difference in talent between black and white is purely a question of environment; a statement that he repeats to Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis of Condorcet. [109] Jefferson’s opinion here differs slightly from his thinking a decade earlier in his Notes, when he perceived an inferiority due as much to nature as to environment. [110] The question of equality is always much more clear-cut where the Native American is concerned, and in 1785 Jefferson writes to the Marquis de Chastellux that:

49

I believe the Indian, then, to be, in body and mind, equal to the white man. I have supposed the black man, in his present state, might not be so; but it would be hazardous to affirm, that, equally cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so. [111]

50We must ask why Jefferson maintained this belief in relation to the Native American when, later on in the letter, he writes that, in relation to natural history, “more facts must be collected [.. . ]. In the mean time, doubt is wisdom”. [112] Moreover, Jefferson accuses Buffon of contradictions about the Native American, regarding the fact that climate supposedly affects his physical and moral characteristics to differing degrees; [113] in his writings about natural history he seems, however, to make the same judgment himself about the black man. Jefferson’s epistemological reservations throughout the Notes might explain his uncertainty, [114] but in this case it should apply to both “races”. On the contrary, however, Jefferson claims that observations on the Native American made by himself and by others who are “better acquainted with him [the Native American]” confirm that “he is neither more defective in ardor, nor more impotent with his female, [.. . ] that he is brave”; this claim is accompanied by other descriptions that qualify him as the undisputed natural equal of the white man. His savagery originates in customs that lead him into immorality, such as in the way he treats women. [115] His “nature” is therefore capable of improvement through education and a propitious environment. The Native American may then conform to the liberal vision of an individual who controls his passions, thereby respecting “those rights in others which we value in ourselves”. [116] But why does Jefferson maintain this stance of near-certainty in relation to the Native American? Why does Jefferson only apply the Linnaean principles of uniformity and progress to the case of the Native American? [117] Why does he remain uncertain about the case of the black man? Is this a “necessary” conclusion? Does the concept of the equality of the Native American originate purely in science? [118]

51As already demonstrated, the nature of the Native American makes him respectable in Jefferson’s eyes. Their position of equality allows Jefferson to do trade with the Native American and to negotiate for his land. This appropriation of land is inevitable because it leads to material progress and civilization, which counteract barbarism. To ensure national development, the Union must control external trade by the Native American, and particularly any such trade related to the land. [119] This project unites the nation. As Jefferson explains to President Washington, Americans needed a territory that would be colonized by a homogeneous and uniform society. The language he uses separates and exteriorizes the Native American from a context that is both axiologically unified and territorially indivisible:

52

That as fast as we extend our rights by purchase from them, so fast we extend the limits of our society, and as soon as a new portion became encircled within our line, it became a fixed limit of our society [...] that by the law of nations [which implies a relationship with other communities under natural law] it was settled, that the unity and indivisibility of the society was so fundamental. [120]

53The terms “them” and “us” create a dichotomy by differentiating between what is other and what is united and indivisible. Jefferson fears the idealistic and axiological heterogeneity that is created by immigration. [121] From 1801, he conceived the idea that there is a “manifest destiny” in the continental expansion of a homogeneous society in terms of its values, culture, and laws. He fears the integration of heterogeneous elements. [122] Moreover, Jefferson clearly sees that Native American territory or title “would be to be extinguished” [123] once it were to be colonized. But what then should be done about the Native Americans, who are culturally differentiated from our society, but who are nevertheless our natural equal? If they are “equal,” why did Jefferson seek to exclude them as well as to impose external rule on their trade relations? In 1806, Jefferson declared to the representatives of Native American tribes:

54

We consider ourselves no longer of the old nations beyond the great water, but as united in one family with our red brethren here. [124]

55This union is unequivocally affirmed, in contrast to Jefferson’s uncertain words about black people. And yet we see that, for now, the two racial groups, although naturally equal and capable of progress, remain insolubly separate. The basis of the distance between them must be located elsewhere than in their nature; it must be found within their cultures and, essentially, their values. Thus, what unifies and integrates is a way of life and an axiology, and for Jefferson these are associated with the relationship to the land, which is the American future. Anyone who subscribes to this future must be firmly wedded to the land: this must be the case in order for it to be cultivated and developed.

56For Jefferson to consider the Native Americans to be currently outside the framework of American society, [125] yet united by a shared geography and geopolitics, united in a single “family”, he must believe their nature to be compatible with the nation. It is through progress that this becomes the case—by his act of settling, which makes “his” spaces available to the industry of the settler and for the development of the nation. The destiny of America implies territorial development, and therefore the progress of Native Americans. They are “equals” because the nation requires this equality. Settlers’ rights must be reconciled with the Native American because these rights involve the territory that he occupies. It is through his progress that they are reconciled, hence the significance of a fundamental equality, which is denied to the black man. For the Native American, there can be no ambiguity because there is no ambiguity in the purpose intended for the land. [126] Like “nature”, equality, which is to be respected, has its own destiny: to be developed.

57In 1807, Jefferson declares to the Shawnee Nation Chiefs that, “the greatest honor of a man is in doing good to his fellow men”. [127]

58Indeed, even if it is impossible to associate the “brutes” referred to in the Declaration of Independence with the nobility and altruism he attributes to Chief Logan, [128] Jefferson is nevertheless very clear about the pitiful condition of the Native American, both culturally and materially:

59

[W]e have before our eyes real & living examples. What, but education, has advanced us beyond the condition of our indigenous neighbours? And what chains them to their present state of barbarism & wretchedness, but a besotted veneration for the supposed supe[r]lative wisdom of their fathers and the preposterous idea that they are to look backward for better things and not forward, longing, as it should seem, to return to the days of eating acorns and roots rather than indulge in the degeneracies of civilization. [129]

60This then is the origin of the moral duty of America towards his neighbor, his equal:

61

Endowed with the faculties and the rights of men [...] now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter’s state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts; to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence, and to prepare them in time for that state of society, which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. [130]

62The equal capacity for moral and intellectual progress is therefore linked to agriculture, or specifically to territorial development through intensive and private land cultivation. The progress and civilization of the Native American is therefore essential to the material development of the nation, which begins with an appropriation of territory that requires either the collective evacuation or the settlement and individualization of the Native American. [131] The human project cannot be dissociated from the economic project: the two are interwoven. [132] To fulfill the nation is to integrate the Native American by making him liberal and individualist, since by this means land can be accessed. [133] Jefferson is clear upon this point. In 1803, he described this vision in detail to Benjamin Hawkins, then Superintendent General of Indian Affairs South of the Ohio River:

63

I consider [134] the business of hunting as already become insufficient to furnish clothing and subsistence to the Indians. The promotion of agriculture, therefore, and household manufacture, are essential in their preservation, and I am disposed to aid and encourage it liberally. This will enable them to live on much smaller portions of land, and, indeed, will render their vast forests useless but for the range of cattle [...] While they are learning to do better on less land, our increasing numbers will be calling for more land, and thus a coincidence of interests will be produced between those who have lands to spare, and want other necessaries, and those who have such necessaries to spare, and want lands. This commerce [that the Union must control], then, will be for the good of both, and those who are friends to both ought to encourage it [...] the ultimate point of rest and happiness for them is to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people. [135] Incorporating themselves with us as citizens of the United States, this is what the natural progress of things will, of course, bring on, and it will be better to promote than to retard it. Surely it will be better for them to be identified with us, and preserved in the occupation of their lands, than be exposed to the many casualties which may endanger them while a separate people [...] their history may terminate [...] this is the one most for their happiness [...] I feel it consistent with pure morality to lead them towards it, to familiarize them to the idea that it is for their interest to cede lands at times to the United States, and for us thus to procure gratifications to our citizens, from time to time, by new acquisitions of land. [Jefferson goes on to tell Hawkins that he must persuade the Native Americans on this point in order to satisfy the territorial aspirations of the state of Georgia, which otherwise might believe] that you are more attached to the interests of the Indians than of the United States. [136]

64For the settler, or more specifically individual right, must take precedence over the native community and Amerindian culture. This message says everything! Jefferson’s thinking demonstrates that he believes it to be inevitable that, through interaction and commerce, the Native American will be improved in the name of his own material good and that of the nation. There will be an inevitable loss of his Amerindian culture, and it is to be inferred that the respect for the community in itself is not sincere but stems from an interest in the potential value of the assimilation of the members of that community. The individual Native American must be potentially equal so that his territory becomes accessible. The liberal perspective, which serves the good of the settler as well as that of the Native American, requires the handover of territory and the individualization of the latter.

65Jefferson thus justifies the adoption of a policy that indirectly accelerates this process, without formally denying tribal sovereignty. The policy is to increase commercial activity in Native American territories by means of roads and the development of the “factory system”. With supplies of game diminishing and a need for farming equipment in order to survive, giving up land would provide the Native Americans with the necessary cash for such purchases. However, Jefferson’s pragmatism makes itself evident in his desire for the Native Americans to become indebted, which he plans to encourage by means of this trade, which would force them to surrender their land in order to redeem their debts. Anthony Wallace quotes a communication from December 1802 between Jefferson and the Secretary of War, Henry Dearborn:

66

Our proceedings with the Indians should tend systematically to that object [of encouraging their indebtedness], leaving the extinguishment of title in the interior country to fall in as occasions may arise. [137]

67Jefferson also states in 1803 to the Governor of Indiana, William H. Harrison:

68

[W]e shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe, that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of land [...]. In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history [in terms of Native American culture] most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. [138]

69This pragmatism combines official hypocrisy, secrecy vis-à-vis the Native American, and ultimately the possibility of using force:

70

but this letter being unofficial, and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians [...]. Should any tribe be fool-hardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation [...]. You will also perceive how sacredly it must be kept within your own breast, and especially how improper to be understood by the Indians. For their interests and their tranquility it is best they should see only the present age of their history. [139]

71Jefferson wishes to ensure that this policy is implemented without the Native Americans knowing of it, as Wallace explains:

72

He felt, [...] if the Indians, now almost universally averse to selling any more land, became aware of the real purpose of the factories and the civilization policy, they would reject both. [And he summarizes his vision as follows:] his reliance on progress toward civilization as the means of weaning the native Americans from their hunting grounds [and a] conviction of the inevitable demise of the Indian way of life, the termination of Indian history, and the eventual incorporation of the survivors into the fabric of civilized society as citizens of the United States. [140]

73Survivors would be incorporated into the United States as full participants in its political and economic life. Those who did not cooperate or who wished to continue their traditional way of life could be deported west of the Mississippi to lands already partially settled. Obtaining land in the east would create a socially and axiologically homogeneous area by means of the “repatriation” of the white population. Jefferson drafted constitutional amendments intended to orchestrate this “exchange”. The amendments were not accepted, but this attempt—which he then tried to implement through executive orders—clearly demonstrates that even at the time of the Louisiana Purchase (in 1803), Jefferson viewed the relationship with the Native American as a mechanism for obtaining land for the white population, and that the prospect of deportation was seriously possible and attainable. [141] Integrating and blending the communal and traditional aspects of the Native American way of life with American society and economy seems to have been out of the question. The ultimate proof of this is Jefferson’s rejection of the idea of American citizenship for the Cherokees, a tribe already greatly integrated into the American economy and civilization: he prefers to leave any decision about naturalization to Congress. [142]

74Thus, the respect that is accorded to the Native American community through relationships with them cannot be dissociated from the right of the individual to his own land, which is ultimately the only acceptable option, because it is the only civilized one. The Native American must trade his rifle for the plow, or collectively withdraw from the American context. He must fulfill his “individual right” in order to be worthy of citizenship. He is clearly to be respected collectively, but this is by virtue of the potential of his lands and the possibility of acquiring them peacefully through negotiation and treaty. Resistance to development and civilization must be suppressed, [143] since they constitute an attack on the right of the individual, and therefore, on humanity. War is then justified because it is humanly just. In Locke’s view, it protects the right to ownership.

75A study of the development of thinking from de Vitoria to Locke points to various stages in the argument about relationships with the Native American. [144] It is through respectful relationships with a community because of the equality accorded to its individuals that the aim of any developed political society can be achieved: namely, access to territory through the effort and reasoning of the citizen. Jefferson’s liberalism relies on the natural equality of the Native American, and thus on his ability not only to trade, but also to assimilate and integrate. The result is the peaceful and humane accomplishment of a process that fulfills the Lockean essence of the law that stipulates “the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest”. [145] Natural history and science come together to justify the grounds for a human process; they serve as a tool to justify and facilitate the development of the American nation, which involves the acquisition and development of land. The equality of the Native American is necessary because it is interwoven with destiny. In this case, science is used to promote a project.

76Thomas Jefferson’s reflection on “race” cannot be separated from his vision of an American future that will be achieved through territory. While biological characteristics and color may divide the nation, and even serve as the grounds for the exclusion of one “race”, [146] this nation is nevertheless united by its values. Membership of the political community is determined by axiology, which explains why the potential for integration is a function of property ownership. The Native American must be capable of this process because his assimilation creates the necessary context for prosperity.

77Territorial development depends on the progress of the Native American and not on the progress of the black man, which is understood to bring only a demographic burden and a risk of social instability. [147] The Native American must then be equal to the white man under natural law if the liberal governance of the latter is to be respected. The potential of the Native American facilitates the fulfillment of Jefferson’s vision of the individual and his natural right to the means of happiness, that is, to his land. The harmony of interests between white economic actors that is noted by Joyce Appleby is particularly manifest between the Native American and the European-American: through his progress, the former yields to the settler the basis of prosperity. [148] A certain pragmatism and lack of integrity are seen to be justified to this end. The citizen must not be hindered in his access to economic opportunity, [149] and space permitting, this access may entail the “voluntary” eviction of the tribe. However, the destiny of the continent requires the tribe to gradually relinquish its history and integrate into the wider context. The tribe’s right to choose whether or not to give up its land will eventually have to give way to private ownership by its individual members; the naturally respectable community will have to give way to the respected individual. The unified, indivisible, and consolidated nation has room only for this individual. [150]

78The progress of the Native American makes it possible to fulfill the nature and purpose of Jefferson’s “individual”, who is defined as a moral and rational creature endowed with the means to a happiness that is justified by his constitution. That which appears to be aporetic—namely, the conflict between collective right vs. individual right—is not so, because the basis of collective right (i.e. the natural faculties of the Native American) facilitates individual right by opening up access to territory following the progress and integration of the Native American. A complex system of thought such as Jefferson’s must be understood as an organic whole: [151] all of its elements work together to achieve what he believes to be a national destiny, but one that is above all human.

79For Thomas Jefferson, therefore, the Native American is respected less for what he is than for what he can become. His progress is unarguably good for him, but for the nation it is a necessity.