Thomas Jefferson: Author of America

by Christopher Hitchens

In this unique biography of Thomas Jefferson, leading journalist and social critic Christopher Hitchens offers a startlingly new and provocative interpretation of our Founding Father. Situating Jefferson within the context of America's evolution and tracing his legacy over the past two hundred years, Hitchens brings the character of Jefferson to life as a man of his time and also as a symbolic figure beyond it.

Conflicted by power, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and acted as Minister to France yet yearned for a quieter career in the Virginia legislature. Predicting that slavery would shape the future of America's development, this professed proponent of emancipation elided the issue in the Declaration and continued to own human property. An eloquent writer, he was an awkward public speaker; a reluctant candidate, he left an indelible presidential legacy.

Jefferson's statesmanship enabled him to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase with France, doubling the size of the nation, and he authorized the Lewis and Clark expedition, opening up the American frontier for exploration and settlement. Hitchens also analyzes Jefferson's handling of the Barbary War, a lesser-known chapter of his political career, when his attempt to end the kidnapping and bribery of Americans by the Barbary states, and the subsequent war with Tripoli, led to the building of the U.S. navy and the fortification of America's reputation regarding national defense.

In the background of this sophisticated analysis is a large historical drama: the fledgling nation's struggle for independence, formed in the crucible of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and, in its shadow, the deformation of that struggle in the excesses of the French Revolution. This artful portrait of a formative figure and a turbulent era poses a challenge to anyone interested in American history -- or in the ambiguities of human nature.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Biography Memoir, Philosophy

188 pages, Hardcover

First published May 31, 2005

About the author

Christopher Hitchens was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic known for his sharp wit, polemical writing, and outspoken views on religion, politics, and culture. He was a prolific essayist and columnist, contributing to publications such as The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Nation.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Jefferson did not embody contradiction. Jefferson was a contradiction, and this will be found at every step of the narrative that goes to make up his life.” (pg 5)

Hitchens refers to Thomas Jefferson as the “Author of America.” Author apparently won out over other descriptors such as inventor, designer, or engineer. Jefferson was indeed a better writer than he was an orator, and it was chiefly his authorship that set the foundation for American independence and self governance. He took cues from the likes of Thomas Paine and John Locke, fusing the former’s straightforward style with the latter’s elevated prose. Where Locke wrote “life, liberty, and property” Jefferson penned “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

“. . . “the pursuit of happiness” belongs to that limited group of lapidary phrases that has changed history . . .” (pg 26)

On Slavery

On the one hand Jefferson himself was a slave owner, on the other hand he attempted on multiple occasions to introduce legislation that would curtail and/or abolish the institution. Frequently referring to slavery as a “great evil,” his personal correspondence with friends and associates expressed both guilt and fear; guilt that he was party to a crime, and fear of what freed slaves might do in reprisal.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1821

On paper, Jefferson’s plan was to free the slaves—and then deport them (for safety’s sake?). This plan never really got off the drawing board. In fact, even when it became easier for slave holders to emancipate their captives, the only slaves Jefferson ever freed were the children he himself fathered with Sally Hemings.

On Religion

As a self professed deist, Jefferson did not believe that God intervened in human affairs. This put him at appreciable odds with many of his contemporaries (e.g. Patrick Henry) and helped set him against archaic colonial and state jurisprudence. For instance, during his political tenure South Carolina adopted Protestantism as its only “official faith,” Delaware required its political candidates to swear faith in the Trinity, Maryland denied rights to Deists, Jews, and atheists, New York denied rights to Catholics, Massachusetts declared that only Christians who denounced the pope could hold public office, and Jefferson’s home state of Virginia had a death penalty for heresy. Is it any wonder that Jefferson was such a proponent for the separation of church and state?

The Eloquence of Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens goes on to detail what he refers to as the “three particular and nation-building chapters” of Jefferson’s life: the Barbary Wars (1801 - 1815), the Louisiana Purchase (1803 - 1804), and the Lewis and Clark expedition (1804 - 1806). I’m not sure anyone else could have squeezed 83 years of a person’s life, including philosophical works, military service, political elections, political appointments, political delegations, foreign assignments, two revolutions, multiple wars, one wife, one mistress, and (at least) twelve children, all within 188 pages—and all without a single boring sentence or frivolous paragraph. There never seem to be enough stars to rate Hitch’s books, this one gets five.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Jefferson was to emerge as the republican equivalent of a philosopher king, who was coldly willing to sacrifice all principles and all allegiances to the one great aim of making America permanent.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America



Warning: This part of the review is primarily about Christopher Hitchens:

Christopher Hitchens was a force. He never quietly held opinions. Rather, Hitch preferred to harangue and harpoon his readers with them. He bloodied and sometimes bullied people with words. He smacked the unprepared and unrepentant with his arguments so often, and so beautifully, that -- agree or not with him -- both his critics and fans alike were usually left with the dizzied by dents of his ideas and the rattle of his arguments for the rest of their life.

Hitch was also, as far as imports go, one of those great American imports from England. I think of Thomas Paine and W.H. Auden as great trades the US made with our mother country. He didn't just come to America. He came here, like a baby born screaming. He loved his adopted country and cried loud and hard all the time about it. He was gifted as a writer and gifted as a thinker. He also carried his idols close. He loved Trotsky. He adored Thomas Paine (and wrote a similar sized biography (Thomas Paine's Rights of Man: A Biography) on Paine's famous pamphlet. He loved to write books about people he loved (Orwell, Jefferson, Paine) or hated (Mother Theresa, Henry Kissinger, the Clintons). He was a man who wrote from a passion that was informed by the head. In many ways, that talent for writing based on passion perfectly matches Thomas Jefferson to Christopher Hitchens.

OK: This part of the review is a bit more about Jefferson:

Hitchens is able to deliver a fine tribute to the author of the Declaration of Independence, third president of the United States, founder of the University of Virginia, Louisiana purchaser, etc. In this age where Hamilton is getting a lot of love, it is important to go back and remember that both men were pivotal not only in the founding, but on its development and course (for both good and bad).

A couple things I learned from reading Hitch's micro-biography:

* Thomas Jefferson and his wife Martha took 'an early mutual delight' with Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. This is an opinion I share, but evidently NOT Christopher Hitchens.

* While I knew that a 22-year-old lieutenant colonel of the Virginia militia named George Washington probably started the fire that would begin the Seven Year's War (or as we call it here in 'Murica - the French and Indian War), Hitch connected the dots that the Seven Year's War also indirectly started the American Revolution when the British decided to recoup their expenses by raising taxes on their "supposedly grateful American subjects". And, "the cost of this expedition to the depleted French treasury, in the opinion of many historians, precipitated the crisis of insolvency that compelled King Louis to summon the Estates General and begin the unraveling of the ancient regime that culminated in the revolution of 1789." Oh, shit, Lt. Col Washington really was a butterfly that set the world on fire.

Warning: This part will le me to bitch about Johnson's biography of Washington again:

Anyway, while this biography of Jefferson by Hitchens appears in the same series (Eminent Lives) as Paul Johnson's biography of George Washington: The Founding Father, and while these were both written by Oxford educated public intellectuals, for some reason Hitchens just read better. Seemed to possess more heft and height (I'd say Johnson's was more hole and hollow). Anyway, if reading Johnson's mini bio of Washington was at the cost of entry to read Hitch's bio of Jefferson, I'd read it twice to just nibble at this book. It wasn't perfect, but that owed more to the fact that Hitch wasn't writing a full biography, but just keeping it within the confines set by James Atlas and HarperCollins.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun fact: Jefferson is famously known for sleeping with one of his slaves. Sally was his sister-in-law because his wife’s’ father had (as sadly many slave owners did) slept with Sally’s mother. Sally could be classified as white as both her father and grandfather on her mothers side were white.

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is more of an analysis of Jefferson's political philosophy and impact on American history than a traditional biography. It's not lengthy at only 188 pages, but it is a very interesting and insightful read. Christopher Hitchens was such a brilliant intellect and gifted writer, that I always find his observations and musings thought provoking and well worth my time. This little volume is no exception, and I truly enjoyed it. It more or less confirmed the opinion regarding Jefferson that I have held for some time (not all that favorable but tempered with some degree of grudging respect). There were stories that were new to me, and I found some of them fascinating and rather amusing. This book is certainly not hagiography, but it is fair, informative, and mentally stimulating. I definitely recommend it for American history fans.

[Mara · Rating 3 out of 5]

If anyone could cram Thomas Jefferson into under 200 pages it would be Christopher Hitchens (and even for him it’s a stretch). Yet, from the Barbary Pirates to Sally Hansen, the Louisiana Purchase and TJ’s oft-times nefarious VP, he manages to fit in quite a bit. While Hitchens is often the one to lay the smack down on those whose slates appear too clean (e.g. Mother Theresa), in this work he addresses Jefferson’s shortcomings as well as the overzealous accusations thrown his way over the past few years. Hitch borrows from Whitman and explains how Thomas Jefferson truly “contained multitudes.”

With respect to “the slave question,” Hitchens certainly points out Jefferson’s oftentimes contradictory positions. In Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln describes a duality that bears marked resemblance to Jefferson:

“The public mind seizes quickly upon theoretical schemes for relief,” he pointedly told Frances, who had long yearned for a presidential proclamation against slavery, “but is slow in the adoption of the practical means necessary to give them effect.”

I think the basic assumption is well stated by David Sedaris in his hilarious story, “6 to 8 Black Men,” describing the Dutch Christmas customs he jokes*:

The six to eight black men were characterized as personal slaves until the mid-1950s, when the political climate changed and it was decided that instead of being slaves they were just good friends. I think that history has proved that something usually comes between slavery and friendship, a period of time marked not by cookies and quiet hours beside the fire but by bloodshed and mutual hostility.

I give this not as an excuse for Jefferson’s flagrant hypocrisy and inaction with regard to slavery (including going against the expressed will of a friend that, when he was deceased, Jefferson should free his slaves). However, it does seem to capture some of the ésprit behind TJ’s constant vacillation.

This book was too short to be a meaningful Jefferson biography, but it was an enjoyable, classic Hitchens piece rife with his sardonic humor and modern parallels.

* Part of Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are Hitchens books strewn all over my father's house. "Hitchens makes me remember how little I know," he says. He thrust this book into my hands a while ago when I was visiting. God, another Thomas Jefferson book? I tried to beg off, but it didn't work. And since I feel compelled to read every book my father recommends, I read this one. And I, too, now find Hitchens an intriguing author. This is a crisp, short biography (more of an essay, really) on Jefferson, and its focus is less on the tawdry details of the man's life but more on the small political and personal pieces that made up the man. I was particularly interested in the section on Jefferson's handling of the Barbary pirates. You don't see that treated in popular bios of Jefferson.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Hitchens, you never cease to challenge me. Quite often, the "founding fathers" are held in such reverence that it is sometimes hard to believe that they were actual and fallible human beings. In 'Author of America' what I found most revealing was the possibility to strip away some of this veneer and reveal some of the back-biting pettiness that befalls today's politicians. Make no mistake, Hitchens gives immense credit to this man, and those around him, for conducting the wonderful 'experiment' of creating our country. As always, keep the dictionary handy. I actually met Christopher Hitchens and had him sign this copy not too long ago at a reading/interview tour event for 'Hitch-22'. I thanked him for constantly challenging me with his work. To which he replied, "Well, the whole point of language is to use it." Typical Hitch. This book is a great, fresh approach about a great man from a great and often fresh, author.

[Emily Madison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Took me forever to read this tiny book, but I wanted to think on it. Hitchens gives a very well done and consise look into jeffersons life and isn't afraid to show us his faults.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I wouldn’t say this is THE book to read on Jefferson, it’s easily the most delightful and even-handed books I’ve read on his life

[Daniel Bastian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Far from the breadth of Merrill Peterson's and R.B. Bernstein's memoirs of this most venerated and complex of founding fathers, Hitchens' treatment is compendiary and not particularly original. He clearly draws from superior and more comprehensive sources, without adding much other than his characteristic literary gait and gift of satirical wit.

Author of America is bombastically written, with greater concern placed on gift of phrase and linguistic ingenuity than on revealing the man of Jefferson, the basic remuneration a reader expects in return for his or her entry fee. There are few interesting anecdotes to be found here outside of a lackadaisical retelling of Jeffersonian chronology; too few glimpses which allow us to scope beyond the political figure; too much emphasis on the takes of other biographers. And it all comes off as little more than a languidly regimented rehash of the tent poles of Jefferson's life.

Ironically, each of the works Hitchens lists in the preface is a better allocation of your time than the one here.

I did, however, find very poignant the quote below, which appears in the closing pages of the book:

"The historian James Parton claimed roundly in 1874, "If Jefferson was wrong, America is wrong. If America is right, Jefferson was right." This oft-cited declaration is a failure, both as an epigram and as an aphorism. Leave aside the question of whether a man or a nation can be "right". Overlook the absurdity of making the "rightness" of a nation or country contingent on the rectitude of an individual. Forget that the "rights" which Americans declared are either inalienable or not, and either natural or not, and exist (or do not) independently of any man's will or character.

"The truth is that America has committed gross wrongs and crimes, as well as upheld great values and principles. It is a society chiefly urban and capitalist, but significantly rural or - as some prefer to say - pastoral. It has an imperial record as well as an isolationist one. It has a secular constitution but a heavily religious and pietistic nature. Jefferson is one of the few figures in our history whose absence simply cannot be imagined: his role in the expansion and definition of the United States is too considerable, even at this distance, to be reduced by the passage of time. But all the above strains and paradoxes, many of which he embodied and personified, would still have been present if he had never been born." (pp. 186-187)

I learned very little from this book, and it wasn't because I knew a lot about Jefferson going in. That, to me, is a reverse endorsement.

[Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short critical portrait of a grand hypocrite.

where Locke had spoken of "life, liberty, and property" as natural rights, Jefferson famously wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... given the advantageous social position occupied by the delegates at Philadelphia, it is very striking indeed that [this] should have taken precedence over property.

I was worried that Hitchens might have gone soft over his adopted land but it's full of this kind of thing:

A bad conscience, evidenced by slovenly and contradictory argument, is apparent in almost every paragraph of his discourse on [slavery].

as well as his humourlessness, adultery, self-service, self-pity, horrendous partisanship, and, surprisingly, bloody ruthlessness. Jefferson:

what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.

(He was pro-Jacobin for a terribly long time.)

---

Try and judge him fairly. How did his actions (not his words lol) compare to the prevailing spirit?:

* Democracy: Well above average, even revolutionary US average.
* Slaves: Hard to say. Inherited 200. Freed only 7. Tried to write a condemnation of slavery into the Declaration. Wrote a bill banning slavery in new states, narrowly lost the vote. "Even as he yearned to get rid of them, he refused to let them go"
* Native Americans: Average, bad.
* Freedom of speech: Average. Had paid shills in the gutter press throughout his career, and prosecuted enemy journalists for Sedition.
* Freedom of religion: Well above average.
* Women: Average, bad.
* Working-class: Above average in intention, protecting the "plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry". Pretty populist, constantly ranting about bankers and tipping the political balance away from cities.

Jefferson:

The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances.

His fear of a freedmen uprising apparently paralysed him. The conventional wisdom around 1800 was that you couldn't just free the slaves, you'd also have to deport them (to e.g. Sierra Leone like the British) to prevent them taking their rightful vengeance on the planters. His turning on the Haitians for similar reasons is one of the saddest and dumbest moments in a life of compromise.

---

Whatever view one takes of Burke's deepening pessimism and dogmatic adherence to the virtues of Church and King, the fact is that after the summer of 1791 the Jacobins did their best to prove him right.

Deleted scene from the Declaration of Independence:

[King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.

And Hitchen's final exceptionalist thought:

The French Revolution destroyed itself in Jefferson's own lifetime. More modern revolutions have destroyed themselves and others. If the American Revolution, with its... gradual enfranchisement of those excluded or worse at its founding, has often betrayed itself at home and abroad, it nevertheless remains the only revolution that still retains any power to inspire."

[Vishakh Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rather a quick read, this is neither a magisterial piece of work nor one that can be dismissed as a trifle. The theme, as its title suggests, is to enunciate the role of Jefferson in shaping the United States (and indeed the continent of America to an extent) as we know it today.
The other book I’ve read on the man is Jon Meacham’s Jefferson: The Art of Power, which is quite magisterial, in my opinion. While Meachum’s treatment is rather dry, he still appears to be rather kind to Jefferson on his outlook on slavery and his treatment of his slaves. Hitchens, however shows no such tendency. It covers some aspects of his youth and early life as a student. The main incidents of his life are covered without delving into detail, Hitchens is quite the master of the precis here and covers them just right. He delves into detail on specific parts of Jefferson’s career where he ensures that the often precarious situation of the United States is correctly painted - the fledgling nation, not quite the superpower, with a small population and resources, among the mighty Colonial powers of the world. It describes his role in creating space for the United States in that world as well as ensuring that by the time he remitted office, he had posited the USA where his successors could take the country to the heights it commands today; how as Secretary of State he plays one colonial power against another and makes use of the crises of the day to advance American interests, how as the American President, he pushed the boundaries of Presidential power and effected the Louisiana purchase, followed by the Lewis and Clark expeditions that saw the American frontier expand and above all, his commitment to freedom of thought, of speech and expression - forged in the crucible of the Enlightenment - that saw him lead the fight against the Sedition Act and co-author the Virginia Resolution that declared it unconstitutional. It, fairly if I may so add, covers the dissonance in some of his professed beliefs and actions and left me thinking for a bit as I finished the last page. I would recommend reading it with or after a more conventional biography.

[James Surprenant · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read Hitchen's Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, as a follow-up to Jon Meacham's Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. Having recently begun a new position at the University of Virginia, my life-long fascination with the life and philosophies of Mr. Jefferson has been rekindled and these two books, read in succession has taken me deeper in my understanding of the early days of the founding of America, and a realization and an appreciation that the troubled times of a "nation divided" that we find ourselves in the third decade of the 21st century is nothing new.

The distrust and fear that their politically opposed parties would destroy America if not defeated was as true in the first fifty years of nationhood as it is today. Mr. Jefferson's Republican party feared the Federalists would return America to monarchical dictatorship seems to echo in some ways the fear of today's liberal Democrats of the threat of fascism championed by Trumpism.

Hitchens quotes Mr. Jefferson's position expressed towards the end of his life “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans, we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Understanding this, is helping me sleep a little better these nights, while I still hold firm with the liberal philosophies of the left and to a great degree share these fears (although I no longer am a member of the Democratic party).

Mr. Jefferson's love of education, philosophy, and the rights of the individual to direct their own destiny and govern themselves has always resonated with me and more so, on a personal level, I find myself, a lifelong Christian and Episcopalian, unable to fully embrace Jesus Christ as divine. I am more comfortable with the view, perhaps in line with, but not in lock-step with Mr. Jefferson, is that Jesus was a wise man who knew God and pointed a moral compass on God's plan. This works for me, on a personal level.

This is the first book of Christopher Hitchens that I have read, and I appreciated and enjoyed his logic and manner of writing. I look forward to reading other books in his Eminent Lives series someday, but in the short term, I am eager to read more of Mr. Jefferson's life and the times of early America, particularly his friendship - turned political adversary - returned to friendship with John Adams.

This book was, simply put, excellent.

[Bakunin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Recommended reading for anyone who wants to brush up on Jefferson. I learned a bit more about his presidency and how shrewd Jefferson was as a politician. I would've liked to have more about his upbringing and about the process whereby he became Jefferson.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always found Christopher Hitchens to be a fascinating individual. A man who has spent time all over the political spectrum, whom I have had the pleasure to watch on Bill Maher's Real Time. Politically speaking I do not agree with him on much of anything although I do think he is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. He was once regarded by Gore Vidal to be his heir apparent, however he (Vidal) no longer feels this is the case.

In this little 188-page biography for the Eminent Lives series, Hitchens writes about the United States of America's third President, Thomas Jefferson. Hitchens is clearly a Jefferson fan; he took his American citizenship oath at the steps of the Jefferson Memorial. In this book, he details Thomas Jefferson's political career from an early legislator to his time as President of the United States. He also spends one brief chapter on President Jefferson's post-presidential years. Through out the work Hitchens tries to explain what it is that makes Thomas Jefferson so important and Revolutionary.

"Jefferson was not a man of the Enlightenment only in the ordinary sense that he believed in reason or perhaps in rationality. He was very specifically one of those who believed that human lay in education, discover, innovation, and experiment.... He studied botany, fossils, crop cycles, and animals. He made copious notes on what he saw. He designed a new kind of plow, which would cut a deeper furrow in soil exhausted by the false economy of tobacco farming. He was fascinated by the invention of air balloons, which he instantly saw might provide a new form a transport as well as a new form of warfare. He enjoyed surveying and prospecting and, when whaling became an important matter in the negotiation of a commercial treaty, wrote a treatise on the subject himself." p.43-4

Although a romantic, Hitchens does not shy away from criticizing Jefferson if and when he feels it is necessary. He points out some of Jefferson's hypocrisy both political and personnel. To Hitchens, Jefferson's greatest accomplishment was his dedication to the ideal of religious freedom for all.

"So Jefferson took the same view of Haiti as he had of Virginia: the abolition of slavery could be as dangerous and evil as slavery itself. He did not, through this blinker of prejudice, at first discern that events in Haiti would one day provide him with an opportunity of historic dimensions." p.101

This is a great little one-stop biography, even if you are not a fan of Mr. Hitchens himself that should not stop anyone from enjoying this work. Hitchens writes with whit and humor, and he makes analogies to events that have occurred long after Jefferson's own time and before it. The book is like reading a 200-hundred page article that he has written for Vanity Fair.

[Mike W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like other titles I've read in this series, Hitchens' biography of Thomas Jefferson admirably and concisely tells the story of the life of America's 3rd President.

Before Jefferson became President, he seemed almost certain to be a disaster. He lacked Washington's calm pragmatism, and instead seemed hellbent on a rigid adherence to a "Republican" ideology. He was blind to the force of Hamilton's arguments in favor of industrialization and the need for a more advanced banking system. He sided inflexibly with the French over the British, denying or minimizing the terrible crimes of the French Revolution. He sided with the radical and fanatical Thomas Paine, over the more judicious and conservative Edmund Burke.

And, for all his literary eloquence in defense of liberty, he was very much open to charges of hypocrisy. he disdained slavery but made no effort to free his own slaves, and was openly hostile to the efforts of black Hatians to secure their own freedom. He waxed poetic about the rights of man, and yet defended the murderous oppression of Robespierre and his ilk, declaring glibly "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

But when he became President, he proved much more judicious and pragmatic than anyone would have expected. And he can rightly claim to have been one of the greatest American Presidents, perhaps third only to Washington and Lincoln.

He smashed the Barbary pirates, who were disrupting American shipping and even enslaving white Europeans and Americans in large numbers. He promoted the Lewis and Clark expedition that tremendously improved knowledge of the interior of the continent, subtly deceiving the Congress about the intent of the expedition in order to persuade it to allocate sufficient funds. And he knowingly exceeded his Constitutional authority by taking advantage of Napoleon Bonaparte's need for gold and for good relations with America, to make the Louisiana purchase, which tremendously expanded the country's land and wealth. All of this is remarkable in a man who had spent his political career defensing strict Constitutionalism and strict limits on federal power.

In all, then, the late Hitchens deserves real credit for bringing this great man back to life, "worts and all". If his biography has a flaw, it is that in his effort to avoid hagiography, he diminishes Jefferson's virtues too much, though clearly he admires the brilliant but (as Hitchens emphasizes) humorless man.

In sum, those seeking a deep and scholarly account of Jefferson's life should look elsewhere. But for those who are interested in the man, but impatient with lengthy tomes, this would be an excellent place to learn about him.

Hitchens was a gifted writer and polemicist. It's a shame he's gone.

[Ivana · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not your usual biography of a former President. Christopher Hitchens was not your usual writer, either. I truly believe the genius that is Hitchens is unprecedented; I have not come across another writer who can relate a story as Hitchens could. His investigative journalistic nature comes through every single page, in every book. This book is no different.
For a biography, this book was really short. However, this book will tell you more about who Jefferson truly was than many other books ( I have not read them all, so I can't claim to say "than any other book").
Thomas Jefferson was such a confusing individual, at least to me. A man of Enlightenment, of undying principles of human liberty and equality, he crafted our founding documents in such a way that they're perhaps the only revolutionary documents to stand the test of time. However, this was also a man who didn't abolish slavery, despite evidence found in his letter that such was his intent.
But, as Hitchens points out in his closing argument, this is a very proof that "history is a tragedy, not a moral tale". And so it is.
Jefferson will remain an enigma to many of us. It is without a doubt that I can say, without Jefferson, this country would most certainly not be what it is today. I admire him for so many things, and I am repulsed by a few, as well. But, this is who Thomas Jefferson was, and Hitchens did a marvelous and excellent job of relying that story to us.
Two thumbs up!

[David Manley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading Hitchens is an invariably humbling experience for me. His facility with the written word, the breadth of his knowledge and the thoroughness of his opinions consistently dazzles.

This book will not be seen by many as his finest; I suspect he hammered it out in his spare time one weekend, using his preexisting knowledge and opinions as the basis.

I was afraid it would be a hagiography, based on his evident admiration for Jefferson, but it is not. This is not a magisterial biography, but it does do a good job of exploring the contradictions of the man. Jefferson was a remarkable thinker, ahead of his time in many regards, including on slavery, but he was a hypocrite who allowed self-interest to constrain some of his better moral impulses.

Probably a better book for people who know a fair bit about Jefferson's life already and are interested in Hitch's take. For something authoritative, look elsewhere.

[Charles Haywood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Typical incisive Hitchens, but marred by his anti-religious obsessions and biases, along with some strange lapses (mis-defining "entail"; mis-using "usufruct"; and others). Also way too much focus on slavery for a book less than 200 pages--it could better have been subtitled not "Author Of America" but "His Views And Actions On Slavery; And Some Other Matters."

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick overview of the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. It's dry reading, but worthwhile in that it covers so much ground in such a short time. If nothing else, it will definitely serve to whet your appetite for more information on Jefferson: the man, the myth, the legend.

[Verba Non Res · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thomas Jefferson, autor de los Estados Unidos

Es curioso que, hasta hoy, la Revolución Francesa sea un acontecimiento histórico con mejor prensa que el proceso de independencia estadounidense. Tal vez se trate de un prejuicio eurocéntrico, o antiamericano, o de cierta preferencia, en este caso, por la revolución que terminó mal, con terrorismo burgués y un pronto e inédito emperador. Con todas las suspicacias que genera hoy el país del Norte, no podríamos con justicia ignorar que su nacimiento es uno de los hechos centrales en la historia occidental reciente y, como se hace obvio en la comparación, uno con resultados bastantes felices.

Lo que se intentó desde el 4 de Julio de 1776 en las que hasta entonces eran trece colonias británicas en Norteamérica fue un experimento político sin precedentes. Aunque bien pueden buscarse y encontrarse sus gérmenes en una larga tradición parlamentarista anglosajona, nunca hasta entonces un conjunto de estados dispares se habían separado de su metrópoli para instalar un gobierno propio, sin rey, con representantes elegidos temporalmente y bajo la única regulación de la ley escrita. Su éxito nos hace olvidar que fue un experimento, posiblemente abominable y hasta risible en su época.

En los estudios literarios se habla de un mito adánico que los primeros colonos ingleses habrían llevado a América. La idea de que se trataba de una tierra paradisíaca, virgen, donde sería posible empezar de cero y construir una sociedad nueva, libre. Un mito, pero no por eso ineficaz, que se perpetuó en ese grupo de hombres, al que ahora se llama con el significativo nombre genérico de Padres Fundadores, que firmó la independencia el 4 de Julio, y se dio a la tarea de imaginar un país nuevo. A ninguno de esos hombres le corresponde más mérito que a Thomas Jefferson, según postula Christopher Hitchens en el breve estudio biográfico que dedicó al prócer estadounidense.



El estilo de Hitchens es, como siempre, dinámico, y gana mucho en la brevedad. El suyo no es un texto erudito, sino una introducción a la vida de Jefferson, intervenida por algunas lecturas personales y sobre todo por la tesis, apoteósica, que le da título al libro. Thomas Jefferson es el autor de los EEUU (de América, dice Hitchens, que es inglés), el pensador y estadista que, más que ninguno de sus contemporáneos, trazó el blueprint del futuro país. Su conclusión es menos audaz de lo que parece. Cuando las Trece Colonias se independizaron su territorio no llegaba a ser un 25% del que actualmente ocupa los EEUU. Cuando Jefferson concluyó su presidencia, en 1809, esta extensión se había duplicado gracias al fantástico negocio que fue la compra de Luisiana al gobierno francés.

El análisis de Hitchens muestra que las cosas bien podrían haber sido de otra manera. La compra de Luisiana fue urdida por Jefferson; no formaba parte necesariamente de un programa norteamericano y ni siquiera estaba en los planes de otros Padres Fundadores. Lo que hizo único a Jefferson fue su visionario realismo, su pronta concepción de los EEUU como una unidad territorial, y como un país destinado a jugar un papel importante en la política global.

Además de la compra de Luisiana, Hitchens menciona otros dos puntos sobresalientes de su presidencia. El primero, la expedición de Lewis y Clark (y Sacajawea), un acontecimiento a la vez político, científico y geográfico, que puede verse como una expresión de los intereses y la voluntad de Jefferson. Remontando el curso del río Missouri, los exploradores alcanzaron el Océano Pacífico, y en su camino trazaron mapas, recabaron información sobre la naturaleza, abrieron rutas comerciales y establecieron contacto con tribus indígenas hasta entonces muy poco conocidas por Occidente.



El tercer hecho crucial de la presidencia de Jefferson (uno del que yo no tenía noticia antes de leer este libro) fue la declaración de la primera Guerra Berberisca (the First Barbary War), un conflicto con los estados del Norte de África (o estados berberiscos), que desde el siglo XVI asolaban el Mediterráneo con ataques piratas, para tomar rehenes y cobrar rescates o venderlos como esclavos. Como ocurre con los dos anteriores, siguiendo a Hitchens, se trató de un proyecto personal del presidente, uno con el que muchos de sus compatriotas, incluido su antecesor inmediato en el cargo, no estaban de acuerdo. La decisión de Jefferson de emprender una guerra para doblegar a los gobiernos berberiscos sirvió doblemente para proteger el joven comercio norteamericano y para proyectar a los EEUU como un actor global.

Un cuarto proyecto, nos dice Hitchens, que preocupó a Jefferson desde el comienzo de su actividad política hasta el fin de sus días,y que finalmente quedó inconcluso, fue la liberación de los esclavos negros. No se olvida de señalar Hitchens que Jefferson mismo poseía esclavos, y que jamás liberó a ninguno, excepto a tres de ellos que -según se confirmó recientemente, mediante pruebas de ADN- eran sus hijos ilegítimos. Pero en sus intervenciones públicas siempre se mostró a favor de la abolición (y posterior deportación de los libertos a África, pues Jefferson, aunque creía que los indígenas norteamericanos eran potencialmente civilizables, consideraba a los negros irredimiblemente inferiores al hombre blanco). Pero también esta polémica idea era, a fin de cuentas, un proyecto personal que hubo de ser postergado, y que podría haber evitado grandes desastres al país, de concretarse en ese entonces y no en Appomatox, en 1865.

Aun sin tal presidencia extraordinaria, Jefferson todavía podría ocupar un lugar de nota entre los Padres Fundadores de EEUU, como redactor de la Declaración de Independencia de 1776, que famosamente dice:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it (…)”



Tal vez, como el propio Jefferson admitió, la Declaración no incluyera ninguna idea original – sin embargo hay originalidad en el vibrante fraseo, en la elección de los tres ejemplos de derechos inalienables, que curiosamente incluyen la búsqueda de felicidad, mas no la propiedad privada. Aquí la metáfora -Jefferson como autor de un país- cobra bastante literalidad. La sociedad norteamericana, después de la independencia, aparece como un papel en blanco, una tabula rasa, que hay que empezar a llenar desde los presupuestos más básicos. La segunda metáfora que usa Hitchens -Jefferson trazando un blueprint, como un arquitecto o un ingeniero- aparece en el mismo campo semántico.

La tabula rasa es otro mito, claro, pero, como todos los mitos, se basa en un sentimiento muy real. Se ha observado que la Declaración jeffersoniana guarda cierta similitud con su más obvio antecedente histórico, que es el Acta de Abjuración neerlandesa de 1581 – como ella, justifica el derecho a la rebelión a partir del mal gobierno de un rey, que puede por sus acciones ser considerado un tirano. Pero el Acta es producto de una cosmovisión feudal, se centra en las mutuas obligaciones de señores y vasallos, y no cuestiona el derecho divino de los reyes. En cambio, el Iluminismo impregna la filosofía política de la Declaración, lo que es muestra suficiente de la inédita radicalidad del documento. Por primera vez, se estaba postulando una sociedad nueva desde una base tan puramente teórica. Experimentos similares se llevaron a cabo, desde entonces, con suertes diversas.La tabula rasa es otro mito, claro, pero, como todos los mitos, se basa en un sentimiento muy real. Se ha observado que la Declaración jeffersoniana guarda cierta similitud con su más obvio antecedente histórico, que es el Acta de Abjuración neerlandesa de 1581 – como ella, justifica el derecho a la rebelión a partir del mal gobierno de un rey, que puede por sus acciones ser considerado un tirano. Pero el Acta es producto de una cosmovisión feudal, se centra en las mutuas obligaciones de señores y vasallos, y no cuestiona el derecho divino de los reyes. En cambio, el Iluminismo impregna la filosofía política de la Declaración, lo que es muestra suficiente de la inédita radicalidad del documento. Por primera vez, se estaba postulando una sociedad nueva desde una base tan puramente teórica. Experimentos similares se llevaron a cabo, desde entonces, con suertes diversas.

No es necesario sostener una teoría heroica de la historia para apreciar la influencia de Jefferson, pero sí es posible postular que ciertas sociedades, y en ciertos contextos, facilitan la aparición de este tipo de personalidades heroicas. Los estados absolutistas o totalitarios lo hacen de una forma evidente, depositando todo el poder en un individuo, y sometiéndose, en gran medida, a sus caprichos. En la democracia temprana de los EEUU, la atmósfera social favorecía la innovación. Si se trataba de un comienzo adánico, el mundo era conquistable y todo, desde el lenguaje hasta la ciencia, debían inventarse.

No podría, habiendo leído sólo este libro, hacer una apreciación seria de Jefferson y su influencia. Pero me atrevería a decir que encontró el lugar y el momento precisos para desplegar toda su personalidad: un poco arrogante, plena de confianza en la importancia individual, y en el poder de la imaginación y de las ideas. Pero con el don feliz, además, de saber llevarlas a cabo.

Los pueblos también son beneficiarios -o víctimas- de las metáforas que crean para sí y que enmarcan la forma como se perciben y como perciben al mundo. La vaciedad originaria también fue la obsesión de la generación del 37, en Argentina, pero se la vivió de una forma distinta: con angustia, no como una invitación a crear, sino como un signo de inferioridad y atraso con respecto a los cultos países de Europa. La vaciedad argentina es algo que hay que doblegar (es el único país que se lanzó a conquistar un desierto), y llenar, también, pero con ideas extrañas. De ahí que, incluso los miembros más creativos de esa generación -Sarmiento, Alberdi, Echeverría- fueron principalmente importadores de ideas, no innovadores. Podríamos decir, ateniéndonos a las pinturas que se hacían, en esa época, de la naturaleza de nuestro país, que nuestro mito adánico comienza después de la expulsión del Paraíso. La Argentina no era un país a fundar, sino uno a transformar, y -antes que nada- a exorcizar de la “pesada herencia” española.



Las metáforas también son recurrentes; los héroes son elegidos por ajustarse a un ideal, y no por haberlo inaugurado. Jefferson bien podría ser el único padre fundador de un país donde se piensa, hasta hoy, que todo es posible para el individuo si actúa con perseverancia. No es más que un mito, claro, pero uno que veo espejado en este otro, el del país donde no hay nada y donde, por otra parte, nada es posible.

[Toe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Christopher Hitchens is the intellectual equivalent of a personal trainer. If you meet him on his terms, you might be better off for it. At the same time, I still despise him.

My main complaint is the difficulty in following Hitchens. Comprehending single sentences is a challenge given that the vocabulary he uses is impenetrable. Here is a random sample of words, the meanings of which I do not know and had difficulty discerning from the context, pulled from no more than two short pages of this book: scurrility, subventions, irascible, temporize. Lucky me that I happened to know lurid, rancorous, and sojourn.

When the ideas contained within single sentences are obscured by unfamiliar language (notice how I use "unfamiliar" rather than "recondite," "pedantic," "abstruse," or "didactic"), it does not bode well for grasping the purpose of whole paragraphs, chapters, or books. I hate to take the position that any book is "too tough" or should be "dumbed-down." I don't want to discourage authors from using the most appropriate word out of fear that many readers will not know it. An extensive vocabulary is a useful tool to precisely convey ideas. The ability to notice subtle nuances embedded in reality and express them through language reflects a thoughtful mind and allows for a richer life experience. Therefore, the burden should be on the reader to expand his knowledge of language, if necessary, when confronted with unknown words.

But Hitchens is extreme. He must intentionally obfuscate in order to stroke his ego or shield his ideas from criticism. I get the impression he types a chapter in Basic English and then combs back through it with a thesaurus, replacing every word he can with another he hopes most people won't know. The primary purpose of a book is to convey information or entertain. The author puts forth effort to construct a message, and the reader puts forth effort in decoding the message. Language is supposed to facilitate message conveyance, but Hitchens's phrasing and references get in the way. It got to the point that I began questioning words and concepts that I thought I understood. The problem was either with me or Hitchens, but I take comfort in Einstein's quote, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Here is just one example of an ultimately simple idea Hitchens throws out in such an unclear way that it forced me to pause and attempt to decipher his meaning for an inordinate amount of time before moving forward. Hitchens says, "Jefferson was not a man of the Enlightenment only in the ordinary sense that he believed in reason or perhaps in rationality. He was very specifically one of those who believed that human redemption lay in education, discovery, innovation, and experiment." These questions immediately arose: 1. What's the difference between reason and rationality? 2. Does the "he" refer to Jefferson or a generic man of the Enlightenment? 3. Is Hitchens saying Jefferson did not believe in reason and rationality and therefore was not a man of the Enlightenment? 4. Or is Hitchens saying that Jefferson did believe in reason or perhaps rationality, which belief prevented him from being a man of the Enlightenment? 5. Or is Hitchens saying that Jefferson was generally a man of the Enlightenment, but he is not in the narrow sense that he did not prioritize reason or perhaps rationality above all else; preferring instead the other values of education, discovery, innovation, and experiment? 6. Or is Hitchens saying that Jefferson is totally a man of the Enlightenment, but, in addition to valuing reason and rationality, he also values education, discovery, innovation, and experimentation?

After chasing wild geese trying to figure out how Jefferson was not a man of the Enlightenment, I finally interpreted Hitchens in this last sense. What effort is required to clear confusion all because of an ill-placed "not." Here's how the two sentences should read: "Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment, but not only in the ordinary sense that he believed in reason or rationality. He was also a very specific believer in the power of education, discovery, innovation, and experimentation."

Unwilling to stop every other sentence and pull out my dictionary or encyclopedia to see what the hell Hitchens was talking about, I learned less than I should have about Jefferson. Here's what I know for sure. He was the third president; an ambassador to France; the primary author of the Declaration of Independence; made the Louisiana Purchase; founded the University of Virginia; and had an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, who may actually have been the half-sister of his wife, Martha. He preferred rural existence and what many today would consider extreme liberty. His love of liberty meant very limited federal government power and support for, in ideology at least, the French Revolution and Shays' Rebellion. He was also against a national bank and insisted that the Constitution provided for no such thing. Jefferson was something of a polymath, knowledgeable about music, architecture, agriculture, engineering, the law, science, biology, literature, history, and world events. Oh, and he was a "male mammal." Hitchens said so on page 9.

Sure, the author doesn't help the cause much, but Jefferson may have just been a bundle of contradictions. He seemed to be anti-slavery but was still a racist. Except sometimes he wasn't anti-slavery or a racist based on his personal letters or the political necessity of the hour. He was an atheist. Except sometimes he wasn't an atheist because he referenced God and the Bible so extensively. He was a deist. Except sometimes he wasn't a deist because he referenced Providence. He wanted to be a politician. Except sometimes he didn't want to be a politician and had to be dragged into it. Or maybe he feigned disinterest and enjoyed others requesting things of him. You get the picture.

Evidently, Jefferson's true beliefs can't be ascertained from his writings and the writings of others about him. This is about all that can be derived from the book. Hitchens was so busy trying to impress me with his vocabulary, he failed to meaningfully inform me about the subject of his work. What a οίκτος. See, I put it in Greek, but it just means pity.

Memorable Quotes:

"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

"Timothy McVeigh, when arrested after the Oklahoma City atrocity, was wearing a T-shirt blazoning the words: 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' McVeigh's American fascist bomb was made largely out of fertilizer, which might also give pause to those who too easily compare blood with manure."

"Jefferson, whose attitude toward deficit financing was strongly conditioned by his own disabling indebtedness as a Virginia planter, could never abandon the idea that there was something immoral, as well as unstable and sinister, in the idea of paper money and borrowing."

"We cannot hope to peer very far past the opaque curtain that is always in evidence (an also not in evidence) when a young man seemingly reveres his father and is indifferent to his mother. However, the nature of individual humans is not radically different and it's no great surprise to discover that the adolescent Thomas felt himself liable at one point to go to seed and to waste his time on loose company. We find, also, an excruciating account of a 'bad date' at the Apollo Room of the Raleigh Tavern when, nerving himself to make advances to the much sought-after Rebecca Burwell, he made an utter hash of the approach and a more or less complete fool of himself. ('Good God!' he wrote to a friend the following morning. Later, news that Miss Burwell--the sister of a classmate and the daughter of a family estate in York County--was betrothed to another man was to give young Thomas the first of many migraine attacks that plagued him intermittently through life.) That this initial reverse was a sting is not to be doubted. Nor is it to be doubted that it was followed by still another fiasco, when he made a crass and unsuccessful attempt to seduce the wife of his friend John Walker. I mention this because it demonstrates that Jefferson was ardent by nature when it came to females, and also made reticent and cautious by experience. This is worth knowing from the start, and would scarcely need to be observed at all if it were not for the generations of historians who have written, until the present day, as if he were not a male mammal at all."

[Jamie Kenyon · Rating 5 out of 5]

In "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America", Christopher Hitchens shines a light upon the historical conundrum that is Thomas Jefferson, a man whose legacy can be seen clearly reflected within modern America. ‘Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you’.

Hitchens brings the polymath Jefferson to life, a bibliophile who found himself thrust into the centre of the only revolution which still stands the test of time, becoming the driving force behind its anti-monarchical and secularist ideals. We are also shown a reluctant politician whose greatest accomplishments as President were achieved through the strong application of federal powers, powers which he had so vehemently opposed during the previous administrations of Washington and Adams. The real crux of Hitchens’ book however, is of one man’s internal struggle with the darkest blight upon his country’s history: slavery.

Denouncing King George III for his cruel and piratical role in bringing such an execrable institution to America, Jefferson denounced enslavement as a process of ‘the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other’. It was a 'moral depravity', a 'hideous blot' upon his country. Early in his political career, he successfully introduced laws in Virginia which forbade the further importation of slaves and made it easier for masters to free them. In an attempt to erode support for slavery, he also discouraged the cultivation of crops heavily dependent upon slavery - such as tobacco - and encouraged the introduction of crops that needed little to no slave labour. The peak of Jefferson’s opposition to slavery was in 1784, when his proposal that it be outlawed in the new Northwest territories was tragically defeated in Congress by a single vote.

Despite these efforts however, the man who penned the immortal phrase ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, continued to hold slaves on his Monticello plantation until the day he died in 1826, freeing only those who he had himself fathered with Sally Hemings. The half-sister of Jefferson's late wife, Hitchens argues that the relationship with Hemings was one of love rather than sexual exploitation, but the truth likely lies somewhere between these two extremes. Despite his clear misgivings, the Virginian never overcame the racial precedents of his time.

The sense of tragedy only deepens as Hitchens reveals how Jefferson not only failed to abolish slavery, but through his own actions as President ultimately paved the way for its further expansion to the West. The emancipationist within Jefferson eventually lost out to another aspect of his complex character: his dedication to states' rights. Arguing that each individual state should be free to make its own laws on slavery, he refused to outlaw its advancement to the new land that he had negotiated from Napoleon in the Louisiana Purchase - a sale which Hitchens points out would ironically never have occurred were it not for Toussaint L’Ouverture’s slave rebellion on Guadeloupe. This marked a complete reversal from Jefferson's previous attempt in 1784 to abolish slavery across all new U.S. territories. His belief in states' rights had certainly strengthened by the time he became President, due in large part to the centralising policies of Alexander Hamilton. Yet his writings also suggest that the responsibility of holding office had made him more cautious of taking any dramatic steps against slavery. Indeed, before his death Jefferson was to finally accept slavery as a lamentable but irrevocable part of American society, regarding his remaining dreams of emancipation as not only quixotic but dangerous: ‘We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other’. In other words, he feared the backlash that might occur if white Americans were to suddenly release the men and women that they had mistreated for so long.

Jefferson arrived at the conclusion that the decision to emancipate America's slaves would have to be part of a longer, peaceful democratic process; abolition could not be achieved until the 'childlike' slaves were ready, and the majority of slaveowners consented. Jefferson dedicated his life to the creation of the American republic, and was not prepared to put what he had achieved at risk. Jefferson might have listened to the words of his friend Thomas Paine, 'I prefer peace, but if trouble must come, let it be in my time that my children may know peace.' Instead, he kicked the can down the road, providing the ideological stage for the bloodiest event ever seen on the American continent. Combatants on both sides of the fratricidal Civil War could justifiably claim Jefferson as their own, and use his writings to defend their strongly held positions.

The reader of this book can clearly see that Hitchens admired Jefferson as both a writer and revolutionary. It is therefore with great poignancy that he retells this tragic relationship with slavery. The book presents a man who more than any other is the author of America; he represents the very best and very worst of the nation's history. It is no exaggeration to state that without an understanding of Jefferson, you cannot understand America's past or present. Those seeking to remove his presence from modern America would do well to heed this. Jefferson was no villain, and neither was he a hero. I shall leave the final word to Christopher Hitchens: ‘History is a tragedy and not a morality tale’.

[Joe McCluney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Concise, well-written, and generally enjoyable to read. My biggest issue with it is that Hitchens, as a clear personal admirer of Jefferson, too often uses his subject as a springboard from which to discuss/validate his own opinions and beliefs. This causes the book to lack a narrative framework either as a biography or a monograph. I'd highly suggest listening to Hitchens' talk about Jefferson's influence given at the Annapolis Book Festival instead.

[Mitch Flitcroft · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and well-written glimpse into the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. It gave me a deeper appreciation for the man, his contemporaries, and the American Revolution more generally. I highly recommend this book.

[Curtis · Rating 3 out of 5]

All in all, a very solid & succinct biography. My only complaint is, IMO, the author's biases regarding religion are a little too on the nose. But it's amazing how much information he was able to cram into such a short book. Thanks Vlad!

[Kiel Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hitch's triple-distilled belletristic prose always goes down smooth; he electrifies this tiresome genre with a brief tome that, by the end, frames a candid photograph of the co-Founder rather than the usual fusty old etchings.

[Matthew Englett · Rating 3 out of 5]

A descent book if you’re interested in the history of Thomas Jefferson. I’m not a big fan of Hitch’s writing. If you are, then you will certainly enjoy it.

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hitchens does it again. Gives Jefferson credit where it's due but isn't afraid to poke holes in the frequently infallible political figure. Slavery being the one topic that is most widely criticized in present times, Hitchens provides a frame of reference as to why people should be both slow yet critical of a man who owned slaves yet condemned slavery and hoped to bring about its end.

[A.J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a stylist, Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorites. His prose should be studied by all contrarians and literary warmongers as a blueprint for how to write engaging nonfiction. While he occasionally dips into thesaurus words for minimal effect, his gift with the English language is self apparent. This brief volume about the life and times of America's cornerstone author, Thomas Jefferson, serves its function as a quick and accessible bio. If you want Tolkien-like precision about the man, I'd try something a little thicker. Hitchens sticks to the major points. He doesn't attempt to shirk any insight, but this would hardly pass as an exhaustive account (see also the invisible references section).

The book's strength is its brevity and simple format. The high points of Jefferson's remarkable career will be arrived at quickly and often. There is, however, a slight problem for those of us who aren't steeped in the politics and secondary events of the 1776 generation. It would be nice to approach this work armed with a basic knowledge of political factions and other key figures of the time (e.g. all the stuff you forgot from high school history class). Even still, not much is overly obscure, but a little background wouldn't hurt.

As I expected, the seeds of Hitchens' more commonly cited atheism are germinating whenever the topic shifts to Jefferson's deism or dislike for most any form of hypocritical organized religion. The polemicist in him is mostly dormant for the purposes of a biography, but one can hardly blame him for taking his shots when the opportunity presents itself. The only downside to this––along with the empty references page––is that it alerts the reader's mind to possible bias, and thereby skepticism. I wouldn't attempt to take Hitchens to task on these points, but I am prompted to read further to see what someone else might have to say about Jefferson's mild agnosticism. On a brighter note, the passion Jefferson had for the enlightenment, science, literature and secular wisdom is captured beautifully by Hitchens, who shares these passions himself. With all the glowing sentiment, you'd almost think science answered every philosophical quandary we find ourselves in.

Almost.

Final count? High three. Could have been a four but I didn't walk away from this book with the sense that I'd just acquired a full understanding of Jefferson or the world he inhabited. Maybe that's asking too much from a slim bio that doesn't top two hundred pages, but all the same, it lowers the zeal level of my recommendation. By all means give Hitchens a shot. If nothing else you'll treat yourself to some fine prose, as well as a concise introduction to the author of the American Experiment.