Gain Access To American Sphinx: The Character Of Thomas Jefferson Developed By Joseph J. Ellis Disseminated As Pamphlet

Sphinx", Joseph J Ellis,. Historical revisionist, Joseph J. Ellis, ostensibly enjoys championing himself as a renegade historian, unafraid to attempt to topple one the most well respected and admired of America's founding fathers.
Recklessly wielding his anachronistic values upon Thomas Jefferson, "American Sphinx" escalates into a full contact assault on one the most important and revered figures in western culture.
Thomas Jefferson is no longer the successful plantation owner, but a hypocritical slave owner, Jefferson is no longer humble and soft spoken, but simply 'nervous and unsure of himself', Jefferson's tenacious pursuit of his many interests are depicted as merely self indulgent and 'materialistic', Ellis mostly appears foolish in his attempt to elicit controversy, It is disturbing that this desperate and amateurishly written book, has become as widely read has it has, In leu of a three hundred page book, "American Sphinx" would have been more appropriately formated as a three minute segment on National Public Radio.

I am a fan of Joseph J, Ellis' scholarly writing style and it is on full display in this somewhat biographical text on the character of Thomas Jefferson, The author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president is a very complicated individual, He wanted a limited government but used the power of the presidency when he thought it was in the country's best interest he thought slavery was a terrible blight and anathema to the ideals of the Revolution and yet owned slaves himself he financed others to defame his enemies but would always deny that he had, even in the face of physical proof.
These are but a few contradictions discussed in the book, but Ellis explains that in Jefferson's own mind these were not contradictions or hypocrisies at all, his mind was adept at hiding those inconsistencies from himself, no matter the true reality.
He had the picture of an ideal republic in his head and all his actions were to promote that ideal, even if it began to blur and come out of focus over the years.
Selfdeception may be his coping mechanism for a world he could not control, And control of America's destiny is what he wanted freedom from European influence, an agrarian economy stretching across the continent, slaves gradually emancipated, and all Federalists dead and gone.
The United States today may not be what Jefferson had envisioned but, you could say his duplicity has made him an idol for all dispositions.
Thomas Jefferson is not just the man who put pen to paper in the summer of, nor just the man who purchased Louisiana from the French, he is everything to everyone.
A provocative survey of an enlightenment thinker and statesman who could never outdistance his contradictions, My friend Mark Prather selected this for samizdat and a number of us read such and with a formality of discussion, The passage of a couple decades would likely have adjusted those younger impressions, After reading Ron Chernow's biography on Alexander Hamilton, my opinion of Thomas Jefferson was very low, I vowed to read a Jefferson bio so that I could learn more about the man and his beliefs and philosophies, Based on this bio, I feel that he was a man who, like Hamilton, was passionate about this country and without question, he was a founding father who dedicated his life to building democracy in America.
However, he was a conflicted and manipulative person who was driven by self interest and often vilified people who dared to disagree with his beliefs.
Not to mention the ultimate hypocrisy of being the author of the Declaration of Independence all men are created equal, yet a slaveowner throughout his adult life.
It's complicated. American Sphinx posits that Thomas Jefferson is not a hypocrite but such an ardent political idealist that he compartmentalized the aspects of himself that he psychologically could not deal with and so self deceived himself.
Isn't that the very definition of a hypocrite

I've perused several reviews who believe Ellis is biased negatively against Jefferson, and that's just not true.
I think Ellis is an ardent fan of Jefferson, but wisely, he doesn't shy away from Jefferson's faults however, he also doesn't completely relay the entirety of Jefferson's life to the reader.
He deliberately skips over Jefferson's time as Secretary of State and Vice President both times of poignantly partisan behavior and his second presidential term.
This is by no means a complete biography, but it is very readable particularly if you already know a little about Jefferson's life.


This was certainly more of an investigation into Jefferson's political realm as his personal life was touched on only briefly,

I don't want to give the impression that I didn't enjoy this biography, I rather loved it, despite its flaws, Rather like Jefferson himself. Jefferson is so fascinating in his contradictions: Enlightenment thinker and writer, slave owner revolutionary politician, fearful of government, Regardless of his influences in writing the Declaration of Independence, who cannot love him for that little piece of legislative nuance I honestly couldn't put this tome down.


I also can't help but love Ellis' title, I fully commend its appropriateness, The only American President whom I have read about who seems dark but good, I can see now more clearly how other Founding Fathers distrusted him and kept him at arm's length, A truly strange fellow, hence America, while good and wellmeaning is dark and strange, and even as an American I would not be shocked by a reversal of all that we believe in because of the character of one president.
From having read American Sphinx, I am grateful that his dark side never was allowed to overshadow the character of the rising republic.
And I also learned how lucky we were to have Jefferson dark and strange as he was, rule us for at least one crucial term.
It started when I was reading Ambroses Undaunted Courage, this niggling feeling of discomfort I get when reading a book when the author seems to be taking opportunities to lionize his/her subjects or at the very least, portraying them in a simplistic, single facet.
Ive had this issue with Ambrose before and I know enough about his writing to stay away from his excoriated Eisenhower bio, and while I enjoyed his bio of Meriwether Lewis, it was his portrayal of Thomas Jefferson that had me scratching my head.
Was he the lateth / earlyth century version of ourst century John Muir What was really behind the mask I wanted to learn more.


Before taking up a direct source on Jefferson I turned to his greatest enemy, Alexander Hamilton, an historical figure I knew vaguely.
Several friends had recommended Chernows bio I wasnt disappointed, It is a masterful work of research, writing and most importantly proper distance from the biographers subject, Ill reserve more about that work for a review to be written later under that books entry the importance here is that it painted Jefferson in such a terrible light that I couldnt imagine that Chernow would be so evenhanded with Hamilton but turn the blade on Jefferson.
Was he being unfair to our third President, or was he showing the man for who he really was, just as he was doing with Alexander Hamilton It was time to turn to a book specifically on Jefferson.


Rather than takeup one of the many volumes of biography on Jefferson I was most interested in understanding the man, his character, in light of his times.
I try very hard not to bring any historical figure into my current days morality and civic sensibilities Joseph Ellis calls this presentism, the perfect word for that notion I try to see the man or woman for all that they were given their particular environment.
American Sphinx was exactly the book I was looking for, a brilliantly researched and beautifully written book about the thing I am most interested in: the character of Thomas Jefferson.


If you are a huge Jefferson fan Ill save you my polemics and tell you to read no further because I really cant stand the man.
He was well written, extremely smart, and to some, a very good friend, In his time on the national scene I can find two instances of where he contributed greatly to the founding of a fledgling new republic: the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Louisiana Purchase.
OK, Ill throw in him greenlighting the Lewis and Clarke expedition as a third, Almost everything else about the man screams a twofaced, punctilious, pigheaded didact that was a venomous backbiting man to every and anyone that crossed his very misguided utopian world view with the exception of John Adams, with whom he worked extrahard when out of office to bury the hatchet and rework their friendship.
Yes, yes, there are exceptions to this, but make no mistake, Jeffersons antiFederalist stance and his willingness to stoop to the lowest mudslinging perpetrated by his underlings, Madison being his chief agent makes the Trump / Clinton election look tame.
Ive got a whole lot to say about this guy, so here goes:

, Jeffersons Agrarian Myth
Throughout his life and career Jefferson believed that the USA should be an agrarian society light industry if you please, but certainly no manufacturing.
The Louisiana Purchase was an attempt to continue the growth of the country to the Pacific Ocean to provide a seemingly endless swath of land for the onceandfuture farmers of America to till the land.
The Hamiltonian vision of commerce, banking and the pillars of the current day global economy were an anathema to Jefferson, He held so strongly to this unrealistic idyll that he would stop at nearly nothing to fight for his beliefs, including a nearly treasonous episode or two with the French while serving as SOS under Washington.


. French Revolution
Even with blood in the streets and everyone in America with common sense horrified at The Terror in France, Jefferson could not bring himself to see the truth behind the Jacoban menace.
He believed, late in life, that the Revolution could have been a peaceful transition, if not for “cowardice and indecision” mostly attributable to the kings failure to side with the future than the past, which he blamed on the kings wife.
In is own words, years later: “I have ever believed that had there been no queen, there would have been no revolution, ” He thought that the pressure of the forces that

caused the revolution became unmanageable because of the meddling of a single woman,

. Politics as unusual
In a world of bombast and testosterone Jeffersons reticence might have been a breath of fresh air.
Hamilton, Adams, etc were men that could give fistpounding oratories for hours Jefferson, never, He preferred to work behind the scenes and mostly with the pen, So far so good.

But Jefferson played a game of consistent deception and denial, Hypocrisy never bothered Jefferson however, he never owned being a hypocrite, This is the worst kind of politician, never mind human being, and over a long enough period of time, you will be found out.
This is exactly what happened between Jefferson and Hamilton when TJ was Secretary of State and AH was Secretary of Treasury under Washington.
Jefferson did everything he could to undermine Hamilton behind the scenes once Hamilton was onto his game, he outmaneuvered him to finally force his resignation in frustration.
Jefferson never abandoned his belief that Federalists were nothing short of traitors who had betrayed what he believed to be selfevident principles of “pure republicanism” i.
e. freedom from the meddling of government in favor of a coercive federal government that put into place the very things that the Revolution was fought to remove.
This wasnt a matter of differing political theories Jefferson found the Federalists fullon monarchical not true traitors it was a gauntlet that could never be picked back up but because Jefferson hated direct confrontation e.
g. he was the only major Founding Father other than Franklin that did not see battle in fact, he fled the oncoming British army in VA as governor rather than organize the militia in defense he spilled his venom in the press and in back room dealings to subvert his enemy, however he could.


Jefferson claimed to hate political parties, He was the one that started them,

. Black and White politics, figuratively
For all of Jeffersons brilliance and ability to balance two completely opposite beliefs as true and not believe this to be hypocrisy Jefferson had a lifelong response to all complex political conflicts: transform the miasma of opinions and forces into a simplified and exaggerated twosided contest between good and evil.
This might be why FDR, Reagan and Bill Clinton all have turned to Jefferson for prooftext source material in their political battle cries against the evil du jour but any human that has lived with their eyes wide open foryears on this planet understands that human interactions are rarely ever black and white and politics, never.
A politician that plays this game is very, very dangerous history has proved this point time and again,

. Black and White politics, literally
Im not going to try and grab the slaveowning Jefferson and pull him into thest century and take him to task on the biggest blight on America but I absolutely can judge him by what he wrote about slaves, AfricanAmericans in general and also by the measuring stick of other Virginia contemporaries.


Jefferson hated slavery but not enough to ever really do anything much about it, other than write letters and thoughts that were all over the map and like many things Jeffersonian, conflicting.
His way of dealing with the slavery issue was to sweep it under the map for another generation to deal with and hope that it would disappear of its own accord.
This from the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Hey Tom, why didnt you use that logic when it came to the British problems and King Georges heavy hand He was at his worst when the Missouri Question reared its head.
Jeffersons take Let slavery spread itself across the USA, it would upend itself from spreading itself so thin, Say what Even Adams, who at this point in his correspondence with TJ was light handed had to take him to task, One of the worst, morally bankrupt and wrongheaded idyllic notions from a man full of them,

Jefferson believed that Indians could be integrated into American society but that blacks had no chance,

The final measurement on Jefferson about the slave issue is his legacy of his own slaves, Washington, another Founding Father that abhorred the institution and wished it gone, also realized the impossibility of creating a republic out of thecolonies if the abolition of slavery were to be put on the table, put his money where his heart was and freed all of his slaves in hiswill.
True, he was the only FF to free his slaves upon death, but as a fellow Virginian that could have taken a page from the Godfather of the USofA, Jefferson refused to follow instep and only freed a handful of slaves upon his death.
Not included in that list was Sally Hemings, which is the cause for my biggest issue with Jefferson,

. Sally Hemings
Whether or not Jefferson had a liaison with his slave Sally Hemings has been the longest running Presidential soap opera in American history.
Did he or didnt he In November of, a DNA comparison between Jeffersons Y chromosome and the Y chromosome of Hemings descendants proved a match between the white Jefferson and the Hemings family line.
During thes an authoritative sixvolume bio of Jefferson by Dumas Malones research revealed that Jefferson was at Monticello nine months prior to the birth of Sallys children, several of which favored him strongly in facial features.
These facts put the burden of proof that there was no liaison back on the naysayers,

Sally was a slave property and by that definition she had no rights and no way to give her denial to sexual congress with her owner.
Without consent a sexual act is considered rape, by any definition, Not every “Southern Gentleman” slept with their slaves, but this President did,

But lets say that it was consensual, or even that there was love between Thomas and Sally, What kind of monster, that fathers children by a woman that he “loves”, would not mention her in his will to free her from the horrors of the industry that he claimed to loathe Viewed in either lens that is scumbaggery, pure and simple.



I kept wanting to find something to deeply admire about Jefferson, I really did, I give him props for the Declaration but I also like Knut Hamsun's writing, in spite of him being a Nazi sympathizer just because someone can write beautifully isnt enough for me to want to build a monument for them.
Americans love their heroes, and once they achieve membership in the pantheon we find it difficult to separate the man from the myth.
Im sure there are many other great things that Jefferson did as a leader, and if I were to ever turn to another bio of him I might find other things that he did to benefit the world but for now Ive had enough of TJ and am putting him back on the shelf where he belongs and not retaining him in my personal collection of historical figures that made the planet a better place.

.