American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson

by Joseph J. Ellis

NATIONAL BOOK AWARD WINNER Following Thomas Jefferson from the drafting of the Declaration of Independence to his retirement in Monticello, Joseph J. Ellis unravels the contradictions of the Jeffersonian character.  He gives us the slaveholding libertarian who was capable of decrying mescegenation while maintaing an intimate relationship with his slave, Sally Hemmings; the enemy of government power who exercisdd it audaciously as president; the visionarty who remained curiously blind to the inconsistencies in his nature.  American Sphinx is a marvel of scholarship, a delight to read, and an essential gloss on the Jeffersonian legacy.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, American History, Presidents, Politics, American Revolution

464 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 31, 1997

About the author

Joseph John-Michael Ellis III is an American historian whose work focuses on the lives and times of the Founding Fathers of the United States. His book American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson won a National Book Award in 1997 and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for History. Both of these books were bestsellers.

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

It started when I was reading Ambrose’s 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. I’ve 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 late 18th / early 19th century version of our 21st 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 Chernow’s bio; I wasn’t disappointed. It is a masterful work of research, writing and – most importantly – proper distance from the biographer’s subject. I’ll reserve more about that work for a review to be written later under that book’s entry – the importance here is that it painted Jefferson in such a terrible light that I couldn’t imagine that Chernow would be so even-handed 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 take-up 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 day’s 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 I’ll save you my polemics and tell you to read no further because I really can’t 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, I’ll throw in him green-lighting the Lewis and Clarke expedition as a third. Almost everything else about the man screams a two-faced, punctilious, pig-headed didact that was a venomous back-biting man to every and anyone that crossed his very misguided utopian world view – with the exception of John Adams, with whom he worked extra-hard when out of office to bury the hatchet and re-work their friendship. Yes, yes, there are exceptions to this, but make no mistake, Jefferson’s anti-Federalist 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. I’ve got a whole lot to say about this guy, so here goes:

1. Jefferson’s 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 once-and-future 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.

2. 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 king’s failure to side with the future than the past, which he blamed on the king’s 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….

3. Politics as unusual
In a world of bombast and testosterone Jefferson’s reticence might have been a breath of fresh air. Hamilton, Adams, etc were men that could give fist-pounding 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 self-evident 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 wasn’t a matter of differing political theories – Jefferson found the Federalists full-on 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.

4. Black and White politics, figuratively
For all of Jefferson’s brilliance and ability to balance two completely opposite beliefs as true -and not believe this to be hypocrisy – Jefferson had a life-long response to all complex political conflicts: transform the miasma of opinions and forces into a simplified and exaggerated two-sided contest between good and evil. This might be why FDR, Reagan and Bill Clinton all have turned to Jefferson for proof-text source material in their political battle cries against the evil du jour; but any human that has lived with their eyes wide open for 20+ years 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.

5. Black and White politics, literally
I’m not going to try and grab the slave-owning Jefferson and pull him into the 21st century and take him to task on the biggest blight on America – but I absolutely can judge him by what he wrote about slaves, African-Americans 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 didn’t you use that logic when it came to the British problems and King George’s heavy hand? He was at his worst when the Missouri Question reared its head. Jefferson’s 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 wrong-headed 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 the 13 colonies 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 his 1799 will. 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 in-step 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.

6. 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 didn’t he? In November of 1998, a DNA comparison between Jefferson’s Y chromosome and the Y chromosome of Hemings descendants proved a match between the white Jefferson and the Hemings family line. During the 1950s an authoritative six-volume bio of Jefferson by Dumas Malone’s research revealed that Jefferson was at Monticello nine months prior to the birth of Sally’s 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 nay-sayers.

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 let’s say that it was consensual, or even that there was love between Thomas and Sally. What kind of monster, that father’s 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 isn’t 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. I’m 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 I’ve 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.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

“God was not in the details for Jefferson; he was in the sky and stars.”
― Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx



Ellis' biography of Thomas Jefferson's character is a more difficult task than one might imagine at first. Jefferson while brilliant with words is also a founding father of smoke. He was comfortable with ambiguity, but saw things in black and white. He had a great ability to mask his feelings and deceive himself. He was a visionary and prophet in the mountains whose biggest creation was not concrete. Washington created the Great Man of America. Hamilton created America's government. Madison created our Constitution. Adams helped to create the revolution. Jefferson created an idea and an ideal. His vision of personal freedom and liberty floated in a realm of make-believe, but also in a place of dreams. It was an ideal that was clear enough to seduce generations of Americans, but opaque enough to allow that ideal to be held by opposing forces.

Ellis doesn't try to tackle the whole of Jefferson. His biography jumps around and almost completely jumps over his Vice Presidency, his second term as President, etc. Ellis isn't trying to re-travel the well-traveled histories. He wants to figure out the complexities of the man. He wants to put the smoke into a bottle. He does a pretty good job. However, he missed the boat by a couple years on Sally Hemings and gave Jefferson a bit too much credit on that. But he doesn't pull many punches. He captures the paranoia of Jefferson, his ideologies, his contradictions, his issue with slavery, his ability to bend when needed and get around his own hypocrisy. It is a good biography, just not a great one.

[Nathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I suppose I knew what I was getting into with this book. The subtitle hints at the fact that this is a pretty thoroughgoing psychological history, rather than a historical narrative. Ellis posits Jefferson as an inscrutable figure shielded from effective analysis by a contradictory philosophy as well as a reserved personality. Both of which may be true, but both of which made this book scanty on real insight. Ellis doesn't spend much time asking why Jefferson was the way he was (a pretty worthwhile question, I think), instead showing, in rather too much detail how he was: an aristocratic populist, a slaveholding champion of individual liberty. The contradictions are there, to be sure. Ellis just leaves it at that a little too patly.

As a character study, it's fair to say that a good bit of this book is speculative. Ellis recounts the competing ideologies and their theoretical underpinnings of several major characters (there is a good comparison/contrast of Adams and Jefferson here), but he often ignores or forgets the complexity of human nature, reducing a man to a particular ideology's figurehead.

His style is commensurately abstract. Dealing primarily with questions of philosophy and character, he assumes a rather lofty, nebulous tone that conveys his intent well enough, but can start to drone after a while. That's a shame , since the beginning of his discussion hinges on correcting the popular image of Jefferson; I can't imagine that the layperson who ostensibly has this limited view of Jefferson would be interested enough to stick with this dense little book.

This is a history of ideas, of beliefs and of ideals. But too often, it neglects the historical, and in so doing obfuscates
the ideas, beliefs and ideals it tries to explain. Frustrating.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only American President whom I have read about who seems dark but good nevertheless. 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 well-meaning 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.

[Laurie · Rating 4 out of 5]

After my frustration with Meacham's Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, I was hopeful Ellis would give me a better grasp on Jefferson's character. He did not disappoint. Jefferson it is still hard to grasp, he is elusive but Ellis captures Jefferson's contradictions, hypocrisy, a little paranoia, his ideologies and his issue with slavery. Since this was a focused character assessment, it wasn't a true biography. He skips Jefferson's early life, and while he addresses many of the major historical points, he skips Jefferson's time as Secretary of State to Washington, and his second term as president. 200ish pages fewer than The Art of Power (text proper, not including the notes section of either) and I felt I got a lot more out of this. Ellis seemed to take things at a lot more face value than Meacham's glossing over and justifications, but fans of Jefferson can't assume Ellis was out to get him in showing the negative aspects. The skipped sections I mention were rife with issues i.e. in the Jefferson/Hamilton embattlement as Secretaries to Washington from which TJ resigned, and his 2nd presidential term many have dubbed a "failure." A TJ hater could have pulled from those periods easily, but Ellis appeared to be looking for different aspects, and perhaps those illustrate character aspects already covered. Additionally, Ellis rightfully sings Jefferson's praises where appropriate, he was remarkable in many ways, and in the end I came away feeling slightly better about TJ than when I went in.

[Damian · Rating 2 out of 5]

As I read "American Sphinx", an odd thing happened. The more I learnt about Jefferson the less I liked him. The Jefferson of Ellis' biography is an arrogant, obsessive ideologue, whose successes are the lucky results of others' hard work, and whose failures are inevitable given his substantial flaws. As someone who was looking to like Jefferson, this was all pretty disappointing.

Ellis' biography follows Jefferson from his first entrance into public life right until his providential death on July 4th 1826 (and the same day as his friend/enemy John Adams). Over the course of this journey, we see Jefferson evolve from a quiet but brilliant polemicist into the leader of the "Republican" faction, which calls for a small and relatively weak central government.

In modern terms, Jefferson of course would have been a contradiction: a progressive who fought his entire life for smaller government. It's this defying of modern political boundaries that allow both sides today to claim as their own.

If Ellis has "an angle", it is his attempt to delve into Jefferson's psyche. His contradictions were too overt, argues Ellis, yet his dialogue too sincere to be hypocrisy. His conclusion is that Jefferson was a master not (just) of deception but of SELF-deception -- he "compartmentalized" certain ideas in parts of his brain where they needed not be bothered by other contradictory ideas that he held just as sincerely. Thus, the small-government president who purchases Louisiana from the French, the anti-slave crusader who is himself a slaveowner, the self-indulgent aristocrat who surrounds himself with luxury, yet spend his entire life in crushing debt, and passes his debt to his children when he dies. This is not hypocrisy, argues Ellis, this is "compartmentalization".

Of course such an argument sounds ridiculous when stated so baldly, and I think for good reason. Ellis is attempting to draw deep psychological conclusions from sources that are entirely public: letters that Jefferson wrote, often with the intention of their being published. Positions he publicly took, or speeches he gave. Each and every one of these had an agenda, and while we may want to believe in "compartmentalization" since it leaves intact the image of the honest Jefferson, there's another much more obvious explanation that Occam demands we accept: political expediency.

Even if -- horror of horrors -- Jefferson turns out to have been a politician, he remains one of the most visionary and influential of our history, and if I took one major realization away from this book, it was this: that one of the central essences of our American flavor of democracy -- the conscious limiting of the rights and powers of the central government, and the constant clamoring for smaller and less at the federal level -- comes directly and almost singularly from Jefferson. Had it been up to Washington, Adams and Hamilton, early democracy in the United States would not doubt have taken a far more European form. As is, Jefferson and his disciples (Madison and Monroe) provided a crucial opposition voice at a crucial time -- a voice that continues to resonate in today's conservative circles and the Tea Party movement. And while I might not agree with that voice all the time, I'm glad it's there.

I would not recommend this book to others as an introduction to Jefferson for three reasons. The first, the psycho-babble described above. Second, the book's odd chronology -- it leaves large gaps in the Jefferson story, including for example, his entire tenure as Secretary of State under Washington, and his second term as president. Was this period really so uneventful, that it doesn't deserve mention? (And really practically no mention is given.)

Third is, I really can't be sure that the portrait Ellis is painting might not itself be a politically skewed one. His portrayal so one-sided that one puts down the book longing for a more objective take. I suspected throughout that Ellis felt his own conclusion so strongly -- that Jefferson was a self-deceiver -- that he was arguing it with his every decision of inclusion or omission. The result is a Jefferson that is at best, a self-deceiver, at worst, a craven hypocrite.

One way or another, Jefferson -- whether the Jefferson of American Sphinx or the Jefferson of Wikipedia -- DOES end up disappointing, if only because the soaring of his ideals clashes so jarringly with his somewhat uglier reality.

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Frank Theising · Rating 4 out of 5]

American Sphinx is not a standard beginning-to-end biography but more of a character study that attempts to explore the thought life of Thomas Jefferson at key points in his life. As such, I would really only recommend it to those who already have a general grasp of Jefferson’s life and career. As the title suggests, Jefferson was a complicated man who had a wide range of opinions and views over his eight decades of life. As such, there is something in his writings for nearly every conceivable group to grab onto and call their own. Over the course of American history, the mantle of Jefferson has been claimed by populists, states’ rights advocates, nullifiers, abolitionists, slave owners, atheists (or agnostics), religious liberty advocates, New Deal Democrats, and limited government Goldwater-Reagan era conservatives. As should be obvious, many of these groups mentioned above are diametrically opposed in their worldview and desired political objectives.

So in this book, Joseph Ellis looks back at key periods of Jefferson’s political career to explore his writings and add much needed context. Ellis examines Jefferson’s role in drafting the Declaration of Independence, his time as a diplomat in Paris, his self-imposed “retirement” following his resignation as Secretary of State under Washington, his return to political life as president, and his final retirement to Monticello with a heavy emphasis on his correspondence with John Adams. Additionally, he covers the controversial topic of his alleged sexual liaison with slave Sally Hemmings and paternity of her six children (he argues against Jefferson being the father, though I understand he has changed his position following the release of DNA analysis after this book was published).

I didn’t take many notes on this one, but there was one key recurring observation I did want to write down. While rivals (most notably Hamilton) looked at the world as it was, and from it developed political or economic solutions, Jefferson tended to start with his ideal vision or solution and then force the world into his mold. This seemed to occur repeatedly in a wide range of issues including his views on “pure” Republicanism, his idealization of family life, his unwavering faith in an agrarian economy, etc. Since the world rarely conformed to his idealized theories, it resulted in several moments when Jefferson was forced to break with his own stated beliefs in order to accomplish big things (most notably the Louisiana Purchase).

Despite my preference for standard, chronological biography, I was surprisingly impressed with this book and think the author did a really good job placing Jefferson’s writings in their historical context and helping the modern reader (whatever his or her political persuasion) to gain a better understanding of a very complex man. 4 stars.

[Mike Mcfarland · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is more a series of portraits than a biography. It doesn't tell Jefferson's story in one long arc, but rather captures him at significant periods of his life. This method works well for Ellis (see: Founding Brothers), probably because the broader view allows him to write more lyrically than a stick-to-the-facts biography would allow.

What emerges from Jefferson's portraits is a man with extraordinary powers of self-delusion. These powers enabled him to bemoan slavery while owning slaves, deny ambition while pursuing high office, and defame contemporaries while protesting his innocence and friendship. Jefferson's hypocrisies are known to most people, but this book really drives them home.

Ellis doesn't focus solely on Jefferson's flaws, though, Which is not to say that Jefferson was wholly Ultimately though, whatever his glaring personal flaws, his words and ideas retain a powerful ability to inspire people. Without the Declaration there is probably no Bill of Rights, no French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and no United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author’s witty and illuminating summary of the kernel of the 14 year long correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson is alone worth the price of the book. This part is a sweet piece of writing and analysis that gets to the heart of the differences in viewpoints between these two calm and calculating insurgents.

Even though these two seemed to agree on hardly anything, they did keep up the effort to find common ground, or at least attempt to explain themselves to one another. Jefferson bobbed and weaved, while Adams tended to use brute force, but he could also be subtle, sometimes so subtle that Jefferson seemed to miss his point.

Some excerpts:

Jefferson: “To me it appears that there have been party differences from the first establishment of governments, to the present day … every one takes his side in favor of the many, or the few.” …

Adams moved the dialogue to a collateral issue, the character of aristocracies, which he recalled that Jefferson had urged him to write about when they were together in Paris, claiming that he had been “writing on the Subject ever since,” the only problem being that “I have been so unfortunate as never to make myself understood.” The core of the Adams position was that elites had always been and always would be a permanent fixture in society. Why? Because “Inequalities of Mind and Body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of Human Nature that no Art or policy can ever plain them down to a level.” Adams when on a long and colorful tirade against the illusion of social equality, concluding that he had “never read Reasoning more absurd, Sophistry more gross, in proof of the Athanasian Creed, or Transubstantiation, than the subtle labors … to demonstrate the Natural Equality of Mankind.”

Agreeing that wealth disparities will inevitably arise, Adams and Jefferson then turned to arguing about the risk to America from these super-wealthy “aristocrats”. Jefferson thought that the invisible hand of the market and America’s endless resources of land would magically make the threat/problem shrink away:

Jefferson recognized that the correspondence had drifted into one of those volatile subjects on which he and Adams could never agree. “We are both too old to change opinions,” he acknowledged, “Which are the result of a long life of inquiry and reflections.” …. He contrasted the feudal privileges of Europe with America, where the elimination of primogeniture and entail and the existence of an unspoiled continent meant that “everyone may have land to labor for himself if he chuses,” so enduring elites were highly unlikely here. Second, Jefferson distinguished between the natural aristocracy, based on virtue and talent, and the pseudo-aristocracy, “founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.” Adam’s strictures against aristocracy, he suggested, were really warnings against the pseudo-aristocracy, which Jefferson agreed was “a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.” Given the favorable laws and the abundant land of America, it was reasonable to expect that “rank, and birth, and tinsel-aristocracy will finally shrink into insignificance ….”

To pie-in-the-sky Jefferson, the realist Adams responded:

Adams would have none of it. “Your distinction between natural and artificial aristocracy,” he insisted, “does not appear to me well founded.” One might be able to separate wealth and talent in theory or imagine idealistic worlds where they were not mutually dependent, but in the real world they were inextricably connected in ways that defied Jefferson’s vision of a classless American society. “No Romance could be more amusing,” he chided, since the wide open American environment would only ensure more massive inequalities and more unequal accumulations of property unless government stepped in to redistribute the wealth. Unless one believed that human nature had somehow changed in the migration from Europe to America, the disproportionate power of “the few” would bedevil political life in the American nation too. The Jeffersonian ideal of social equality, in short, was an illusion, and by maintaining the pretense that it was a reality, one only enhanced the likelihood of making matters worse. Here was another classic confrontation, indeed the most explicit political argument in the correspondence, though it defies a simple label. (Liberal versus conservative will not quite do.) Perhaps one can call it the clash between a romantic optimist and an enlightened pessimist.
Ellis provides a summary of this debate:

Alone among the influential political thinkers of the revolutionary generation, Jefferson began with the assumption of individual sovereignty, then attempted to develop prescriptions for government that at best protected individual rights and at worst minimized the impact of government or the powers of the state on individual lives. Both Adams and Madison and, to an even greater extent, Hamilton, began with the assumption of society as a collective unit, which was embodied in the government, which itself should then be designed to maximize individual freedom within the larger context of public order. Jefferson did not worry about public order, believing as he did that individuals liberated from the last remnants of feudal oppression would interact freely to create a natural harmony of interests that was guided, like Adam Smith’s marketplace, by invisible or veiled forms of discipline. This belief, as Adams tried to tell him in the correspondence of their twilight years, was always an illusion, but it was an extraordinarily attractive illusion that proved extremely efficacious during the rowdy “takeoff” years of the American economy in the nineteenth century, when geographic and economic growth generated its own topsy-turvy version of dynamic order. Not until the late nineteenth century, with the end of the frontier and the emergence of the massive economic inequalities of the Gilded Age, was it fully exposed as an illusion.

Like a nuclear reaction, the market is the most powerful source of creation and innovation available to human kind. But also like a nuclear reaction, it is dangerous if not bounded so that its energy can be harnessed.

(I was somewhat surprised that Ellis left out large chunks of Jefferson, including much of the Washington and all of the Adams administration, as well as light footing Jefferson’s backdoor anti-Federalist propaganda campaign. I imagine Ellis’ reason for leaving this out is that it has been well covered elsewhere. However, if you are like me and coming to Jefferson for the first time directly in this book, It is somewhat frustrating not to be able to hear the Jefferson side of this story. Thankfully, I was able to glean what Jefferson’s fears were by reading Dan Sisson’s The American Revolution of 1800 (which was disappointing in organization and writing, but at least lent ample justification to Jefferson’s plotting against the Federalists)).

[Jeff · Rating 1 out of 5]

"American Sphinx", Joseph J Ellis. 1996. 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.

[Nancy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am clearly overwhelmed by this book. There are so many things that standout in this analysis of Jefferson and his influences in development of American government. I feel compelled to go into more detail than usual, purely for my own dissection of the aspects that seemed so pertinent to our current political situation. I had read this with the idea of balancing the negative perspective on Jefferson in the book “Hamilton.” Ellis is both critical and complementary, writing on Jefferson’s weaknesses, then steering toward his strengths and accomplishments. The author gives voice to both Jefferson’s detractors and his defenders, the real human man as opposed to the glossy textbook image. My own impressions remain mixed. Among the things that confirmed my opinions, was Ellis’s explorations of Jefferson’s many inconsistencies in his principles versus actions,

Jefferson’s years in France fell at the time their revolution was brewing and did much to shape his ideas about generational sovereignty - “the earth belongs to the living.” One should not in his opinion make acts that would bind another generation. In an ideal world perhaps, but was this a realistic understanding of human nature? “Moreover the doctrine of generational sovereignty was yet another version of his utopian radicalism. Madison was surely correct to declare the entire belief wildly impractical and utterly incapable of implementation, but that was beside the point. For the vision of each generation starting from scratch, liberated from the accumulated legacies of past debts, laws, institutionalized obligations and regulations, allowed Jefferson to conjure up his fondest dream, a world where the primal meaning of independence could flourish without any restrictions, where innocence had not yet been corrupted.” The debts and burdens of one would not be passed on to the next? Interesting from many angles but also in light of the fact Jefferson was heavily in debt for the lifestyle he insisted was necessary for a diplomat in Paris, AND heavily in debt on the estate he inherited from his father in law.

He was in general opposed to a strong central government. In a letter to Abigail Adams, he wrote, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” Ellis analysis goes on to say, “His remarks suggested that his deepest allegiances were not to the preservation of political stability but to its direct opposite.” He opposed Federalist visions of an energetic national government because in his view it undermined the original intentions of the American Revolution, wherein lay the opposition to any power accumulated by the King and court. Jefferson hated the balances of power, disliked the Judiciary the most, followed by the Senate. Leaving states to domestic governing and laws and the federal government controlling international relations and policies would have been in line with his philosophy, . But how could this rapidly growing country present a unified front on the global stage if we are so divided regionally, especially two plus centuries later, on our current trajectory? And there appears to be the SAME agrarian/southern vs. urban intellectual/northern divide that has evidently haunted this country for centuries! Fascinating.

Neither was Jefferson an initial supporter of the Constitution, although being in France during its writing, he was negative from afar, preferring the indirect representation through his friends Madison and Monroe. Evidenced in another letter, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” If he couldn’t find support for changes to the Constitution, then his interest lay more in developing a Bill of Rights. While he held obvious affection for his life in France, he was also intensely critical of certain elements of monarchy and lifestyle in his private letters. He totally misinterpreted the potential for violence in the developing stages of the French Revolution and assured his government that changes could be possible without a drop of blood being shed. Later in life, it was shown he doctored some notes so as to not give the impression his fondness for France had created a blind spot.

His internal battles of ideology versus action is further evidenced in his claim that he wavered and backed off taking a firm public stand on abolition and kept slaves himself. There are numerous documented examples of correspondence where it is evident he is addressing his widely varying comments to please its intended audience. He had an intense dislike for conflict and a strong sense of refinement as well as an idealized vision of government. This doesn’t even address the Sally Hemmings business as this book came out before the DNA evidence was in. My edition however does contain an addendum. Jefferson realized there was a difference between Northern and Southern ideas on abolition, and hoped the North would leave the South to work out its own solution. His expectations included gradual emancipation, AND extradition or relocation of the slave population, the latter he also came to realize was no longer possible as the years went by. He was troubled by the Missouri Question. His idealized vision of the westward expansion diluting and diffusing the slavery problem was also unrealistic. In addition, Jefferson does little to champion any causes for the Native American population. While he treated leaders with respect and admiration “mingled with a truly poignant sense of tragedy about their fate as a people… the seeds of extinction for Native American culture were sown under Jefferson.”

Ellis keeps stressing that Jefferson portrayed himself as a private man who disliked conflict, but was also strongly opinionated, competitive and managed his conflicts from afar. During his tenure as secretary of state he felt he was a misfit. In those years, the foundations for the republican party were laid in firm opposition to the Federalists. “And he dispensed political invective of his own, or rather had surrogates do it in his behalf…” He ran away from open differences of opinion. Madison was often the one to do his bidding and this “placed an extremely talented spokesman at the point of attack while allowing Jefferson to remain behind the scenes and above the fray,” but this arrangement “gave credence to the charge that Jefferson was a devious manipulator who played cowardly games with the truth.” This was certainly true in his feud with Hamilton, “fueled by his own personal demons.” His obsessive opposition to Hamilton’s banking system was a reflection of his own indebtedness. He wanted to fix publicly what he couldn’t fix privately.

Ellis is not completely critical by any means. Perhaps one of Jefferson’s greatest contributions during his presidency was the Louisiana Purchase. He wrangled the deal while going against his own goals of retiring the national debt and was accused of being unConstitutional, lacking Congressional approval thus wielding improper use of executive power. He didn’t stick to legalities if he thought the outcome was still in the nation’s best interests. His internal contradictions continued in terms of not allowing representatives in the newly acquired territory any voice in Congress. There is agreement on the importance of neutrality in a still developing nation even though the methods of implementation were in question. Jefferson was also spearheading the early development of public education and what would become the University of Virginia. Interestingly enough, his ideas on university education were very reflective of his ideology of lack of central control. He rejected class levels, traditional rules and any curriculum requirements - no specific courses of study. AND it should be self governing.

America is also not the Christian nation that so many of today’s conservative right wing argues and it was certainly not in our responsibility to convert anyone. Jefferson had written that he didn’t care what his neighbor’s faith was, twenty gods or no gods, it didn’t matter. This caused a fervor among the Federalists who accused him of being an atheist and a heretic. Jefferson wrote a response about the merits of Jesus as a role model and was later quoted in a letter to Benjamin Rush as saying he did reject “the corruptions of Christianity, but not the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.” While he viewed himself a Christian, he wanted to separate a pure simple faith, especially in the moral merits of the person of Jesus, from its institutionalized incarnations. He clearly believed in separation of church and state.

Ellis suggests that Jefferson descended into a “nearly pathological mentality” in his last years, partly due to mounting debts, and “self imposed isolation” that resulted in his sources of political information being “highly partisan and narrowly provincial.” That being said, one can not remove Jefferson’s much debated legacies from their historical context. Ellis puts it quite eloquently when he says, “It should be abundantly clear that the ingrained reticence of historians to translate Jefferson across the ages is rooted in more than mere timidity, it is grounded in a fuller appreciation of the sea of change that separates his world from our own. To extend the image of sand castle on the beach, it is not just that successive waves of change have swamped Jefferson’s core convictions, it is also that the shape of the entire shoreline has been completely reconfigured.” Times have changed and then again they have not.

While of opposing viewpoints and often in conflict with each other, Jefferson and Adams mended their friendship in their later years. Writing frequently in a manner which appeared to be posturing for posterity, they sometimes argued ideology and other times either avoided the discussions or simply agreed to disagree. What had been the real goal of the Revolution? Their differences still ran deep. I loved some of the comparisons Ellis draws of the two men in the final chapters. “Criticism of an idealist by a realist.” Theirs was a clash between “a romantic optimist and an enlightened pessimist.” “The classic debate between a rationalist and an empiricist.” “Something obviously more than a liberal and a conservative. Jefferson’s formulation rendered all political history into a moral clash between benevolent popular majorities and despotic elites…” to which Adams answers, “The fundamental Article of my political Creed is that Despotism, or unlimited Sovereignty, or absolute Power is the same in a Majority of a popular Assembly, an Aristocratical Counsel, an oligarchical Junto and a single Emperor.” Wow - how pertinent is that for today!? “For better or worse, American political discourse is phrased in Jeffersonian terms as a conversation about sovereign individuals who grudgingly and in special circumstances are prepared to compromise that sovereignty for larger social purposes.”

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...

“American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson” by Joseph J. Ellis was published in 1996 and won the 1997 National Book Award in Nonfiction. Ellis is a well-known author and history professor focusing on the revolutionary era. He is probably best known for his Pulitzer Prize winning book “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation” and has written about Presidents Washington and Adams as well.

“American Sphinx” has been described by some as a “psychological history” of Jefferson, but it is really much more than that: it is part character analysis, part personality profile and part history book. What it is not is a traditional biography or even an abbreviated narrative of Jefferson’s entire life - but as I have discovered by now, this is par for the course for a Joseph Ellis book on a revolutionary-era president.

Instead of following the story of Jefferson’s life in a single, continuous arc “American Sphinx” focuses on five significant periods in his life, observing his thoughts and actions during each of these periods and considering what can be learned about this enigmatic man. In this manner Ellis reflects on the many contradictions Jefferson presents as well as the difficulty he offers those who wish to portray Jefferson either as a hero or a villain, when he is certainly far more complex than that. (Not unlike many of us, he is a little of both…)

But rather than focusing dogmatically on just those five specific periods of his life (while he was in Philadelphia during the Second Continental Congress, in Paris as a diplomat, at Monticello after resigning as secretary of state, during his first presidential term and during his ultimate retirement to Monticello), Ellis pulls as much historical context from the “uncovered” periods as is needed to fully understand appreciate the points he makes and the conclusions he draws.

This book has been called dense by some and, less frequently, one-sided. But it is certainly neither. In contrast to his previous character analysis (“Passionate Sage” about John Adams written three years earlier), Ellis’s book on Thomas Jefferson is surprisingly sprightly and effervescent, lacking the overly-academic feel of the earlier work. And it is remarkably well-balanced; throughout “American Sphinx” Ellis is careful to note Jefferson’s brighter and darker sides, observing his flaws and singing his praises where due.

Of particular interest toward the end of the book, Ellis examines Jefferson’s legacy – noting those aspects which have survived the past two-hundred years undiminished (his emphasis on religious freedom, for instance) and which have been forced to bend to the will of American history and changing times (his zealous pursuit of limited government in almost all circumstances…except when he was president, of course). It is at this point that one of Ellis’s central points – that Jefferson’s actions cannot be easily judged outside the context of his time in history – is most forcefully made.

Overall, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed “American Sphinx,” particularly as Ellis’s previous character analysis (on John Adams) possessed an overly dry and academic tone. ”American Sphinx” on the other hand was colorful and dynamic, while also deep and insightful. But make no mistake- this is not the perfect book for someone just getting acquainted with Jefferson. Even though Ellis replays a great deal of Jefferson’s life in order to fully support his conclusions, this is not a comprehensive account of Jefferson’s entire life. However, as a third or fourth book on Thomas Jefferson, “American Sphinx” truly excels.

Overall rating: 4¼ stars

[Jamie Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this very much. It's not a straight biography of Jefferson, but as the subtitle says, it's an attempt to analyze his character. The book is very readable if you are reasonably familiar with the important people and events in the early years of America.

It's a fascinating study of the man's inherent contradictions, the most obvious being that Jefferson was a slaveowner who became famous for his writings on equality and personal freedom.

In my 1996 edition of this book, Ellis writes that he does not believe that Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemings. Ellis decided that Jefferson "lacked the capacity for the direct and physical expression of his sexual energies". (I thought this a rather strange view, considering that Martha Jefferson's health was eroded by repeated pregnancies.) In later editions of the book, Ellis acknowledges that a 1998 DNA study offered proof that at least one of Sally's children was fathered by Jefferson, and it was therefore likely that they were all fathered by him. I wonder if this revelation made Ellis question any of his other conclusions about Jefferson's character?

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Since this affinity for idealized or idyllic visions, and the parallel capacity to deny evidence that exposed them as illusory, proved a central feature of Jefferson's mature thought and character, it seems necessary to ask where it all came from."

Jefferson. Near-mythical Forefather and father to five children by his slave Sally Hemings. Declaration-writer and holder of one of the worst records for a presidential term (his second). Louisiana Purchaser and dedicated hypocrite whose first term presidential goal was literally to gut and tear-down the federal government. A self-entitled landowning aristocrat who hated aristocrats, the would-be farmer whose only successful enterprise at Monticello was a nail-factory ran by his slaves (read: his sons).
You can see how complicated this all is. Don't be deluded, though, Ellis is no apologist and is not here to clear anything up, but rather to masterfully muddy the Jeffersonian waters even thicker than they already are. But if you want to know why Jefferson is so sphinxy and sphincterly, you can't do any better than this one, I bet.

[V.]

It's pretty funny that this book, which spends a lot of time ostentatiously dismissing the Sally Hemings charges, came out just a year before DNA testing AIUI pretty much conclusively settled the matter. This goes as well as anything to show why pointy-headed reasoning about "doesn't seem like the kind of guy" or general personal character is not really a very useful type of evidence as regards secret sexual behavior. That kind of stuff often goes pretty strongly against what is otherwise the grain of someone's character.

All kinds of interesting stuff in this book, though. Ellis's argument is basically that Jefferson was very eloquent and excited by big ideas, but not really a deep thinker in the manner of Madison or Adams. He was also very good at skating around uncomfortable contradictions, notably wrt the slavery issue. Ellis highlights a few dimensions of this:

1. Jefferson was a massive overspender who was constantly in huge personal debt, and Monticello was lousy farmland that was never going to turn a serious profit. He had all kinds of hare-brained schemes for making money, but they never panned out; a guy who was constantly outspending his income just on wine, and remodeling his house over and over again with money he didn't have, was never going to feel financially secure enough to go around freeing his slaves, any more than he was going to start giving away his land as Christmas presents.

2. He was actually very vocal in denouncing slavery in his younger years in Virginia politics, when this was not a common or easy thing to do—but starting around the mid-1780s, when the issue started to catch up with his ballooning public image in America, he got in the habit of shutting up about it, and although he would never admit that his views had substantially changed, when the issue of slavery came up in the 1820s, at the end of his life, he sounded more like Jefferson Davis than he did like the youthful Thomas Jefferson of the 1760s and 70s. (Although he did maintain to the end that it was in some sense wrong.)

3. The fundamental problem, as Ellis presents it, is that in Jefferson's mind there was no good solution—he was painfully aware of the moral wrongness of slavery, and thought it should end, but he couldn't envision a world where that transition went peacefully. As he eloquently put it in Notes on the State of Virginia (1785): "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."

And that was *before* the Haitian Revolution gave a concrete image of what such an uprising would look like. They had black butlers and stuff in some northern states, but as you went South the ratios started to look a lot more Haitian. Throughout his life, Jefferson would get agitated on the subject of slavery, try to work out a practical way to deport all the freed slaves as soon as they were freed so that there was never a large free black population in the South, and then give up in despair. Those predictions turned out to be wrong—there was no Haitian-style race war in the South after the Civil War—but one can see why someone who believed that would see the whole thing as a horrible no-win and just refuse to think about it.

One thing I hadn't realized that's kind of crazy is that the whole Sally Hemings thing came to light *during Jefferson's presidency*, and the newspapers were full of prurient articles and ribald poetry about his hypothesized sexcapades. Running for President remains the #1 way to get all of your dirty laundry run through with electron microscopes, going on 250 years now.

There are all kind of great anecdotes in here. Jefferson was the US ambassador to France during the whole opening phases of the French Revolution. And what was he doing in Paris in 1788, while the radical salons were abuzz and the Palace in financial tatters? He was getting a taxidermied moose installed in his quarters in order to prove a point to a French scientist, who was going around telling people that North American animals were all physically smaller than their European counterparts(??) because of the degenerated American atmosphere or whatever. The moose was supposed to disprove this by being larger than a European deer.

But yeah, this book mostly made me want to read more about Madison, who comes across as the actual thinker, scholar, and pragmatist, to Jefferson's mellifluous but superficial and often poorly thought-through idealism. (I had heard as a quippy reference this thing about wanting to replace the constitution every 20 years, but I hadn't realized that he advanced this in seeming seriousness, and, even stupider, in combination with a recurring debt jubilee every twenty years as well. That's about as self-serving and inane as it gets.)

For all that, though, Jefferson's idealistic restraint in his role as Vice President and then in the 1800 presidential succession were what made American democracy possible. As with Washington stepping down, these were acts conditioned to a substantial extent by the overall political culture and ideological atmosphere, but still. If this was France, John Adams's blood would have been ruining the White House linens on March 5th, 1797, and the first Jefferson inaugural would have been the next day.

Jefferson was definitely an interesting guy, but this book doesn't really make him seem like the most interesting of the Founders. Probably a good case study for one of these Lacanians or whatever who likes to analyze the grammar of the fearful lacunae in someone's discourse, or whatever. And he (Jefferson) was definitely a brilliant writer. But there are probably sharper and more consistent thinkers to idolize if you are into limited government or anything like that.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joseph Ellis's American Sphinx expertly probes the life, beliefs and public image of Thomas Jefferson, the Third President, author of the Declaration of Independence and the intellectual motor of the American Revolution. Like Ellis's other works, it's not a conventional biography; instead, Ellis uses specific events to chart how Jefferson's character evolved, or didn't, in reaction to developments around him. Indeed, reaction might be the key, for Ellis's portrait of Jefferson emphasizes the Man of Thought who'd prefer to quietly contemplate events (as when he coolly scrutinized the Constitutional Convention from Paris) than to be thrown in the midst of them, where self-contradiction became inevitable. His defining trait, arguably, was a reflexively Manichean worldview that painted him, and his allies, as innately good and those who opposed him as evildoers, whether King George and Tories or rivals in the House of Burgesses or George Washington and Alexander Hamilton (those like John Adams, friends who often quarreled with Jefferson, found their status constantly shifting). And a visionary who, in his own words, "like[d] dreams of the future more than the history of the past." This high-minded detachment lent itself to crafting the rhetoric and ideology that sustained a Revolution, but much less in shaping or administering an actual government.

Ellis's portrait, while not unsympathetic, does stress Jefferson's flaws and contradictions. Jefferson the small government advocate who unilaterally affected the Louisiana Purchase; Jefferson the Jacobin who cheered Shays Rebellion and the French Revolution while despising Haiti's slave revolt; Jefferson the staunch advocate of free press who encouraged his allies to persecute Federalist critics; and, most particularly, Jefferson the fierce critic of slavery who owned (and, in Sally Hemings' case, bedded) a great many slaves, viewed blacks and Native Americans as innately inferior and considered emancipation impossible. Uncharitably, this results in a Jeffersonian worldview that borders on solipsism; if I do or believe this thing, there is no contradiction - it must be right. But Ellis's point is less that Jefferson was a hypocrite than that, like most men and women, he found ways to compromise his beliefs in service of daily life. Sometimes, this benefited the nation; in others, it proved harmful. Either way, it resulted in a self-proclaimed idealist who proved as pragmatic, even Machiavellian as the Federalists he despised.

Perhaps, Ellis suggests, posterity is unfair to Jefferson; for all his self-evident brilliance, he was only a man, and it's unfair to place him on a pedestal. Certainly Jefferson, despite recent focus on his slave-owning, retains a power to inspire Americans across partisan lines which only Washington and Lincoln (and perhaps Martin Luther King) can match, giving even minor shortcomings disproportionate weight. On the other hand, statesmen attract (and deserve) greater scrutiny than your average citizens. And by holding a mirror up to this Sphnix, Ellis allows us to see him as a man of transcendent genius and earthly contradictions, brilliant achievements and unforgivable faults - all of which left an indelible impact on the United States of America.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis is part biography, part history, but more so an illuminating character study of the enigmatic third president of the United States.  Ellis analyzes Jefferson through five distinct periods of his life including: in Philadelphia during the Second Continental Congress (1774-75), in Paris as a diplomat (1784-89), at Monticello following resignation as President Washington’s secretary of state (1794-97, during his first presidential term (1801-04), through to his retirement and death back at Monticello (1816-24).

Jefferson is revered most notably for many things: as a noble statesman, a philosopher, a planter, a diplomat, a lawyer, an architect, a president, and most proudly, the father of the University of Virginia. But Jefferson was also a cunning politician, deceptive, duplicitous, conniving, quixotic, a white supremacist who impregnated his black servant Sally Hemmings, and most infamously- a slaveholder.  How could the author of the Declaration of Independence, an apostle of freedom, who famously wrote that “all men are created equal,” be so hypocritical? What did he really believe? Ellis seeks to unravel these contradictions of the Jeffersonian character.

The central premise of Ellis’s study are Jefferson’s inconsistencies and contradictions, of which there are many.  Jefferson, who fancied revolution, never served in the military, preferring to avoid confrontation and wage his battles behind his desk at Monticello surrounded by his books. American Sphinx is best served as a supplemental study of Jefferson, as it's not intended to be a cradle to the grave examination. One critique I would add is the glaring omission of Jefferson’s time as secretary of state, depriving a more in-depth analysis of his intellectual battles with Alexander Hamilton, which were so foundational to the creation of the country. Yet Ellis’s approach is an enjoyable way to read history, a sober assessment that seeks to chip away at the Jefferson paradox.  But Jefferson’s enigma is why he remains so fascinating. An American Sphinx.

[Aaron Million · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid, scholarly effort by Ellis to parse out the many contradictions that were Thomas Jefferson. This book is mainly about Jefferson's political thought at different points throughout his life. Ellis shows how some of Jefferson's core convictions (extremely limited federal government, for example) last throughout his lifetime, with a few notable exceptions (Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Embargo Act of 1807). Jefferson was extremely idealistic (akin to Woodrow Wilson becoming consumed with the ill-fated League of Nations) and was often a walking contradiction (thought blacks were inferior to whites, yet fathered an undetermined number of children with one of his slaves). Ellis also talks about how both parties try to bring Jefferson into their fold today by showing that he would be with them were he around now. Incredibly, Jefferson made only two public speeches in his entire life: both his inagural addresses

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved the title. The iconic image of Jefferson takes a bit of a hit in this non-traditional biography. He was a brilliant, creative, imaginative and inventive man who helped transform our world with his vision on the role of government and in his writings. He was also a deeply flawed human being. He loved beauty and lived so beyond his financial means that, at his death, his beloved Monticello had to be auctioned off. He despised slavery yet, without them, could not afford his lifestyle. Since this book was written, his suspected, and at the time scandalous, relationship with his slave Sally Hemmings and the possibility that he fathered her children, has been confirmed by DNA research. His unbridled ambition in politics left many an opponent in the dust, including John Adams.
It is a slow read, well-reasearched and cited by one of our countries great historians.

[Annie Riggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

You know the feeling when you’re reading a five-star book within the first page or two?

Ellis’s comfortable expertise, precise and poetic analysis, and comprehensive synthesis combined with the irresistibility of the Founding Fathers and revolutionary era…? Well, I was hooked.

Ellis’s other master quality is that he is fair about Jefferson: neither overly complimentary, nor excessively critical.

For all of Jefferson’s idealism, contradictions and even deviousness, perhaps we needed him to give us a vision to aspire to. Perhaps Jefferson is, figuratively, a great writer who needed—and had—even greater editors.

[Clif · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thomas Jefferson was a gifted writer, the man who gave us the Declaration of Independence, but he was a shy person who disliked public speaking and personal confrontation, preferring to be master of his domain at Monticello. He was a man of contradictions as Joseph Ellis reveals to us in this psychological study.

The idea that an individual should be as free as possible from authority was a foundation of Jefferson's thought though he owned over 150 slaves. Professing his dislike of slavery he did not work to end it instead proclaiming that future generations would take care of the problem either through gradual emancipation, his hope, or by violent confrontation between the races, his fear. He felt that speaking out against slavery would only isolate him, preventing the achievements he thought possible through his efforts. Though not a tyrant with his slaves, he conveniently left then under the charge of overseers in the fields.

Jefferson promoted life on the land, that of the virtuous and responsible farmer, but he spent little time in the field and much time at home studying and tinkering with pet projects. His property at Monticello had poor soil with his crops bringing little income to relieve the heavy debt he owed to foreign bankers.

A Virginian, he was a republican defending agrarian America and states rights against the Federalists led by Adams and Hamilton who saw the future in a strong central government supported by industry and finance, the backbone of the northeastern states. Despite his distain for the industrial world, Jefferson's sole profitmaking venture was a small nail factory he started on his property employing slaves to make the nails. His dislike of slavery could not compete with the financial benefit it brought him, nor could his dislike of the industrial keep him from manufacturing nails to earn income.

Debt oppressed him throughout his life, but did not inhibit his free spending while in Paris as part of the delegation to France, buying things and shipping them back to Virginia. At the end of his life he owed what in today's dollars would amount to over $1 million, resulting in an auction of his estate after his death.

Though FDR pushed through the construction of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, Jefferson would have been strongly opposed to the centralization of authority represented by the New Deal. He also would object to the Constitution being seen as holy writ, a tyranny of the dead cited to prevent needed change regardless of present circumstances as we see with the Second Amendment today.

Though we all exhibit contradictions, those of national heroes are usually forgotten. This book is an antidote to thinking only of Jefferson on Mt. Rushmore.

[Lost Planet Airman · Rating 3 out of 5]

An in-depth look at Thomas Jefferson in context of his time; erudite yet accessible. Not sure how to rate it as I have no basis for comparison. Liked it but I am not in love with scholarship, so... 4? 3.5, probably.

[Haley Parker · Rating 2 out of 5]

I took nothing from this book, which says more about me than the book probably! I’m just not a history book gal! Most of my Revolution history comes from Hamilton, which I learned while reading this, is not sufficient. My lack of knowledge made the book hard and not fun to follow.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thomas Jefferson, according to the author, was an American Sphinx. And, indeed, there is an elusive quality to Jefferson. As the biography outlines, he could be as vicious a political assassin as there was (e.g., his attacks on John Adams through others, while trying to keep his own hands "clean"), but he did not appear to want to accept or confront this in himself.

At one time, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were great friends, founding cousins, as it were, of the new republic. Both added greatly to the republic as diplomats abroad. However, Jefferson's "dark side" led to a rupture that lasted some time before they began to repair that relationship.

Ellis' statement following begins to identify his approach to Jefferson (page xvi): ". . .affection and criticism toward Jefferson are not mutually exclusive postures. . . " He goes on to say that (page xvii): "As I have found him, there really is a core of convictions and apprehensions at his center. Although he was endlessly elusive and extraordinarily adroit at covering his tracks, there were bedrock Jeffersonian values that determined the shape of the political vision he projected so successfully onto his world and that remain such a potent factor in ours." Ellis characterizes Jefferson as (page 26) ". . .a flawed creature, a man who combined massive learning with extraordinary naïveté, piercing insights into others with daunting powers of self-deception, utter devotion to great principles with a highly indulged presumption that his own conduct was not answerable to them."

This volume traces his adult career from the Constitutional Convention (and his role in authoring the Declaration of Independence) to his service as a diplomat in Paris to his work in the Washington Administration and retirement to Monticello to his service as President and his subsequent retirement. His great accomplishments and his sometimes nasty actions are documented, as are his continuing unsuccessful efforts to establish a sound economic footing for his plantation. There is also a useful appendix on Sally Hemings.

This is not a massive biography, but it is useful and does a nice job of portraying the "Sphinx"-like quality of one of the most fascinating of our Founders.

[Renee · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've only read one other book about Jefferson but I've read several others about the founding fathers and I'm absolutely convinced that this is the best I'll ever read about Thomas Jefferson.

Ellis writes incredibly well- poetic, detailed, erudite as all hell, and smoothly- with grace.

He captures what must have been Jefferson's consciousness. Not his mind or soul or heart so much as all three put together and the cloud of ideas and opinions he carried with him, as we all do.

Complex man and a complex book, but Ellis handles everything put together here with amazing organization and balance.

So georgeously written that I had to read more by him, and I did. Founding Brothers was first-rate, and the Washington book was good enough, but this is truly an all-surpassing masterpiece.

If you're reading this, I'm sure that you are not going to find a better entryway into a key part of the American Psyche and the history of our land than this book.

I never reread but I am seriously going to give this one a second spin sometime.

the problem is, I'll have to buy a whole new copy since the one I have is underlined like the proverbial motherfucker.

Seriously, I can't even read between the lines now. I took so much away from it I'm still sorting out what it all means.

It's that good. Dig it!

[Christine Boyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, this is a specific review. Yes, I liked it. However, beware, it is not for everyone. First, it is not a biography of Jefferson. There is no starting from a baby, learning about family, and going to the end. This is all about Jefferson's key writings and his philosophical ideas with regard to governments. Ellis starts with Jefferson writing the Declaration, then the next chapter is his years as Sec. of State in France, etc. And you can tell that Ellis is a professor because the writing felt like a thesis paper - "compare and contrast" of what Jefferson was thinking during each of those times. So, I actually thought the first part was a little boring, just because his style was so academic.

The second half is where I was hooked, and it was more along the lines of the other books I've read by Ellis. Maybe because this section dealt more with Jefferson's presidency, and then his retirement at Monticello. Also, Ellis is an Adams expert, and his writing came alive when he started discussing the relationship between these two brilliant men. In fact, the take away for me was more about how two people who were so different could have a mutual goal and mutual admiration of each other. I wish more politicians were like that today.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a normal biography, many years of Jefferson's life having been excluded. As the subtitle suggests, it is more a study of character. As such, it's pretty critical, Jefferson coming across as a entitled perpetual teenager, a idealogue and moralist who neither easily adjusted to the real world nor reconciled his behavior with his ideals--the latter, most notably, as regards the issue of slavery.

I'd read McCullough's book on John Adams recently. The result of that and this was to raise my opinion of Adams and lower my opinion of Jefferson. However, I'm enough of a perpetual adolescent myself that Jefferson retains a certain charm Adams lacks.

I think I may tackle Hamilton next. . .