Shane Moran - Alternation Journal

uu vlw I\LLILMe,~~r~
reformulation of emancipation by a revolutionary become nation-state builder, that we
can locate Jefferson's letters on colonisat~on.
Jeffersonian colonisation and racial governmentality
Jefferson's discourse on colonisation addresses itself directly to the disposal of
'populations' More than that, his discourse on colonisation paradoxically renders the
very idea of a rac~ally aiid nationally codified population as that which it seeks to
address 111 this section, hy reading a crucial passage on colonisation from Jefferson's
'Autob~ography' along with the inany letters 011 colonisation echoed by that passage, I
will trace a racial governmentality, addressed to 'the probleni of population', running
throughout Jefferson's writings. It is this racial governmentality that conjoins a
d~scourse of emancipation aiid freedom with a discourse of racial and national
codification. For as we will see, a power that, in Foucault's (1980.144) words,
'distributes tlie living in the domain of value and utility', that 'invests life' with
qualifiable, measurable, appraisable, and hierarchsable value, can be said to render a
freedom both conditioned upon and limited by tlie articulation and eale~~lation of 'race'
and 'nation'.
Writing in 1821 about a debate in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1779,
Jefferson offers an extremely condensed suiii~nation of his pro-colonisation discourse
in tlils passage froin his 'Autobiography':
The b~ll on the s~lblect of slaves was a Inere d~ge.;t of the cu~st~ng laws
~espect~ng tl~em. w~thout any Intimalion of a plan for a future & general
elnan~lpdllon It was thought better that th~s should be kept back, and
attempted only by way of amendment whenevel the b~ll should be b~ought
on The prlnclples of the amendment howeve1 were ag~eed on. that 1s to say,
tlie freedom of all boln after a certaln day, and deportat~on at a proper age
BLI~ ~t was found that the publ~c m~nd would not yet bear the proposltlon. 1101
wlll rt bcal ~t even at t111s ddy Yet the day rx not d~stant when ~t must heal and
adopt ~t. or worse wrll follow Noth~ng 1s mole ce~ta~nly w~~tten In the book
of fate thdn that these people arc to be flee No1 IS ~t less ce~ tan1 that the two
races, equally hee, cannot 11vc In the same govelninent Natulc. hab~t.
op~rilon ha? diawn ~ndel~ble lines of d~sti~ictron between thern It 1s st111 In
our powel to dnect the process ot emanclpatlon and deportat~on peaceably
and 111 such slow degice as thdt the cvll wr11 wear okf ~nsens~bly, and the~r
place be par1 passu filled up by flee whlte labo~ers If on the contrary ~t 1s left
to lo~ce ~tselt on, human nature must shutter at thc p~ospect held up We
sllo~~ld In valn look fo~ an evanlple In the Spanrsh depoltat~on 01 dclct~on of
tile Moo~s Thts precedent would fall fa1 slio~t ot our case (Jcffe~so~l
1984 44)
As we have seen throughout th~s essay, Jefferson IS again concerned with the fact that
slavery 112 the Un~ted States IS 'held up' for the world to see as d most glaring cl~allenge
to the ploniise of un~ve~sal freedom The refelelice to Spain tells us that the Unlted
Rncinl Goverrznzentaliiy: Thornas .JefJersorz ~rnd Afric~rn Colonisation
s somehow exceeds Europe, even when analogies suggest themselves; and yet the
act of referring to Spain suggests that Jefferson is looking to Europe again and
estion of a solution, but rather surveillance and judgement oftlie
es Jefferson respond to this 'prospect held up'? In the
e, he articulates a dilemma: 'Nothing is more certainly written
that these people are to be free'. The fact of emancipation for
ure of something already written in the fbture, sometliing that 'will
cture, that is, of the future anterior. Jefferson is familiar with this
cture, for he made use of it as the tense of revolution when lie wrote, in the
laration of Independence: 'we ... solernnly publish and declare, That these linited
lonies are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States'. Both tlie
aration of Jndependence's 'are and ought to be' and the 'Autobiography's' 'written
e book of fate that these people are to be free' figure what Derrida has called the
' ofthe people inventing themselves in the very utterance of their
pendence: we will have been free once we say 'we are fiee' (Deuricla 1986: 100.
Jefferson is, however, not willing to considcr this meal-is of emancipating the
ow he was terrified about the prospect ofa black revolution. In
assage, he prophecies that 'worse will follow', and that 'liunian
colonisation is not adopted and slavery 'is left to force itself
y that resonates throughout his writings. In the 'Notes on the
r example, he recognises that two discrete revolutionary
ssibilities exist in the colonies, and registers his terror ofone:
The whole commerce between master and slave is aperpettlal exercise of tile
most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part.
and degrading s~lbniissions on the other ... of the proprietors of slaves a very
small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?
That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever:
that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the
wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it
may become probable through supernatural interference! The Almighty has
no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest (Jefferson
1984:288f).
ere, Jefferson figures freedom for enslaved African Americans as the inevitable but
any of Jefferson's letters on colonisation mark this scene of con~parison with, and
lance and judgement by, a generalized 'Europe'. For example. see a letter to St. George
Tucker (28 Aug. 1797) (Jefferso 1899.VII:168).