American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson

There are few books I have anticipated reading as much as "American Sphinx". I devoured Joseph J. Ellis's Pulitzer winning masterpiece,  Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation  during my long awaited trip to America, where I visited many of the historical places of the American Revolution and Civil War. Reading about the Adams-Jefferson meeting in Philadelphia's Market Street, while in a hotel room only a few blocks away was exhilarating. The Independence Visitor Center bookstore contains many books about the American Revolution, and I was mighty tempted to buy Ellis's biography of the Philosopher King from Monticello. Finally, my semi-principle of breaks between books by a single author won the day. Only three months later did Amazon deliver "American Sphinx".Ellis's biography of Thomas Jefferson is not as good a book as "Founding Brothers". I am not a big reader of biographies, so that may be part of it, but there is less content here than in "Founding Brothers". The latter book is shorter and has a wider scope, and for the most part, the more in debt look on Jefferson doesn't give comparable insight.But "American Sphinx" is a very, very good book. We encounter Jefferson in five periods of his life: Drafting the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, watching the burgeoning French Revolution while trying in vain to promote American interests in 1780s Paris, Congealing the Anti-Federalist opposition from his rectitude in Monticello, Mastering American destiny in his first term as President of the United States, and Spending his last years in retirement, debt, and construction of the University of Virginia from 1816 to 1826.In all of the chapters, Ellis avoids strict chronology for a theme based approach, discussing political event (his opposition to Federalism, the Louisiana purchase), personal life (his did-they-or-didn't-they romance with Maria Cosway, quarrels and friendship with John Adams, and of course, the Sally Hemings scandal), interests (primarily architecture), and political philosophy (strangely Whiggish and unrealistic).I think the Jeffersonian Mind, as described by Ellis, is the most extraordinary element of his character. Some people held Jefferson to be a hypocrite, adapting his message to different audiences. Ellis, though, sees it as a capacity for self delusion. Jefferson had a "deep distaste for sharp disagreement and [a] bedrock belief that harmony was nature's way of signaling the arrival of truth" (p. 106). This capacity for self delusion allowed him to lead a political party while claiming that "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all" (quoted on p. 124), it allowed him to deny having hired James Callander to character assassinate John Adams, even as he did exactly that, and most famously of all, it effected his treatment of slavery.The counterpoint of Jefferson dislike of argument was that he saw a great dichotomy between those on his side and the other side. Jefferson saw the world in moral absolutes, the constant clashes of Good vs. Evil, with himself conveniently on the side of the angels. Fighting George III's despotism and opposing the Federalists was part of the same struggle - of the "Pure Republicans" against the consolidationist, aristocratic monarchists. That was always a strange position for the Aristocratic Jefferson to adopt, and always only tenuously connected with reality - but never less so then in his final years, when he had to cast in the role of the enemies the Northern opposers of the expansion of slavery.Jefferson managed to do just that. Although he had proposed abolition of slavery throughout the territories of the Unites states back in the 1780s, and although he was responsible for the Louisiana purchase of 1803, Jefferson nonetheless saw the Missouri Crisis as a "fire bell in the night" (quoted on p. 306). New York Congressman James Tallmadge's proposal to prohibit slavery in Missouri as a condition for its admission as a state was merely a "party trick". Northern politicians cynically took "advantage of the virtuous feelings of the people" as a new cover in the quest for power, consolidation and despotism. The angels were on the side of the lash.For me, one of the most intriguing things of Jefferson is this image - Jefferson the genuine radical, who could sincerely maintain his cherished illusions regardless of reality. Of all the Founding Fathers, Ellis, suggests, Jefferson was the most radical one, believing in the true exercise of popular democracy, and of an eternal struggle between Good and Evil, of which he was the ultimate judge. This is the Jefferson who boldly states: "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (on p. 118).For all of its egalitarian and radical potential, the American Revolution was headed by pragmatic and practical leaders who led it towards stability and triumph. But neither in temperament nor in thinking was Jefferson one of them. Had he been born in another time, at another place, would Jefferson have been not an American Sphinx, but an American Lenin?

I had to read the book for class and found it very interesting and insightful however I did not love the style of the author. There were parts that I found myself having to read multiple times to make it make sense but eventually I’d did. I did really enjoy the perspective the book put everything in though.

Thomas Jefferson was a bit of a schizophrenic to say the least. His ability to act with the most contemptible conduct but to conceal the true character of his behavior from his own perceptions is remarkable. Yet, while it is easy to focus upon the frailties of his enigmatic character, it is worth also looking at some of the profound thoughts that emerged from his reactionary idealism, perfectly unsuitable for the reality of the society of mankind. (Though Washington was the most noble and remarkable of the founding fathers to be sure, Adams had the superior grasp on the nature of man and the relationship of government among the society of man) History if fraught with complex relationships when put together work out to a whole, but a bit more on that later.Jefferson was a staunch Republican, and as such, unwittingly sowed the seeds for the confederacy time and time again as he elaborated on his ideology. The Republicanism of the day bore little relationship to the republicanism of today except for the fact that then it believed and acted upon the notion that the extreme distribution of power was in the best interest of all. The Republican of today, at least as incarnated in George Bush, bears more the mark of the Federalists of than with a verbal nod to the Republican ideals of extremely limited federal powers of Jefferson's times. Jefferson was wrong and Jefferson was right. John Adams was wrong but more often John Adams was right. Hamilton and the extreme Federalists were probably as dangerous as some suspected, even Adams, but my topic now is Jefferson.Jefferson was firmly opposed to the formation of a standing army as he was against the formation of a Navy. What brought about his articulating this position was the debate over the Jay treaty as well as the conflict with France toward the end of the century. He never seemed to see France or its revolution for what it really was. He could not admit the tragedy and futility of the excursion into anarchy. He clung to his romantic hope that the French were essentially emancipating themselves into some romantic egalitarian democracy, which as we know today, devolved not only into almost genocidal bloodshed, but a dictatorship set upon conquest ala Napoleon. It is difficult to contrast his unrealistic interpretation of these historic events with some of the more prophetic statements he made. A good look at Jefferson would require more than a quick blog entry, so I will have to settle upon the use of his thought to make one point.The US Constitution was both intentionally and wisely vague but direct. It laid out the system of government simplistically but avoided the activity of enacting laws or precedent. And, almost exactly according to the recommendations of Adams, who was in France at the time, it established two houses, an executive and an independent judiciary. There was little contention over the establishment of these powers, but there was rancorous debate, even fighting upon the powers of these powers. Jefferson wanted a weak executive, but then he wanted a weak federal government. He was opposed to the two houses of the legislature, but he had little issue with the creation of a judiciary. However, when it came to debating over what the powers of the judiciary were, he stood firmly opposed again to the establishment of judicial review, and for very good reason. Judicial review essentially gives the Supreme Court the power to review the laws enacted by congress against the constitution and the bill of rights or the amendments. In reviewing those laws they were able to strike them down. Jefferson saw in this the end of democracy, and his statements on the issue were prophetic and true. With a body of unelected officials with the power to interpret a concise constitution against laws passed by congress, you essentially witness the death of the republic, ala Iran today. However, without judicial review, the rule of the legislature could denigrate into rule by mob, the tyranny of the masses, especially had there only been one body as Jefferson advocated. So where is the balance? That is not easy to answer, but what is, is that the balance tipped against Jefferson and in favor of the Federalists.So, in the end, the Supreme Court was granted the right of judicial review and this founding father forsaw the consequences.

This book is neither extraordinarily well written nor extraordinarily well argued. Nevertheless it is readable and most of its conclusions appear plausible.The title "The character of Thomas Jefferson" is slightly misleading as Jefferson's political philosophy and how it was rooted in his personality and influenced his political actions and decisions is the actual subject of the book. Being already familiar with the basic facts of Jefferson's life appears to be a useful requisite for reading it.

Excellent book about the greatest of all American Presidents (with the possible exception of F.D.R.)

This work by Ellis humanizes Jefferson showing us the positive and negative aspects of his character without judging him by our modern standards but helps us realize his manner of rationalizing in the context of his times. Because of this book, I was able to relate to and understand Jefferson better. Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man and ever the idealist. As other commentaries have suggested, this biography only highlights certain events in the life of Jefferson that help us understand the thinking and character behind the myth that we Americans have created around our Founding Fathers but it doesn't diminish the importance of Jefferson either in the American pantheon. I highly recommend this book! I will forever look at Thomas Jefferson in a different light and with greater respect thanks to Joseph Ellis.

Livre important pour comprendre l'histoire des Etats-Unis, mais évidement l'auteur n'aime pas Jefferson pour ses idées radicales. Ellis joue au psychologue, pas grand historien, et attaque le idéalisme, romantisme, motivation et caractère de son sujet. Dommage que cet historien n'est pas plus sage de point de vue philosophique.

Book took ages to arrive and when it did, it was a completely different title!?