“American Sphinx” - Joseph J. Ellis

• Perhaps a more telling title might be “American Paradox” for that was my great takeaway from this biography. Jefferson was no doubt a man of profound intellect, but he was also a veritable chameleon in his positions on issues from slavery, to the economy. He evidently felt no qualms in assuming both ends of the spectrum on these issues.

• Part of Ellis’ interest in contributing to the vast Jefferson scholarship, was piqued while he prepared a John Adams biography and studied the twilight years correspondence between these two revolutionary giants. While reading McCullough’s Adams biography, I tracked their relationship with great interest - from mentor/mentee, to foes, to peaceable friends again at the end. Unlike the pragmatic John Adams, Jefferson was a romantic idealist forever flummoxed when reality did not conform to his version of it.

• Ellis posits that our elevation of Jefferson into folk-hero status renders it impossible to reconcile his words with his actions. Ellis advises us to study Jefferson as part of his era (rather than operating somehow above it), as this would enable us to process his stunning hypocrisy squarely.

• Regarding his legacy, Ellis points out that he has been mistakenly taken up by labor unions, anti-welfare, and secessionist states’ rights groups. Religious liberty and the separation of church and state are his enduring legacy; in fact, the only real Jeffersonian legacy that reaches us from the late 18th century. Post New Deal and Cold War, his position on government structure (and lack of government, generally) are no longer remotely applicable.

• An example of Jefferson’s often paradoxical views was his vociferous opposition to implied executive powers. He would draw from this position often to reign in Washington (but specifically his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton). But during his own presidency, Jefferson latched on to implied executive powers with both hands to complete the Louisiana Purchase. Who was the autocrat now?

• Jefferson’s passionate enmity for Alexander Hamilton was a striking departure for Jefferson from his studiously cultivated serene manner. It seems like Hamilton was a foil for Jefferson’s shortcomings.  Hamilton had military leadership credibility as well as an immigrant’s ambition; Jefferson lacked both. Jefferson was stymied as he could not best Hamilton outright because Hamilton was a dual-edged sword: formidable on paper and in debate (Jefferson would never beat him in spoken word). And while Hamilton had a frenetic personality, he was acutely aware of reality.

• From a fiscal perspective, Jefferson’s hatred of Hamilton manifested in his favoring of fiscal austerity. He was an opponent of Hamilton’s assumption of public debt. His private indulgence and indebtedness stand in sharp contrast to his public policy.

• Yet another example of Jefferson’s perpetual cognitive dissonance was his favoring of an America the agrarian utopia concept to counter Hamilton’s industrialized, manufacturing vision. But he was able to put his high-minded, idealistic public position to the side when he initiated a factory to manufacture nails at Monticello. Why? Because it was profitable. 

• Jefferson on slavery exhibited some of the qualms of Washington. Both profited immensely off of it, but also recognized the moral failure. However, unlike Washington, Jefferson’s views devolved with age. In his youth, Jefferson was a vocal advocate for abolishing slavery. As a mature statesman, he was affected by “self-serving paralysis”. He could not reconcile his knowledge that slavery was morally reprehensible, yet vital to his personal economy.

• In his twilight years, the Missouri Compromise gripped his interest; he favored the notion of “diffusion” - that allowing slavery in Missouri territories would somehow lead to its eventual demise. He deluded himself to think he could align his financial reliance on slavery (he did not want to see it abolished in the South which would likely occur if it was abolished in Missouri), with his moral disapprobation of it. He absolutely needed slavery to persist during his lifetime.

• He preferred to maintain his serene silence in Monticello, and avoid being caught up in public opinion on a subject he preferred to leave to the next generation to grapple with ending it. Unlike Washington, he did not take the one, personal action in support of ending slavery: he did not free his slaves at his death as he was woefully in debt.

• The Jefferson/Sally “liaison” (I dislike this term vehemently as it underplays the power dynamic between an enslaved person and the person in power) is barely addressed other than as a scurrilous rumor until the Ellis’ note at the end. Short of exhumation and DNA testing, the story cannot be verified. There can be no answer, only speculation. 
• Ellis feels on the whole, that miscegenation at Monticello, between Jefferson and Sally Hemings (as opposed to between Hemings and a Jefferson relative residing at Monticello), is unlikely.
• Ellis’ rationale is as follows: 
• Two of Hemings’ children born after James Callendar (recall he famously broke the Hamilton/Maria Reynolds scandal), publicized the Jefferson/Sally story. Ellis argues that after the story was gleefully seized by Federalists, it’s hard to imagine Jefferson would father more children with Hemings. 
• Neither of TJ’s staunchest opponents (Hamilton and Adams) appeared to latch onto the story. Here, Ellis makes an argument in the negative: the lack of their apparent interest in the matter is a point against its veracity. 
• Also, he references contemporaries who described Jefferson as quasi-feminine, or lacking in the passion necessary to carry on an illicit “affair” (again, this term is gross in this context). Historically, Jefferson tended toward verbal flirtation in lieu of physical intimacy with women such as Conway. A relationship with Sally Hemings would not be in keeping with what Ellis perceives as his dominant nature.  
• IMO, even if we believe that a thirty decades long “liaison” seems unlikely, we must acknowledge that the man was a living contradiction. He may have had a different moral standard or personal preference when the subject was a white woman versus an enslaved Black woman. He certainly would not have been the first person to carry on such a dichotomy of behavior.

• Further reading suggested by Ellis on the subject of the Jefferson-Hemings liaison:
• Virginia Dabney argues against the truth of the rumors
• In “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings” (Annette Gordon Reed) makes case for the existence of the relationship