Jefferson

This past weekend, I finished reading R.B. Bernstein's Jefferson. It's one of a probably a million Jefferson biographies and I chose it based on the recommendation of Christopher Hitchens. Hitch remarked in the preface of his own book on this Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, that Bernstein's tome was one of two of the best bios for the general reader. It was on the same shelf as Hitchens' own work and much cheaper since it was in trade paperback.

I've admired Jefferson for a long time. Well, as much as anyone can admire a person one has never met. Perhaps it's more correct for me to say that I admire Jefferson's attitudes and accomplishments – some of them, at any rate. Nitpicking aside, Jefferson has been my favorite Founding Father since I was a boy. Being a faux-intellectual, I think what attracts me is the eloquence he had with the pen and that he was a true Renaissance man and intellectual. He dabbled in everything, had the largest library in the whole of American during his lifetime and was exceptionally well-read, and loved learning and valued education so much that he founded his own university. He was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, he drafted The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, was governor of Virginia and a two-term president, he executed the Louisiana Purchase, et al.

While there is much, in my humble opinion, to admire about Jefferson and his life, there is also much to deplore. He held slaves and thought black to be of an inferior race, refused to extend the freedoms he so eloquently wrote about to women, circumvented the Constitution during his presidency, et al. And one of the things I appreciated about Bernstein's book is that it's even-handed and gives us Jefferson's strengths and his weaknesses in equal measure. He seeks to neither deify nor demonize his subject. Reading about the more noble of Jefferson's ideas next to accounts of his failures, it struck me that it must be fairly boring to read older biographies which only lionize the man. The story of a man in conflict between his ideals and what he views as practical necessities seems much more fascinating.

As I said above, Bernstein's book is a short one – about 200 pages minus notes and index – and stands in great contrast to Dumas Malone's massive 6-volume biography written over the course of nearly 40 years called Jefferson and His Time. I inherited Malone's set from my father but have yet to read it. All in good time, I suppose. I won't bother to summarize Jefferson's life – read the Wikipedia entry about him – but I do want to mention some the bits that stuck out for me.

For a man who was all about the Rule of Law and criticized others for what he thought of unconstitutional actions, he sure went beyond the powers of the Executive Branch as enunciated in the Constitution when he was president. For example, the Louisiana Purchase was not the president's to make but he did so anyway. Similarly, he never sought a declaration of war in his war on the Barbary Pirates. He certainly had his ideals but there was also a side of him that did what needed to be done to, in his view, preserve the Republic. Jefferson also gave his assent to fellow Republicans in the House to start impeaching federal judges who were of the opposing Federalist Party. Despite the fact that, under the Constitution, judges could only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", Jefferson still wanted his vendetta carried out against his political enemies.

I learned about the expectations of early Americans about the electoral process:

In 1787-1788, when the Constitution was adopted, most Americans expected most presidential elections to give no candidate a majority. The electoral college would thin the field, not decide the election. Instead, the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote, would choose the president and the vice president.

We sit up all night waiting for the returns of the popular vote yet our forebears were looking at sitting around for weeks while the votes were tallied, the electoral college did their thing, and the House of Representatives actually chose the new Executive Branch. Plus, without mass communications it took a bit more time for the results of the final tally to actually be known.

Along these same lines, here's something that I find pretty amazing:

Despite the agonies of the electoral college deadlock of 1800-1801, the election of 1800 was a landmark in history, not just American history but world history. It marked the first peacetime transfer of power in a republic from one "party" to another.

Europe was embroiled in perpetual war with emperors and kings while a bunch of goofy revolutionaries out in the uncivilized world across the Atlantic manage this feat.

Jefferson has a reputation as having been a serious, stoic kind of guy. (And justifiably so.) However, in 1786, while serving as minister to France, Jefferson courted a married woman, Maria Cosway. While nothing came of their extended bout of flirtation, Bernstein notes that Jefferson displayed a prurient sense of humor:

In one letter, he launched an elaborate sexual metaphor that he borrowed from Tristram Shandy, one linking noses to male sexual ability.

The sly dog! I suppose this shouldn't be totally unexpected since it was determined several years ago that it's quite likely that his cold English blood ran hot for Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves.

In 1800, he published A Manual of Parliamentary Practice which is still used the by House for deciding issues of procedure.

Bernstein mentions one James Thomson Callender, the editor of a Republican rag. He was jailed for sedition and, upon release, demanded repayment of the fine that was imposed upon him. Jefferson dragged his feet on the matter which led Callender to mount attacks on him in the press. The book desribes him as:

…a difficult man, ready to pick quarrels even with friends. His venomous , jeering articles exposed scandals public and private, injuring friends and foes alike…critics used his increasingly serious drinking problem to undermine his credibility as a journalist.

I have to admit that, when I read this part, I immediately thought of Christopher Hitchens.

In many ways, Jefferson's vision of America never came to fruition. Jefferson hated cities and saw this country as developing into an agrarian democracy being led by gentleman farmers such as himself. But things turned out more like Alexander Hamilton's vision of an urban country which drew strength from commerce and industry. In some ways, it seems that Jefferson had more faith in men than he perhaps should have. It seemed like he would preach these wonderful ideals which distanced America from Europe only to be constantly looking around and getting pissed off at what was happening, whether it be the direction the Federalists wanted to take the country or the rejection of some of the finest European professors by students at the University of Virginia, which Jefferson had founded. In some ways, Jefferson comes across as being a bit possessive and looked at various people as ruining his country. While the country had been founded upon ideals, there was very much the practical matter of keeping the young Republic together in those heady days. America had to learn to walk in the midst of European colonialism. There was a passage in the book, which I unfortunately cannot find at the moment, in which Jefferson and Washington are talking and wonder privately whether the American Experiment had failed. Envisioning the conversation in my head, I found it rather moving. I mean, growing up, the Founding Fathers were always portrayed as being steadfast – these guys flipped Mother England the bird, after all. They were determined to make America work and they never looked back and blah blah blah. But there were Washington and Jefferson looking at each other saying, "Did we do the right thing?" Reading about our fragile fledgling republic with 200+ years of hindsight really gave me a sense of optimism. Jefferson invoked natural law in arguing for the colonies' freedom from England and helped design the framework for our country. Seventy six years later, Frederick Douglass gave what I think is one of the best speeches ever and eloquently pointed out the narrow scope of that freedom. The meaning of the phrase "all men are created equal" has sure taken on new and more expansive meanings since Jefferson wrote them and Douglass gave his speech. For 200+ years, we as a country have been building upon his framework. If we survived the struggle of getting to our feet and the atrocity that was the Civil War, I am hopeful that we can survive terrorism and the Bush administration.

...

After re-reading this, I realize that I forgot to mention another aspect of Jefferson that appeals to me - the fact that he was not a Christian. While not an atheist like myself, he was a deist. He basically believed that a divine being set the universe in motion and then moved on to do other things. This being didn't intervene in the quotidian affairs of us puny mortals. When running for president, he was labeled by many that dirty word, "atheist". The days when a non-Christian could be president seem very far away indeed.