Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This book reminds me of physicists who perform mathematical calculations, decide they must be correct, and then strain to make physical reality fit those equations. First, credit where it is due. The book is written brilliantly. Ellis has a rare mastery of language, something especially noticeable in the dry historical genres. Many times, I marveled at his use of the PRECISE word or metaphor that conveyed his points the best. Unfortunately, his points, in totality, do not convey Jefferson accurately. Ellis' thesis is that Jefferson was at heart a naive idealist who preferred simple black-and-white, us-versus-them views of the world, and most of Ellis' analysis of Jefferson is seen through this lens. Though insightful initially, and applicable at times, it grew more strained as the book progressed, eventually distorting Jefferson to make him fit the "theory." I am neither a Jefferson worshipper, nor hater, and I have read thousands of his letters -- Jefferson is not easy to grasp. Initially I thought Ellis had done what most historians deem impossible, and solved this puzzle, but the further his analysis proceeded, the further it diverged from the real Jefferson. Ellis' interpretations are dangerous because he writes so well -- the arguments are beguiling, and the biases and inconsistencies are masked in the honey of the language. Laypeople in particular may be duped. Jefferson truly believed in individual freedom and very limited government, and though he is clever and subtle, Ellis cannot mask his disdain for this latter view. Ellis is a liberal, and his personal politics have tainted his interpretation of Jefferson. This isn't about a support or dislike of liberalism, it is about historical integrity. At times Jefferson's views were too idealistic to translate into prudent policy, or a tenable society, but at other times they are the heart of what made America great. Ellis summarily dismisses Jefferson's views on the evils of debt, the tyranny of judicial review, a society with strong states, etc. . . In dismissing these things, and offering interpretations of history that assume the necessity of big government as a backdrop for almost all analysis, he trivializes some of Jefferson's most core beliefs, and the solutions to modern problems that they might offer. Solutions, unsurprisingly, that are based on principles of limited government, low debt, low taxes, empowered localities, limited federal government, etc. I don't think Ellis was trying to be intentionally distortive. I think deep in his bones Ellis is a liberal, and without realizing it, he considers the small government Jefferson was fanatical about a deranged absurdity. By pecking word by word, sentence by sentence, page by page, at the tenability of limited government, he is, in some subconscious way, simultaneously distorting and demeaning Jefferson's views while advocating his own. To repeat, many of Jefferson's views were untenable, but I just don't think Ellis is truly unbiased in his analysis. What a shame. Finally, one must, unfortunately, question the integrity of a man who has fabricated Vietnam War service, and lied to many, including his own students. Ellis also put his name to ads supporting Clinton during the impeachment, and then came public with Hemings' (the slave Jefferson supposedly fathered the children of) information during this impeachment, presumably (but this is not certain) to make what Clinton did seem a historically mundane, and therefore pardonable, act. I could care less about Clinton in this context, but I want a historian who tries to be unbiased, or admits his biases, rather than one who is a documented liar, and distorts every view through the spectacles of collectivism. How surprising that a man who himself lied about his past was willing to forgive a leader that did the same? It is naïve to think that this morality (or lack of it) will not creep into his work, and it has. Character matters, not just in leaders, but in our historians--we all have partisan views, but in analyzing our Founders, I expect more integrity and objectivity from renowned historians.