Jefferson's Character

I also entertain a very low opinion of Jefferson's character. I have posted about it so many times here, that i'm not going to go into again. I have also gotten tire of being attacked by others because of my remarks about Jefferson.

I suggest to you, though, that you find a good biography of Washington (a biographer of Jefferson is very likely going to gloss over his faults), and read carefully about Jefferson's behavior in Washington's Cabinet, and particularly his behavior toward Alexander Hamilton. I would recommend to you either the Washington biography by Freeman (seven volumes, you want the sixth volume) or the biography by Flexner (four volumes, you want the last one). Jefferson reached the depth of his personal treachery in the way he behaved while in Washington's Cabinet, in my opinion.

I am very glad someone agrees with me on this. Most history classes glosses over Jefferson's character. It's somewhat funny how Jefferson gets the statues, memorials, face in Rushmore when such people as John Adams barely get remembered.

I most definately will read those as soon as I finish an incredibly dull book on genetics that I'm reading for class.

Neither book is recent, so you'll probably need access to a good library.

A careful study of Jefferson, from sources other than biographers (who tend to write either panegyrics or hatchet jobs), reveals a much less than admirable character, and one much less admirable than the historical legend would have one believe. Much of what he wrote in his life is not original with him, and even his earliest political tracts seem to have been lifted from the lawyer who trained him in his youth (don't have the reference in front of me, so i can't provide the name).

As for his public career, he presided over Virginia during much of the Revolution, and did little or nothing to protect a state which was increasingly ravaged and occupied by British forces. As President, he did little which was original, other than displaying an incredibly idiotic attitude toward the military. Washington and Adams had built up a very respectable navy--Jefferson let it go to hell, and claimed the nation could be defended by a gunboat navy and the militia. The militia, as has been the case in almost all places and times in history, either refused to fight, or ran away. The sailors and Marines of the gunboat navy fought like very demons--on land, after the Royal Navy either sank the gunboats, or captured them in what are known in naval circles as "boat actions" (e.i., you hand out muskets to your sailors, throw in a few Marines, launch the ship's boats, and go into shallow waters to take the enemy's ships and boats). A fascinating read about how well the United States Navy performed despite Jefferson's near destruction of professional military organizations in this country is The Naval War of 1812, by Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (1881, i believe, and recently republished in paperback, circa 2000). Roosevelt's scholarship was so good, the Royal Navy commissioned him to write the article on "the American War" (what we call the War of 1812) when the RN wrote an official history in the 1890s.

I have a very low opinion of Jefferson, and so do a few others around here, although i'd say he has far more admirers and defenders here.

I lost respect for Jefferson when I learned he fathered children that were destined to be slaves. I understand this was not unique for the times, but it is a reflection of one's character to knowingly make such a choice.

Hmm...the library here has Flexner but all four volumes are checked out.

One thing that I just can't understand (perhaps its because I've never been in a similar situation) is that John Adams knew that Jefferson was out to destroy him. This was from Adams' Vice-presidency to his Presidency. Even though Adams knew what Jefferson was up to, it seems like he still held him in high esteem (I may be wrong). Jefferson would, in a sense, attack him and Adams would send him a letter reaffirming their friendship. Perhaps its because I have never been in a similar situation, but I probably wouldn't be so quick to forgive Jefferson as Adams was.

Adams was a practical politician, and he was consistently able to overcome his personal feelings to seek the best practical resolution to a situation. For example, when the Second Continental Congress met in 1775, Washington showed up in his uniform as Colonel of the Virginia Militia, which he had not worn since he had hung it up in 1758. This was not unusual at that time, people would not have considered it odd that he would advertise himself that way. In his private correspondence, and especially in a letter to Abagail, Adams launched a scathing attack on Washington for advertising himself that way, and considered him unfit for the job, stating to Abigail that he (Adams) should be the commander of the Continental Army. But he was a pragmatic politician, and he was among those who proposed Washington for the job, because he knew that Washington would get the most support, and that Washington was considered to above the political fray, whereas he (Adams) would be seen as seeking the office for his own political ends. Once Washington had the job, despite any misgivings, Adams gave him his unqualified support.

Adams considered, as did many of his contemporaries, that their novel experiment (there had truly never been such a government launched in history) would need to survive for a long time in order to be successful. Although he may have known that Jefferson was a hack, with little real political sense, he also undoubtedly understood that Jefferson represented an important segment of the nation (Virginia was the most populous state at the time fo the revolution), and that his leadership was as important to the health of the new nation as was anyone else's. His pragmatic attitude would have lead him to seek reconciliation with Jefferson in almost all cases for the sake of the survival of the United States.

John Adams died on July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Declaration of Independence. His last words are reported to have been: "Thomas Jefferson still lives." Some historical observers have claimed that he said this bitterly, because of all the strife between the two men in their political lives. But others, probably the majority, hold that he was saying that the republic was safe, because Jefferson still lived. I have long pondered it, and have come to the latter conclusion--Adams would have been more interested in the survival of the experiment than he would have been in carrying any personal grudges to the grave.

Ironically, Jefferson had died the same day, a few hours earlier, and was already dead when Adams said: "Thomas Jefferson still lives."

This quote of Adams may help to put into perspective the attitude with which he approached his task as a "founding father:"

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

I never really thought of it like that but that does make sense.

While I have read that quote many times, I never really understood it.

By the way, an important American historian of the colonial period before the Revolution is Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., whose work has been very important, but which has been forgotten in these times, and especially as his son has become so well known. I highly recommend him to your attention.

The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776, 1918.

New Viewpoints in American History, 1922.

Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain, 1764-1776, 1958.

Birth of the Nation: A Portrait of the American People on the Eve on Independence, 1968 (posthumous).

I most definately will look into them!

Yes, and as you will be a graduate student, you should definitely invest in a reliable dictionary.

(I don't mean to be an ass, and i frequently misspell words myself, but one does expect a higher standard from graduate students.)

I could have sworn that something didn't look right with that word! I'm usually great with spelling. Sorry about that.

No problem, Boss, no need to apologize.

Just think of me as a dickhead with your best interests at heart.

While we're on the topic of spelling...tire is spelled tired! I was just going to let that slip, but one does expect a higher standard from whatever you are!

Now we need only ascertain what exactly it is that i am.

I truly did laugh aloud at that one . . .

It's nice to have a place to talk history. I have no history nut friends where I am. I'd talk to the professors but I tend to correct them too much. My non history nut friends are sick of me trying to discuss John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

So what are you?

A sometime quidnunc . . .