The History Book Club discussion

Bryan wrote: "Do you get the impression the embargo was the better choice out of two bad choices?"

The only real practical choice? Yes?

Seems so, although I thought it was interesting that Meacham states TJ was prepared for war, more so than I thought. The reality was that the U.S. was not ready for war against a European power.

Bryan wrote: "Seems so, although I thought it was interesting that Meacham states TJ was prepared for war, more so than I thought. The reality was that the U.S. was not ready for war against a European power."

Especially a naval war with GB.

Meacham makes some very perceptive comments about Jefferson's assessment of the dangers of war to the new republic. (page 402)

Speaking of the Constitution, Jefferson said,"War would endanger its existence."

Meacham goes on to say, "In Jefferson's reading of history, war was about armies and debt and honors, all of which had played their part in the fall of republics and the rise of empires."

There are many examples in history. He had only to look at the recent history of France.

It was interesting to read about John Randolph's opposition to TJ on the left. (pp. 404-406)

He is quoted as saying moderation was '"the mask which ambition has worn" through the ages.' (p. 406)

When I read this, I thought, huh??

Can anyone think of any examples that would back up John Randolph's statement?

Ann wrote: "It was interesting to read about John Randolph's opposition to TJ on the left. (pp. 404-406)

He is quoted as saying moderation was '"the mask which ambition has worn" through the ages.' (p. 406)

..."

It is interesting to learn about Randolph and the Quids. It showed that TJ and the Republican party was not invincible.

I think his quote suggests that a leader would compromise principles to gain power. Most likely, Randolph was probably tired of TJ not sticking to his old principles found in the Kentucky resolutions.

Meacham does not cover a lot of Randolph's beef with the administration, which is a shame. It shows how TJ worked with Congress.

TJ never told Congress what path to take. He would send down options and use his guys to move things along.

Randolph believed the administration always followed a double set of opinions, one public, one private. For example, during the Spanish-Florida negotiations, TJ's public stand against Spain in Florida was hard. Then he would negotiate with Spain to hand Florida over for $2 million. Randolph saw this as a bribe.

Kathy wrote: "Cynthia wrote: "Cynthia, thanks for sharing the information about Aaron Burr, I can't wait to read the book."

I agree."

Burr to me seemed one of the worse people. Being surrounded by much brighter lights, having come up the ranks along side Hamilton, who outshined him in many ways. In my mind, I consider there were 3 waves of founding fathers from an age perspective, wave 1 being Franklin and Washington, wave 2 being Jefferson and Adams, and wave three being Hamilton and Madison, and to a lesser extent, Burr. Burr, having come up along side Hamilton, in school at the same time, starting their law careers, bumping into each other in cases and at social functions, but he is definitely a lesser light, at least based on reading Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and to a smaller extent, this book. Seeing Burr from the pens of Ron Chernow and David McCullough, he doesn't come out looking too good.

Ron Chernow
David McCullough

There are many examples in history. He had only to look at the recent history of France. "

i don't think Jefferson could look clearly at the experience in France. He was definitely biased when looking at the French revolution, refusing to see how their revolution went wrong, refusing to listen to others who predicted that it would lead to a dictatorship (Adams, Hamilton both thought that). Either TJ couldn't admit he was wrong, even to himself, or, somewhat childishly, refusing to see what was before him, all the deaths and parading of death (heads on spikes, licking blood from bodies, etc.) that Gouverneur Morris saw.

See the John Adams and Alexander Hamilton books (cited directly above), and the days of the French Revolution. Christopher Hibbert

Ann wrote: "It was interesting to read about John Randolph's opposition to TJ on the left. (pp. 404-406)

He is quoted as saying moderation was '"the mask which ambition has worn" through the ages.' (p. 406)

..."

Thank you very much for the additional information about Randolph and his position. That helped give me a much better idea of what was going on.

Marc wrote: "There are many examples in history. He had only to look at the recent history of France. "

i don't think Jefferson could look clearly at the experience in France. He was definitely biased when lo..."

I agree, Marc, he seemed to look away from the horrible aspects of the revolution. I guess it is his optimism, in part, anyway.

Ann wrote: "Ann wrote: "It was interesting to read about John Randolph's opposition to TJ on the left. (pp. 404-406)

He is quoted as saying moderation was '"the mask which ambition has worn" through the ages...."

You are welcome.

Ann wrote: "Meacham makes some very perceptive comments about Jefferson's assessment of the dangers of war to the new republic. (page 402)

Speaking of the Constitution, Jefferson said,"War would endanger its ..."

After some major technical issues, I am finishing an excellent book on Franklin Roosevelt which studies how he melded idealism and power in governance. In this book, even though WWII is covered only in the second half, the Anschluss is discussed in the context of Neville Chamberlain's response of appeasement. It is considered as due to the fact that "Britain was just not ready for war", and time was needed to prepare. Certainly an embargo is a stronger statement even though the desire for more preparation time was the same. But I wonder if the Jefferson era was the beginning of the modern world, with regard to politics, and if it didn't start to end around 2001.

by H.W. Brands

I'm not quite finished with all of this week's reading . . . but found the back story of the Louisiana Purchase to be interesting in that since the slavery issue was not apparently addressed at the time . . . have come to the conclusion that to TJ getting the deal done was more important than the details of what to do with this expansion. I presume that he must have felt that the deal would fail if the parties involved had been given time to reconsider.

And the info about using small dinner parties to cement relations reminded me of LBJ (having just completed the book discussion on Caro's book) and his wine and dine technique of statesmanship of Germany's Ludwig Erhard.

And then there is the reference on p. 385 ARC ed.
How I wish that I possessed the power of a despot, Jefferson said one day, surprising his guests. Yes, he went on, I wish I was a despot that I might save the noble, the beautiful trees that are daily falling sacrifices to the cupidity of their owners, or the necessity of the poor.
This feeling had to wait for the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt to make into a reality with the formation of the the Federal Parks System to preserve land before it was swallowed up by the masses.

by Robert A. Caro

Without men such as Robert Livingston being on the spot and the able leadership of a future President, James Monroe, it is doubtful that Jefferson would be the credited with the Louisiana Purchase. The hesitancy on the part of Jefferson to move quickly in getting the purchase ratified almost turned into a disaster. I just wish I knew who advised him to give up the notion of an amendment to the constitution and seize the day. Such a turn around in one day seems rather quick for this studious man. Maybe and I have no idea but maybe it is was influenced by Madison. This strengthening and exercise of power by the Executive Branch was unprecedented for the time.

which is really hypocritical on TJ's part, since TJ, via his proxies (the Republican newspapers) trashed Washington and later Adams over their supposed monarchist tendencies (although there's some legitimacy with Adams) with a strong executive branch. TJ childishly was jealous when he was Sec. of State under Washington because Washington typically (but not always) sided with his Sec. of Treasurer, Alexander Hamilton. And Hamilton was usually right in those days (Hamilton kinda lost it not only with the Maria Reynolds affair, but later, once he re-entered the political arena after his tenure as a private lawyer post-Treasury Sec., when he started backing political candidates.

Ah Ron Chernow, who will you write about next!? Ron Chernow

Marc his next subject is Grant.

Bryan wrote: "Marc his next subject is Grant."

Look forward to that read. Grant to me one of the most enigmatic personalities of all time.

I hadn't before thought about Jefferson as being "among the architects of Indian removal" (ARC, p. 381). Meachem briefly discusses Jefferson's policies regarding the acquisition of tribal lands, etc. Does anyone know any sources where this topic is treated in more depth?

DonnaR wrote: "I hadn't before thought about Jefferson as being "among the architects of Indian removal" (ARC, p. 381). Meachum briefly discusses Jefferson's policies regarding the acquisition of tribal lands, e..."

The best writer I know of on the Indians is Allan W Eckert I would start with the Frontiersmen and read the entire set.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/69...

Thank you, Clayton. I'm looking specifically for more information on Jefferson's written/stated views or policies regarding the displacement of Indians.

Joanne wrote: "Meacham’s reference to Jefferson’s second term states, “The America of Jefferson was neither Federal or wholly Republican. It was, rather, a marbled blend of the two confected by a practical man o..."
Good point Joanne, I think throughout much of his life, Jefferson tended to pragmatism or flexibility in his actions, regardless of where his ideals lay. I think it's one reason his Presidency was as successful as it was.

G wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Do you get the impression the embargo was the better choice out of two bad choices?"

Yes. The alternative was war, and the country was not prepared for war (continuing problem with ..."

Most definitely, Jefferson was exhibiting the aforementioned pragmatism in this instance, I think.

Lots of ground covered in these few chapters. Everything from the Hamilton/Burr controversy to the embargo. One thing not mentioned was that Burr not only killed Hamilton in a duel he also had killed his son about a year prior in a duel. The realization on the practicality of republican principles and small government with limited power to his realization that you can not run any government without the authority to do so. His strengthening of the central government I think is one of his legacies, although I am sure not many will agree with me on that.

Clayton wrote: "DonnaR wrote: "I hadn't before thought about Jefferson as being "among the architects of Indian removal" (ARC, p. 381). Meachum briefly discusses Jefferson's policies regarding the acquisition of ..."

Thanks Clayton. I picked the first book up a few times, but I haven't read it. It looks great.
Don't forget to add book covers and author links:

Allan W. Eckert

DonnaR wrote: "I hadn't before thought about Jefferson as being "among the architects of Indian removal" (ARC, p. 381). Meachem briefly discusses Jefferson's policies regarding the acquisition of tribal lands, e..."

Try:
Bernard W. Sheehan

Clayton wrote: "Lots of ground covered in these few chapters. Everything from the Hamilton/Burr controversy to the embargo. One thing not mentioned was that Burr not only killed Hamilton in a duel he also had kill..."

I'm not sure, either. However, if he thought it was the way to keep American experiment going, he was willing to favor power where it is needed.

Bryan wrote: "DonnaR wrote: "I hadn't before thought about Jefferson as being "among the architects of Indian removal" (ARC, p. 381). Meachem briefly discusses Jefferson's policies regarding the acquisition of ..."

Thanks, Bryan. That's what I was looking for.

You are welcome. Also, take a look at this one:

Anthony F.C. Wallace

Bryan wrote: "DonnaR wrote: "I hadn't before thought about Jefferson as being "among the architects of Indian removal" (ARC, p. 381). Meachem briefly discusses Jefferson's policies regarding the acquisition of ..."

And I found a copy for 3.98 on AbeBooks.

by Bernard W. Sheehan

Perfect, Donna, enjoy.

Well, I spent the morning searching for the two books suggested to Donna . . . and will await their delivery in Feb. Thanks also for the headsup on the other books by Eckert . . . I didn't know they were a series.

I picked up the second book as well. Thanks, Bryan.

Glad to help. It is an important topic and I was hoping it would be treated more in-depth in the book. Removal certainly is a act of power.

On page 345, chapter 32, we are reminded, "Such was the idealistic Jefferson. But he was also realistic." At times he seemed hypocritical...at times pragmatic. Either way, these traits held him in good stead in his political positions and permitted him to go far and accomplish much that a less flexible person would not have been able to do.

I think this is very true, Lewis. If you operate in two worlds, you can reach more people, I think.

Spent last week in Hawaii for vacation and didn't want to drag the book with me, so I am trying to catch up and get in two weeks reading. A bit behind, but we've discussed TJ attitudes on slavery, but not really that much on his science interests. He made a huge impact on the education in America.

I love the paragraph on page 399 that begins, "It all fit. IN his years in office he turned the presidency -- ... a center of curiosity and inquiry .."

We still need to be a people with curiosity and inquiry. Too many Americans are intellectually lazy.

Good point about Jefferson's other contributions, Kathy. I am also very impressed by his strong stand on freedom of religion. That had to be very unpopular with many of his contemporaries.

Thanks Kathy and Ann.

I think it is very important to be intellectually curious. I think you have an open mind.

I always thought that Monroe was sent to buy just New Orleans and the purchase of the whole of Louisiana was a great stretching of his authority.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution. The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law March 2, 1807.[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Proh...

The Federal Government had little authority over the slave trade as part of the compromises in the Constitution. Jefferson could have freed his own slaves and tried to influence the state governments but the Constitution tied his hands pretty effectively in regards to acting with any national authority.

How ironic that Jefferson gets attack by the radical wing of his own party.

I must say I am disappointed in this book in how few examples there are of Jefferson using his art of power.

I remember being disappointed in this part, too. He needed more examples.