Merrill D. Peterson (1921–2009)

Jefferson has proved enduringly protean, available to represent a variety of positions, and his reputation is on a seesaw with Hamilton’s. Notably, this 1960 work was reissued in 1998; all things considered, I bet Peterson really wishes he’d waited one more year before writing in his introduction to the reissue that the Sally Hemings connection was a “slander” and not “credible.” (As with most of the historians whose accounts he canvasses, Peterson can’t help picking a side, in this case pro-Jefferson.) He attributes the survival of the legend to the hatred of Federalists and their sons, as well as the desire of African-Americans for connection to the great man and the legacy of abolitionist claims about slaveowners’ abuse of slaves. Although he recounts James Hemings’ testimony, he just doesn’t think Jefferson was that kind of man—which really, really foregrounds the question of what ‘that kind of man’ is like, because there’s no explanation of which of Jefferson’s public characteristics supposedly were inconsistent with having children with Hemings. One could, in theory, take his claims of disgust at race-mixing in Notes on the State of Virginia at face value, but Peterson doesn’t say that’s the reason.

More generally, Peterson examines how Jefferson was appealed to by Democrats and Republicans both, including how his populism/states’ rights positions were used in the lead-up to the Civil War and as a justification for the New Deal. Given Jefferson’s focus on limited government, this last required a change in levels of generality: Jefferson was for maximizing individual freedom, and, given the change in economic realities and the increased power of private entities to constrain freedom, a more active government was required to do what a limited government in the past did for the people. The overall ideal, not the principles, of Jefferson were all that survived by the time Roosevelt christened his monument: it was the “disintegration” of the Jeffersonian philosophy of government that heralded his canonization. Ultimately, Jefferson’s eloquence on the ideals of freedom and Americans’ desire for a tradition to appeal to sustained him in myth, memory, and legend.… (mais)

A good guidebook, doing what such a book should do: (1) be an introduction to the subject, not too scholarly, not too dumb; (2) have good pictures, maps, and diagrams; (3) explain what you're seeing; and (4) keeping you entertained and intrigued. It is a good overview of Jefferson's career and life, especially focused on his home life at Monticello. The focus on Monticello's building, gardens, plantation, and home life are all covered quite well. The slaves are discussed too perfectly, describing their life without excoriating Jefferson as a slaveowner, but also not portraying slavery as some ante-industrial idyll. All well-balanced, interesting, and well-portrayed.

However, only the late historian Merrill D. Peterson falls into the political mire by trying to tell us what Jefferson means today. Listen to these progressive-liberal gems (p. 124): "Some of Jefferson's political and constitutional doctrines fall short of the standards of modern democracy and would, if firmly adhered to, defeat the liberal ends he had in view." Well, this assumes his views are liberal in the modern sense; that he thinks government should achieve these ends; and that democracy is a good thing. Indeed, liberal for Jefferson meant respecting freedom of the individual, not progressively democratic-socialist; he believed people themselves, not the government, should enlighten themselves; and that we had republic precisely because democracies could devolve into mobcentric tyrannies. Peterson continues: "His advocacy of the strict construction of the written constitution, for instance, has often been wielded as a weapon by conservative interests to hold back the exercise of governmental power for benign purposes." Wow! First, conservatives wield the constitution as a weapon? No. A shield, maybe. Unnecessary political swipe. And "the exercise of governmental power for benign purposes" assumes that, ipso facto, the government always has your best interests at heart. Tell that to the Soviets. Government power is almost never benign, I say, and I think Jefferson generally thought so too. He hated anybody telling him what to do, whether it be a priest or George III. I doubt Jefferson would have been all for the New Deal because it proposed to help people (even though it really didn't). Or Jefferson would be for LBJ's Great Society welfare programs because LBJ said it was a good thing (even though it destroys many of the people it hopes to help). I think Jefferson would have hated such programs because if the government is so big and can give you such "benign" things, it can take away your liberties. Jefferson was more concerned with personal liberties than, as Peterson says, "novel uses of power to advance the public good." Poppycock.

As I hate this soupy-sentimentalism that tries to make Jefferson an FDR/LBJ man, minus one star for Merrill Peterson's off-topic BS. Four stars for the good guidebook outside that.… (mais)

Reading the preface and prologue prepares the reader for the development of the theme of this book. Reading this with an open mind, without patriotic prejudice or "patriotic faith" can be the stepping stone to how the image we were taught in grade school was not the only one. The late M. Peterson's perspective is like unraveling what was really going on during the infancy of the nation. I found reading this book thus far was an exercise in what Jefferson said: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind." page 443, epilogue. (1960 edition)… (mais)