Thomas Jefferson, Coercion, And the Limits of Harmonious Union (Report‪)‬

DURING THE WINTER OF 1860-1861, PRESIDENT JAMES BUCHANAN, facing what would prove to be the great crisis of the Union, argued, on the one hand, that secession was illegal and unconstitutional and, on the other, that the federal government had no constitutional right to coerce the seceded states back into the Union. Even if coercion were constitutional, Buchanan argued, it would violate the spirit of the Union for the remaining states to make war on the others. The Union had to remain alive in the affections of the people, and their support could not be forced by arms. (1) Buchanan's argument paid silent homage to Thomas Jefferson's original notion of a voluntary union based on consent, affection, and interest rather than force. (2) So it seems natural to assume that Buchanan's response to the crisis would approximate Jefferson's own, had he lived to see it. Many historians go further and suggest, with Joseph J. Ellis, that had he lived, "Jefferson would have gone with the Confederacy." (3) Of course, there is no DNA test to reconcile the counterfactual problem of what Jefferson "would have" done. But it seems worth reevaluating Jefferson's views based on his response to some of the greatest crises of union during his own lifetime. Admittedly, these episodes were less consequential than the crisis of 1860-1861, because disunion ultimately failed in the earlier examples. Nevertheless, Jefferson's response to them, as well as his conception of union generally, suggests a different conclusion than the standard view: Jefferson believed that the executive had the duty to enforce federal law throughout the Union and that the Union had a natural right to coerce seceding states and force them back into the fold.