I feel that something has to be understood here: Thomas
Jefferson was a person, just like the rest of us. Yes, he may have been a
Founding Father, but he was not a god. He is not beyond reproach. I know it
sounds odd for a libertarian – someone who champions many of the philosophical
and political ideas that Jefferson put into words – to say this, but it’s true.
He was human; he had faults.
In the beginning, the author gives a note as to what this
biography covers and why. He made executive decisions to leave out some parts
on Jefferson’s life, because he wanted the book to be accessible to laymen
(i.e. those who aren't in academia). So, if you’re looking for a really
in-depth study of Jefferson, his philosophy, and his life – then you’re not
going to get it here. This is the basics; it gives the layman a chance to
become familiar with the broad strokes of Jefferson’s personality, his life and
his work.
The historically reliable descriptions of Jefferson differ,
but the author’s conclusion based on study is that he was tall, stood
ramrod-straight, had reddish-blond hair, and sang under his breath incessantly.
He was a poor orator, but a gifted writer – in fact, during his presidency, he
only gave two speeches, but he spent an estimated 10 hours a day at his writing
desk. I was able to identify greatly with Jefferson – as someone who is also a
poor public speaker, loves solitude and rural settings, and is genuinely hurt
when my work is altered or criticized, it was rather comforting to know that
there have always been people with my temperament. He was a thinker, not a doer
– and often had trouble translating his lofty words into real-world solutions
to real-world problems (which made his friendship with John Adams all the more surprising).
He became disillusioned and changed his position from time to time – as we all
have done at one time or another (yes you have – just admit it right now and
save time).
Much attention is given to his political views – especially state’s
rights vs. strong central government, as well as his views on slavery and his personal
debt. This biography rounds out his ideas, and gives context to the situations
in which he penned them. Ellis also gives a broad overview of the Sally Hemings scandal, and there's an appendix in the back with a more in-depth treatment. Where I definitely disagree with the author is his handling
of Jefferson’s last years. He claims that many historians see Jefferson’s last
years/writings as the bitter musings of an angry old man – but Ellis is having
none of it. He claims that Jefferson is fervently protecting and promoting the
ideals he believed in all along: he’s just concentrating them, or taking them
to their logical conclusion. I have a hard time agreeing with this. Jefferson
was an idealist, which made his life one of consistent disappointment. We can
all imagine having lived such a life – where the people of the country that you
had served for 40 years don’t seem to appreciate or understand the way you
think things should be. It would make you angry and bitter. I won’t say that he
was dotty in his old age – from all accounts he was quite lucid, even in his
eighties – but the sadness, anger, and a lifetime of disappointment show poignantly
in the letters and actions of his last years. If it were anyone else, we’d say “well,
he’s old – give him a break,” and I’d probably say the same thing for Jefferson
at this stage in his life. It’s simply cruel to beat up on an old man, even if
he is long dead.
In the Epilogue titled “The Future of an Illusion,” it
actually says more about the author than the legacy of Jefferson. It’s quite
obvious that the author is a Massachusetts academic when he writes about the “third
wave” that changed the entire shoreline on which Jeffersonian “sand castles”
had been built:
“The third wave arrived in the 1930’s with the New Deal. In
hindsight, one could actually see it coming from the early years of the
twentieth century, when the effects of urbanization, industrialization, the
increased density of the population, and the exponential growth of corporate
power over the economy combined to generate a need for a more
centralized government to regulate the inequities of the marketplace and
discipline the boisterous energies of an industrial economy.” [Emphasis
mine]
It’s quite obvious that the author isn't an economist, or he’d
realize how utterly ridiculous this sounds - that government intervention was somehow needed. The New Deal DESTROYED the economy,
and likely kept the United States in the Depression for much longer than we
would have been, had government not intervened. I shouldn't get started on the horrendous abuses perpetrated by FDR - I might never stop.
The author is also rather rough on the Republican Party in
the epilogue, but in his defense the Jeffersonian rhetoric is much more common
in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (although, they have co-opted
it from time to time, when the occasion suits them). He also makes a good
argument that the world has changed a great deal since Jefferson – and I can
agree. But what I can’t really agree with is that he comes to the conclusion
that Jeffersonian philosophy really only applies to its time and place – I too think
it’s quite idealistic, but I argue that it is this quality that makes the
Jeffersonian philosophy timeless.
In conclusion, I’d recommend this for anyone interested in the life of
Jefferson, his philosophy, or early American politics – but it’s definitely not for in-depth
study. It has extensive notes in the back for further research if one chooses
to do so, however.
I’d give it four out of five stars.
A NOTE: Keep in mind that I’m not a historian. I too am just human,
and I don’t claim to be perfect, or to know everything about Jefferson, his life, or his views. So before you get mad: I just read a book, and I'm reviewing it. Chill.
