Zeno
02-20-2005, 05:20 PM
I finished American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis recently. This is an excellent book and I recommend it to all interested in not only Jefferson but also the American Revolution, nascent American Political History and early party frictions and developments.
Ellis’ fleshing out of Jefferson’s character is done in an evenhanded way and is presented in a forceful, intelligent style that makes for pleasurable reading.
The Jefferson/Madison relationship is gone into in some detail and I think this is a subject that deserves more attention than it receives, at least in the public forum anyway. I recall the great stir (justly deserved I supposed) caused by David McCullough’s book about Adams/Jefferson. I think a Jefferson/Madison book should be written. Perhaps there already is one that I am unaware of. Anyway, their relationship is one of utmost importance in American History.
I have not much to say about ‘conclusions’ drawn; Ellis is somewhat reticent to do so anyway. But in my estimation, it would take a scientist to write about and understand Jefferson in a cohesive and honest way. This may seem a strange statement - so be it. Historians, whether professional or otherwise, lug about too much baggage and stare through too many panes of glass to see clearly or to understand distinctly.
Here is one very interesting and poignant section from the book (p. 219, paperback edition). The discussion is about the meaning of Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address.
"But the truly creative transformation, again more implied than asserted, was Jefferson’s suggestion that the true, indeed the only source of energy in a republic was not the government per se but the voluntary popular opinion on which it rested. The traditional presumption, which was a bedrock conviction among all Federalists, was that an active federal government was necessary to embody authority and focus national policy. In the absence of such governmental leadership, it was assumed that the American republic would spin off into a series of fractions and interest groups and eventually into separate regional units. Without a strong central government, in short, one could not have a coherent American nation. In Jefferson’s formulation, however, which must have seemed counterintuitive to the Federalists, the release of national energy increased as the power of government decreased. Whereas the Federalist way of thinking about government concerned itself with sustaining discipline, stability and balance, the Jeffersonian mentality bypassed such traditional concerns and celebrated the ideal of liberation. Lurking in his language about what makes a republican government strong was a belief in the inherent coherence of an American society that did not require the mechanisms of the state to maintain national stability." [emphasis added]
There is much embodied in the above analysis that is at the core of the eternal friction between different styles of government and leadership, and the underlying structure of government and what it is to achieve and, more importantly, - what government is not meant to achieve.
Comments welcome.
-Zeno
Ellis’ fleshing out of Jefferson’s character is done in an evenhanded way and is presented in a forceful, intelligent style that makes for pleasurable reading.
The Jefferson/Madison relationship is gone into in some detail and I think this is a subject that deserves more attention than it receives, at least in the public forum anyway. I recall the great stir (justly deserved I supposed) caused by David McCullough’s book about Adams/Jefferson. I think a Jefferson/Madison book should be written. Perhaps there already is one that I am unaware of. Anyway, their relationship is one of utmost importance in American History.
I have not much to say about ‘conclusions’ drawn; Ellis is somewhat reticent to do so anyway. But in my estimation, it would take a scientist to write about and understand Jefferson in a cohesive and honest way. This may seem a strange statement - so be it. Historians, whether professional or otherwise, lug about too much baggage and stare through too many panes of glass to see clearly or to understand distinctly.
Here is one very interesting and poignant section from the book (p. 219, paperback edition). The discussion is about the meaning of Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address.
"But the truly creative transformation, again more implied than asserted, was Jefferson’s suggestion that the true, indeed the only source of energy in a republic was not the government per se but the voluntary popular opinion on which it rested. The traditional presumption, which was a bedrock conviction among all Federalists, was that an active federal government was necessary to embody authority and focus national policy. In the absence of such governmental leadership, it was assumed that the American republic would spin off into a series of fractions and interest groups and eventually into separate regional units. Without a strong central government, in short, one could not have a coherent American nation. In Jefferson’s formulation, however, which must have seemed counterintuitive to the Federalists, the release of national energy increased as the power of government decreased. Whereas the Federalist way of thinking about government concerned itself with sustaining discipline, stability and balance, the Jeffersonian mentality bypassed such traditional concerns and celebrated the ideal of liberation. Lurking in his language about what makes a republican government strong was a belief in the inherent coherence of an American society that did not require the mechanisms of the state to maintain national stability." [emphasis added]
There is much embodied in the above analysis that is at the core of the eternal friction between different styles of government and leadership, and the underlying structure of government and what it is to achieve and, more importantly, - what government is not meant to achieve.
Comments welcome.
-Zeno