Lost Jefferson letter on arms and democracy resurfaces for Fourth of July sale
The holiday also marks the 199th anniversary of his death.
Jefferson penned the letter to Virginia's then governor Benjamin Harrison on 31 December 1783, shortly after the conclusion of the revolutionary war that ended British opposition to the US declaration of independence seven years earlier.
Written from Annapolis, the temporary capital of the fledgling country, the letter is notable for Jefferson's observation of a rising tide of revolutionary fervor in Europe, and his citing of the insistence of citizens there to be able to take up arms against their rulers, as residents of the 13 colonies had done against the British crown.
He tells Harrison that 'citizens of the Dutch states are all in commotion' against the stadtholder regime of William V, the prince of Orange. He goes on to say that 'of 80,000 men able to bear arms among them it is believed scarcely any will refuse to sign this demand'.
The original was in the hands of a private collector for more than half a century, dealer Nathan Raab of the Pennsylvania-based Raab Collection said. It was considered missing by custodians of the Jefferson papers at the University of Virginia.
'We are not aware of any letter having reached the market from a signer, let alone author of the declaration of independence on the right of democratic citizens to bear arms and oppose autocracy,' said Raab, who values the document at about $90,000.
'To see Jefferson, whose declaration of independence lit the spark of … western hemisphere liberty, rejoicing that these independence movements are gaining steam, and the people are making demands … it's about as evocative an expression of the democratic right to bear arms of the people as you can get.
'He's basically saying the momentum is toward democracy, not royalty.'
While the letter showcases Jefferson's thoughts on justice overseas, his life in the US was much darker and less stable. He was the owner of more than 600 slaves – more than any other person who became president.
Another letter uncovered by Raab last year highlighted Jefferson's financial misadventures that left him also penniless immediately before, and during, his time in the White House from 1801 to 1809.
The letter to Harrison, Raab said, also reflects Jefferson's growing anxiety over ratification of the Treaty of Paris, which was signed in France in September 1783 by Britain, the US and others, to end the revolutionary war.
The agreement required at least nine of the 13 new states to sign the document at a congressional summit in Annapolis called for November, and send it back to London – a two-month voyage away – by March 1784.
But bad weather prevented several delegations from reaching the summit, and in his 31 December letter Jefferson wrote: 'We have yet but seven states, and no more certain prospects of nine than at any time heretofore. We hope that the letters sent to the absent states will bring them forward'.
Raab said: 'It's like you're at the finish line and waiting to cross it. This is not a situation where you send it over by email; it had to cross the Atlantic twice. It's also the 1700s. You're not hopping on transatlantic flights, these people are coming from distant destinations on horseback.'
Representatives from Connecticut and South Carolina eventually arrived days later, and the treaty was ratified on 14 January and dispatched urgently to London.
The letter, Raab said, provides an intriguing snapshot of a crucial time in American history, with a brand new nation beginning to find its feet and in turn inspiring others to challenge centuries of established rules of governance overseas.
'It speaks to us today on many levels,' he said. 'We can see the power and inspiration of Jefferson's pen as he can begin to reflect on the success of his work and the American revolution, and witness democratic ideals spreading worldwide.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting
The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%. In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party's endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone. Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion. There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting. To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast. But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it's a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter's second choice. Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's too confusing.) A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally. Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani's victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Voters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved. When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the 'losers' seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign. The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it's also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the 'politics of the future', as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible. Outside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York's adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on 'spoilers' or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won't take long for people to ask why they can't have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections. David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Maga influencer and de facto national security adviser Laura Loomer holds outsized sway on Trump
After years of claiming to be the vanguard of a new 'America First' isolationist movement rebelling against the neoconservative policies of the George W Bush administration that led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Maga's online influencers are cheering for another war in the Middle East. And not just any war: they are applauding Donald Trump's high-risk decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, a move that was considered a war too far even by the Bush administration. Maga's quick flip-flop has made it clear that Maga was never really anti-war. Maga is about xenophobia, not isolationism, and its support for Trump's decision to bomb a Muslim country fits in with its support for his draconian campaign against immigrants. But above all, Maga is about fealty to Trump. That formula certainly helps explain why Laura Loomer, who has emerged as the most prominent Maga America First influencer in the early days of Trump's second term, has given her full support to his Iran strike. In early April, Loomer, a 32-year-old pro-Trump online influencer widely seen as a rightwing conspiracy theorist, met with Trump and gave him a list of names of people on the staff of the national security council that she believed were not loyal enough to Trump or at least had professional backgrounds that she considered suspect. Trump fired six staffers. Later, national security adviser Mike Waltz, whom Loomer had criticized for his role in the Signalgate chat leak scandal, was ousted as well. Loomer doesn't have a job in the government, but she has still emerged as one of Trump's most important and most polarizing foreign policy advisers in the early days of his second administration. She has had direct access to Trump and has used it to push for ideological purges inside the administration, instilling fear and anger among national security professionals. In fact, when it comes to the national security side of the Trump administration, Loomer has been something akin to a one-woman Doge. Now the big question is how long her influence with Trump will last, or whether she will soon go out the same way as Elon Musk. Loomer's power in the Trump administration is ill-defined. Her many critics say she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning. But Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump's de facto national security adviser. Press reports recently suggested that Loomer's status in the White House was waning because she had overreached, much like Musk. She has left a trail of bitter Trump aides, while there have also been reports that Trump himself has grown weary of her. But, as if to disprove the reports that she was getting frozen out, Loomer had a private meeting with JD Vance in early June. In a revealing interview on journalist Tara Palmeri's podcast in late April, Loomer said that her White House access came directly from Trump himself, and that she maintained her relationship with the president even as his aides tried to keep her out. 'Donald Trump is my biggest ally in the White House,' she said. 'I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I certainly do believe that a lot of the information I have given him has protected him and has prevented disasters from happening,' she added. 'I believe that the information that I provide is valuable. And I believe that it has proven itself to be an asset to President Trump and his apparatus. I don't know why some of the people that work for him don't want that information around him. But I'm not going to let that stop me. I'm going to keep on uncovering information and finding ways to get it to President Trump – and informing President Trump about individuals within his inner circle that are working against his agenda.' Loomer added that 'it all comes down to vetting at the end of the day'. Loomer's close ties to Trump first became big news during the 2024 presidential campaign, when she traveled with the Republican candidate on his campaign plane despite repeated efforts by Trump aides to keep her away. The aides were particularly upset that Loomer traveled with Trump on September 11, since she had earlier gained online infamy after posting a video claiming that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an 'inside job'. To be sure, fears by his aides that Trump was associating with a conspiracy theorist ignored the fact that he relishes in spreading conspiracy theories far and wide. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promoted a conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio; that xenophobic lie became the hallmark of Trump's fall campaign. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Once Trump returned to office, Loomer began to flex her newfound power, and even professional ties to top Trump administration officials weren't enough to protect staffers from being fired after Loomer gave her list of names to Trump. Among those fired at the NSC was Brian Walsh, who had worked on the staff of the Senate intelligence committee for Marco Rubio, now serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, when Rubio was in the Senate. The most stunning purge attributed to Loomer came in April when Trump fired Gen Timothy Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency, along with his top deputy, after they had found their way on to Loomer's list as well. The fact that Loomer could trigger the firing of a senior military officer in charge of the nation's largest intelligence agency finally led to a bipartisan outcry in Washington. A group of Senate Democrats wrote to Trump saying that the firings were 'inexplicable', while Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican senator who is now a leading Trump critic, lamented that experienced military leaders were being ousted while 'amateur isolationists' are in senior policy positions. The moves even troubled Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican senator and Trump loyalist who is the chair of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the Senate armed services committee. Rounds made a point of praising Haugh during a subcommittee hearing soon after his firing and noted that 'men and women capable of leading the National Security Agency … are in short supply. We do not have enough of these types of leaders, and a loss of any one of them without strong justification is disappointing.' But like Musk, Loomer has been so red-hot in the early days of Trump's second term that her fall seems almost inevitable, especially after she began to call out White House actions she didn't like. In May, for example, she publicly criticized Trump's decision to accept a luxury jet from Qatar. When news of the gift was first reported, Loomer posted a statement saying: 'This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true.' She added: 'I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I'm so disappointed.' She later backtracked and became more supportive. But later she was critical of Trump's decision to withdraw the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman to be the head of Nasa, whose nomination she had supported. 'There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with @elonmusk,' Loomer posted as the news first broke. Days later, Isaacman suggested that he also believes that his nomination was withdrawn because of his ties to Musk. Loomer has been careful to try to limit her criticism to Trump's aides, and not to Trump himself. But it is an open question how long that distinction will make a difference for Loomer. During the Palmeri podcast, Loomer said that she is 'not going to be a sycophant and sit there and pretend that every little thing is great'. She added that 'there's a lot of incompetence in the White House. There's a lot of people in positions they shouldn't be in and they embarrass the president on a daily basis.' That is the backdrop for Loomer's strong support for Trump's decision to attack Iran. Perhaps concerned that her earlier criticism was damaging her ties to Trump world, Loomer has been profuse with her praise of Trump's Iran attack, while also defending her America First credentials. In one post, she asked 'How is it not AMERICA FIRST to congratulate those who just made sure Islamists who chant 'DEATH TO AMERICA' … never have an opportunity to have a nuke?' She has even gone on the offensive against other rightwing influencers, including Tucker Carlson, who have dared criticize the Iran strike. 'I am screenshotting everyone's posts and I'm going to deliver them in a package to President Trump so he sees who is truly with him and who isn't,' Loomer posted. 'And I think by now everyone knows I mean it when I say I'm going to deliver something to Trump.' For Maga influencers, staying on Trump's good side seems to matter more than issues of war and peace.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Musk is about to unleash more havoc on America
In the 2004 comedy Team America, a group of freelancing Thunderbird-style puppets romp around the world, saving mankind from a coalition of terrorists and liberal Hollywood actors. It was hard not to bring the film to mind last night when Elon Musk announced a new 'America Party'. That was my first thought. My second was: thank God Rupert Lowe doesn't have $400 billion. It is, as my mother often says, 'very easy to mock'. Nonetheless, although such a party would be unlikely to win a future election – if it did, it would be the first time in history that a third-party candidate became president – it could unleash even more chaos upon the American political system and even more volatility upon the world. That could be the whole point. The announcement of the America Party was the latest escalation in a war of words between the two most powerful men on Earth over Donald Trump's signature megabill. As the legislation made its way through the Senate, Musk became furiously opposed to it. 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their heads in shame!,' he posted on X on Monday. 'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.' Not to be outdone, Trump fired back on his own social media site, Truth Social. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE,' he wrote. 'Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!' The bill was signed into law on July 4. Then came the announcement of the America Party. We mock at our peril. As the richest man on Earth, Musk's net worth is the equivalent of the GDP of mid-ranking countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia. To put that in context, the 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since 1998, behind only the 2020 race, which was the most costly on record. Donald Trump's latest victory cost about half-a-billion dollars in candidate committee cash, and about a billion in outside money. Musk could comfortably drop three or four times that sum on the America Party without his eyes watering. He could also fund a private army the size of Britain's Armed Forces (annual budget: £57 billion) to go with it, should his ambitions take a more Team America turn. With a political megaforce like this unleashed upon the United States, unpredictable numbers of votes would be hijacked both from the Democrats and Republicans. We would witness a three-way rhetorical battle, with Donald Trump's legendary bile haemorrhaging in all directions and the whole catastrophe given rocket boosters – almost literally – by social media. But there are big caveats. Although Musk's post on X seemed unequivocal – 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,' he wrote – no paperwork has been filed to the Federal Election Commission for the formation of a political entity by that name. Given the impulsiveness that social media encourages and the volatile characters of the two big beasts, it is quite possible that by this time next week, Musk will have abandoned his political ambitions and once again be a card-carrying member of Team Trump. On the other hand, it is just as likely that the feud may have gone interstellar. All of this is terrible for America. In the final analysis, this latest bombastic move is a gesture of spite by a man with a gold-plated god complex and a social media platform. But it is more than a fight between two Thunderbird-style caricatures competing for the attention of America. The tragedy of the episode is that Musk's poll on X revealed that a majority of users felt that no political party was speaking for them. That is a real problem, and it is one that Musk's America Party would never solve. Whether it becomes a reality or not, it is hard to avoid one conclusion. The United States deserves better than this.
