Here's an announcement, sort of!

When we were informed that Amazon cannot deliver any more copies of American Sphinx , we thought we needed to postpone advertising the book's starting date, and the discussion of the book tiself until we all had a chance to get a book.

So when I wrote Marcie the Sysop she said, "Can't they get it through Barnes & Noble Online?" Well, I checked, and, you know what? You can. In fact, it says it's ready for immediate shipment.

I'm posting this here and in the Non Fiction discussion, but what we need to know is:

Has everybody who wants to join got their copy?


When should we reschedule for??

Do chime in, we need input!

Ginny

This book is neatly divided into sections and the major subjects in each section are rather clearly delineated. I will be ready to post discussion thoughts and topics when the date is set for starting. We can move as slowly as any readers would like so that any who wish can read apace.

Best

LJ

I've read two chapters of the Jefferson book - ladies, you'll be interested in the second chapter to see what Jefferson has to say about women, particularly Parisian women!! I thought the second chapter more interesting, but I have voluminous notes on the first!

When do we "go" LJ? Or are we still in the "Ready - Set" mode?

First, There is one thread which we should follow throughout the book. WHAT WAS HE LIKE AS A PERSON ?

I have read the six volume Dumas Malone biography of Jefferson to which our author (Ellis) frequently refers, and I can say that it left me with no idea whatever about what this man was realy like. I remember that I was most disturbed by his "Distance" from his daughters (and from just about everybody else).

This book summarizes succinctly what the "Malone" plods through. This book puts flesh and blood on Jefferson, makes him more human that "God-like" and gives us an opportunity to get a "Feel" for his thinking- and to a large extent his beliefs.

There are three "THREADS" to keep in mind as we read. First, his personality: Second, his attitudes, thinking and stances on the slavery question: and third, the so-called "Hemming's" scandal.

A fourth thread is, of course the concepts of government and the constitution (and Decleration of Independance) with which he was so intimately associated.

Pages 291-302 titled, "The Future of an illusion" would be well to read early-on as the points made here are intimate to any discussion of the other chapters.

With this preliminary set of comments, I think we can safely begin the "PROLOGUE" pp 3-24 "Jeffersonian Surge: America, 1992-93" Please feel free to comment on this material at any time and lets see who signs on and when.

Best

LJ

Great, sigining in. I've got the book, and will read pp 291-301, and then 3-24 and be back at you tomorrow.

Ginny

Ginny Its always great to have you "Biteing at my heels". You are the one who keeps me honest because we're bound to have different "Takes" on the personalities of the participants. Don't go too fast.

Ella is ready and will begin posting on the introductory material. You and I will chime in. Mary Marks IS coming aboard, but doesn't yet have the book.

Hope to hear from others who have expressed interest as folks get over the holidays.

Best

LJ

I have read the prologue and most of the first chapter and agree that Ellis puts flesh and blood on the man. I will go get my copy and join in on the discussion.

Sandy

LJ,

I will try to get the book from the library tomorrow, if I can. I know they have it as I checked it out once before but didn't get started on it. It looks like this should be an interesting discussion and perhaps we will be able to see Jefferson as something other than the historical figure on a pedestal from our school days.

Larry

LJ,

I have my book and am pretty much over the holidays, so I'm starting on it right away. It's snowing anyway so I'm grounded.

I've read several in-depth bios of Jefferson and am anxious to see how this one is different.

Jo

Jo, Larry, Sandy !!! Great to have such a brilliant assemblage here for this one.

Best

LJ

Just want to mention that I just saw a Booknotes that will be repeated later tonight, on the book written by Paul Nagel about John Quincy Adams. Has anyone read it? I think I'll check some reviews. The man Nagel refers to as "JQA" sounds like a complex, curmudeonly figure with plenty of personal quirks. Just the type for our Bio folder. The complete title is: John Quincy Adams; a private life, a public life. It seems our 6th president kept a detailed diary most of his life and Nagel draws on it extensively to tell of JQA's love/hate relationship with politics and of his personal life. Catch the Booknotes if you can.

Jo, I saw most of that interview and found Paul Nagel to be very interesting. He said the JQA had started keeping a diary when he was 11 years old and it was maintained until he died, with the help of his daughter after he had a stroke. He does seem like he would make and interesting character to study, depending on how well the book is written. Nagel said he had equivalent of 9 miles of information on the 600+ reels of film from all of the papers of JQA and that he was probably the only person in the world who had read every word of these papers.

I usually find the C-Span interviews of interest, although occasionally they have an author who does not communicate very well.

Larry

Will read the epilogue and then be back with some notes. I remember reading that Jefferson was not an orator - a trait that was much prized in those days - I'm sure this lack in himself was felt by Jefferson. However, he could write and eloquently, so he was given those kind of assignments by the Continental Congress. Also remember reading that Adams loved an argument, didn't believe you could discuss anything of interest without one.

Can anyone tell me is there a schedule for Booknotes on C-Span? I catch it quite by accident and would love to be able to pick and choose those that I would like to hear. I think Brian Lamb a wonderful interviewer.

Paul Nagel's book was published in October at $30.00 and is available for $24.00. I think we should wait a bit for bargains or a PB version to appear, but I definitely want to read it.

Best

LJ

LJ: Read the epilogue and am amused that Ellis believes the Internet is the perfect Jeffersonian environment where ideas float freely and without any pretense of coherence. So to begin - the book mentions over and over Jefferson's preference for solitude, his love of Monticello, and his abhorrence of debate, but what I gather from the epilogue and the first chapter is that Jefferson's contribution to history, if you will, is his idea of individual sovereignty - above all else. I went back to my history book of a year ago in which John Locke's writings are discussed - one of the sources Jefferson studied and referred to in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. Locke was one of those theorists of the 17th century that argued that individuals existed before governments, so the individual iis in one sense more important and fundamental than society. Also Locke argued that humans possessed certain natural rights (such as the right to private property).

Jefferson put the individual first always, then "attempted to develop prescriptions for government;" whereas, others, such as Adams and Madison began with the collective unit or government first. Somewhere in these first readings, I believe that Ellis states in the heart and mind of every American, this is the true spirit and it is only at times of great crisis - war, depression and the like - do we fully back the power of the federal government. We need a modern-day Jefferson to downsize the bureaucracy of the government today, but some one other than Newt will have to try again.

I think it is interesting to note that in Book Club Online, we discussed Hitler's Germany, and noted that Hitler instilled the doctrine of "nation first, family second and invididual last" in the minds of the German people - in direct contradiction to Jeffersonian's ideas.

More later - Sincerely, Ella

Locke was apparantly one of the philosophers with whom the early framers of the constitution were all familiar. They were apparantly, as a group, students of government philosophy. In our time we (or at least, I) tend to group Locke with Berkley and Hume, and many of those principles which are so verbosely expounded by such men are very cogent today.

One of the salient features of the "Epilogue" is the realization that the principles upon which debate raged, if transferred to today's world, would be obsolete for the various reasons cited by the author.

An underlying theme which, I hope we will percieve and analyze (and which is not emphasized by the book) is the persistance of a "Ruling Class" based on wealth and property. A class to which Jefferson belonged.

Best

LJ

LJ: I do believe your statement about the wealthy class to which Jefferson belonged is leading us into the slavery issue - much-to-do about this issue as regards Jefferson, who was very ambiguous, to say the least, about his feelings toward slavery. He, it seemed to me, was blaming everybody else but himself for the problem of slavery (see page 48) - (who else but himself bought them - well, of course, he might have inherited a few). He inherited a lot of debt also, and the only way to pay off his debt was to own those slaves and let them work off his debts. Didn't Ellis say somewhere that he owned 200 slaves?

Another interesting point in Chapter 1 was states' rights vs. federal rights - actually it seems that the founding fathers were more concerned with the state constitutions than the federal, believing them the more important. Jefferson, of course, believed in little or no federal government - and if he was thinking of any state, it was the privileged and wealthy state of Virginia. It would be interesting to speculate on powerful state governments and a weak federal government. A nation in which individual states would control the bulk of the wealth of the nation - a bit chaotic don't you think?

LJ - since you read that 6-volume Jefferson thing - what is this about his mother? It was barely mentioned, but Jefferson's estrangement from her prompted complicated feelings of guilt and relief upon her death. Why? What took place? I'm almost always on the side of mothers, so do tell me if it was justified?

ROS...Right! This tome promises deep discussion if there is anything at all new to be said on this subject. It is off to a good start with the above observations.

ELLA...Just wanted to mention the Booknotes site at www.c-span.org/schedule/booknote.htm Sorry I can't convert that for you. It will give you the up-coming programs through Mar. 1. They are mostly political subjects for awhile.

Jo

Welcome to the discussion Rosalyn.

Ella. You are correct, of course, but there is much more to be said on the slavery subject. It would be well to make our observations and hold them for further revision and discussion at about pages 145 and 289. I suspect that his attitudes went through changes with his age and intellectual maturity as mine have over the years.

One of his precepts which seemed "Stable" throughout was the principle of separation of "Church and State" quite contrary to the attitudes of the pilgrim fathers. At times he may have had some trouble with the religious "Right" and today one wonders whether the principle is being or has been eroded.

I'd be curious about the thoughts youall may have about the "Old Dominion" where Adams said "All geese are swans"

What do you think of the statement:"Jefferson would dismiss the entire Whitewater investigation as 'absolutely nobody's business'"

Best

LJ

Ella, Your question about TJ's mother was just as unclear in the Dumas Malone as it is here. Of course, the Shadwell fire is to be blamed for this and it's been about fifteen years since I read those six volumes. I have the impression that he (TJ) was strong-headed and at fourteen was feeling his "Oats". The property would have been too much for him alone along with his education, and two bosses are worse than none.

It seems to me that Ellis implies more "Closeness" between Jefferson and his daughters than did Malone, but the position of females in the Jefferson household was perhaps "Archaic" and certainly nothing like that of the Adamses.

Wish I were more knowledgeable on this point.

Best

LJ

Ros: Quite agree this book is not "bedtime" fare. A lydown about 2-3 in the afternoons is just about right, though. Know those folks working still cannot indulge this way, but I love that time - my time (an old Rudy Valee tune wasn't it? My time is your time?) Before my time, of course - hmmmm!

Jo - thanks a bunch for that site! Now I can tune in for what I want.

LJ: will hold the slavery stuff - yes, a lot to be said here, but hasn't it all been said before by so many for so many years? What's new?

The principle of separation of church and state is always a fascinating subject to me. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept and back the ACLU on all their concepts. They've had a history, haven't they? We had an Executive Director of the ACLU as one of our daily speakers at an Elderhostel I went to one time in Phoenix. My, did we have an interesting discussion - Adams would have loved those debates - there were a lot of Jewish people among us and the ACLU was put on the hot seat for some of their decisions. The only thing that saved the ACLU fellow was his marvelous sense of humor - one Jewish man wanted to adopt him and take him home - it was a fun Elderhostel!

If I go on too long, do please say so, as I tend to ramble at this keyboard (in solitutude, as Jefferson loved). Our governor of Ohio at the moment is trying to get our state's motto "In God, all things are possible" engraved on the statehouse wall. And the debate is raging on the "separation" issue. What fun to read all about it. My personal opinion is No, keep it off - I would change the state's motto also.

Does anyone agree or disagree? What's going on in your state? Sincerely - Ella

Ella and LJ; I haven't given any thought to TJ's mother (til now) but I find it interesting that there are no likenesses of his wife in existence...that I know of. Please continue with your great comments,I'm learning a lot!

Ella, There is no prohibition of discussion on the slavery issue. At this point in the story though its more of a question as stated by Finkelman (p 18) "Not whether he was better than the worst of his generation, but whether he was leader of the best"

As we read let's consider where he started, whether he dropped the ball and where he ended up.

Best

LJ

Ella and LJ; I haven't given any thought to TJ's mother (til now) but I find it interesting that there are no likenesses of his wife in existance...that I know of. Please continue with your great comments,I'm learning a lot!

Walter, In a later chapter, Ellis explores this. TJ's wife was probably not a "Liberated" woman

Best

LJ

I get the feeling that TJ was a lot like some of the rest of us. We have lofty ideals but hope that they won't interfere with our desires too much. Remember the piano he ordered but promised not to use until the embargo was over? His slavery ownership may have been another of those sticky issues that looked better in theory than practice, especially to one who had debts to pay.

I liked the word, "presentism," coined by Douglas Wilson and explained in the prologue---"a presumption that the past can be judged by the standards of the present." We would do well to keep that in mind during many of the debates about history.

Jo

Jo, those are good points. I liked the quote: "The multiple personalities of Jefferson...less like different facets of a renaissance Man, and more like the artful disguises of a confidence man" ...Even tho it was a more proto-political time in history (If there be such a thing) he was, after all, a politician.

Best

LJ

Good quote Jo - and a good thing to remember, even if Jefferson keeps surging out of the past into the present, as the author suggests. Wouldn't it have been interesting to be at that "intellectual free-for-all" in 1992 where Jefferson was "on trial."

And we should applaud "Batman" for saving us from another Disney theme park and also for reminding us that "Jefferson and his ideas llive on in the hopes and dreams of people in other countries." If for no other reason than that, we should revere Jefferson I suppose and try not to focus on his human weaknesses.

ELLA, I Don't disagree with you, but whay should that apply to Jefferson any more than FDR or Clinton or even Ronald R.?

Best

LJ

LJ: For several reasons. Jefferson was one of the founding fathers of this nation and the world sees him from this perspective. Any tourist to Washington can see how America reveres him! He is up there on that pedestal with Washington, Lincoln and the rest and any school child, I would hope, would know that he wrote the Declaration of Independence (even though he thought it was "mangled."

Now FDR has been discussed and may I say "cussed" over and over from every angle which is all well and good. - And the others, also, although it will take a decade or two to judge Clinton from any standards.

I do believe we should discuss our national leaders and realize that they are just people who happen to be in the right place at the right time in history, which contributed to their heroic-like figures. And I also believe in probing for their weaknesses (although personally I believe we should wait until they are out of office to reveal this "nastiness" of marital infidelity).

Have I answered your question sufficiently? Sincerely - Ella

Ella, That's been the prevailing attitude for the past two centuries. If his ideas and ideals are stillrelevant today, then we must conceive of him as an ordinary man if we are to fully comprehend their pertinance.

Ros: Ellis' ambiguity is, I think, a device to encourage us to get out of the standard "Rut" and give some real thought to the man in HIS time and his ideas and ideals in OUR time.

Best

LJ

Well can you just imagine this rather gangling, fiery red haired and complected, patrician gentleman arriving in Philadelphia in a large carriage with liveried servants at the tender age of 32 ????

Certainly at the time of THIS entry into the seat of government hewas making no effort to affect "The common touch".

Would you say that at this time he represented an "American Aristocracy"??? If so, was he representing the "People" ??? and if so, WHO were the people he was representing ???

Hi Ella: I couldn't get the Jefferson book - sold out - so I am waiting for the paperback in April. Jefferson and John Adams are the most interesting to me of that period of our history. I too admire Jefferson's stand on separation of church and state. Jefferson feared the church and the Baptist layman he consulted (can't think of his name ) feared the state so together they got it included. I fear both. The most recent happening here in N.C. is that a judge was ordered to remove the 10 commandments from the wall of his courtroom. As for the ACLU, they are prone to insist on the civil rights of select groups. I think everyone should have civil rights if we mean "liberty and justice for all." After supporting them for years, when my civil rights were taken away they wouldn't help. I attended a predominantly black state college (I am a white skinned Caucasion) and had to have a Greensboro policeman escort me from my car to class. He got permission from the police chief to do this when he was off duty because no one would garantee my safety. Yes, I am bitter.

Joyce, Did your experiences (which sound dramatically unusual) give you the opportunities to begin to differentiate between 1. Racial prejudices, 2.Economic discrimination, and 3. Majority/Minority presumptions ??

Best

LJ

Joyce - what a frightening experience for you! Did you write to the ACLU - I would have raised cain about it and written to the National Director and also the newspapers. Did you contact the college officials? I would have thought they would have taken note of your plight and had the campus police help you and also written it up in their student newspaper. This sort of thing must stop in our society - I think we have made progress, but we have a great many miles to travel yet to eliminate racial discrimination of all kinds. I have read that the Asian-Americans are experiencing a lot of it lately, particularly the new Asians.

The experience I mentioned was when the American Nazi party got permission to march through the streets of Chicago some years ago - I believe it was through a Jewish neighborhood, although I may be wrong about that - does anyone remember that? The ACLU backed their right of free assembly.

Have you tried getting the book from the Library? I got it right away from the reserve list - It doesn't have a popular following so you should be able to get it also. Love to have you in the discussion.

Was Jefferson not indeed, a renaissance man? He was precocious, studious, dligent in the arts (Violin practice and always singing),accomplished in politics and society, well bred from the finest of the early Virginia gentry. He was thoroughly educated (boarded out at the time of his father's death at age 14 to learn Greek and Latin) and with a rather unimpressive military experience.

The picture of his entrance into Philadelphia with the blue eyes of a successful politico (or movie star ?) suggests the "Air" of a dillitante, or with his penchant for bowing and scrapeing, that he was a bit "Effete"

Indeed, throughout the story social graces take preceedance over honesty and forthrightness, but his lack of presence as a speaker and any other shortcomings is eclipsed by his literary and compositional abilities.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Best

LJ

Well, I think that ostensatious entry into the city was an example of the social uncertainty of a young man, unsure of his acceptance into the company of important figures of the day. He wanted to impress with his "station in life" and thought his attire and well-equipped carriage were the proper display to present. Class distinction was even more stressed at that time than today by those who still felt very attached to English tradition.

JOYCE...What were the threats like? Was it verbal abuse? Did your protector alleviate the problem or did it keep on? Did you choose this school because it was nearby or was it their program that interested you? I'd sure hate to be in that position. No wonder it left you bitter!!

LJ: Must go back to the book and read - have left it for awhile, but I did not get the impression that Jefferson was "effete." Only that he was wealthy and from the privileged class of Virginia - a landowner, etc. I think he would have to be judged from those he was with - were they all from the wealthy and aristocratic class? Probably the poor would not have had the education or the time to attend the meetings, and, of course, the poor were out fighting with the British at the time.

Never having had much association with the military, I was somewhat taken back when I visited Valley Forge. From history, I remembered that it was a terrible time for the soldiers, they were freezing and starving, etc. and here General George Washington, the whole time while they were there, was living in this comfortable house, being cared for by servants. But I should have known - my husband was in the Navy in WW II and on his ship the officers ate alone and had linen tablecloths and were served in the grand style! But I digress - will read on.

That question in bold blue letters is "Socratic" and is intended to stimulate discussion. ELLA you have raised a corollary question:"Who were the poor".

I got the impression that he was first and foremont a polititian/diplomat (hard to tell where one stops and the other starts). That might account for his later appointment as ambassador to France.(Besides his rhetorical shortcomings would be less noticed in a foreign country)

He seems to have been a bit of a hypocrite. For example, the importation of luxury goods when non-importation wasd the rule (And the "Patriotic" thinh to do), his grand entry into Philiadelphia as an aristocratic southern slave holder while preaching equality, or even his masterly turn of blame on George III first for making the colonists slave-holders then for the "Hostile" act of freeing them, or his penchant for twisting the facts to suit the situation about which he was writing viz. The Boston Tea Party.

This facility with the truth may well have been an outgrowth of his background as the protege of the Virginia ruling political gentry.

Best

LJ

Socratic - "philosophical method of questioning of another to elicit a clear expression of something supposed to be implicity known by all rational beings: -Webster's Dictionary.

Who were the poor in those days? Everybody that wasn't wealthy - they are always with us. I have not studied the period of America we are discussing for a long time - if at all. But there were many poor immigrants, tradesmen, indentured servants, etc. That class of people seeking a better life in the colonies and I doubt they had much education. I still have not gone to the book again - have been watching the Science Odyssey on PBS - fascinating, but can you tell me LJ - how were the people selected to go to Philadelphia? How many from each colony? Were they meant to be representative of the people or just framers of the state constitutions? Who called this meeting together? What was its mission? Can you give us a little background of this?

Oh, horrors! Picked up my book over lunch and to my dismay, it is due back to Library today to be renewed, and it has all these postit notes sticking out from it everywhere. Can't take it back in this condition, so will quickly make some observations:

Page 301 - Jefferson's style of leadership - one that "rests comfortably with contradictions." I liked that, but I think that came later in his life.

In Chapter 1, in describing Jefferson, the author has used these phrases, juvenile romantic, vulnerable young man, utterly useless in situations that demanded a public presence, shy, withdrawn, regarded all critical suggestions of his writing as misguided corruption. Also, somewhere I remember he was very tall, erect of stature, sandy-haired, blue eyes, freckles.

I've got a question here: What is meant exactly by "inalienable" rights. We could say not foreign, of course. But is there a deeper meaning?

The author says that liberal reform in American can be based on Jefferson's 58 words, such as the mandate for ending slavery, rights of citizenship to blacks/women, and justifying welfare programs. But I think we know that Jefferson had no idea of such future programs and would not have approved of them - is that true?? Certainly, he would have been against our huge bureaucratic government.

How about this statement: what one thinks is entirely or largely a product of what one reads (which is a scholarly tradition of belief)? Do we agree to that?

I liked Adams statement that Jefferson had the "wisdom of taciturnity" in his mature years.

LJ: I have a note here also that, as you said, Jefferson could play fast and loose with historical evidence on behalf of a greater cause, e.g. Boston Tea Party. I think that is a human tendency, don't you?

Is our discussion going to be limited to the 3 of us? I emailed that Sherman fellow again asking him to join us - and he emailed me back he couldn't find us, but wanted to. So I emailed him the Seniornet URL - hope he gets here!

I thought there were a lot more of you than three?? Anyway, I'm lurking and enjoying the posts, and disagree vehemently with the assertion that "what one thinks is entirely or largely a product of what one reads."

I think you can learn probably more from books than from your environment, but I think a person is the sum of his experiences, of which reading is a part: in some cases a large part, but, nevertheless just a part.

Thank you all for providing such a rich and interesting discussion!!

Ginny

Am back with renewed book - good for another month. I know more people could get this book from their local library, if they don't want to buy it.

Ginny - yes, you took the words right out of my mouth - but you didn't get the candy I'm nibbling on (I'm going to be a blimp soon and take off around the world)

When do we go on to gay Paree' (did I spell that right, always reminds me of that French guy, oh, darn, but he was a singer, actor and spoke with such an exaggerated French accent - I'll think of him eventually). I should start a contest with Who can Read My Mind First? or Who Can Find it first?

ELLA, Was it Charles Boyer (As in "Come with me to the Casbah")

Certainly Jefferson (at least) was representing the landed Gentry of the "Old Dominion". Of the situation in other states, I'm not too certain.

A detailed analysis of how these delegates were chosen is not within the purview of my educational background, but the fact that the wealthy then, as now, pretty well controlled the government is impossible to conceal. If George III hadn't suffered from Acute Intermittant Porphyria and as a result been certifiably insane we might well have ended up as a republican monarchy.

Since Alien means foreign, I would think that inalienable things are those which are not and cannot be made "Foreign" to us.

Playing fast and loosely with facts denotes many things to me other than generic humanity. Examples would be salesmen, polititcans, preachers, con artists, shallow thinkers and the like.

Best

LJ

PS Mary, Sandy, Jo, and Jackie promised to come to this party, but have been hiding out someplace. I know that Larry is lurking and will come through (He always does). Ginny got busy runing the whole world, but she too will come through.

LJ - I'll be there with you. I'm just waiting to get the book in the mail..

Katie

Katie, I knew you could be counted on.

Best

LJ

LJ, Just checking in again this morning. I still have not been able to get the book from the library and checked again yesterday. It was suppose to have been returned on the 12th and don't think anyone was ahead of me on the reserve list. I am learning from the posts to date. Jefferson has certainly had a tremendous influence on this country and it seems that seldom a week goes by that I don't hear his name mentioned (outside of this discussion, of course).

Larry

LJ: No, not Boyer, don't think he sang. It was that fellow that had a big grin and he was always singing "Gigi"

Well, politicians surely play fast and loose with facts - and the all the others, too, - as I said a human tendency.

Oh, good, we have some others coming in - we'll keep the coffee pot warm till then!

Ella,

Maurice Chevalier? Is he the one?

Joan

Oh, thanks, Joan, yes. And I bet you can pronounce his name perfectly! I never could. Do you think he had an exagerated French accent?

In this issue of Time there's an article on the new Iranian president's interview with CNN and among other things like "the American civilization is worthy of respect" he had a good word for the Puritans, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, and Abraham Lincoln. Is this a combination of "presentism" and "pastism" - heavens, what words are these? I'm confused and I'm going to forget I ever read words like that. But Jefferson lives on.....

No ella he did not have an exaggerated French accent. He was native French. His accent was nothing to what many French people would have when speaking English.

Joan

"Thank 'eaven for leetle gulls", remember that?

I'm still here, just distracted from my reading lately. Also, my ISP won't let me connect in the evenings. They promise an upgrade this month but I'm getting really impatient. I guess too many Christmas computers have come on-line.

Jo

Might I suggest that in a "Round Table" setting, A Socratic Question is one, the answer to which is not readily known by the participants, but can be deduced from the information available to the participant(s). More Coming.

Best

LJ

Hi Ginny and All Book Lovers. Just have the book and like what I h ave read so far and the comments from readers. Being a native Virginian from west of the Blue Ridge I take personal pride in all things Virginian. Jefferson has always struck me as being normal like the rest of us (knowing what we want and what is right but never being able to gain that level in our own lives). Child,sights,sounds,day dreaming all seem to affect our viewpoint as we get older and as we continue to discuss Jevverson I believe we will find a man with his dreams living in a world needing change.

James!! THERE you are, and in fine form, too! So glad to see you again, you'll love this discussion, and they, you!

Ginny

LJ! I got the book today and have read the Prologue. I can tell already I'm going to enjoy reading this book. Ellis is such a FINE writer. Great choice! I'll chime in with something more substantive, I hope, when I catch up with the rest of you.

Katie

Welcome James! I agree that your state is beautiful, we spent 2 weeks there in early November. Wish I were as normal as Jefferson (in being a landowner and wealthy, I wouldn't even mind a servant or two, but they would demand wages, darn!). What do you think his dreams were besides being free of English rule?

Almost caught up with scheduled reading. Ella: I detect a little humor in your "normal" desire. With thousands of acres land and deep in debt I suspect he falls into normal category. Maybe that's why he was singing all the time.You mentioned dreams: Perhaps he stated it best in "pursuit of happiness".Since no one can MAKE us happy we have to seek it out the best we can. Ellis mentioned in an article that hius frame of mind at the time "I have my house to build,my fields to farm,and TO WATCH FOR THE HAPPINESS OF THOSE WHO LABOR FOR MINE. Perhaps he knew himself better than some give him credit for. 'm still trying to find myself. Thanks for comments Jim

Hi James: Good to have a native of The Old Dominion aboard. Virginia is certainly for lovers of American history. I believe most of the "founding fathers" were dreamers - and when has society not been in need of change? Even though our century has seen more change than most, there is still room for change. Also, as others have pointed out, Jefferson was a member of the "landed gentry" but I believe those of great means in his time had more concern for the less fortunate than seems evident today. We still have the same division - i.e., who among us could afford to run for a local office much less Congress? One of my favorite quotes of Jefferson is " In matters of principles stand like a rock. In matters of taste, swim with the current." Surely, these are the words of a dreamer. Today we seem to have more swimmers than rocks. Give us more dreamers.

I think that Clinton was if not, poor, certainly far from wealthy and look where he is. It still can happen if you have ambition and guts! I don't want to get into a discussion about politics, but I think it refreshing for America to have those in government who come, not from the wealthy and privileged class, but from the class most of us come from. There was Bono - not even a high school graduate!

Jim - I'm hopelessly lost, also, but surviving in the desert so to speak! Never met a person who had found himself - but then I don't know what that means! A self-confident person can be so on the outside, but he can be a mess inside, etc. Perhaps if I had met Jefferson. Adams it seems had great admiration for him always - I think I read they carried on a correspondence for 50 years or so. WOW!

Hi Ella: I was not thinking of Clinton's early life but being at Harvard, ten years as Gov. of Arkansas and I must admit intelligence and intestinal fortitute do sometimes win; also, Sonny Bono had creativity and intelligence - more education might have hampered him! Also, Bono must have had some money left from his years of TV stardom. Adams and Jefferson were friends for 50 years - I think it was great even in their day but today it is really rare. My husband has a friend - they met as college freshmen - and they celebrated 50 years of friendship last September (97) by going back to the University of Florida at Gainesville and seeing a football game together. I want them to write about it, I think it is so unusual and great - but they think it is an ordinary thing although they can't think of anyone they know that have been friends that many years!

Adams and Jefferson were rather bitter opponants during much of that 50 years.

I just finished the first chapter, and my goodness, I've already learned alot. Like most Americans, I have always thought of Jefferson writing the D of I while bathed in golden light and accompanied by swelling music. But I take comfort that I'm not alone. I remember JFK, upon welcoming a bunch of Noble prize winners to the White House, saying something to the effect that, "This much intellect hasn't been all in one room since Thomas Jefferson sat in a room by himself."

As to your question, LJ, about whom Jefferson, and all the other delegates, were representing, I certainly agree with the previous posts that the landed gentry were exclusively represented.

Jefferson seems to have been a late bloomer socially, if he ever bloomed at all. He was 32 when he rode in Philadelphia, so his grand entrance seems a bit immature as well as 'provincial.' His immaturity seems also reflected in his deep resentment and sullen behavior when changes were made to his copy - though most writers can probably relate strongly and would vigorously deny being immature.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the writing in this book.

Katie

AHHH KATIE, You've REALY been reading. We are both getting a mind picture of this man (His mind and body - in our minds) As we go, Ellis adds to this picture,

Keeping in mind his two major contributions prior to writing the D. of I. , We're told that he was shy, to the point of being "Withdrawn"; virtually "Speechless" in public forums; but "Summary View" and the "Declaration of causes" as well as the D. of I. preserve for posterity the thinking, attitudes, and propaganda of the "Voting" colonists.

One can almost feel his "Self-Satisfaction" in being so democratic and moral, while "Restocking " his wine cellar with Madeira, improving his stock of horses etc. and taking care of his wife whom I suspect he kept barefoot and chained to the bed.

Best

LJ

Really enjoying your comments. Thoughts really reflect that there are still many kind,reflective people today. Perhaps those of us who like to read can go beneath the skin sometimes. Joyce,you mentioned more dreamers would be nice. Seems I read recently that daydreaming is thought of as more positive activity than when I was going to school. J. Ellis mentions dreaming,romantic endorsement of a pristine past,etc as evidence of visionary prospects he carried around in his mind and heart. Just think, learned in Latin and Greek, loved great poets, spent most day reading, musical training (perhaps from Plato) etc. That's what he took with him when entering Phiadelphia at age 32. My oh my. Write more later

Hi Joyce - If your husband and friend don't write about it, you should. I think it's a wonderful story. How did they keep in touch - visiting, writing?

LJ: During that 50 year period, even though bitter opponents, they kept writing. Perhaps because Jefferson could express himself better by writing? Haven't gotten into their correspondence yet in reading the book. Just remembered that Adams admired Jefferson, so there must have been something between them.

Carole: Another long article appeared in the paper recently about the situation in Marion, Ohio. There are three troublesome spots that are being investigated as the town has had a 122% rise in leukemia and other cancers in 20-30 years. A preserving company (used creosote to preserve wood, etc.), a dump, and the weapons depot. I wondered, too, in reading if they had read this book, but that might discourage them. Think of all the "dumps" we have had over the years, although I think the modern term is "sanitary landfills." HA!!

As we approach the next section of the book I'd like to emphasize the observations that he was very "Thin-Skinned". He seems to have covered his critics with taciturnity and would never have had it said that "Methinks he doth protest too much".

As I scan back thru these early pages I find a most Idealistic, opinionated, self centered patrician who is not as concerned with the realities of life and history as he is with his own opinions. I think I see a born politician with fundimental perceptions of how he thinks things ought to be and a remarkable literary talent for presenting them to posterity.

Best

LJ

I apologize for my post to "Carole" above. That thought belonged to another discussion. LJ - are we to go on Paris now, which I found most entertaining?

Hi all,still trying to keep up with the reading. Really fast paced book with some new insights. Several have mentioned "unusual friendship between Jefferson and Adams. Bitter opponents appears rather harsh to discribe perhaps a mutual understanding of where each stands on issues and life. Emerson wrote as to Friendship:"..it should never fall into something usual and settled,but should be alert and inventive and add rhyme and reason to what was drudgery."

LJ,you really get into it. Quick answers to questions posed at the beginning : In true sense,being land owner (gentleman),etc he would be considerd aristocrat and I believe did represent the people and conditions as he experienced them in his formative years. Loved his land and surroundings too much to be hard hearted politician. Agree with you about his perception and literary talent which certainly complement each other. I wish my perceptions could be so well explained and understood by others. Aren't we all thin skinned about what we hold dear! Katie mentioned "late bloomer" socially and immaturity. Thank goodness she did not know me when I was 32 (but a very good year) and compared me to T. Jefferson. I'll be looking for you in Paris at the Cafe across from the train station. Jim

ON TO PARIS !!! Tell me "Mothers and Fathers" What do you think of his dealings with his daughters.

Ladies and Gentlemen, What do you think of his shenanigans with the eligible (And ineligible) parisian Ladies ??

Best

LJ

There was an old quote to the effect of "Do RIGHT and fear no man. Don't WRITE and fear no woman"

Best

LJ

Ellis is very organized - he starts every chapter with Jefferson's arrival somewhere and thus beginning another phase of his life. His accompanying slave, James Hemings, is probably related to the infamous Sally (we will get to that in the Appendix?). I must say at the outset that if only he had paid a bit more (or less, perhaps) attention to his wife, Martha, and her poor health due to innumerable pregnancies, as he did to his own body, (marathon walks, cold baths, etc.) she might have survived!

The prose they used in those days when letter writing was an art (quoting from Randolph on page 67) "I ever thought him to rank domestic happiness in the first class of the chief good." Love it!!

We have discussed this before, and Ellis has dealt with it numerous times, but it is certainly worth repeating, Jefferson's staunch belief presented in his writings, and actions while in political office, in "individual initiative." To my mind, that and that alone, would make the man a colossal genius, for it is this principle that has made this democracy such a success. Butwe must remark on Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784 (pg.68) wherein he addressed the end of slavery and, as Ellis states, the high-water mark of his antislavery efforts. "Heaven was silent in that awful moment" - How dare he blame this on God! Back later in Paris.

I now know what people mean when they say "I haven't got the book, but love reading all the posts, am following the discussion, and have learned a lot!!"

Boy, you really can!

This is just great,

Ginny

From 1776-9, T.J. set about to re-write the Virginia legal code. Although only one of his major reforms was ultimately enacted (the abolition of primogeniture) I took this as his "High water mark" on the slavery question because it's aim was to prohibit the practice in any states admitted to the union after 1800.

If this had been enacted; perforce, other efforts would have followed to end slavery in the original states, and the civil war might not have happened.

A dichotomy of Jeffersons political ideology becomes apparant at this time with his support of federal precedence in interstate disputes and "Implied Powers" in the Articles of Confederation.

ELLA, your comment on individual self-sufficiency was a point of "Identity" between T.J. and modern American men. This is seen in our present (and recent past) culture as the masculine identity with Hunting (to a lesser extent - fishing) Home vegetable gardening, and "How to" do it yourself projects (Viz. the "Mother Earth News") Even "Family Camping" and the "Boy Scouts" can be equated to this attitude.

Best

LJ

LJ: I wasn't thinking of boy scouting, hunting and gardening at all when I mentioned "individual initiative." I was referring to enterpreneurship in America and all the great industries that were begun small and grew into corporations that gave jobs and created more industries. Fellows like Henry Ford, Edison, Carnegie - just to name a few - under other forms of government such initiative could not have occurred. Russia at the moment is trying this experiment, but decades of communism, monarchs, government control of industry, etc. cannot be erased over night. We are such a young country, but grew so mighty because of individual freedom (well, don't mean to wax sentimental).

Jefferson is certainly controversial is so many aspects - no wonder 6 volumes (and more) could be written about him. You admire him on the one hand, and reprehend him on the other!

On the other hand Ella, T.J.'s "Ideals" were rural not industrial; in fact one could definitely NOT call him a "Friend" of industrialization.

Best

LJ

The friendship between Jefferson and Adams endured despite often radical differences of opinion and periods of non-communication, it seems. It warmed my heart, though, to read of the constant friendship and lively correspondence over the years of TJ and Abigail Adams. She certainly was a woman who knew her own mind and wasn't afraid to speak it, though she couched it in mannerly language. I was glad he came to know well and admire a woman much different than the seemingly very domestic Mrs. Jefferson and some of the more flirtatious ladies of France.

AND as we will learn at the end, Abigale got "The last word".

Best

LJ

Yes, LJ, definitely "rural" - but that was, of course, the VA way of life at the time - a very lovely way for the patricians. But again, I read of his idealized committment to the individual, as on page 101 where he is comparing European, American and Indian societies. He much preferred the Indian which managed itself without any formal government whatsoever, although, of course, he realized that with the population and the vastness of America, some form of federal government would be necessary.

What an idealistic individual he was and before his time in so very many instances, such as his stance on the Barbary Pirates where he proposed an international force to rid the oceans of their presence; and his proposal of "free trade" between nations. I should amend that to say a visionary - I think I read that he even predicted a racial war sometime in the future of the country.

Of course, both Adams and he were hostile toward England and vice versa - amusing that the King turned his back on them. Very discourteous of His Royal Highness, eh what?

Many others have said of France that they love the wine, women and song, but not the squalor; Jefferson agreed with that obviously, but he could fit his writings to his audience and thus keep friends all around, couldn't he! His love affair with Maria Cosway apparently has kept historians wondering and searching for more evidence - sort of a did-they-or did-they-not quest. His head won out over his heart I believe the book said. And a married woman, no less - shame on Mr. Jefferson! But what's new, only that Jefferson is just as human as the rest of mankind.

As for his parental responsibilities, he was far from an ideal parent, although he believed himself to be. Putting one daughter in a rigid convent (so he could see more of the beaueous Maria, maybe?), not crossing the channel to pick up another child - and the letters he wrote dictating their behavior. Nothing of affection at all.

Such an interesting man!

ELLA, That's a set of questions for us all. I've got to print it out and "Dwell" upon it.

Best

LJ

No questions, LJ. Just observations. Let us hear from you and all the others.

I finally got this book from the Library yesterday. Now if I can just find the time to read some of it maybe I can join in the discussion. I did start the first chapter today and it is an interesting read already.

Larry

EVERYBODY PLEASE post as you read. Stop from time to time to think. You may disagree with what's been said. Speak UP.

Best

LJ

WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS IN SENIORNET BOOK REVIEWS. CHECK IT OUT!

I read about the first 75 pages, and "wow" what and interesting book.

The thought occurred to me as I read as to how Jefferson ever became well enough known, due to his reluctance to speak up and his desire to be away from society, to have ever been asked by the Virginia government to go to Philadelphia.  It also seemed strange that he agreed to run for the state legislature with this attitude about being in positions where verbal communication was so important.

I also was a little surprised to read about his great sensitivity to criticism or revision of his written word.

Since he had been born into and raised in an affluent family, I didn't see anything surprising about his entry into Philadelphia.  Do we know anything about how the other delegates from Virginia (or the other states) outfitted themselves and whether the other delegates from the south had slaves and attendants as a part of their attendance in Philadelphia?

I had never heard of the other published writings of Jefferson prior to the Declaration, or I have forgotten.

I had to wonder if his wife had not died if he would have ended up in France as a diplomat and how the history of this country might have been different.

Larry
 
 

Hi - just checking in. Ginny got a copy of the book to me and now I think I am with you - I still haven't finished the Paris section but almost. About Jefferson and women - as the writer (I like this writer) said most of his romancing was in thinking rather than doing. Did he break his wrist running from Mrs. Cosway - I almost felt sorry for him! Also, married women are much safer - unless they have jealous husbands. I suspect these married women were on the prowl because their husbands were- and they were bored. Also, what sensitive, affectionate female could resist a shy, good-looking, intellectual older (but not too much so) man who was a wealthy Virginia Southern Gentleman, who whispered sweet nothings into your ear and maybe even nibbled it and wrote such long beautiful love letters??? Maybe, I feel sorry for Mrs. C.! As for his daughters - I suspect he fathered his daughters as his father did his sisters. He sounds a little over-protective, but this was Paris just before the French Revolution and these young ladies had been in the cloistered environment of Monticello all their lives. I think I would have hesitated to take them to France. He probably didn't have the faintest idea what to do with them - he did listen a little to Abrigale A. - he should have heeded her advice as carefully as he did John's. Re: the Barbary Pirates - his idea of sending out a Navy to rescue the ships, seamen and goods rather than pay the ransom is scary! I am with John Adams here - "unless you want to fight them forever..." This reminds me of the Iraq hostage situation - many wanted to level the country with bombs but what would have happened to the hostages. Now we seem to have the same attitude - just blow them off the face of the earth - the scary thing now is we could do it. As for attutudes toward other governments - is this where we decided to become bigger and better than everybody else in the world and then 'build a secure big nest right here in the West and let the rest of the world go by', and when did the 'we have got to save the whole world from tyranny whether they want to be saved or not come into our national thinking? We probably can't afford this! I have had to look up this period in history again to get oriented. Also, now I want to read Ellis' book about John Adams!

Joyce: Your comments were so interesting - you put it all so well! I almost wish we could go back to the attitude of "let the rest of the world go by." I suspect our present attitude of "saving the whole world from tyranny" started with the U.N. after WW II, and since we are the wealthiest and believe in "human rights" (who started that whole business - wasn't it Carter?") we seem to think we must democratize every country everywhere. Like the old missionaries saving the savages for Christianity and our God.

Would you have been interested in Jefferson if you had lived in those times? Aside from his wealth, of course, what would he have offered a woman, with his ideas of women should pursue domestic bliss as politics only would bring wrinkles? (something like that). You can't tell me that women were that much different back then! We have always had minds and opinions, if men would only listen! I'm sure there were many more Abigail Adams.

I just finished the Paris chapter, which was fascinating. Does it seem to anyone else that the author is just a tad harsh on TJ? Over and over again, Ellis talks about TJ's ability to compartmentalize his differing emotions and thoughts on various subjects, i.e. slavery.

Page 88:Meanwhile there were also capsules or compartments inside his own mind or soul that were being constructed at this time to keep certain incompatible thoughts from encountering one another. Perhaps the most graphic example of this capacity to keep secrets from himself....

Page 88 again: It is almost equally certain that Jefferson felt no twinge of conscience about recommending a policy of secrecy, which merely mirrored the deeper secrecies he routinely practiced inside himself.

Page 89:...Jefferson had created separate lines of communication inside himself that were designed to prevent one set of signals from interfering with the other....Honesty for Jefferson...was a more complicated internal negociation. He was most disarming when a morally resonant subject like slavery drove a wedge between his incompatible convictions, and her remained serenely oblivious of the disjunction.

Ellis does go on to say the this "internal and external diplomacy grew more out of his deep distaste for sharp disagreement" was just that, and not hypocrisy. But he doesn't convince me that TJ "had the kind of duplicity possible only in the pure heart." (page 90) Yes, he abhored slavery yet kept slaves, but I don't think that is evidence enough to accuse him of having a severe personality disorder.

As for his role as father, I wonder there too if Ellis isn't a bit harsh. What was the role of father in a family in the middle and late 18th century? Protector, provider? In light of the times doesn't the following seem just a bit unfair:

Page 92: In that sense his tendency to consign women to a more rarefied and less contentious domain was not an alienating act but rather an endorsement of feminine values and virtues as central fixtures in the Jeffersonian paradise.

The naivette of the Americans regarding the French Revolution was interesting. It appears that the Americans did not, until then, completely appreciate the depth of the class divisions, and the depth of the resentment of the working class. How amazing it must have been for Jefferson to see these events play out.

LJ - I'm not quite sure what you are asking in your last question about the attitudes of our government today. Give me a hint!

Katie

Does anyone believe that our current President can "compartmentalize" his mind at the moment? I do wish that he had romanticized (mild, I know) with a married woman (like Jefferson). Safer, perhaps, and less public. He has quoted Jefferson on one occasion I know, stating that Jefferson was also for "change."

Ella... Regarding that last question: I think Clinton is trying to set his lastest predicament aside to get on with things, or at least to divert our attention from it, but judging from the dark bags under his eyes this morning, he's not getting much sleep.

Really been enjoying the comments recently. I haven't been posting because my previous comments seemed to be so "off base" with thinking of others as to the real T, Jefferson. Seems some find his thin skin,aristocracy,rep of the people versus priveleged class etc; to be the real TJ and his true nature with their faults to be false. Ellis does seem to write in tenor of TJ liking Paradise conditions and living in an unreal world rather than being T. Jefferson as a person. World today is certainly smaller but still have self interests first. England and France viewed and treated differently then and it was mostly due to economics and historical perspectives. Today,due to economics France, Russia and China see things differently then US. So what! If we have a policy for our country then we must tell them plainly what it is and take steps independant of theirs if in fact they want it both ways (democratic but get the monetary benefits first). Jefferson to me is a real person with all the complexities of life and how we think and live it. It is refreshing to know that perfection in life might have to wait until another life. Jim

FIRST: noting the arbitrary assumption by the English of their "Rectitude". From their position of strength yhe foregone conclusion on their part that others ideas are automatically wrong. Compare this with oue (U.S.) attitudes toward south and central american countries.

SECOND: the value of this book is that it gives us an opportunity to view T.J. as a person rather than a perfection.

THIRD: to go back just a bit, In the "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and to some extent in the "Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms", T.J. was apparantly taking an EXTREME position and saying what many thought and perhaps wanted or wanted to believe.. His position however, was not adopted by the Virginia Legislature which chose to be more moderate. Even after we were at war with the British, the signers of the D of I chose to soften his language a bit.

He (T.J.) eulogized Saxon England (Which probably included slavery) and the doctrine of "Expatriation" both of which were a fiction, but our author thinks T.J. believed them. One wonders to what extent this is true and to what extent he was seeking literary effectiveness at the expense of accuracy. One hesitates to believe that his thinking and awareness were too shallow for him to be aware.

Entering Paris, I get a picture of a man in the full flush of youthful rectitude, uninterested in ameliorating thought or opinions other than his own. A sharp mind in an admirable body, accustomed to deference from just about everybody, probably ultra-chauvenistic (within normal limits for the time) and very aware and adept socially.

His sexual proclivities and relationships with women are a bit obscure. He was adept at using wives for purposes of intelligence gathering. We know so little of his wife (and mother) and whether the so-called deathbed promise not to remarry was true or a smokescreen. I wonder whether his relationships to Sally Hemmings and his wife weren't essentially the same for him in many ways. When it comes to the Hemmings affair, I would consider the word of mouth information from Sally's peers and children to be the reliable source.

I doubt that he had much if any, interest in raising his children (Of either colour) especially daughters, and I was singularly impressed with the TOTALLY male makeup of his Parisian household.

Externally, he had a cadre of Madison and Monroe and was on close friendly terms with the Adamses. He was apparantly opinionated, self satisfied, and internally he was a "Blank Wall" covered with vines of extreme courtesy and a magic pen, lacking in candor but not in guile.

Best LJ

Roslyn: Yes, I agree that our selfish interests are very much intertwined with these "concerns" for underdeveloped countries. Cllinton addressed that fact in his State of the Union Speech - bolstering the economies of these nations so that they may purchase our exports and not dumping their products here which would have the effect of cheapening our own products and hurting our economy.

Before we leave the Paris chapter, would like some comments (pg. 111) as to Jefferson's statement "the earth belongs always to the living generations" and then he expounds on his theory of every 19 years all personal and national debts, all laws, constitutions should expire. Oh, what a fantasy! Madison gently responded by complimenting him on his "interesting reflections." Indeed, what reflections. And on the next page we read that Jefferson held this idea and referred to it the rest of his life. It is hard to imagine that a man of his intellect could hold such a ridiculous belief. Of course, we know that here is a man who could not balance his checkbook (why didn't he hire a clerk who could manage his financial affairs?). And we know that he really didn't like farming at all - certainly he did not know the basics of good farming techniques! Just finished reading about his nailery - which did bring him a bit of money and he seemed to enjoy.

I think the man should have stuck to writing and left the practicalities of life to others!

I too would appreciate commentary on T.J.s famous aphorism that "The Earth belongs to the living generation" He apparantly made no effort to practice this in his own life, yet other countries have translated it into "Land Reform"

What about this as a provocative statement: "If we fail to make land distribution a reality, the "American Dream" presently dieing a natural death, will be lost forever"

Best

LJ

I am learning so much I didn't know about Jefferson and the others of the "Founding Fathers" that I probably need to let this sink in before commenting. I didn't realize his writing contributed to the thinking of the French Revolution. As for the land belonging to the living I agree. Perhaps this is some of the thinking that influenced the way many of us "feel" about owning land. My six siblings cannot part with the family farm in Florida because our grandfather loved this land and it made up for the land taken from him in Germany. He brought his family to the US around the turn of this Century. Perhaps I was looking at Jefferson's thinking from present day happenings but I am concerned about leaving clean air, water, etc. for our children i.e. they will be the living in the next century. As for putting in a new goverment every 20 years - mind boggling but I am sure it would be mind boggling to all involved in the founding of such a new way of life to see what these United States became. They had no idea how vast the western part was nor could they have imagined the hugh world population that would be everywhere in less than 500 years. Some of you more familiar with world history than I - was there any other period when there were such a large number of dreamers, writers, and doers that left such a legacey?

In reading about Jefferson's time in France and then his return to America I am coming away with a feeling that Jefferson sometimes really had no touch with reality. I am coming to a better appreciation of James Madison and he apparently was able to serve as a good counterpoint to some of the ideas of Jefferson, such as the 19 year idea.

Larry

IF YOU were the political faction in control, or If YOU were the "Pure" G. Washington ---TOO neutral politically (That's not criticism);AND YOU were choosing "Appointments" both Domestic and Foreign for your administration: Would YOU choose these Three foreign service chiefs,and would YOU send T.J. to France and, Why?

BEST

LJ

Good question LJ - How well did they all know each other? Can't remember why TJ was sent to France - did the book say? And why Adams to England. Well, of course, there were only so many aristocrats, and, of course, only they could go to represent the new America.

Joyce - we can all appreciate the American Dream of owning land. But as we mature into an "older age" I, for one, realize we have only "leased" the land for our lifetime and then it will pass on to someone else, the house will be torn down to make way for something else, etc. As you said, the only legacy we can leave is a good earth, and we are not doing well there at all.

Larry - I agree that Jefferson was not in touch with reality. Perhaps it takes one such as he, who lives in a fantasy world, to write such beautiful words as the Declaration of Independence.

LJ,

Your question is causes one to think a bit. We earlier read that TJ was hesistant to speak out in public debate. It would seem that being an Ambassador would require the ability to speak in public as you represent the country. Had I been making the decision, based on the little background we have from the book so far, I don't think that TJ would have been my choice. It must have been the power of his intellect and the one-on-one working relationships that TJ had had with the other leaders that lead to his being asked to take that post. I also wondered why they had three representatives in France at the same time and was it only France and England where we had Ambassadors? Revealing the depth of my knowledge with this question!

Larry

Well, there was Jonn Adams, Ben Franklin and T.J. All the other major players were at home developing the infrastructure of a nation and erecting its skeleton.

Now wasn't Adams the "Heir Apparant". The tough job went to him and kept him out of the way much of the time.

Franklin was brilliant and well read, but I've got the impression that he was considered to be somewhat of a "Loose Cannon" among the inner, inner-circle.

France, was a matter of "Appearances" I'd think of it as a "Junior" position in the training of men who would and or could deal with the world outside the colonial area.

T.J. needn't make speeches that were moving. He wrote. The french didn't (as a whole) understand English and T.J. had to learn French. Diplomatically, next to nothing was accomplished during this administration.

Its probably foolish, but one wonders if he weren't sent as sort of a "Gigolo", to act as a listening post and gatherer of information from the wives of other diplomats and court officials.

Best

LJ

Agree with all that discussion and the book is heating up. Based on some observations made by others it may be necessary to rewrite history and take legal action against Jefferson for false pretenses. Being a Virginian I think I stand by Jefferson as a man,visionary,dreamer,idealistic,writer,etc.,etc.. Ella: You mention l9 yr forgive debt,etc as indicating TJ lacking in intellect. I suppose God was out of his mind when he instituted the Jubilee Year for the Israelites which did the same thing. Being so in debt himself,perhaps this seemed a great idea. You say he didn't like farming, I am a flower grower, and I don't life many aspects of gardening,but I sure like the flowers. As to being practical, I much prefer to live life and leave the "even tenor way" to others. Perhaps TJ liked living too much to be practical all the time. Joyce:Agree about the "feel for the land". IN 1820,one of my grandfathers built a l-1/2 story log house on the Wilderness Road in Newbern,Virginia. It remained in the family until a few years ago when the National Historical Society made the entire,small village an historical site. My father,mother and myself made it a safe haven during the depression along with about 6 others. (Thought we had lots of room) I'm in Ala now but I HAVE to go back every October to "reorient myself in the Universe and refresh my soul" as the saying goes. Land never really passes on,just the responsibility. What we see and touch belongs to us all. Yes Ella, give us a dreamer. TJ: You seem to be saying that Adams was in wrong place,Franklin a "loose cannon" and TJ did not accomplish anything. You say France is "junior" as to training ground and TJ might have excelled as a "gigolo" for talkative wives. This analysis of TJ had me laughing for quite some time. Then I got to thinking that our fine President Clinton would never measure up to your standards and our economy is a fluke and the result of poor boy from Arkansas who had the adacity to want to be President (dreamer). Are you sure you are not from Georgetown or run around with those "intellectual" realists! Learning a lot from you folks and I'm having fun too. Jim from Ole Virginia

This is such an interesting discussion. It really causes one to think. Ella: TJ was sent to France to replace Franklin. Yes, there were just so many aristrocrats, but this one was a literate aristrocrat who could read and write French but didn't do well with local French conversation. (Some of us who grew up in Florida, Texas, California, etc. can converse a little in Spanish but do not read or write it. Even when we converse we just can't seem to say the House White instead of the White House.) Paris loved intellectuals - Voltaire and Franklin had "embraced" each other's philsophy - so TJ was a likely choice. Maybe it wasn't Washington's viewpoint, but I Madison wanted to keep TF at a distance and correspond with him. Then Madison could interpret or filter his thinking before sharing it with the electorate. Larry: I think TJ had occasional glimpses of reality - he had been a "failed" governor of Virginia - but when reality set in, he escaped to Monticello and wrote. In fact, he may have thought he was escaping when he went to Paris! It is hard to resis "presentism" (Ellis' word). In the 18th Century, the democracy in the minds of the Founding Fathers was "unrealistic." Even today many think equal means sameness and equate freedom with license. Unlike Jefferson's era, today being anti-intellectual is considered smart. Larry: I would have chosen TF because of the power of his intellect and his pen (it is still mighter than the sword). Ambassadors need to listen and answer with diplomany. TJ had learned that. It took someone tough like John Adams to deal with England. TF just doesn't fit my idea of a "Gigolo" even in the 18th Century. Jim from "Ole Virginny" (I hate it that you all let the Georgetown and DC crowd make you retire that State song. I guess you know that Florida transplants are trying to get Florida to retire our state song, Suwannee River). --Loved your comments. Maybe all the commoners in TJ's day were in the mountains with Patrick Henry! Can't you just picture Patrick Henry in Paris then?! The French Revolution might still be going on!

JIM, Under no circumstances would I "Put down" scions of the "Old Dominion". There were other Virginians who could "Orate", others could write, and some had realistic (and a few, unselfish) ideas of what government should be and do. To dovetail with Joyce's comment on P. Henry and the mountains; Henry was a firebrand, a rabble rouser, a REAL revolutionary. He wanted to fight!!! whereas, the ones who went "To the mountains" at that time were later to expand and move north-east in waves with (In succession) The revolution, The war of 1812, The Civil war, and the First world war. They migrated thru the Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky mountains and into Missouri. This was NOT the "Westward Migration" of History. This is where all those commoners who thought and felt like T.J. went as civilization encroached on their "Freedom" These are/were the "Mountain Folks" fast disappearing from all of Appalacia.

Best

LJ

Still laughing over the posts I've read - love the conversation and the different twists and turns it has taken. Haven't read any more of the book yet, but can't pass up the opportunity to comment on TJ as a gigolo. Funny - but I can see him strutting around the farm there in "ole Viginny" in his high polished boots, velvet breeches, lace at his throat commanding those 10-year old black children, who were sweating away to make him some money, and feeling grand that he gave them rewards now and them. Now Jim - I bet the part of the flower-growing that you dislike is getting all dirty and kneeling down there to plant, hoe, weed - you know, all that dirty stuff that Mr. TJ never did in his life!

We need more dreamers, I'll grant you, but they had better be very rich because no poor person could get in debt like TJ did and get away with that!

LJ: Are you saying that all the fine Applachians are disappearing from those beautiful mountains of Kentucky? Glad you're staying!

Do you get the impression that TJ was almost an Anarchist? While he was "Out of the way" im France Washington and the "inner-inner-circle" of revolutionaries were forming a government which T.J. clearly realized was a necessity, but whch was certainly not what he had in mind. We should keep in mind that later, and during his own presidency he violates his principles to seize an opportunity (Louisiana Purchase)

What about, "I like a little rebellion now and then" Serious?? Supercillious??? What do you think???

His developed position on slavery is outlined on pages 86-89

Lets move along to "Monticello 1794-1797"

Best

LJ

As Ellis states, latter-day moral judgments are notoriously easy to render, but, at the same time, if one of us had the conflicts in our mind that Jefferson had in his between "what he said" and "what he did" I wonder how history would treat us. For instance, his position on slavery in his "Notes on Virginia" (which was not meant for American eyes-lest his neighbors notice his hypocrisy?) in which he strenously denounced slavery, and his strong criticism of Hamilton in balancing the books, which you will remember Jefferson was unable to do on just his own plantation. It's a good thing he was able to compartmentalize his mind. However, Jefferson hated Hamilton for many reasons - chiefly it seems for his proactive governmental stance which in Jefferson's mind equated with the monarchy in England.

Viewing these early framers of the Consitution from this distance you almost want to assure them that it turned out all right after all; that the Constitution has held up through many tremulous times and you want to reward them with applause or something and I want to whisper to TJ not to worry over that Jay Treaty, it all turned out O.K. in the War of 1812 and we were better able to cope at that time.

And that Whiskey Rebellion - am I correct in remembering that 7000 took place in that? Wow, that seems llike a lot for those times, and what would Jefferson have wanted the outcome of this to be, if the federal government had not intervened. Viewing these early parties - the Federalists and the Republicans, one can see the cornerstones being laid for the problems which lay ahead.

It's been a long time since I've read an in-depth study of such a prominent figure in American History - find it most interesting - and am looking forward to the next chapter where TJ, after a long eloquent silence on his candidacy, finally ascends to the Presidency.

Ella, That was a terrific post. I think you covered the important material, especially the underlying reasons that TJ the chief symbol of opposition to the "Government" (This is the begining of the "We-They", "Ins-Outs", dichotomy in politics today.

Can you imagine what it was like then when "Parties" Bicameral government with an elected "Head" in various positions of dominance, was rare.

This is a good place to look at TJ's attitude on slavery, and to discuss the "Hemmings" affair.

Best

LJ

I see Jefferson's attitude on slavery the stance of a politician - you tell each group what they want to hear and heaven help you if the factions get together. With Jefferson and Hamilton - often we detest in others the things we detest in ourselves re: Hamilton's not balancing the books - was this the beginning of the difference between bookkeepping and accounting i.e. the bookkeepper balances the books the accountant makes the book balance (just kidding accountants but after all the season is upon us.) This is not the first time history has been influenced by two people who just plain hate each other. (Any of you interested in religious history, the trinity came about because Alexander and someone whose name I can't remember, hated each other. I am really beginning to feel sorry for George Washington - I can't imagine keeping this group from revolting! Old George may have not won battles in the military way but he won the war obviously. Maybe one reason Jefferson detested Hamilton was he was not an aristocrat but he could out aristrocrat the aristrocrats! I have noted this when because of election, inheritance, hard work, etc. working class folk become WASPs. (I am kidding here too.) I have been reminded recently that much of my "humor" is taken as an offense by some super sensitive souls and they could hear my tone of voice. Yes, Ella I do like this writer, too. I have learned so much that I didn't know about Jefferson but also about many others of that era.

Joyce - love humor anywhere I can get it for " -they love the good; they worship truth, they laugh uproariously in youth, And when they get to feeling old, they up and shoot themselves, I'm told!" -

You see what fate you are keep us from? And where else would I learn that Viriginia abandoned "Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny" and I sure hope Florida keeps Swanee River. What's the matter with us that we can't stick to Traditional things - they are priceless - our cities seem to be able, at times, to save an old building here and there, but's that about the extent of it.

LJ: What's Kentucky's state song? Years ago, made 2 trips to Bardstown to see the outdoor drama - Stephen Foster and "My Old Kentucky Home" - have they forgotten all about him, too (although was amused when we toured that home that the home belonged to his cousins, he lived in PA, as I remember)

Its still "My Old Kentucky Home" and its still played (Just like the National Anthem) at Churchill Downs on the first saturday in May. Right now were looking forward to May because we're in the middle of a blizzard.

LJ: Have been hearing/watching your weather down there - awful! Have nieces and nephews in Maine that have had it worse, though. In the heart of Ohio, we've been very fortunate. Happy to know you have electricity!. Finished the chapter on TJ's presidency (you are probably somewhat tired of the book by now?), but we are getting through.

I never knew, indeed I never thought, of Jefferson being the first president of an opposing political party to sweep into office; and also the first to expound on the republican party line- less government, lower taxes, the lowering of the national debt, etc. Although Ellis states that it is not necessarily in the best interests of government policy today to live within a budget, it is difficult for me to contemplate otherwise. Perhaps we are the last generation to remember a time when people paid either cash for purchases or did not buy them at all; I do not remember a plastic card being used when we were married and we did not believe in credit of any kind, still don't; but nevertheless I can conceive of times when it is necessary for our government to go into debt, e.g., war or economic depression. I admire Jefferson for standing on his principles and attaining his goals as President, and needless to say, the purchase of the Lousiana Territory was a great feat, even though dumb luck as Ellis says.

His problems with patronage and the Judiciary Branch of the government are, no doubt, still of concern to current incoming presidents, and, most certainly, the problems with the press. How timely that we should be reading of Jefferson's problematic sexual slanders in the press - this is certainly history repeating itself, right? Very vicious attacks - I had no idea!

LJ: I have no comments on the "miscegenation on the mountaintop." I feel (and I think the majority of the American people agree) that sexual affairs are a private matter and to be dealt with among the partners to the marriage or relationship. Enough of this! However, TJ's "charity and cruelty" to the Indians, slaves, and, at times, to the Federalists are characteristics of his personality to be regretted in this patriot.

We do have quite a few readers. I'd very much like to hear what some of the "Lurkers" have to say about his affair with Sally and about his stances on Slavery.

I do agree that his personal life has nothing to do with his politics. I also think that even the suspicion that he had an active sex life makes him more "Human" and less "Divine".

Best

LJ

With this book under our berlts its now G.Washington who seems "Sphinxlike". I liked that quote on p131 "Only Washington seems to have remained immune, but then he was immune to everything"

Another important quote: "Jefferson harbored a more acute sensitivity toward the explicit exercise of government power than any other member of the revolutionary generation"

By the standards of the day, do you think T.J. was an extremist?

Best

LJ

I think that the picture of a decadent aristocracy is enhanced by the phrase (136) "In the Jefferson family code, one not only kept secrets from outsiders; one kept secrets from oneself"

CHAPTER FOUR Washington, 1801-1804 If anyone is interested in the "Lewis and Clark" story and its attendant history, an upcoming selection (led by an authority - not me) titled "Undaunted Courage" has a lot of dove-tailing material in it.

BEST

LJ

Well, Any comments on what Jefferson's opinion of current events might be?

I wonder what he would say about an Air Attack on Iraq?

How about Presidential sex lives?

What would he say about Right Wing Military Groups?

Where would he stand on equal rights for women, the races, gays or the handicapped?

Any Thoughts?

Best

LJ

Have any of you read the Peter O'Toole Books ???

BEST

LJ

Hi LJ and fellow readers. Been away for awhile. One message I posted did not appear. Finished the book and fully agree TJ had full life with contradictions. His part in establ of U.Virginia may have been greatest accomplishment after Am Revl and 2 terms President. Stand on slavery to be admired even tho he knew the futility that only time would resolve. Those of us over 60 have a lot to think about by our inattention up to today on this matter. No problem with Sally episode.Race and/or ethnic background never has dictated to the heart and the pasasion one can have for another. So let it be. Today,with speed of communication and destructive capability of nations, TJ would be refreshing in his praise that the republic has survived but amazed at the destructive potential of nations. With no direct aggression toward us I don.t believe he would initiate attack but would take action fast at first provocation. As to sex lives-He would say "Those Federalist's are still at it. Right wing groups: He would have change of mind and tell states to deal with them and if not he would. As to social help for disadvantaged,etc. Same stand we not have. Work if able, help if needed. Tolorant of gays,etc. His education and experience in Europe acquainted him with history and that all the so called "other people and their life style" have always been with us and will continue. Final thought: He saw through the religious hypocrosy of his day as with our day. A persons church and the home should be the basis for a persons moral backbone. The church/state has failed in their watered down form of religion and parents are left without a touchstone for their lives and their childrens lives. Jim

I am still reading about the "Presidential Period" but I do agree that this book does make him more human - less like an icon. I think he would be appalled at the amount spent on political campaigns. Oh for a return to those innocent times when it was in bad taste to even announce that you were available for a political office. Jim - I think Univ. of Va. may be his greatest contribution - his love of learning and regard for scholarship goes on even though I fear the US has gone overboard to be anti-intellectual. But, I think we should stand firm on Jefferson's separation of church and state. I fear the state with equal fear that I have for the Church - absolute power corrupts absolutely - I sincerely believe. With an all powerful state I remember Nazi Germany and with the powerful Church there is the Inquisition - when I see the Religious Right (Reich) I also tremble. This book has interested me in reading "The Founding Fathers and Leadership." Has anyone read this? Joyce T.

Joyce, I haven't read that one, but this introduction to the development of political partries and the early dependance on personalities is very enlightening.

The material on Jefferson's first term dovetails with the upcoming (April) discussion of "UNDAUNTED COURAGE" in the exploration of the West with TJ's neighbor Lewis, and Clark (A native Virginian with some of the polish removed by his move to KY).

Best

LJ

LJ: Had to return my copy of this book back to library sometime ago, but have some notes on last chapter whenever you start discussing it.

ELLA , "FIRE WHEN READY" !!! I'm about to give my copy to my daughter. I think the part of the book dealing with his presidency is amazingly "Fleshed out" in the upcoming "Undaunted Courage" (Discussion begins in about six weeks).

I noticed purely by chance, that I made two almost identical marginal notes (One on Pg 208 of Sphinx and one on p.408 of Undaunted) to the effect that TJ's "Situational Ethics" seem to make him an Opportunist (Who isn't?), a bit more Practical than just unabashed Hypocritical, comparable to a T.V. evangelist (With *"Personal" interests on the side)

* Read what you will into the word "Personal"

Best

LJ

Hi Larry: Do you mean the polish can be 'tarnished' a bit just by moving to the 'frontier?' I can't believe it but I will keep an eye on my brightly polished Va. native son-in-law. He has been with us here in N.C. for almost ten years. My daughter takes him home regularly, maybe that is how he stays bright. I think maybe Jefferson was a very complex individual and perhaps his aversion to "unpleasantness" and unwillingness to develop better communication skills - other than writing - seems a bit stubborn to me. Perhaps much of his self deception is part of the "artistic temperment." If only we could have artists without the temperament. Maybe in heaven, but I can't see how they could possibly be happy there without it. I am looking forward to reading Undaunted Courage.

Somewhere during TJ,s presidency at the time of the Burr-Hamilton duel, there was a motto, "United we stand, divided we fall". What was the poilitical connection to the duel?? Can anybody help me with that??

Best

LJ

HI, All. Word has come in the Book Club Online from LJ's daughter that LJ has suffered a mild heart attack and is undergoing heart catherization as we speak. Is there any one of you who can take this discussion over until he returns? I know he would appreciate it!

Ginny

Ginny - I can, of course, but I think we are all finished here with the book. LJ had said he was going to give his book to daughter, and I had just a few notes on the last chapter to post. But, to my best knowledge, everyone is finished with the book. However, if anyone has anything to post here, I'll monitor it and be happy to do what I can. I left a post for LJ and Larry, too, in Civil Action. I believe Larry was reading this, also. Best (what LJ always said and hope he will be soon saying it again)

Ella: God bless, do take it over, LJ will be so proud!

Love,

Ginny

I just looked over the Book Schedule and this book was scheduled to be completed by Feb. 15th, so I think we can close the discussion out. It was a great discussion and I think we all learned what LJ had said in the beginning "It put flesh and blood on Thomas Jefferson." It was great for me to learn the many facets of his personality and his part in the founding of our country. Before reading this book, if anyone had mentioned his name, I would have said Oh, sure, he wrote the Declaration of Independence and was a founding father and president - but now know so much more about the man.

Will continue to monitor the conversation, however, for last minute observations by anyone in LJ's absence.

I'm sorry to send this comment in late; I went away for a while and read American Sphinx while away. The book points out that even the greatest of leaders can have some bad ideas. His great achievements of the Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark Expedition, helping to start the idea of political parties far outweigh the bad. His bad ideas, I think, are wanting a weak central government, wanting a weak presidence, promoting states rights, opposition to federal judiciary. I was surprised that he supported Napoleon when he wanted to put down the rebellion in Haiti and that in later life he advocated allowing new states to come in as slave states. There has been so much written recently about Jefferson being a racist and I always thought he just a product of his culture, but these were definitely two things he did to help slavery. I enjoyed this selection. Thanks for the discussion group. Dale Knapschaefer

Dale You summed up TJ - the good and the bad so well, and I agree with you wholeheartedly! I think we learned how controversial he was in his ideas, what an idealistic and visionary individual also.

LJ is in the hospital for some tests on his heart at the moment. We do hope he is back soon and able to join us, we miss his comments!

Not only is he Baaaaaaaaaack, Ella, he's leading the new Biography Book Club Discussion of Peter O'Tooles two books: Loitering With Intent: the Child, and Loitering With Intent: the Apprentice. .

Loitering With Intent

Everybody go over there and enjoy the discussion!

Ginny

LJ says my link does not work, so here's another one, and if IT doesn't work, just hit Books and Literature on the bottom of your screen, read all the way down past where the tan background fades to white, and look for the Biography: Sphinx, and you'll see the Loitering right under it! See you there!!

Loitering With Intent

Ginny