American Sphinx

Imminent historian of the revolutionary war period, Joseph Ellis wrote this excellent character biography of Thomas Jefferson. This is not a straight, chronological biography. Instead, Ellis looks at some of the more interesting aspects of Jefferson's life, such as his sources for writing the Declaration of Independence, the contradictions between his writings on human freedom and his role as a slave owner, and his political activities versus his historical reputation. This is a very interesting, short book worth the time to read. While I think that not all his criticisms are revelatory - Ellis admits as much in his discussion of slaves and the Declaration for example - this book is still worth the read.

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.

Ellis' approach to Jeffereson was a breath of fresh air compared to most biographies. Instead of belaboring every exact detail in "matter of fact" form, he dissects Jefferson's character and analyzes the questions "why, who and how." The result is a biography/character profile that is instantly engrossing and which hold your attention until the last page.

As an American Revolution enthusiast, I can say that this well-written book is a must read for anyone.

Like most readers of books I also read newspapers and am stunned by the recent revelations by THE BOSTON GLOBE about Joseph Ellis's fabricated Vietnam service record. What could be more damaging for a historian than to be shown up as someone who disrespects truth?; that's what Mr Ellis has done with his false lifestory. I thoroughly enjoyed and learned a lot from FOUNDING FATHERS, but all of this has, for me, refreshed a perception of Jefferson that I came away with from AMERICAN SPHINX; and made me re-read sections until I found what I was looking for - irony abounds.
AMERICAN SPHINX is more a detailed character sketch of Jefferson the man, than it is a detailed account of the history of his life as president. Mr Ellis therefore shines a new light on some of the contradictory aspects of Jefferson's character. How could a man who spoke and wrote so eloquently about freedom, keep slaves?; How to reconcile his advocacy of government austerity with his personal extravagance?. Mr Ellis says that Jefferson was "always a controversial figure who combined great depth with great shallowness, massive learning with extraordinary naivete, piercing insight into others with daunting powers of self-deception." Mr Ellis is an excellent writer and this book is full of such penetrating insights. Another is that Jefferson edited some of his earlier correspondences in order "to convince posterity that his affection for France had not blinded him to the possibility of unparalled violence." There were other examples of less than perfect behavior; all of which Mr Ellis says can be explained by looking at it as "the deep deviousness only possible in a dedicated idealist."
Then I found the quotation from the book I was looking for. This deviousness of the idealist came from Jefferson's practice as a young man of making "interior worlds of great imaginative appeal that inevitably collided with the more mundane realities". It provided Jefferson, Mr Ellis says, with "the internal ability to generate multiple versions of the truth". Who else?, I wonder. Didn't Mr Ellis, in writing these words, not pause and reflect on his own situation?
AMERICAN SPHINX is a balanced account of the character of Jefferson. It is well researched and well written, it's just that I doubt anyone reading it now, can't help but think more about Joseph Ellis and his character, rather than Thomas Jefferson.

I have read several books on Thomas Jefferson. The author takes significant liberty in coming to conclusions concerning why certain events happened as they did. Many conclusions are his thoughts, no fact. I felt early on in the book that the author was out to take Jefferson down a couple of notches in historical significance.

The writing style is excellent. Some have found his style too "academic", which was not my experience. I found his general style to be pleasing and almost poetic at times.

The scope is perfect. He does not attempt a complete biography of Thomas Jefferson. A simple read of the sub-title - "The Character of Thomas Jefferson" - accurately describes the nature of the book. Snippet's of his life with context and analysis. 360 pages long for a person who has become larger than life - come in with reasonable expectations and they will be satisfied.

His bias is liberal. Every writer has some bias - more or less - and if it doesn't affect the logic of the work, it isn't a problem. However, in this book I believe it does impact it. Ellis paints a mold of Jefferson as an idealist - convincingly at first. However, his attempt to fit everything into this mold only succeeds when one buys into the types of philosophy the author endorses. This effectively requires one to summarily dismiss some of Jefferson's policies and beliefs - ironically ones that many modern scholar's do not dismiss so easily.

A perfect example is his dismissal of Jefferson's extreme focus on national debt elimination as "silly." However, on pg. 231 he notes the irony that Hamilton was also focused on the debt - its continued existence - because it "created the need for taxes, banks, and federal fiscal policies that amplified the powers of the national government." The linchpin as I see it - and I can speculate Jefferson may have agreed - would be that the national government would not become a "menace" in one sweeping motion, but in a gradual step-wise encroachment on individual sovereignty. In that manner, Jefferson's stance seems perfectly logical (regardless of whether you agree with it or not) and worthy of debate. Yet this author does not elaborate Jefferson's belief's as such, and as a non-Jefferson scholar I am left with mere speculation. The irony as I see it is the importance this theme plays in the politics of 2010-2011 (aka now). For a work that examines the enduring relevance of Jefferson, what could be more important?

The work as a whole is much more fair, yet these few blemishes do in my opinion reduce the quality overall. Ellis' epilogue embody these belief's - "The Future of an Illusion" - as the takeaway message of the entire work; despite this, the work as a whole is still good enough to be worth the read.

Having grown up learning by rote the pablum that was taught in our school system's about our founding fathers, I was a "Founding Fathers" fan. Thinking my entire life that Jefferson penned "The Declaration of Independence" by himself, without any editing and in his own words and finding out that this is false as Washington cutting down the cherry tree is a slap in the face of our educational system. I did not care for Jefferson after having read the book on John Adams by David McCullough. My thinking was turned around 180 degrees about Adams in that book as well as Jefferson. This book merely confirmed my beliefs. In later years Jefferson let others do his dirty work behind the scenes to allow people to believe in his legacy of 1776. Adams was the real hero of the revolution and The Treaty of Paris. What this book proves is that our heroes are fallible and have feet of clay. The reason Jefferson did not free his slaves was because it was not convienent for him and his plantation. Not out of any moral obligation to keep them from the cruel white (and free) world. Jefferson is like another Virginian ,Robert E. Lee, whose myth has grown over the years. Lee was thought invincible until Lincoln found some real generals like U.S. Grant who showed Lee what "total war" was all about. Anyone who fought for the South as a sense of duty to his "country", i.e. Virginia, and the cause of slavery should be labeled what he his, a flawed character much like Jefferson. it is hard to realize that the truths you grew up with were false, but the facts are the facts

My journey to meet all forty-four Presidents via reading a biography on each recently lead me to number three. Thomas Jefferson's enigmatic quality allows him to be all things to all people, or as Joseph Ellis puts it, an 'American Sphinx'. Rather than run through the typical biographical device of a timeline that starts with the early years and concludes with death, Ellis chooses five different periods in Jefferson's life through which to understand him: the time around the Declaration of Independence, his time in Paris, seclusion at Monticello, first term as President and final years before his death. It's the contradictions that make Jefferson so fascinating and also hard to figure out. He championed personal freedom but owned slaves; preached the simple life yet was mesmerized by his time in Paris and French culture which lead to an extravagant lifestyle that brought financial ruin. He's an American icon who hated public speaking and the limelight. The Sally Hemings scandal is always raised when discussing Jefferson. When Ellis first wrote this book he concluded that we'll never really know if Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings. However, Ellis had to revise his Appendix to acknowledge that DNA evidence has now shifted the tide where it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Jefferson and Hemings did indeed have at least one child. Despite what the Tea Party says, The Constitution, is leaving, breathing and subject to Amendment. So is the legacy of one of its' primary authors, even though he has been dead for almost 200 years.

I love writers. I mean those who damn the consequences and pen-down the hard facts: whether the world likes it or not. J.J. Ellis is one of them; regardless of those nagging complaints that his pen attracted.
Right from the first page, this book was purposeful. Unlike most other 'Jefferson' authors, Professor Ellis refused to tuck-in his tail and dance to the gallery. He understands that honesty may hurt for a short while, but, costs nothing in the end.
Everything about his book is factual. No sycophantic element! Its portrayal of Thomas Jefferson was candid and conscientious.
Yes, Mr Jefferson might have been one of America's 'founding fathers', but that does not make him a saint. In fact, he was a pariah when the issue concerns true freedom. He failed justice and betrayed compassion. Yes, he did.
Among all the lies about his 'greatness', one thing is crystal-clear: Thomas Jefferson was a terrible contradiction, who never defended true freedom. Calling him an unrepentant racist may sound offensive, but that is what he was.
How can a man who consistently preached (to the English Monarch), that, "All men were created equal: with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; turn around and entrench a slave-holding society: one of the most cruel societies that humanity has ever known?
Good or bad, this biographer balanced his research well. He was more interested in the (bitter) truth than in pleasing sycophants.
Thomas Jefferson was by no means better than his 'British oppressors'. That he repeatedly raped Black women did not show that he believed in true justice. That he bought, sold, and enslaved men, women and children did not show that he believed in true freedom. That he even went as far as enslaving his own (coloured) children simply because their skin-colour were not as White as he would have liked them to be did not show that he believed in human rights. None these facts showed that he was sincere in citing that "All men were created equal", nor that he agreed that "All men are entitled to freedom and the pursuit of happiness".
It is time we abandon sectional bias and sentiments, and open our eyes. An evil-deed is an evil-deed, whether we like it or not: and regardless of who did it, or when and where it was done. Slavery is evil. It ruined justice; ruined freedom; ruined happiness; ruined love; and ruined lives. It is epitome of wickedness. Nobody who condoned and/or participated in it is truly great.
If we insist otherwise, then, what are we going to tell diehards who believe that Saddam Hussein is a great man? What are we going to tell fanatics who believe that Osama Bin-Laden is a champion? And the last but never the least, what are we going to tell Neo-Nazis who adore Adolf Hitler as their hero?
Mr Jefferson was only good at removing specks from the eyes of Britons, while refusing to remove the mahogany logs that blinded him and his co-founding 'fathers'.
He enslaved and maltreated people for life, and throughout his life. Even in death, he refused to free those slaves; instead, he willed them out (as slaves). No conscientious being will classify this act as that of a freedom-preaching great man.
This book was very kind to Mr Jefferson. It only called a spade by its real name.

While I took away a number of valuable insights into Jefferson's character, I do have to wonder at how objective a person can be who is obviously hostile to many of the ideas of Jefferson and the founding fathers. Instead of showing his "political cards" in the Epilogue, I think it would more intellectually honest to reveal them in a Prologue so that the reader could filter their reading of the book thru his obviously left leaning lens.
Aside from what I feel is an author that is somewhat disingenuous, the book is informative but needs to be read in the context of an author who shows bias.

Ellis try's to intellectualize why we (Americans) irrationally like Jefferson.

Let me take a leap like Ellis does with his many "Leaps of Faith" about Jefferson and say that Adam's would think this book is an unfair attack on his friend and soul-mate.

Imagine what Adams would eloquently say in this the store comment space to Ellis. Read this knowing he does not like Jefferson.

"American Sphinx" is not the place to begin a study of the life of Thomas Jefferson. In the introduction, Joseph Ellis comments that before joining the plethora of published analyses and biographies of Jefferson, the historian had better be prepared to bring some new insights to the life of this most revered of the Founders. Ellis chose for his subtitle, "The Character of Thomas Jefferson", and it is Jefferson's character that Ellis explores, in snippets that leap forward from scene to scene in Jefferson's life, as if Ellis were a time-traveler checking in periodically on his subject while Jefferson the man moves through a life that is now considered hallowed history. Ellis assumes that his reader is already familiar with the larger moments of Jefferson's life, as well as the surrounding history, and so skips over these. The reader who is new to Jefferson, therefore, should start elsewhere.

"American Sphinx" was published a few years before the DNA tests in 1998 which proved that some of Sally Hemings' children did indeed carry the Y chromosome of the Jefferson family, probably from Thomas himself or his brother Randolph. Because the DNA evidence cannot narrow the paternity of Sally Hemings' children any further, Ellis' arguments against Thomas Jefferson as their father still hold up, and remain as reasonable as they could also be inaccurate. Despite a wealth of circumstantial evidence that can swing either way, any final judgment must be taken simply on faith.

And "taken on faith" seems to be how Jefferson's life must be viewed. He represents so much to so many about the founding spirit of the United States that he is often worshipped along the lines of a Joshua or other prophet. Ellis seems to hold Jefferson up to this same hero-worship status, but through lines of often dry prose and some confusing sentence structure (Ellis does not set off his prepositional phrases with commas), the reader begins to get the queasy feeling that Jefferson may not have been the man that we have all wanted him to be. He begins to come across as petty and insecure, with a naïve outlook on humanity that carried on even into his waning years. It was always easy to write off Jefferson' sharper declarations (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants) as youthful enthusiasm, but his convictions against a governing structure for the United States apparently never changed, leaving John Adams to question Jefferson's sanity while even James Madison had to shake his head from time to time. Ellis almost appears to have been startled by these revelations, and struggles to keep Jefferson atop a pedestal even as the evidence tries to topple the whole thing.

All in all, "American Sphinx" is a sobering exercise in the realities of greatness; that in the end the Founding Fathers--and Jefferson in particular--were all very human and just as capable of error as anyone; that the founding of the United States was neither a clear-cut goal of rationality nor even a consensus, but was rather a struggle of ideology pulled toward the center by camps who were alarmingly polarized even in the eighteenth century. But even as the dichotomies of Jefferson's life descend into disingenuousness, we can still ask with some reverence: Where would we have been without him?

Thomas Jefferson may be the hugest fraud in American history. After his Presidency he cared nothing about democracy and everything about slavery. He created an athest anti-christian slave power. If Jefferson wasn't the devil, he certainly came close. Yes. Jefferson almost stopped slavery from moving west in his Land Ordinance of 1784 and he did stop the slave trade in 1808. His Land Ordinance, although, failed, did influence the Ordinance of 1787 that stopped or curbed slavery in the Northwest Territory. Stopping the slave trade increased the value of his own slaves as well as other Southern slave owners. Jefferson, for the most part, only cared for riches and wealth while over 600 of his black slaves toiled and hundreds remained in slavery after his death. Racist historians appauled Jefferson's racist views on blacks as inferior and could not live with whites. Jefferson was a man of the middle ages, backwards, and evil. Jefferson deserved jail time for all his crimes against humanity. Jefferson with his Louisiana purchase extended slavery and started the Civil War. Jefferson established a slave power dictatorship the ruined any chances that America could be a light on the hill. Ulysses S. Grant was a much better President who established equality in our nation. He lived a life of luxury but died a pauper at Monticello.

Professor Ellis is a very intelligent man, but he plays fast and loose with the facts, and sometimes he uses his gift for writing prose in ways that mislead the reader especially in, American Sphinx. Ellis has obviously covered all of the ground with regard to what is known about Jefferson--but he doesn't objectively present all of the factual scholarship existing about our 3rd President.

If you want to know more of the detail of what was all involved with Sally Hemings, you MUST read Douglass Adair's essay "The Jefferson Scandals." This essay is found in the book: Fame of the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair. Published by W.W. Norton. Sally Hemings was the daughter of Jefferson's father-in-law; and Sally's lover was not T.J. but T.J.'s nephew (his sister's son). That's why Jefferson never talked about the "scandal" because his close family relatives were involved; however, not the way Prof. Ellis says. The unfortunate fact is that Prof. Ellis mentions Douglass Adair in American Sphinx, but he never mentions Adair's research (which Ellis cannot reasonably be ignorant of) on the alleged Sally Hemings-Thomas Jefferson liason. It's obvious from American Sphinx that Ellis has read Adair's essays. Prof. Ellis must know that the best evidence exonerates Thomas Jefferson, but he never tells us about that. The well publicized DNA test does NOT prove TJ was the father of any of Hemings' children. TJ never fathered any children with Hemings and Ellis knows it. Prof. Ellis is intellectually dishonest on this point, and on many other points of Jefferson's life. Too bad because he would otherwise have written a tour-de-force. Instead it's a tour-de-FRAUD.

Few American presidents are as complex as Thomas Jefferson. In looking at the history of the Presidency, few men stand out as having a mind as thoughtful, engaging, mischievous and ultimately probing as Jefferson. It is often said that in the greatest of our leaders, there is something for everybody, whether they be conservative or liberal. The resurgent conservative movement which began in 1964 tried to make Jefferson the prophet of less government, individual initiative and minimalist intrusions into the market place. While New Deal liberals can point to his rather presumptuousness (at the time) claim of executive power to buy Louisiana from the French. However, as a thinker, Jefferson saw no difference between his actions as President, and the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence. For him, the revolution of 1800, was a continuation of the revolution of 1776 and 1789 in France. Mr. Ellis points out that the writer of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, or that the supporter of the agrarian lifestyle turned Monticello into a nail making warehouse. Yes, these are contradictions, but one in which a Virginia gentleman like him was bound too. Yet, to call Mr. Jefferson ahypocrite because of the difference between his words and his actions is to miss the point about what he means to America. He was the only man, out of great men of 1776, who was the ultimate true believer, to borrow a modern term. Mr. Jefferson always stuck to the point that the American Revolution was just the beginning shot in the liberation of mankind from the forces of idolatry, religious intolerance and bigotism. Whether one agrees with this or not is not the point, but Jefferson always held firm to this belief, even though he did not put it into action that often. We like to look back on our historical figures with a sort of patronizing glare, but, despite historial revisionism, those words of the Declaration are still America's one and only credo.

Ellis has a problem. He makes claims that he can's support, and he makes claims that are inconsistent. To borrow one of his techniques, he writes like a pathological liar. He seems to forget what he has said from page to page or even from the start of a paragraph to the end - more interested in calling attention to himself than he is to the truth. I recognize the pattern. I was a pathological liar once.

Here are some examples. On the last paragraph of page 87 (paperback edition), he claims that Jefferson had compartmentalized conflicting beliefs. That may be the case, but the rest of the paragraph is poor evidence at best.

On the bottom of 123 he says that Jefferson's remarks on ratification were inconsistent and contradictory. The evidence? He changed his mind about the timing of support: oppose after 9 states ratify to force a bill of rights, and later oppose from the beginning to force a boll of rights. What a flip-flop. I'm shocked.

I don't have the page now but he's says that Jefferson withdrew into an emotional shell when Martha died to protect himself from future hurt. Then a few pages later he describes Jefferson's intimate relationship with the Adams family, and then his heads-over-heels crush on a young woman in Paris.

I'm suspicious of the way he footnotes. He begins a paragraph with a few quotes from Jefferson's correspondence. Then he psychoanalyzes Jefferson extensively making claims that aren't supported by the quotes, and then ends the paragraph with a footnote. The footnote gives the citation for the quotes early in the paragraph but is mum on his interpretation.

A couple more. The first paragraph pn page 137. He quotes a letter from Madison. Some of the quote is in italics added by Ellis to indicate coded language without saying how he knows what words are coded or where he found the key to decode the language. It reminds me of the movie, A Beuatiful Mind. He uses the coded language to state that Jefferson expected to retire and return to Paris. Wow.

I'm on page 190; it's 1797 or there abouts. Ellis is claiming that Jefferson is coming out of retirement to solve the nation's debt problem because he can't solve his own debt problem. What hogwash. Mr. Ellis, there are a myriad of other explanations. Perhaps, Jefferson's financial problems made him acutely aware of the problems debt represented to the nation. He wasn't entering public life to duck the problem of his private debt. Given the acerbic mood at the time, entering public life would make it harder to confront his own debt demon.

That's enough for now. I will continue reading because I told my nephew, a history student, that I would. Keeping ones word is such a burden.

The very meaning of the title of Joseph Ellis' book "American Sphinx" literally means American Enigma. Yes indeed Thomas Jefferson was a mysterious person.
As pointed out by Michiko Kakutani in her New York Times book review "Jefferson became accustomed to constructing worlds of great imaginative appeal that inevitably collided with the more mundane realities." For instance Mr. Jefferson abhorred slavery, but he indeed remained a slaveholder throughout his life. His take on people of African descent was that their mental aptitude was inferior to whites comes into conflict with his romantic attachment to Sally Hemings a slave on his estate at Monticello.
Mr. Jefferson comes from the founding Fathers who believed in States rights and less Federal government. It does seem as confusing that as President he was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase, a rather Federalist move if I do say so myself.
Mr. Ellis' prose explains all these contradictions and in the end do we really know who Thomas Jefferson really was? In effect Ellis has shown us the very first true American Politician. Jefferson bends with the breeze. He can agree with a position on States rights in one context and go out and make the largest purchase of land in American history in another context.
While George Washington became our first Soldier Statesman and John Adams was our first American intellectual President, Thomas Jefferson really was our first Political President. In many respects he doesn't appear as he really is. Who is this man? Come to think of it does anybody really know Franklin D. Roosevelt? Franklin was the ultimate politician.
Hence Jefferson remains an enigma. Ellis has used his superb knowledge of this time of American history to explain the political and personal mind of Thomas Jefferson. Excellent read! Yes, Michiko Kakutani yours was a good review of a good book.

Prior to his Pulitzer Prize winning examination of the revolutionary generation in "Founding Brothers," Joseph Ellis tackled the biography of probably the most difficult member, Thomas Jefferson, in "American Sphinx." As Ellis points out in the beginning of the book Jefferson remains one of the most popular founders as well as one that has been adopted across the political spectrum. Ellis sets off to discover what Jefferson's actual beliefs were and how they changed during the course of his life. Rather then presenting a regular biography of Jefferson, the readers are presented with "snapshots" of Jefferson at various times in his life - in 1776 as he is preparing to write the Declaration of Independence, in the 1780s as the first United States minister to France, in the mid-1790s when he returns to Monticello after retiring as Secretary of State, in 1801 at his first inaugural and in the 1810s during his famous correspondence with John Adams. Each "snapshot" is not limited to a specific year but gives a survey of Jefferson's life during the period and how his political thought was evolving.

Ellis's "snapshots" of Jefferson give his biography a unique feel; it is more then just the re-telling of the story of Jefferson's life. Each glimpse of Jefferson that we get gives a feel for not only Jefferson the man, but Jefferson the political thinker as well. Ellis examines Jefferson's frame of mind at the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence and the many different "sources" that may have affected that writing. Ellis not afraid to stay away from the more controversial aspects of Jefferson's thinking - his views on slavery vs. his prose in the Declaration that "all men are created equal" and his affair with Sally Hemmings.

This book is an illuminating biography of an often misunderstood Founding Father. Ellis' unique format gives the book a different feel and still manages to give the reader a greater understanding of Jefferson. Readers who are looking for a more conventional, straightforward biography of Jefferson may come away disappointing. This biography is aimed at readers who already have a background understanding of the early American republic but are interested in unearthing the political ideas of one of its greatest heroes.

I thought the book was very good. It separates the myth from the man. The author does a good job of trying to explain the thought process of Jefferson as he dealt with issues on which he seemed to take positions on both sides such as slavery. We also know about his personal life and this man was truly a spent-thrift leaving nothing for his heirs and forcing the auction of Monticello after his death. Jefferson did not want to be remembered as president or primary author of the Declaration of Independence but the Founder of the University of Virgina.

If you think politics are messy today, his battles with the Federalists were fierce and as loud as the ones we hear today on CNN or C-Span.

The author also updated this edition of the book to present updated DNA evidence that verfies that Mr. Jefferson indeed fathered several and perhaps all of Sally Hemming's (his slave) children. Modern DNA testing verfied this from the samples taken from Sally's descendents.

That famous quote , from Yogi Berra, certainly does not apply here: Jefferson said it all. In fact, as Ellis points out, you can quote him to prove ANYTHING. [Including the right of secession]

I am going to respectfully disagree with a couple of other reviewers: I think that this book IS a good place to start. Of course, Ellis doesn't have Jefferson "figured out", any more than anyone else does. Thomas Jefferson was, and remains, the most complicated character in all of history. The contradictions are just too numerous: the man who hated slavery while owning slaves [as did Washington, Marshall, Henry, Wythe, and others], the apostle of fiscal responsibility who died broke, the advocate of limited government who expanded the government far beyond what Washington and Adams had, and then bought Louisiana, the athiest who "swore on the altar of God" [Jefferson had his own ideas about religion, as he did everything else, but he was NOT an athiest...he and Patrick Henry are the two men mainly responsible for our own religious freedom].

Thomas Jefferson may have been, in some respects, the real "Father of our Country". Washington won the war, but it remained for Jefferson to invent the governmental theories that make our nation work. Today, he would be an unknown speech writer. The personal scandals, and conflicting quotes, not to mention a complete lack of public speaking ability, would have finished him. [An effective attorney who couldn't speak in public? Sure--another contradiction]. But, Thomas Jefferson was a man of just the right time and place, and we are all richer for it. If you want the definitive study of Jefferson, try Dumas Malone. For those who lack the time, or interest, for six long volumes, this book is a great place to begin.

I wanted to understand the revolutionary period of our country so I set out to do this. I've read many, many books of this era which include several about Jefferson and this book briings us back to reality. Jefferson has been made into a god and when that happens we stop seeing the truth. Joe Ellis is a terrific historian and I recommend any of his books. I highly recommend this book

Nice flowing and well written book on Thomas Jefferson that brought forth information that I was not aware of which always adds to a books attraction. One of the goodies brought forth is the misconception that Jefferson was a strict agrarian when in fact he had his own nail factory at Moniticello that was more productive than his land that featured mostly clay. The book also notes Jefferson's shyness which may have been one of the reasons John Adams suggested that Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence. Adams assumed incorrectly that his own spoken word would predominate over anything Jefferson wrote even though he and Franklin contributed to the document. The Declaration was also influenced by the writings of George Mason. Other gems of information concern Jefferson's conflicts with Patrick Henry who became a political enemy in which I wish there was even more detail since it's very interesting that two of VA.'s most prominent leaders had a mutual distaste for each other. The book covers Jefferson's role as governor including his escape from the British, his Presidency where he was fiscally tight, his own destruuctive personal finances and his views on religion, slavery, agriculture and government including his relationship with both of the Adams. Quite a story on how Jefferson's lean government financing during his term as President were so frugal that his failure to build up a navy and army may have resulted in the US being unprepared by the War of 1812. In contrast, his own personal finances were so out of control as he spent lavishly and continued to tinker with building Monticello that he died a penniless man losing the estate at the time of his death. His views on slavery and religion are conficting, expressing one thing but practicing another. The Sally Hemmings controversy is covered revealed initially as a political attack generated by his enemies yet its inconclusive that he fathered Sally's children although the circumstances lend it to be a serious possibility. A very interesting book about a quiet man that rose to the national spotlight yet seemed happiest when semi reclusiive at Monticello. His grand ideas were also expressed during the building of the University of Virginia with Madison and Monroe and perhaps if all his plans were executed the buildings would have looked grand, unfinished and outrageously expensive. Jefferson comes across as a highly educated philosopher who sometimes was challenged on application.

It had been years since I read anything about Jefferson. I think Ellis does a good job at presenting the complexities of Jefferson--a very talented and passionate man, but certainly not a saint. I like Ellis' writing style and found it easy and enjoyable to read.

Professor Ellis delivers a wonderful and insightful look into the life and mind of one of our most influential, and least understood, revolutionary "band of brothers". His research is clearly first rate, but it is in his analysis that he sheds much needed light on Thomas Jefferson. Ellis details Jefferson's mindset vs. the Federalist camp of Hamilton and Adams, his vissitudes regarding the political and social issue of slavery (while dismissing with equal aplomb both sides claims of "conclusive proof" of the Sally Hemming love child). Ellis also brings the reader a great understanding of Jefferson the politician, ie his "unwillingness to leave his beloved Monticello" for political calling. He describes in great detail the "rift" between Jefferson and Adams and their letters for the ages later in their lives. He doesn't fall into the pitfall of many apologists who argue these letters showed these men later in life changing their views, rather he shows them healing a long strained relationship while maintaining vastly different political philosphies about a burgeoning nation they both passionately loved.
This is really a great book and a wonderful and enjoyable read. I would encourage all with any familiarity of the period to read it without delay.

Joseph Ellis provides a very good biography of Thomas Jefferson and the contradictions in his nature. This book is not meant to be a day by day account of Jefferson's life but a look at the times when Jefferson's thoughts were forming and how those conclusions were reached. The book does jump around quite a bit and leaves out some years that I think the reader would like to know which is the main reason for the four stars instead of five. While Ellis shows how American's have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson he spends a lot of time trying to justify Jefferson's decisions that we clearly have little historical evidence for. Jefferson may remain one of our least understood figures and Ellis approach tries to summarize what we conclusively know without taking too many liberties. The legacy of Thomas Jefferson takes up almost the final 50 pages of the book and Ellis explores how current philosophers and historians are trying to interpret the messages Thomas Jefferson left behind. Much of this philosophy is based upon letters exchanged between Adams and Jefferson after they made peace. The surprising contradictions of Jefferson's character lead the reader to still have an air of mystery even after reading this book. There is little doubt of the man's political genius and this is a must read for fans of the American Revolution, political philosophy or the early republic. It puts a lot of things in perspective and while I wish it had covered more areas it does a wonderful job of those that it does.

This book, about Thomas Jefferson, was really interesting and clearly written for a layperson, although it didn't condescend, either. Although he's one of the more popular American presidents, most people only know two facts about Jefferson: that he wrote the Declaration of Independence and that he had an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, so Ellis decided to write a book discussing some of the major events in Jefferson's life, what we can learn about his character from those events, and what his legacy is.

The book was interesting and even managed to be pretty humorous in parts, which is sometimes difficult for history books.

Joseph J. Ellis is a noted Pulitzer Prize winning author, so obviously many readers will disagree with my assessment of AMERICAN SPHINX: THE CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON. While I did learn things here about TJ that other authors passed over, I can't really say I learned anything of great relevance.

When reading Founding Brothers, for which Ellis won the aforementioned Pulitzer, I found the book painfully slow, but gradually building momentum. That book improved with each chapter (or subject, if you will). I began reading this one and found it too to be painfully slow. The difference is, this one remained so to the end, save the last 10 or so pages. Perhaps that was simply my own induced enthusiasm at reaching the end.

I've found Ellis's books to be somewhat like walking through a plowed field after a hard rain. You'll get there eventually, but you'll have to stop and rest along the way and will be exhausted when you reach the other side.

There are things to learn here, and the TJ enthusiast will want to read this, but for my money, there are countless other volumes available that blow this one away. For me, the highpoint of this volume is the colossal 40 page bibliography.

This book was a very fair and fascinating look at a very complex, often paradoxical, yet amazing man. With the way both conservatives and liberals fight over the true legacy of Thomas Jefferson, it was very refreshing to read a book, by a great writer, that takes a very fair, honest and direct look at Jefferson's good and bad sides. Any fair reader will come away from this book with a great appreciation of a brilliant man's struggle for what he thought was best for his young country. Jefferson had many views that many in our modern society quickly dismiss as ridiculous, hypocritical, or racist, but Ellis is very careful to put himself in the place of an observer from that era rather than some politically correct, elitist critic that so many of us are inundated by today. Yet at the same time Ellis is far from a blindly praising Jefferson disciple. This is a great biography, that flows quickly, and is very fair and worthy of one of this country's greatest men.

This book purports to address the character of Thomas Jefferson, but Ellis seems to season his work with a profusion of subjective negativity, perhaps to bolster his statement in the prologue that Jefferson "is not a statue".

Just a few examples of Ellis's speculative negativity are underlined:

p. 59 "During the debate (on the Declaration) Jefferson sat silently and sullenly..."
p. 69 "...Jefferson's political vision was more radical than liberal, driven as it was by a youthful romanticism unwilling to negotiate..."
p. 170 "...Jefferson's irrational decision to redesign and rebuild Monticello..."

Ellis does not exemplify Jefferson's willful optimism, his basis for enlightenment thinking- unlimited freedom of thought, his cultivation of friends, music, food, and his spirit of hospitality. Ellis even describes Jefferson as distraught by many visitors to Monticello, rather than using this to show that Jefferson was most hospitable and engaging.

Ellis's framework for describing Jefferson is alluded to on pg. 69: "[Jefferson's] mind instinctively created dichotomies and derived its moral energy from juxtaposing the privileged side of any case or cause with the contaminated side. While his language was often colorful, the underlying message was nearly always painted in black and white."

Also, p. 151 "...a view of American politics that was also moralistic in tone and populated with clearly delineated villains and heroes."

Yet this characterization of Jefferson is simplistic. Ellis seems to contradict himself when he states:

p. 11 "The genius of his rhetoric is to articulate irreconcilable human urges at a sufficiently abstract level to mask their mutual exclusiveness." And "The Jeffersonian magic works because we permit it to function at a rarefied region where real-life choices do not have to be made."

As President of the US, Jefferson could not have chosen a bolder, more public stage upon which to share his vision. This biography of Jefferson attempts to reduce his character to a framework of principles, but Ellis's framework is not consistent. Ellis describes Jefferson as `moral and binary' (pg. 323), with "primal categories of his political imagination."

American Sphinx has a great analysis of the Adams - Jefferson correspondence, and Ellis's history of Jefferson's first Presidency from 1801-1804 is excellent. With respect to these phases, I gleaned more about Jefferson's character from Ellis than from Merrill Peterson's biography, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation.

The last sentence of the chapter on Jefferson's Presidency, 1801-1804, Ellis inexplicably dismisses Jefferson's second Presidency as a "...headlong fall from grace." Ellis's next chapter is "Monticello, 1816-1826". Though Ellis does later briefly address some aspects of Jefferson's 2nd term, he does not describe Jefferson's struggles, or the rationale of his goal of keeping the US neutral and out of the war between Britain and France. Ellis does not mention that though many urged Jefferson to run for a third term, he chose to follow George Washington's example and retire after two terms.

Ellis omits examples of Jefferson's character: his "Decalogue -10 point coda of life", his spiritual side - his philosophy of deism. Jefferson's sense of harmony, his passion for gardening, his love of nature, his curiosity of about science, his intellectual side, his correspondence with Priestly, his heroes, Bacon, Locke, and Newton, are not addressed. Thus American Sphinx does not describe the complexity of the character his elusive subject. Ellis does have some fine examples of Jefferson's philosophy of leadership. On pg. 220, for example, Ellis writes "Jefferson's first instinct was to share with his fellow survivors and sharers of that experience - outsiders and the younger generation could not understand - that the true `spirit of `76' was back." But there are not enough of such descriptive insights. Ellis slams Jefferson for his relationship with Sally Hemings, and faults him for not manumitting his slaves upon his death.

American Sphinx is a great but limited study, for it is biased and does not describe many dimensions of Jefferson's character. Ellis does not bolster his framework of Jefferson's nature as simplistic and dichotomous with examples. Ellis casts aspersions about Jefferson's character in a snide, derogatory and judgmental tone. Ellis concludes with the assertion that if Jefferson were alive today, "If we could ever persuade him to run, he would remain a formidable candidate for national office." This statement is not explained. Ellis might have speculated more about how Jefferson would view the US of the early 21st century, and in doing so, he might have illuminated more of Jefferson's character.

I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Ellis's book about that enigmatic man: Thomas Jefferson. It is not a biography of Jefferson nor is it a complete history and those of us who want to know more about this period in American history will need to look to other sources.

For me, the value of this book is the articulation of some of the perceived contradictions between Jefferson's idealism and his actions as a man of his time. Regardless of Jefferson's likeability as a man, he had a profound influence over the shape of the emerging American republic. In exploring the character of Thomas Jefferson, Professor Ellis provides an historical and social context as a prism through which to view the man and his actions. It is ironic that a man with the vision to work with others to set in place the foundations of a great nation was unable to manage his own affairs so successfully. Public life is so often accompanied by significant personal cost.

It may be true that `The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' I doubt that in 1787, when Jefferson uttered those words, he could foresee how thirsty the tree of liberty would prove to be.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

Ellis is becoming my favorite biographer. This book is an excellent book on Jefferson because, as the title suggests, it neither lionizes nor condemns Jefferson but rather approaches him as a notoriously complex and very real human being. Ellis has a keen sense of what we want to know and answers the questions that we all have about Jefferson: What was going through his mind when he wrote the Declaration of Independence? What's the latest on the Sally Hemings controversy? What kind of country did Jefferson want America to be and how much of his vision was realized? What kind of personality did he have? How could a slave-holder say that all men are created equal? All these questions and more are answered in this relatively small book.

John Adams was right. Thomas Jefferson not only survives but is alive and well and more mischivously paradoxical than ever!

I have been a fan of President Jefferson for nigh on to 70 years. Thus I have read many biographies. An older one by Saul Padover is quite good and of course, the Dumas Malone six volume bio is unsurpassed. Jefferson was so much more than our third president, and Ellis doesn't really do him justice in that regard. Jefferson was a statesman and his policies shaped our government in many areas, i.e. freedom of religion and public education. These accomplishments need to be noted always.

In light of the recent terrorist attacks, it is fascinating, if not entirely useful, to imagine what Thos. Jefferson might consider to be an appropriate response to such unmitigated evil. I read Ellis' AMERICAN SPHINX over the summer and found it to be more engrossing that I had imagined. I suppose I had never known how radical many of his ideas were, from the absolute freedom of the individual, to his utter hatred of monarchist governments, and his great opposition to tyranny in all of its forms.
It's for this latter notion that I support recent efforts in the US to combat terrorism and to name names of the perpetrators. For I have not heard it referred to in the New York Times or CNN as such but 'tyranny,' as Jefferson used the word, is really what these attacks seek to achieve. It would do well to remember his famous quote in these times, as the months pass and the nation heals, that the struggle against tyranny, and not just the individual's right to liberty, was one of Jefferson's great gifts to mankind.
Ellis, to his credit, gives us a life lived well, if not without its disappointments, and a man whose ideas resonate across the centuries. Hopefully it is a book that will remind Americans and all freedom loving peoples, of how important his contribution was (and is) to republican government, individual freedom, and liberty from tyranny.

Slavery and the Declaration of Independence can in no way be reconciled. -Brent Staples in the New York Times Review of the book
This idiotic notion lies at the core of the Jefferson dilemma for fuzzy minded liberal twit historians; the idea that the failure of the Founding Fathers to deal with the enormously divisive slavery issue in July 1776, somehow delegitimizes the whole American Revolution. In fact, this aspect of Jefferson's character is easily explained, though his alleged relationship with Sally Hemmings is more problematic. The truly difficult aspect of his character is his profoundly antidemocratic lack of respect for the Constitution.
It really isn't hard to understand the Founders' willingness to tolerate slavery. It is merely necessary to jettison the 20th Century (& 19th for that matter) detritus that clutters our minds when we look back at them through the mists of time. Whenever we watch a movie set in pre-Modern times, my wife will turn to me and say the same thing every time, "Boy those people must have really smelled." But do we think of Jefferson as crude because he took a bath once a month or whatever? No, because this was the convention of the time. Similarly, it is asinine to try to judge his opinion of Blacks by a modern standard.
Western man found African Blacks living in near Stone Age conditions. This, combined with physical dissimilarities lead to the understandable, though unfortunate, belief that Blacks were somehow lesser humans. To look back from the end of the Twentieth Century and take 18th Century men to task for this is both unfair and unproductive. In judging Jefferson, it should suffice that the Declaration that he wrote, in particular the phrase: "all men are created equal", made the end of slavery inevitable.
[A Thought Experiment: Suppose for a moment that we project current demographics and politics forward in time a couple decades. Women have become increasingly powerful politically and as a result many more protections have been put in for the weakest members of society. Abortion, Euthanasia and Animal Experimentation are all illegal. The people of this time could look back on us and write books about the impossibility of reconciling Bill Clinton's rhetoric with his support for all three. Surely we can see that this would be unfair.]
On the other hand, the possibility of a Jefferson/Hemmings liaison is a more troubling issue. If he truly felt, as his slave ownership indicates he must have, that blacks were inferior and whites were entitled to own them, then he would be little more than a sexual predator if he initiated a physical relationship with her. She was already unable to give true consent because of the master/slave relationship, but Jefferson should have perceived her as even less able to consent if he believed her to be a member of a lesser species. I am not willing to assume that he did enter into such a relationship, it remains unproved, but if it ever is proven, it will force a major reconsideration of his character, or lack of such.
The criticism of Jefferson's attitude towards Blacks actually misses the the most fundamental trouble spot in his character. It is his overly idealistic attitude towards democracy and his lack of respect for the law that really raises questions. Ellis does an excellent job of demonstrating that individual freedom and antipathy towards all institutions were the defining characteristics of Jefferson's politics. But in order for men to enjoy freedom, they have to be able to depend on the fair and consistent functioning of the laws and the system of justice. Ellis reveals numerous examples, from the Louisiana Purchase to his opposition to judicial review, of Jefferson's willingness to ignore the Constitution and resort to the arbitrary exercise of power. Moreover, his support for the majority, unfettered by the protection of minority views that Madison insisted on, coupled with his approval of the French Revolution, forces us to consider whether he even understood the importance of securing political rights in a web of laws. Ultimately he comes across as a kind of coercive utopian, willing to see the rights of the few trampled under foot in order to achieve his personal vision of the ideal agrarian democracy. It is a short step from this Jefferson to Robespierre and The Terror or Pol Pot and The Killing Fields.
This excellent book raises all these issues, dealing with some better than others. But it is always interesting and is extremely well written.
GRADE: A-

With American Sphinx, acclaimed historian Joseph Ellis faces the daunting task of unraveling the mystery of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, third President of the United States and peerless thinker, visionary, inventor and philosopher. Innumerable political groups have seized on the *image* of Jefferson, from FDR's New Deal progressives to the Tea Party conservatives of today, to promote their ideology. But what does that image actually mean? Perhaps more pertinently, what sort of man lurks behind the icon?

A word of warning: this is not a conventional biography of Jefferson. Rather than provide a chronological account of Jefferson's life, Ellis focuses on key moments in Jefferson's life (the Continental Congress, his time in Paris, his first term as President), dissecting key writings and speeches of Jefferson to probe for the personality behind them. Ellis is not the most accessible writer, and his dry, slightly academic style might put off some readers. Those with the patience to read it, however, will be richly rewarded.

What conclusions does Ellis reach? He sees Jefferson as a man who, for all his intelligence and rhetorical brilliance, was a relatively shallow thinker, a man who couched the world in a Manichean conceit of good vs. evil, be it colonists vs. Britain, Jacobins vs. Bourbons or Republicans vs. Federalists. This was not mere political rhetoric, but the earnest belief of a man unable to see political opposition as anything more than evil or stupid. Perversely coupled with this was a reluctance to confront his rivals publicly - preferring backroom dealings and private negotiation - which gained a him a reputation as deceitful and manipulative. During the heady days of Revolution, this served him well, but in political life it brought him a great deal of difficulty - and a great many enemies.

Jefferson was fraught with contradictions, as Ellis shows in detail. He was fanatical in his belief in small, decentralized government and branded Washington, Hamilton and the Federalists closet monarchists scheming to subvert the Revolution. As Vice-President, he took a laudable moral stand against the Alien and Sedition Acts. And yet when President himself, Jefferson had few qualms about exercising Presidential power, whether in accepting the Louisiana Purchase without amending the Constitution, dispatching warships to combat the Barbary Pirates or his vicious campaign against Federalist judges. His abhorrence towards slavery was strongly tempered by his racism and refusal to free his own slaves upon his death. Any group trying to use Jefferson as a standard-bearer should bear these contradictions in mind; in all likelihood, Jefferson isn't fully compatible with your political platform.

Through it all, Ellis retains admirable objectivity towards his subject. He avoids political grandstanding and simplistic cliches about Jefferson, and avoids the fuzzy cliches of "psycho-history." He also gives Jefferson his due for his achievements while criticizing him for his failures, seeking to place all of them in the greater context of the man's beliefs. This is neither hagiography nor a hatchet-job, but an admirably balanced and portrait of a difficult subject.

Overall, American Sphinx is an admirable bit of biographical analysis. Ellis brings Jefferson down to size, showing that, for all his wit and brilliance, he was very much a flawed human being, and one not easily categorized.

Joseph Ellis' peculiar study of Thomas Jefferson titled American Sphinx, is initially interesting but so obviously flawed as to be ultimately frustrating, and at times a bit silly. First, the author's premise: apparently we can only understand Jefferson if we acknowledge his 'extreme' idealism is both a virtue and tragic flaw. TJ's idealism is so pure it gives us the Declaration of Independence. However it is so impractical as to give us a flawed character of 'contradictions' --nobody could possibly live up to so high a standard of political and philosophical idealism. This rather odd standard allows the author to look askance at some behavior of TJ's without actually deploring it. Something historians seem to love doing when it comes to the sainted FF circle to which Jefferson belonged.

Of course the problem with this remarkably forgiving and porous standard of judgment is it sets the bar of behavior so incredibly low as to whitewash every sort hypocrisy. Proclaim all men are created equal? Ah, well how does one practice that Utopian (literally "No Where") ideal. Too true. But is it really unreasonable to expect the author of the DOI to not own hundreds of slaves, and perhaps a few of his own children? Scores of southern slave owners were inspired by the DOI to free the people they held in bondage. Is it really unreasonable or practicing "Presentism" to think the AUTHOR of the document might have been likewise motivated? One can be grateful to Jefferson for giving us the DOI and simultaneously disgusted by a grotesque indifference and self-serving paternalism toward African Americans.

Further, let us similarly congratulate Jefferson's insistence in Notes On Virginia that American Natives are noble and completely capable of self-government and the fruits of liberty. But can't we be appalled after the Louisiana Purchase when this admiration is swept aside to encourage instituting a policy of repatriation and forced exile if theses noble savages dare to impede the expansion of white folk? I found it more than passing strange Jefferson would advocate that Executive power be shrunk EXCEPT when a plum like the Louisiana Purchase is available. Then, by all mean, execute a purchase you believe a usurpation of power and patently unconstitutional. If there is much to admire, but also much to make one hold one's nose, can't we just say that without the contortions and Bowdlerizations.

For Jeffersonian apologists, ends always justify the means. What matters is that we HAVE a Declaration of Independence or Constitution. Not that we hold ourselves to their ideals. It is sadly reminiscent of our present day executive rationalizing his wire taps and drone attacks. But I digress. To demand the nation practice frugality and pay down its debt while you continue to sink your own finances (which ultimately leads to the breaking apart of your slave's families though their sale) with an obsession for fine wine and leather bound books is the rankest hubris. And it seems not to bother most historians that there was one standard for himself, another for the rest of the world. Our third president can at times be disappointing but never, it would seem, out and out hypocritical.

Without joining Jefferson's shrill detractors who can find no good in him, I think it more than fair to point out his was a character not merely flawed but malleable at times to the point of false. The DOI is still an inspiration. Republicans crushed Federalism because they WERE better suited to average American's needs, and a hands off economic policy can be as successful as one of government intervention --it depends upon what is needed at the time. One can't help but wonder if the author's tepid criticisms are related to Ellis' own dishonest presentation of self--let's not condemn lest we be put under the microscope as well. Another possibility is that the veneration of the 'band of brothers" is so extreme these days as to make harsher assessment impossible. It is a serious detraction.

Whatever the reason, the failures Ellis so lucidly elaborates should, in my opinion be more severely censured. But that's just an opinion. What Ellis does quite successfully is highlight them and toward the end, in a mere twenty pages, critique Thomas Jefferson's place in American history. The book for that reason alone is worth a read, and if you are less critical than I am of TJ's shortcomings you will find American Sphinx quite compelling, whereas I found it just worthwhile. Either way, I think it well worth a try.

I enjoyed this multi-faceted portrait of Thomas Jefferson. The book made him more human, full of irony, and yet his intelligence (and some wit) always shines through in his writings to others. This book is not another attempt at Jefferson-for-Dummies. It's a keen exploration of some of the myths and mysteries behind one of the most unusual and complex human beings in recorded history.

A common theme amongst many reader reviews that appeared to be neophytes to American history was that this book is painfully slow and lacking a compelling narrative. While I disagree with the former claim, I agree with the latter. I believe this is a book that best serves more ardent students of history who've already studied Jefferson and are more than willing to wade through a lot of uneventful anecdotes to get to know the man better, which Ellis does a great job on the subjects he covers except Jefferson's position on religion - so for those that want to go deep into history, this is a very interesting, worthy book. Ellis purposefully strips out much of the narrative by design, it is a character analysis (see subtitle of book for goodness sakes!), and therefore a narrative would threaten the very purpose of the book.

Ellis' Jefferson comes off as perfectly brilliant, utopian, progressive, somewhat dogmatic, impractical, subversive, and most importantly - all too human. Ellis does a wonderful job of describing the events where Jefferson was obviously on the wrong side of history as we look back in time - e.g., Jefferson's belief that the states would better defend individual liberty rather than the federal government, especially the Supreme Court which has ultimately become our greatest defender, along with eloquently analyzing his greatest accomplishments and contributions to mankind. Ellis brings Madison and Adams into this study in just the right amounts to provide an understanding of how Jefferson interacted with the other framers along with how Jefferson viewed the Revolution and ratification of the Constitution vs. their very different perspectives.

Ellis's treatment of Jefferson's contributions to promoting the limits of government and its obligation to defend its citizens' liberty rights was well covered from a philosophical perspective but completely lacking from a constitutional perspective. While Ellis covered Jefferson's firm position on the importance of secular government if men were to fully enjoy liberty was noted, this analysis was all too brief given the current times where the religious right continuously mischaracterize Jefferson's position on religious freedom, e.g., President Bush's 2008 Independence Day speech is a good example of a modern day character distorting Jefferson's writings to achieve a political objective perfectly contrary to Jefferson's clearly stated position. Given that Jefferson believed that individual freedom is only possible with a secular government with zero evidence to date he was incorrect; Ellis shortchanges his readers by not spending more time on this critical contribution, especially given Jefferson's radical position, and in hindsight his genius on this subject. In fact, Jefferson's position is still so radical there is no way a modern-day politician could espouse views like Jefferson's and get elected in America.

Ellis also leaves out some out critical time periods in Jefferson's life, like Jefferson's second term as President. Given the paperback's main body comes in at 367 pages, I felt one hundred fifty more pages to include more on Jefferson's religious viewpoints and his second presidential term was well deserved given the importance of Jefferson relative to America's founding ideals passed down by him and the other framers.

This book is quite pleasing, it is well argued and well written. If you like "juicy" biographies full of details and trivia you will be disappointed, nonetheless, it still has a wealth of biographical data that makes the book interesting and instructive. The main focus of the book is on Jefferson's achievements and legacy. The man (Jefferson) was an intellectual colossus and was never short on peculiar and original ideas; he remains an icon for all Americans that are wary of big government and all Americans that defend the sovereignty of the individual. I am glad I picked up this book as my starter on Jefferson.

This is a fine analysis of the peculiarities of Thomas Jefferson's character, but for those looking for final answers to the debates that still surround Jefferson's life this book will not fill that role. Perhaps no book ever will. For all the ink that has been spilt in this century regarding our third president, the problems Americans appear to have with the "paradoxes" of his character appear to be a singularly modern phenomenon. Liberal historians seem incapable of reconciling Jefferson's unwillingness to part with his slaves with his pronouncements on political freedom; conservatives, on the other hand, are far too willing to be apologetic for Jefferson's record on slavery. Few people seem to be satisfied with leaving Jefferson within the context of his time--everyone wants to appropriate him or denigrate him according to modern standards of efficacy or evil. Ellis certainly is right in cautioning us in making use of Jefferson's memory today, but perhaps all of us have been too unfair to Jefferson. Many of our accepted conventions, currently moral and righteous, end up appearing reprehensible in retrospect. Slavery was one of these conventions accepted, and hated, in its day. We may find in centuries to come, for example, that abortion is as reprehensible as slavery was in Jefferson's time, and look back in disgust at the early 21st century and wonder how people could have condoned it. Riddles have a way of looking very different when viewed through another perspective--solving the riddle of this American sphinx still demands more scholarship and more debate.

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, though one of the most famous and beloved of the founding fathers, remanis a mystery to most of us. He is largely revered for his authoring of the Declaration of Independence; but his authorship of that most famous document does little to reveal the character and mind of Thomas Jefferson.

American Sphinx accomplishes this very well; revealing the seemingly contradictory nature of the man who, with every aspect of his existence, and action, had an idea of what American should become and through these actions sought to steer America in that direction.

Much is written about his relationship with Sally Hemings in contemporary , popular literature and that is touched upon in this book, as is the contradiction observed when Jefferson sought to end slavery though he was "enslaved" to the institution of slavery himself, much like the rest of the south at the time. Ellis doesn't dwell on the Hemings issue and I thought that appropriate.

I gave this book 4 stars instead of 5 because I thought it was a dry read at times. It is still an extremely informative read and I feel I know Thomas Jefferson much better now having read it.

As an introduction to Thomas Jeferson I can hardly think of a better and more grounded way to portray Jefferson. This book really shows everyone what Jeferson's convictions where and how he thought. The main downfall of this book is pricisely it's best quality. Throughout the book Elias spends pages redescribing Jeferson's binary way of thinking and how he was able to hold several concepts in his mind without them conveluting each other. This coupled with the book's moderate leingh (about 370 pages) gives the reader the impression that the great actions of Jeferson where not portrayed in enough detail. Such important features such as the passing of the Alien and Sedition acts are not quite adiquatly explained and Jeferson's second term as president only gets a passing reference.
Another poor part of the book is it's extremely high prose level. Personally I found approximately one word every page that I did not understand significantly to understand a passage. While it did not really take away from the literary experience for me it could get infuriating especially for people for which english is a second language or lack proficiency in numerous outdated expressions used in the innumerable quotations from Jefferson.
For me, however, the book's problems where overlapsed by the intriguing and well expressed ideas about Jefferson's character.

I rather enjoyed this book. First of all, it wasn't long! In the amount of pages that it used, Ellis' did a great job of giving us a good idea of what made Jefferson who he was. Since Jefferson was a complete enigma (internally) in nearly every facet of his life, it probably wasn't easy for the author to come to some sort of conclusion about him. Ellis gave us the good and bad about Jefferson, allowing us to make up our minds about him and not letting the author's feelings on the subject cloud our unbiased viewpoint. The more I read about the presidents, the more I find this truly remarkable.
On the other hand, I had some issues with this work This may sound silly but he used the word "dichotomies" like one million times. Actually it was more like 10 times but in a 300 page book that word sticks out a mile and it bothered me that he continued to use it over and over again. Also if you plan on reading this book in the future, be aware that it is mainly a character study of Jefferson and not a simple biography. Since the book is character-based, Ellis can kind of pick and choose what aspects of Jefferson he wishes to discuss. For example, Ellis spends a whole chapter on Jefferson's first term of the presidency (which was a relatively good time for Jefferson) and then barely mentions his second term, a disaster for Jefferson. Now I don't think that Ellis did this because he loves Jefferson so much that he is willing to smudge the facts but I do think that maybe he didn't want to dwell on the second term and its effect on Jefferson character. As an unbiased reader, however, I would like to hear more about Jefferson's second term, good or not. It was, after all, an extension of Jefferson's policies and of himself.
In the end, though, I don't hate Jefferson as much as I used to. Although he was born to privilege and had a relatively cushy life, even during a national revolution and multiple disturbances, I think that he didn't have it easy at all. During Jefferson's lifetime, there was a strict code of conduct operating in Virginia and it left little room for error or, even, controversy of any kind. Southern gentlemen were held to a very high level of behavior that produced extreme indebtedness, enabling of disrespectable family members or friends, secrecy, double standards, and polite backstabbing. At that time, you did not talk about your problems and by all means, you had to prove that you were a propertied man, even if that meant going into debt. You were not allowed to show emotion or stoop to telling people what you actually wanted, thus you had to use backhanded channels of acquiring things (or of being elected.) If there was a black sheep in the family, it was up to you to save them, even if they got worse and worse; it was your responsibility.
It's easy to see how Jefferson turned out the way he did. There was much personal tragedy in his life, starting with the death of his mother and weaving its way through the loss of his wife and all of his children but one. He practically began life in debt because that was what you did to uphold public opinion. He had slaves because they were always there and he tried to make the United States into a viable country because he was well-read enough to realize it could be done. Most of Jefferson's delusions are a direct result of his upbringing--it was the only way he could bear life. The ultimate tragedy here though was that Jefferson bought into the southern way of life and remained an adherent to it even to the end when he had to sell his beloved Monticello.

Thomas Jefferson is a personal hero. So is one of his most distinguished detractors, Theodore Roosevelt. Though their respective views on government and politics are at odds, I can hold both views in my head and heart and feel no need to resolve the dissonance. I do not require my heroes to be perfect (and certainly neither of them were). That Jefferson had flaws and weaknesses, as do all the readers of these reviews, in no way diminishes the tremendous influence he still enjoys in American politics and culture. That the entire political spectrum wishes to claim him as one of their wellsprings shows the power of his ideas and visions.
I put down the book with the feeling that the author is disturbed by this influence, and cannot resolve the apparent conflict that Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt both claim Jefferson as their political progenitor. The author seems to say, "I cannot abide the contradictions and faults of the man, therefore, the reader should dismiss his [Jefferson's] efforts. And I truly hope we are NOT able to persuade him to run for national office!"
I agree with other readers that the first part of the book was more entertaining and balanced. But, the author's fear of his subject's legacy overtook the second part of the work, often leaving me questioning the author's purpose.
Also, I would suggest that the subtitle be modified to "The POLITICAL Character..." as the author chose to all but ignore Jefferson's complete character.
After having read Dumas Malone's masterful and idolizing work, I mostly enjoyed this report of a fascinating human. I do recommend the report, but certainly not as a first nor definitive treatment.

If you've read about the Founding Fathers, you can't help but notice that Thomas Jefferson has an eerie elusive quality that the others just don't seem to possess. You can figure out Ben Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, etc.. Jefferson, however, seems to be someone who you can't quite pin down or so easily lay claim to by today's standards. As was once said of William James, "He's just like a blob of mercury, you cannot put a mental finger upon him." It probably has something to do with, as Ellis states in the book, the fact that he was far more inclined to rhetoric and theory than he was to the tedious gears of hand-on politics.
I was expecting this book to cross the line in relation to dragging Jefferson into the present and beating him up a bit, but it kept within reasonable boundaries without either unrealistic hero worship or a foolish attempt at character assasination. Very readable and informative.

American Sphinx allowed me to understand the complex man that Thomas Jefferson was, and furthermore placed into perspective Jefferson's many contributions to the United States, whether it be in his philosophical and political exchanges with James Madison through letters while Madison was drafting the United States Constitution, or Jefferson's thought processes which early on led to his vision of an agrarian United States nation, or Jefferson's latter-day adventures in pushing the limits of presidential power during such historical landmark events like the Louisiana Purchase.

What I found fascinating in American Sphinx was the detail in which Jefferson's many letters to various figures in his lifetime were highlighted and set in context to the time and place Jefferson was in his life. These writings allowed me a greater understanding of Jefferson the man, and provided a window into his complex thought process and beliefs. The book also sheds some light on the flawed character of Jefferson, showing that his personal beliefs did not always match up to the image he wanted to display in public. Such character conflicts are perhaps best exemplified politically by the dichotomy in his public practice/private beliefs regarding slavery, and later in his views of the powers of the federal government, where he tried to balance his early beliefs for a limited national government with his later practices of increased presidential authority when purchasing Louisiana and instituting the oft-aligned Embargo Act. On a personal level, this work also delves into the conflicts Jefferson experienced internally (particularly after the death of his wife) with his family, his slaves, other notables like his thorny relationship with John Adams, and the troubled romance of a lady he met in France during his stay as ambassador there.

Perhaps the only thing I wanted the book to do more was feature a closer and more intricate study of the Jefferson presidency, but again, volumes have been written about his presidency and the overall goal of American Sphinx seems to be to provide an assessment in the many different chapters of his life.

Mr. Ellis has a style of writing that allowed me to stay engaged in this thoughtful, detailed and intricate look into the life of Thomas Jefferson. American Sphinx is an enjoyable yet scholastic read and the author's apparent neutrality on the subject matter was refreshing. I felt I received an all-around faithful look at the life of Jefferson without being forced to accept any pre-judged notions by the author, and was better able to understand Jefferson's place in American history.

I salute Professor Ellis for a valiant, and very readable, effort to plumb the mind of Jefferson without resorting to misty-eyed "Founding Father" sentiments and myth, as most Jefferson biographers invariably do, albeit often unintentionally. I disagree with the reviewer who found that the author dodged the tough issues and the reviewer who kindly stated that Professor Ellis "demystified" Jefferson.
I believe that the book very effectively illuminates the context in which Jefferson expressed and acted upon (or failed to act upon) many of his most cherished ideas and beliefs. What troubles me about the book, however, is its implicit suggestion that Jefferson in a vague sense was essentially a failure who, incredibly, was perpetually "out of the loop" (as we say today) when it came to the critical points of history that occurred in his time, except perhaps for the Declaration of Indpendence. But even there, Professor Ellis reduces Jefferson's role to a quasi-plagiarist who, in apparent denial of his own lack of creativity, publicly seethes at the thought of his fellow revolutionaries editing what Professor Ellis describes as, and what they therefore must also have known was, essentially George Mason's work!
According to Professor Ellis, Jefferson's view of the "Spirit of '76" was a little delusional and inferior to Adams' more accurate recollections. The book basically dismisses Jefferson as a bumbler when it comes to constitutional questions, although Madison was without peer in that regard. John Marshall was clever and legally facile, but not necessarily evenhanded in his constitutional interpretations. As to the role of the new government, Professor Ellis paints Jefferson as almost an irrational "spoiler" who had no positive vision about where he wanted to lead the country.
Perhaps I'm overreading Professor Ellis' conclusions, which, I am sure, he did not intend to come across the way I think they did. On the other hand, Professor Ell! is does usually place Jefferson on the wrong end of the stick when he comes to his closure on the issues he chose to address, such as the American and French Revolutions, slavery, the role of government, North-South relations, the role of the West, finances (personal and governmental), farming, political thought, politics, constitutional thought, sex, family, and friendship. While his analysis of each of these issues is interesting, plausible, and usually even-handed on the surface, Professor Ellis ultimately seems willing to cast as historical fact conclusions that are, in the end, also only "reasonably speculative," like those he admittedly offers with respect to Sally Hemmings.
This book must be read, but with the understanding that if Professor Ellis's treatment of Jefferson is 100% correct, then perhaps rather than building a statue of John Adams next to the Jefferson Memorial, as Professor Ellis suggests in his John Adams' biography, we should remove Mr. Jefferson's statue altogether and let it quitely sink into the Tidal Basin. Professor Ellis, I believe, gave a great effort, but in the end got so close that his view became myopic, with the result being that Jefferson slipped deftly through his analytical fingers.

Prior to his Pulitzer Prize winning examination of the revolutionary generation in "Founding Brothers," Joseph Ellis tackled the biography of probably the most difficult member, Thomas Jefferson, in "American Sphinx." As Ellis points out in the beginning of the book Jefferson remains one of the most popular founders as well as one that has been adopted across the political spectrum. Ellis sets off to discover what Jefferson's actual beliefs were and how they changed during the course of his life. Rather then presenting a regular biography of Jefferson, the readers are presented with "snapshots" of Jefferson at various times in his life - in 1776 as he is preparing to write the Declaration of Independence, in the 1780s as the first United States minister to France, in the mid-1790s when he returns to Monticello after retiring as Secretary of State, in 1801 at his first inaugural and in the 1810s during his famous correspondence with John Adams. Each "snapshot" is not limited to a specific year but gives a survey of Jefferson's life during the period and how his political thought was evolving.

Ellis's "snapshots" of Jefferson give his biography a unique feel; it is more then just the re-telling of the story of Jefferson's life. Each glimpse of Jefferson that we get gives a feel for not only Jefferson the man, but Jefferson the political thinker as well. Ellis examines Jefferson's frame of mind at the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence and the many different "sources" that may have affected that writing. Ellis not afraid to stay away from the more controversial aspects of Jefferson's thinking - his views on slavery vs. his prose in the Declaration that "all men are created equal" and his affair with Sally Hemmings.

This book is an illuminating biography of an often misunderstood Founding Father. Ellis' unique format gives the book a different feel and still manages to give the reader a greater understanding of Jefferson. Readers who are looking for a more conventional, straightforward biography of Jefferson may come away disappointing. This biography is aimed at readers who already have a background understanding of the early American republic but are interested in unearthing the political ideas of one of its greatest heroes.