Jefferson Was Not Jeffersonian
938695
Very valuable little book. What we became back then is what we are now. Like it or not.
"...Adams has the same sense of events that Tolstoy did in WAR AND PEACE, that events shape men, rather than men shaping events. In Tolstoy's image, the leaders are like hands on the face of a clock, thinking they move of themselves, while the hidden machinery is what drives them."
Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
3550045
Thomas Jefferson was a scholar of Greek and Latin.  He saw these parables as the basis of his Statute of Religious Liberty of 1777 and the principle of this statute was to be incorporated into the Bill of Rights of 1789.
1990926
Towards the end of this short biography, Hitchens describes one of Jefferson's post-presidential activities, and adds a tart parenthetical remark:

... The Philosophy of Jesus in 1805, was described on its cover as an abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians, unembarrassed with matters of fact or faith beyond the level of their comprehensions. This certainly matched Jeffersons view that Indians should be protected from Christian missionaries, but some Unitarians have speculated that it also provided him with a respectable cover story for his otherwise profane exercise of cutting up the holy book with a razor blade and throwing away all the superfluous, ridiculous, and devotional parts. (This is an exercise that I have long wanted to repeat in the case of the multi-volume hagiography of Jefferson himself, penned so laboriously by Dumas Malone.)

Could it be that he has done this, in effect, here?  Surely there had to be a lot of pedantic assemblage of fact behind the "brief life" Hitchens has compiled, like a latter day Plutarch, of a noble American.

Noble?  In the sense of a man who did great things, not one who was above hypocrisy, deceit, and bigotry.  Hitchens, who clearly admires Jefferson, is nonetheless honest about where his hero falls short:

...  Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or lesser suffusions of color in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers the emotions of the other race? Other more recent clichs of the duller sort seem to have found their first expression in the Notes: In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tone and time. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved.

This is not the parlor game of proving that the Founders were politically incorrect.  In fact, these remarks probably WERE politically correct, which is part of the problem with enforcing orthodoxy at any time. But let us let Jefferson have the last word (in his First Inaugural):

Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans, we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
1163382
This is not a complete biography of Thomas Jefferson, but will suffice as most of what is important to know about him since many people think they know his history but are sadly mistaken. Mr. Barton sets them straight.
3924986
As a historian, this movie tried to stick closely to the historical accuarcy of the Jefferson-Hemings  controversy. I was surprised the the movies acknowledged Thomas Woodson as Jefferson's son. Many formal historians believe the opposite. The relationship between Hemings and Jefferson seemed to be fictionalized as romance never happens as the movies portrayed. Of course there was some fiction here in order to make it intersting. It was all around an accurate movie. The peformance of Carmen Ejogo especially did Sally Hemings justice. It showed she was a protaganist for her people, not just a slave concubine.
2145648
A good insight into Jefferson and his moral source.  Not such a good insight into Jesus and His Source. Jefferson was very skeptical of man's distortion -- so he removed them  --  all of them. Still a fascinating peek into the mind of one of our greats.
3858491
Sadly, the American Revolutionary War era and the founding fathers of our country are not taught to the same degree as other pivotal periods.  The relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who remarkably died within hours of each other on the same day, is something we are sorely lacking in today's politicians.  The two men strongly disagreed on the role of a strong central government versus the individual states retaining their state's rights.  Despite these fundamental philosophical disagreements, the two men recognized the strength and wisdom of the other and maintained both respect and friendship of the other until their deaths.  The series also shows the dramatic change in how our President's lived their lives both while in office and in their retirements. All in all, the series was well worth watching, even for those not usually attracted to historical subjects.
1633968
Wood sets the stage for his "biovignettes" of selected revolutionaries by describing their world. Each was influenced positively or negatively by the aristocracy of the old world.

The best essay on "character" (as I took the title) is that of Washington, probably because he had so much of it.  GW not only rejects the opportunity to be like a monarch, he actually frees his slaves and provides for those too feeble to benefit from freedom.  Washington worries about the propriety of this and that and is careful about setting precedents.  All Americans are indebted to him for setting high standards on day one.  He seems the least influenced by the workless mandate of the "gentleman".  Unlike some of the others, he actually fought in the war.

Of them all, the high born Burr comes off the worst.  He's the first to milk patronage and court lobbyists.

The portrait of Jefferson is the weakest.  While actions and words on slavery are given a reasonable treatment, Sally Hemmings is dismissed in a paragraph.  Here also, the author allows his modern stereotypes to intervene, he compares Jefferson to a "knee jerk liberal" (because, Wood says, TJ is not an original thinker) but doesn't relate this to Jefferson's "contempt" for big government and says like modern day liberals TJ can't understand economic forces (is our spend thrift Congress liberal?).  Wood's stereotypes later surface in the Paine essay where he implies modern day liberals see society as malevolent and government as beneficent.

Wood is able to bring us into that world where so much was still to be known.  The founders' ideas were confined to what they knew.  Hamilton had a vision, and worked hard to sell the idea of "currency".  Others navigated the new political landscape to sell the idea of federalism to self interested provincial state governments. The founders dispair as their letters to one another diminish in importance as coarser tracts of the common man, bereft of classical illusions become more influential. Most of these revolutionaries died discouraged or worried about the changes they had wrought.

Wood has digested a lot of information.  I gave the book 4 stars and not 5 because I took the title to mean there would be more on morals/ethics and hoped to learn more about attitudes towards slavery, the native population, business dealings and women/family.  The introductory chapter implies that the book will do this, but in this book "character" is more like "disposition" and through it we learn the attitudes of these revolutionaries and how these attitudes related to constitutional and governance issues.
1763601
I thoroughly enjoyed this book!  It was historically interesting but not boring, I did not realize that Thomas Jefferson spent so much time in France and had played a part in the revolution there,  This book brought the era to life and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in that period of our history,
2611784
This is not a traditional biography.  The author focuses on Douglas' childhood/coming of age years and then on his years in Washington.  This is somewhat problematic in that if you are not familiar already with Douglas, you may not understand some references.  The author's thesis is that Douglas derived his doctrine of popular sovereignty from his differening early-life experiences different states.  Essentially, Douglas decided that citizens of each state should be able to determine their own laws based on the conditions existing in each state.  Of course, the problem with this line of thinking was slavery.  However, given that Douglas accepted the idea that the United States was a white man's republic and blacks had no citizenship rights, it was easy for Douglas to accept the fact that some states would desire slavery while others would not.  Douglas himself seems to have opposed slavery in general but he certainly did not believe in equal rights for blacks.

The author wants to rescue Douglas from the historical notion that his doctrine was simply a way to justify racism.  While he was a racist-at least by today's standards-the author believes that Douglas was a man of principle who generally took positions consistent with his ideology even if it led to policies with which he disagreed or which created political problems.  For example, Douglas eventually recognized that the pro-slavery legislature in Kansas had been obtained through fraud and he opposed President Buchanan's pro-slavery policy, even though Buchanan was a Democrat like Douglas, because it violated popular sovereignty.

There is another interesting aspect to Douglas. Douglas was a populist who opposed the Whigs in part because of what he considered their economic and social elitism.  He opposed policies that favored bankers and other large capitalists and was genuinely concerned with economic fairness.  The unfortunate thing about economic populism in the 19th century and later, was that it was often joined with racism.  Economic populists feared the end of slavery in part because of their fear that blacks would compete with working-class whites for jobs.  In addition, I think that working-class whites disliked the idea of social/political equality for blacks because they felt it would somehow demean their own position in society. Interestingly, Quitt spends some time discussing the issue of why Lincoln was a Whig, given that he had been raised in difficult economic circumstances himself.  But Lincoln had also opposed slavery consistently.

The point that I think Quitt was trying to make is that it is unfair to see Douglas as simply a political opportunist who adopted popular sovereignty as a way to get votes.  Quitt sees it as a well-informed and ethical political position.  But he acknowledges that, morally, the doctrine was fatally flawed with respect to slavery and that, obviously, Lincoln's position prevailed.

This was a good book.  My only issue is that, as I stated before, it is a bit disjointed because, by his own admission, Quitt was not trying to write a biography.
4753016
Joseph Wheelan's "Jefferson's Vendetta" is a typical modern Bio-Slander hit piece. Wheelan, like most American historians of our bizaare conservative/big government era, continually roll out hit pieces on Jefferson. Jefferson is painted as "vindictive", an "opportunist", and as the title relates with a "vendetta".

If anyone was an opportunist it was Aaron Burr, a man of no real principles accept the aquisition of power. Burr wanted his empire in the west and Mexico and conspired with the British government for aid. It is typical of today's history to exault a scoundrel like Burr or a rabid Federalist like Marshall instead of a man like Jefferson. Jefferson was not a flawless man, as no man that has existed has ever been. He was, however, a very principled and devout defender and believer in republcian government. The American History "profession" is one of the most morally bankrupt and biased "professions" of our era. Most are ardent leftists, or right wing "conservatives". The leftists hate Jefferson and his ideals, which also were ideals of the American Revolution: sovereignty of the people, individual liberty, limited government, and a written constitution. So called "conservatives" dislike Jefferson because they are normally enemies of progress, human rights, and liberty, exaulting the state over all else. An Edmund Burke/ Russell Kirk ideal. Leftists also exault the state in their desire to enforce "equality", "civil rights", and "fairness". Mr. Wheelan is a typical "court historian" if you may. Jefferson must be brought down in the modern era of big government, high taxes and huge public debt, things he vehemently opposed.

The elevation of Burr, a man who the Federalist Alexander Hamilton called a "Cataline" and an" embryo Caesar" is sign of the future slander of not only Jefferson, but other pro-liberty founders.

In our conservative age look at the bios coming out: Alexander Hamiltion, John Jay, George Washington, all Federalists. as with Hamilton and Jay "revisionist" biographies, meaning hiding their toryism and anti-liberty ideals. Burr neither a Federalist or republican, but a opportunist and scoundral, is treated well by Mr. Wheelan, the court historian.

Overall another bio-slander hit piece on Jefferson.
4938936
Just one fact is enough to make one suspect the FF were not all Bible believeing Christians.

Jefferson rewrote the New Testament Gospels leaving out everything on the miracles of Christ and anything scripture that declares His deity..
3307288
Why are the Founding Fathers such a touchy subject? Is it because we have all been indoctrinated with tales of cherry trees and kites? Is it a holdover from the Cold War? Has Americana become a secular religion? The surprising thing about the Thomas Jefferson slave controversy is that there are still apologists for the "Peculiar Institution" over 150 years after the commencement of the Civil War. But Henry Wiencek is not one of them. In `Master of the Mountain' this author gets down to brass tacks. And what we find is not a pretty picture.
For the longest time Thomas Jefferson has been portrayed as a frustrated humanist who was held back by the reactionary forces of his day from achieving the goal of full equality for all Americans. He was made out to be a compromiser who accepted defeat in one battle, (the ending of slavery), in order to achieve victory in the big war, (the formation of a free republic).
In 1974 Fawn Brodie released `Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History', which was the first major blow against the Thomas Jefferson image. The backlash was severe but Ms. Brodie was sustained, (long after her own death), by DNA testing that proved that our third president did indeed procreate children with his slave Sally Hemings. (Or to put it a better way, the testing proved that Jefferson, or a close relative, had been involved.) It has been the view ever since, (by some), that Jefferson's ardent abolitionism was tamed by his desire to keep his loved ones near, (or some approximate version thereof).
According to Mr. Wiencek Mr. Jefferson's motives were much more American than that. You see, it all comes down to profit. The youthful idealogue gave way to the elder plantation owner. There was money in slavery, (and exploitation and cruelty).  The "Man of the People" figured out that considering for a normal reproduction rate among his slaves he could count on a 4% yearly growth rate for his "operation". Earlier promises to international colleagues, (like Lafayette and Kosciusko), to end slavery, were postponed indefinitely. In fact, our great liberationist was in favor of extending the institution into the territories acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, (which happened during his presidency).
The author here has not been fooled by the Jeffersonian rhetoric. That has been the biggest problem up until now. Words have obfuscated actions, (which is true of all politicians). But let us not rationalize here because Jefferson was not like any other politician. This is a big deal. The conscience of the American experiment has always been The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, (Jefferson's major contributions). What had been left out came back to haunt us. Now we can clearly see the reason for the omissions, (the maintenance of privilege).
Part of the Monticello marketing plan was the design itself. Guests were driven in on roadways that bypassed the "dirty side" of the property, (the slave quarters and the production and manufacturing buildings). Jefferson hired brutal overseers who whipped children who didn't produce enough. He bought and sold humans at will, often breaking up families. He tracked down runaways. In other words, this may not be the Jefferson you have been familiar with. If you want to find out the truth, read this book.
3914274
Makes you realize that Thomas Jefferson was not just an icon of history, but a man with many ambitions, desires, likes and dislikes. I have a feeling the author caught a real glimpse of him. One of the most interesting things about him was his relaxed way of living even in the white house. He often answered the front door himself, dressed in old slippers and "farmer" like clothes. An interesting man indeed.
1392195
In answer to Robert Friedman's question about the Founder's access to Spinoza, Jefferson had two core books of Spnoza's in his library as may be confirmed by the Library of Congress' on line catalog of that library.  This listing demonstrates the availability of the books and knowledge among the Founders.  I fault Stewart for not substanciating his claim more fully.
1436410
Jeffersons America by Julie M. Fenster tells the story of Thomas Jefferson and the many contributions he made to our country, including the Louisiana Purchase and the strategies he used to concur the Spanish and English.

When I first saw this book I was so excited. I am a huge Thomas Jefferson fan and really enjoy reading and learning about him. I could not wait for this book to get here and I was anxiously awaiting the day the UPS guy would bring me my book. Finally it got here and I loved the cover and the fact that there was a map in the front of the book that showed what America looked like at that time; Excitement starting building even more.

Then I opened the book and started reading. Thats where the excitement ended. I could not get into this book! The beginning barely mentioned Thomas Jefferson and it kept flipping between different people and times in government. It was confusing and difficult to keep the flow going. Once I would just start to get interested in what was going on it would switch to someone else and then I had to start all over getting interested in it again. Maybe the author tried to out too much information into one book, or maybe it just needed to be better organized and laid out better, or maybe I was just expecting too much, I guess I will never know the answers but this really was not what I was expecting. I really thought this would be more about him and his time. I felt like I was reading a history text book from high school. It was a lot of just listed facts instead of putting them into a story. I was very disappointed but others really seemed to enjoy this book, to each their own.

I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review.

Author's Website:[...]
1375661
The book goes a long way toward dispelling the myths about where our Founding Fathers got their ideas about the relationship between government and the people.  It was refreshing to see that our Forefathers were more Christian than recenthistorians have given them credit for.  Of particular interest are the sections on Franklinand Jefferson.  It appears that Franklin's religious views are more the victim of a bad press than factual analysis.  Moreover, Jefferson's phrase about the "wall of seperation betweenChurch and State" appears to have been the victimof self-serving liberal activists with a not-so-hidden agenda.  Bravo for Eidsmoe