That’s right, I said ‘anarchist.’

Anarchist.

There is a large Anti-Jefferson crowd throughout academia and elsewhere, based on things I consider to be ridiculously unfair, such as his supposed hypocrisy on slavery, fathering children with Sally Hemings, blah blah. THAT, my friend, is “too far the other way.” The man was a product of his circumstances, just as we all are, and I don’t judge him for being a slaveholder in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Name Jefferson’s contribution(s) to independence from Britain. We’ve got his rhetoric in the Dec of Ind; check. We might disagree over the impact of its excellent language—it’s an A paper, but a C+ would have accomplished the same; that is, it wasn’t the style but the fundamental idea that the only trans-colonial body in existence had unanimously adopted the idea. There were lots of declarations of independence issued by towns, cities, colonies, associations, and committees before June-July 1776. The difference in the one we celebrate tomorrow is that it was the first “national” one, not that it was the best edited one. But other than the Dec of Ind, name them.

You raise an interesting - though different - question about extending the discussion beyond independence and into the founding, and that’s certainly a valid point. Again, what were the contributions? He was out of the country during the Constitution’s drafting, though he did suggest a couple of dozen books to James Madison to read before the 1787 Philadelphia convention, books about constitutions. That was the extent of his influence there, which was a great frustration to him, per his correspondence. He did complain that the 1787 draft of the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights, and thought it was like doing ‘Hamlet’ without Hamlet, but he was far from alone in calling for a Bill of Rights, which was remedied in the first Congress. He didn’t accomplish much as minister to France (not that there WAS much to accomplish; I don’t hold that against him; but he doesn’t get credit for contributing, either). Indeed, his time in France led him to misjudge (really, really romanticize) the eventual French Revolution, about which he was totally wrong and Adams was totally prophetic—which Jefferson as much as acknowledged in his late-in-life correspondence with Adams. And it was this poor judgment about France that was one contributing factor to his undermining Adams later as VP. As Sec’y of State under Washington, he did not contribute much (again, not his fault, but it’s not a contribution, either). As VP under Adams, he undermined his president as referred to above, spent years away from Washington DC while VP, deliberately doing nothing, and lots of other unhelpful things.

So, 2nd question, what was the “central role” Jefferson played in the “creation” of the nation after 1776? Yes, he signed off on the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, but as we way around here, ANY general manager would pull the trigger on that deal.

As to indispensability, I think independence from Britain would not have happened in the 18th century, and it is hard to see exactly how it would have happened in the first half of the 19th century, either. It happened WHEN it happened because of Adams, and if it had not happened at the time we had George Washington and the supporting cast (Knox, Howe, Greene, etc.), then it might not happen. Without independence WHEN it happened, we don’t get the Louisiana Purchase (France wouldn’t have sold it to England, after all), so it’s an open question how big/powerful/resource-rich the American colonies would have been later in the 19th century. So it’s hard to see a scenario how (and thus when) it happens if it doesn’t happen when it happened. And it happened when it happened because of Adams. It succeeded because of Washington. (Obviously, these are simplifications, but generally true as categories.)

Handcuffs could go with drunken cavorting…