Notes on the State of Virginia

In this query Jefferson concentrates on local government on the county level as well as the judicial system in Virginia. He also catalogs many of the basic laws governing life in the state, having to do with such issues as payment of debts, charity, buying of land, and more.

Jefferson explains that after Virginia separated from Great Britain and became a commonwealth in 1776, a committee was appointed to revise the legal code, a task still in progress under his direction. He enumerates the planned changes to the code, which include the proposed emancipation of all enslaved people born after passage of the act. This radical proposal of course did not come to pass, but it is worth examining in some detail.

This proposed emancipation law allowed for young formerly enslaved people to be educated in the arts and sciences or in useful trades until they reached adulthood. Then, after being provided with possessions to allow them to live independently on their own land, they would be “colonized” in another locale (Jefferson does not specify if he means Africa or somewhere else). At the same time, the government would encourage white people from other countries to settle in Virginia to fill the gap in population.

Jefferson anticipates the question of why the Virginia government should not instead simply assimilate the formerly enslaved people into the state’s population. His answer is that the “deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites” (138), combined with resentment on the part of Black people for their long mistreatment, would lead to race wars in the state, a conflict that would end in “the extermination of one or the other race” (138). The fear of race wars was a major hindrance to emancipation for several generations.

Further arguing against integrating the Black and white populations, Jefferson cites what he believes are “the real distinctions which nature has made” (138) between the two races. This claim leads to what is the most overtly prejudiced part of the Notes. Jefferson expresses his “suspicion” that Black people are “inferior” to white people both in “the faculties of reason and imagination” and in “the endowments both of body and mind” (143). He cites supposed physical and biological differences, including skin complexion, hair, and even body odor (139), which in his opinion suggest a natural superiority of white people and Indigenous Americans over Black people. This passage shows a complex picture of the author: his deep-rooted racism as well as his penchant for analyzing physical characteristics (though his “data” is overwhelmingly anecdotal, not scientific). His intellect and his prejudice often intersect.

Jefferson does pause to emphasize that his opinion on the inequality of the races is “a suspicion only” and “must be hazarded with great diffidence” (143); he remains open to “further observation.” He remarks that racial comparisons are somewhat unfair given that little serious study has been done on the races, despite their living together in America for a long time now (143). Jefferson also notes that Black people display such positive qualities as “rigid integrity […], benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity” (143), evidence that they are rich in “the endowments […] of the heart” (142). Even while he suggests their courageousness arises from an inferior intelligence and lack of reflection on danger, he notes the riskiness of generalizing about an entire race and of assessing a “faculty,” which cannot be scientifically quantified. Here Jefferson acknowledges the limitations of science in dealing with human realities. Ultimately, Jefferson’s judgments in Notes were not his final conclusion on race; later, in 1791, the noted Black naturalist Benjamin Banneker corresponded with Jefferson about the race question and elicited his support in dispelling racial prejudice. Jefferson wrote back to Banneker: “Nobody wishes more than I to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men” (287).

At one point in the text, however, Jefferson compares the enslaved people of America with those of ancient Rome. He insists that the conditions of American slavery are better and more humane than in Rome. He cites inhumane practices in Rome, including selling older or sick enslaved people, whereas in America such people are supposedly cared for by their enslavers. He uses this idea to further bolster his claim that Black people are inherently intellectually inferior: People enslaved in ancient Rome, he writes, still produced a sophisticated artistic culture despite their abject conditions; Black people enslaved in America, in contrast, have ostensibly not done so. Jefferson does not mention that while ancient Roman slavery still provided male subjects with education and literacy, such education is denied to all but an inappreciable number of those enslaved in America.

Jefferson notes that among the major differences between those enslaved in ancient times and those in America is the difference of race. He insists that the color difference of those enslaved in America “is a powerful obstacle to [their] emancipation” (143). This is especially true, he says, since racial integration would facilitate interracial sexual relationships, which were condemned by Jefferson and 18th-century Virginians generally. Jefferson asserted that this would pollute white society and produce lesser humans; this is the essential context in which Jefferson argues for the deportation of the emancipated, and this fear is what prompts him to detail the alleged inferiority of Black people.

Jefferson even once proposed legislation involving penalization for these interracial relationships; the stipulations, specifically targeting white women who gave birth to biracial children, expelled mother and child from the state under threat of fully revoked legal protections (Jefferson, Thomas. “A Bill Concerning Slaves.” Founders Library, 1779). A proviso to this moral panic over interracial relationships was that the focus was on Black men and white women; sexual encounters between white men and Black women were usually glossed over, as many white male enslavers, including Jefferson, sexually exploited the Black women and girls they enslaved (“The Life of Sally Hemings.” Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville).

The fear of interracial sexual relationships underpins Jefferson’s plan for the deportation of formerly enslaved people to settle them on their own land. Jefferson is convinced that a free Black people could not possibly remain in America among the majority white population. In this, of course, Jefferson’s prediction was inaccurate in light of developments since the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Jefferson details the departments and instruction at the College of William and Mary, “the only public seminary of learning” (150) in Virginia, which he himself attended. It includes professorships in Greek and Latin, mathematics, moral philosophy, and divinity, as well as an assimilating mission for the instruction of Indigenous Americans and their conversion to Christianity. However, the curriculum and structure of the university are in the process of changing, and Jefferson makes two suggestions for this reform.

The first suggestion is to add a department for ancient Nordic languages, and the second is to concentrate on collecting and preserving the Indigenous American tribes’ traditions and languages to gain insight into their history. Both these suggestions show Jefferson’s interest in philology, and the second also shows concern for the Indigenous Americans—despite his dedication to their assimilation and his later presidential plans, as divulged in a private 1803 correspondence, to indirectly coerce them into relinquishing their lands (Jefferson, Thomas. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, 27 February 1803.” Founders Online). Jefferson championed the study of Anglo-Saxon at a time when few knew it in any depth. He saw this language as the key to understanding the legal, literary, and other traditions of the English-speaking world.

Jefferson eventually took a leading role in reforming the curriculum at William and Mary, and he further disseminated his educational philosophy when he founded the University of Virginia. Among other things, Jefferson “secularized” W and M by transferring its sponsorship from the Church of England to the state of Virginia. This shows his insistence on religious neutrality in government and his comparative deemphasis on religious doctrine in his personal philosophy.

Next, Jefferson describes the roads and buildings of Virginia. Road construction is controlled by the county courts. The description of the typical style of houses in Virginia gives Jefferson an opportunity to expound his views on the aesthetics of architecture. Jefferson was himself an avid architect who designed, among other buildings, his home at his Monticello plantation and the campus of the University of Virginia. He also influenced the design of the capitol in Washington DC.

Jefferson brings his refined architectural tastes to bear on his critique of Virginia houses, which he calls “ugly, uncomfortable, and happily […] perishable” (152). In particular, he faults the houses for being built of wood instead of stone or brick, and he criticizes other Virginia public buildings’ lack of classical proportions. Jefferson was himself a classicist, and his influence ensured neoclassicism became the defining architectural style of the early United States.

Virginians, Jefferson complains, apply little care or taste to the construction of their buildings, and the art of architecture is little known or studied in the state. Showing again his strongly practical orientation, he gives suggestions to improve this situation. Virginians could make their buildings more elegant without adding to the cost by simply rearranging the construction materials. Brick and stone houses are a better investment because they are more durable overall and more comfortable throughout the year. Jefferson implies that he hopes architecture to be more widely taught at William and Mary so that talented young architects may emerge.

“Tories” (also known as Loyalists) refers in this context to Americans who sided with Great Britain instead of with the independence movement. The query asks what measures have been taken to punish such people. Jefferson answers that the Tories are by definition traitors “in thought, but not in deed” (155). He notes that although the Revolutionary War has now gone on for seven years, there’s been no execution for treason (this would soon be qualified with the emergence of Benedict Arnold, who nevertheless evaded execution by fleeing to Britain).

There is, however, the legal quandary of how to deal with property of British people living in the state at a time when the British are “enemy aliens.” Jefferson elaborates on some of these legal issues, which were particularly pressing during the Revolutionary War.

Jefferson provides a thumbnail sketch of Virginia’s religious history. The original settlers belonged to the Church of England, and Anglicanism was the state’s official religion for about a century. Other religious groups, such as Quakers, were persecuted and restricted by law. With time, many Virginians fell away from strict Anglicanism, and the legal strictures against religious dissent fell away too. According to Jefferson, one reason for this secular turn was that the church relied too heavily on the government to protect religion; as a result, the clergy became lax and uninspiring, and many Virginians became less religious.

Finally, in May 1776—not long before the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the start of the Revolutionary War—a convention held by the Virginia government issued the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which declared freedom of religion in the state. At a later meeting of the convention, all vestiges of British law that forbade holding dissenting religious views were removed from the Virginia law code.

Despite this, Jefferson finds that laws oppressing individual conscience are “not sufficiently eradicated” (159) in his state. He underlines his own opposition to such laws, since they represent an intrusion of the state into spiritual matters, which are between the individual and God. Here Jefferson stakes a notable claim: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others” (159). Jefferson even argues that it does him no harm if his neighbor denies the existence of God or believes in multiple gods.

This statement proved to be one of the most controversial in the entire Notes and was widely used against him during his run for the presidency in 1800. Jefferson’s religious beliefs were and continue to be the subject of much debate; in this chapter, he is circumspect about his personal beliefs and limits himself to advocating for religious freedom and tolerance.

Ultimately, Jefferson argues, legislation restricting freedom of conscience is ineffective. It will never make people, in their heart of hearts, adopt the legislated beliefs; it will only make them resentful or hypocritical. In fact, religious freedom is a precondition for the search for truth: “Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error” (159). Jefferson believes the open debate among different belief systems will cause truth to win out through “reason and persuasion” (160).

Legal compulsion of belief to produce uniformity is self-defeating: “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity” (160). Jefferson points out that the states of Pennsylvania (founded by the Quaker William Penn) and New York, which welcome all religions, have flourished and achieved social harmony without having any established church.

To illustrate his point that governments should not restrict freedom of inquiry, Jefferson evokes the case of Galileo Galilei. However, he makes a historical error in stating that Galileo “was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere” (160). Galileo’s case involved heliocentrism, or the theory that the earth revolved around the sun; the sphericity of the earth had been deduced in ancient Greece and was no longer an issue in Galileo’s day. Nevertheless, Jefferson’s main point is that governments are not “infallible” in matters of belief.

To conclude, Jefferson pleads for Virginia to promote religious freedom because this timeless value may wither as customs and mores change. Query XVII is considered one of the major statements of Jefferson’s views on the importance of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Jefferson believes that such a separation will redound to the benefit of religion by protecting it from state interference, as in the examples of Pennsylvania and New York.