Lafayette On The Folly Of Tolerance

James Madison served as the fourth President of the United States from 1809 to 1817, immediately preceding James Monroe. History textbooks refer to him as the “Father of the Constitution” as he acted as the driving force in drafting both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

A short three years prior to that seminal event, Madison traveled from Baltimore to Fort Stanwix to negotiate with the Iroquois Confederacy. Accompanying him was a young French general and a protégé of George Washington. That would be the Marquis de Lafayette.

This chance meeting formed what would become a lifelong bond between the two men. Very early on, Madison recognized Lafayette’s affinity with the American Indians, as well as his key guiding principles. In a 1784 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison offers a frank assessment of his French colleague:

“In my last I gave you a sketch of what past at Fort Schuyler during my stay there: mentioning in particular that the Marquis had made a Speech to the Indians with the sanction of the Commissioners Wolcot[t] Le[e] Butler. The question will probably occur how a foreigner and a private one could appear on the theatre of a public treaty between United States and the Indian nations and how the Commissioners could lend a sanction to it. Instead of offering an opinion of the measure I will state the manner in which it was brought about. It seems that most of the Indian tribes particularly those of the Iroquois retain a strong predilection for the French and most of the lat[t]er an enthusiastic idea of the Marquis. This idea has resulted from his being a Frenchman, the figure he has made during the war and the arrival of several important events which he foretold to them soon after he came to this country. Before he went to Fort S. it had been suggested either in compliment or sincerity that his presence and influence might be of material service to the treaty… The answer of the sachems as well as the circumstances of the audience denoted the highest reverence for the orator. The chief [sic] of the Oneidas said that the word which he had spoken to them early in the war had prevented them from being misled to the wrong side of it. During this scene and even during the whole stay of the M. he was the only conspicuous figure… The time I have lately passed with the M. has given me a pretty thorough insi[gh]t into his character. With great natural frankness of temper he unit[e]s much addres[s] ⟨with very⟩ considerable talents, ⟨a strong thirst of praise and popularity.⟩ In his politics he says his three hob[b]y horses are the alliance between France and the United States, the unio[n] of the lat[t]er and the manumission of the slaves. The two former are the dearer to him as they are connected with his personal glory. The last does him real honor as it is a proof of his humanity. In a word I take him to be as amiable a man as [can be imagined]* and as sincere an American as any Frenchman can be; one whose past services gratitude obliges us to acknowle[d]ge, and whose future friendship prudence requires us to cultivate.”¹

* originally “his vanity can admit.”

Here you can see Lafayette’s ability to not only embrace those of different cultures, but his affinity with the peoples of those cultures. Something about Lafayette drew everyone towards him—whether they be American statesmen or Iroquois chieftains. What stood out about him? What secret to success did he possess?

The answers to these questions become apparent as we see Lafayette’s reception during his farewell tour of America. No matter his birthright, no matter his wealth, no matter his standing, he always greeted everyone he met “on the level.” In doing so, he sought and amplified the commonality he had with everyone he met.

Quite simply, he recognized the folly of mere tolerance.

This came up at a meeting between Lafayette’s party and James Madison and friends in Virginia from the 15^th through the 19^th of November, 1824. The following conversation, as witnessed and later published by André-Nicolas Lavassuer, Lafayette’s personal secretary during his American tour, expertly brings up the “insult” of “tolerance.”

“After the question of personal slavery in the United States, the equally important question of the spiritual slavery, to which some of the people of Europe are condemned by the dominant or state religions, was discussed. The friends of Mr. Madison congratulated themselves, that at least this sort of slavery was unknown in their beloved country; they entered into some details which showed me that they were not men to be contented with what we incessantly invoke as a benefit in Europe, that is religious tolerance. ‘Tolerance,’ said one of them, [‘]is beyond doubt preferable to persecution, but it would always be insupportable in a free country, because it marks an insulting pride. To give one religion the right to tolerate, and subject others to the disgrace of being tolerated, it would be first necessary to prove that the tolerant is the only good one, and that all the tolerated were bad. This proof is unobtainable, since each believes his own religion to be the best. The word toleration is, therefore, an insult, and cannot reasonably be replaced except by the word liberty. This liberty we now enjoy in the fullest sense of the term, and we are sure that throughout our twenty-four states, not one is to be found in which it is not better understood than in any part of Europe. However, we have also had our times of tolerance, indeed I may say of intolerance; before our glorious revolution, for instance, we still groaned under laws, by which for certain degrees of heresy, a father could be deprived of the privilege of educating his own children. Every individual might lose the rights of citizen, and a part of the protection of the laws, and sometimes even be burnt. At present there is a happy difference; thanks to our new laws, worthy of the immortal sages who framed them, no individual can be forced to observe any religious worship, nor to frequent any place, nor to support any minister, of whatever religion he may be, nor be constrained, retained, disturbed or oppressed in his own person, or his goods; in short he cannot be persecuted in any manner on account of his religious opinions; but all men have liberty to profess and sustain by reasoning their religious opinions, and these opinions can neither diminish nor increase any of their civil rights.’”²

Note the self-importance implied by tolerance. It suggests your view is the correct view. It’s like saying, “I’ll allow you to think what you want.” This stance subtly tells the other person there’s no need to prove the superiority of your view because it is assumed to be the proper view.

From Lafayette’s experience, you might imagine how he could interpret “tolerance” as the arrogance of the aristocracy.

Tolerance, therefore, is folly. A conceit of the egotist. A lie to deceive the hoi polloi.

Instead, Lafayette championed liberty over tolerance. Liberty is the great leveler. It allows all views to enter freely into the cauldron of ideas. It doesn’t suggest they’re all good. It leaves it up to real-life to determine the winner.

That doesn’t mean proponents of losing ideas should be banished. No. A thriving and growing nation requires a constant inflow of new, different, and competing thoughts. The bond between peoples isn’t the similarity in opinion, but in commonality of purpose.

In this case, that purpose is liberty.

¹ James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1784, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, accessed April 7, 2024, National Archives Database, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0064
² Levasseur, André-Nicolas, Lafayette in America in 1824 and 1825, Volume I, John D. Godman translation, Philadelphia, Carey and Lea, 1829, pp. 222-223