Featuring: Larry Kenneth Alexander
Transcript:
Today, we confront the profound contradictions at the heart of our nation’s founding—a paradox recognized even by one of its principal architects, Thomas Jefferson. A lawyer and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson understood a harsh truth: the continuation of slavery in the colonies after declaring independence was irreconcilable with English law.
In his Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774), Jefferson lamented the Crown’s overreach, writing, “By one act, they have suspended powers of American legislature, and by another have declared they may legislate for us themselves in all cases whatsoever. These two acts alone form a basis broad enough whereon to erect despotism of unlimited extent.” Jefferson saw in these actions a tyrannical disregard for legal authority, yet he also understood that this principle cut both ways.
Jefferson was well aware of the immutable doctrine established in the Case of Proclamations (1611): “An act done without proper authority is void from the start and cannot gain legitimacy over time.” This principle, upheld by English jurisprudence, declared that even the king acting beyond his prerogative could not create laws by proclamation. Acts outside the scope of legal authority were invalid and irredeemable. Jefferson applied this truth to the colonial institution of slavery.
The colonial legislatures, bicameral bodies under the Crown, lacked the sovereign authority to codify slavery. The so-called slave codes enacted in the colonies were never lawfully sanctioned, as they lacked the collective approval of both the monarch and Parliament. Worse yet for defenders of slavery, the Declaratory Act of 1766, passed by Parliament, nullified these codes entirely, asserting its ultimate authority over colonial statutes.
This understanding became even more explicit in 1772 when Lord Chief Justice Mansfield ruled in the Somerset case that slavery was “not allowed and approved by the law of this kingdom.” With this decision, the legal underpinnings of slavery in the colonies collapsed. The practice stood not on lawful grounds but on the sands of defiance and exploitation.
Yet just four years later, Jefferson and his fellow patriots accused King George III of tyranny in the Declaration of Independence, denouncing him for “abolishing our most valuable laws.” While rallying the cause for freedom, this bold claim exposes a staggering contradiction. How could they condemn the king for overreach while perpetuating slavery—a practice that violated not only natural rights but also the very English laws they invoked in their grievances? This was not merely a moral failure; it was a legal impossibility.
Jefferson knew this. He knew that slavery was more than a crime against humanity—it was a criminal enterprise devoid of lawful foundation. Its persistence was a choice, a deliberate defiance of law and justice to protect profit and power at the expense of truth. Jefferson’s frustration with this contradiction ran deep. He petitioned America’s Congress to adopt Roman law, seeking a departure from the Anglo-Saxon legal traditions that enshrined slavery. But his petition was rejected, and each of the 13 state legislatures chose to adopt English law. To Jefferson’s dismay, Congress also struck vital elements of his original draft of the Declaration, prompting him to complain bitterly that the document had been “mangled.”
Today, as we reflect on these truths, we must reckon with the paradox Jefferson himself could not resolve. His words and actions remind us of the power of law to define justice or to betray it. Our responsibility is to ensure that truth and justice prevail where past generations have faltered.
Please share this message, visit our website at the Wells Center on American Exceptionalism, and stay tuned for future videos in this series.