What do you think?
Rate this book
Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause: Land, Farmers, Slavery, and the Louisiana Purchase
Thomas Jefferson advocated a republic of small farmers--free and independent yeomen. And yet as president he presided over a massive expansion of the slaveholding plantation system, particularly with the Louisiana Purchase, squeezing the yeomanry to the fringes and to less desirable farmland. Now Roger G. Kennedy conducts an eye-opening examination of the gap between Jefferson's stated aspirations and what actually happened.
Kennedy reveals how the Louisiana Purchase had a major impact on land use and the growth of slavery. He examines the great financial interests (such as the powerful land companies that speculated in new territories and the British textile interests) that beat down slavery's many opponents in the South itself (Native Americans, African Americans, Appalachian farmers, and conscientious opponents of slavery). He describes how slaveholders' cash crops--first tobacco, then cotton--sickened the soil and how the planters moved from one desolated tract to the next. Soon the dominant culture of the entire region--from Maryland to Florida, from Carolina to Texas--was that of owners and slaves producing staple crops for international markets. The earth itself was impoverished, in many places beyond redemption.
None of this, Kennedy argues, was inevitable. He focuses on the character, ideas, and ambitions of Thomas Jefferson to show how he and other Southerners struggled with the moral dilemmas presented by the presence of Indian farmers on land they coveted, by the enslavement of their workforce, by the betrayal of their stated hopes, and by the manifest damage being done to the earth itself. Jefferson emerges as a tragic figure in a tragic period.
Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause was a CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title for 2003.
Kennedy reveals how the Louisiana Purchase had a major impact on land use and the growth of slavery. He examines the great financial interests (such as the powerful land companies that speculated in new territories and the British textile interests) that beat down slavery's many opponents in the South itself (Native Americans, African Americans, Appalachian farmers, and conscientious opponents of slavery). He describes how slaveholders' cash crops--first tobacco, then cotton--sickened the soil and how the planters moved from one desolated tract to the next. Soon the dominant culture of the entire region--from Maryland to Florida, from Carolina to Texas--was that of owners and slaves producing staple crops for international markets. The earth itself was impoverished, in many places beyond redemption.
None of this, Kennedy argues, was inevitable. He focuses on the character, ideas, and ambitions of Thomas Jefferson to show how he and other Southerners struggled with the moral dilemmas presented by the presence of Indian farmers on land they coveted, by the enslavement of their workforce, by the betrayal of their stated hopes, and by the manifest damage being done to the earth itself. Jefferson emerges as a tragic figure in a tragic period.
Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause was a CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title for 2003.
376 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 28, 2007
I really enjoyed this book. I felt that Kennedy explained in much detail what Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause was and by the end you can't help but shake your head in sadness at the tragedy of Jefferson's failure.
I have always grown up to love and admire Thomas Jefferson but the more I study history and the man that Jefferson truly was, I realize how wrong I was about Thomas Jefferson. The tragedy of his situation is that he reconized that slavery was wrong, knew what he should about it, and yet did nothing. As Kennedy explains, Jefferson didn't want to give up the "big house", he enjoyed the pleasures that slavery gave him and was not willing to let go despite what he knew what was right.
About halfway through the book I started ranting and raving to my husband and by the time I finished expressing my frustration, I was in tears. It truly is tragic when you realize all the "what if's" that could have changed history and prevented the thousands of lives that would die before the question of slavery would ever be settled.
I have always grown up to love and admire Thomas Jefferson but the more I study history and the man that Jefferson truly was, I realize how wrong I was about Thomas Jefferson. The tragedy of his situation is that he reconized that slavery was wrong, knew what he should about it, and yet did nothing. As Kennedy explains, Jefferson didn't want to give up the "big house", he enjoyed the pleasures that slavery gave him and was not willing to let go despite what he knew what was right.
About halfway through the book I started ranting and raving to my husband and by the time I finished expressing my frustration, I was in tears. It truly is tragic when you realize all the "what if's" that could have changed history and prevented the thousands of lives that would die before the question of slavery would ever be settled.
February 11, 2019
Jefferson is elected in 1800, and quickly “agrees with Napoleon to seek elimination of Toussaint and restoration of slavery to Haiti.” Our slaveholding founding father thought it was great for all people to seek freedom from oppression - if they were white. Or looked as good as Sally did after a few brandies. Both sides of the South knew that family farming was the opposite of slavery. It was slavery’s only alternative labor system. This book contrasts Yeomen farmers and Native Americans who lived sustainably off the lands, with Planters who planted monocultures that soon destroyed the soil and the landscape for short-term slave-driven capitalist profit. Slaves in off-season cleared the next year’s cropland and the timber was then sold. As for actually taking care of the land, Jefferson said, “we can buy an acre of new land cheaper than we can manure the old one.” Capitalism in a nutshell – destroy and move on. John Taylor of Carolina wrote, “The lands suffer a thousand times more than tenant farmers would have done.” Heading west was, of course, no joy to a travelling slave or a forced Native American. Jefferson thought bucolic yeoman farming existed for almost a half-century before the Planters took over. Roger says that in two ways, plantation policy was American Foreign Policy. If you lazily destroy your land base and you are arrogant enough, you will go steal someone else’s land base and then destroy that as well and move on taking by force. As Derrick Jensen points out, that’s the history of what Western Civilization does. “Jefferson was never a Democrat and never said he was.”
Paragon of virtue Jefferson referred to blacks as “pests in society by their idleness.” Free blacks had no place in Jefferson’s ideal republic. Nor did Native Americans. If you weren’t white, he wanted you “removed” because you were blocking his view of a racially pure Fatherland. Jefferson prattled on about the farmer but historian Joseph Ellis thinks that farming bored him. Hardly self-made, Jefferson’s “mother left him thousands of acres and many slaves, and his wife brought him more.” “The South sank into a plantation culture.” Capitalist farmers (Planters) screwed over the yeoman farmers after the Revolution because they quickly made self-sufficiency impossible for the yeomen and Jefferson took the side of the capitalist farmers, abandoning his “Lost Cause”. The bacon trade was a poor people’s occupation. Two thirds of the South’s cattle were for local consumption. By 1790, Russia, Britain and Spain were all looking for good ports in Washington and Oregon. By 1820, The United States, the vaunted land of freedom, had 1,528,000 slaves. In 1779, Jefferson “proposed stiffening restrictions and penalties meted out to slaves.” Later in life, when he ‘softened’, Jefferson hoped to deport all freed blacks. Hey Tom, what about that ‘All men are created equal’ and “liberty and pursuit of happiness” bit you wrote? TJ: Ah that, I obviously lied big time about that, didn’t I? Yep… As Southern land “degenerated around them”, Planters would raise slaves instead for market. To tide them over, Southerners knew from much experience it was easier to rape female slaves awaiting sale than it was to keep a farm animal still.
In Jefferson’s draft for the Declaration, Native Americans appeared as “merciless Indian savages”. Natives were a threat alright: unlike soil-killing planters, they planted the “Three Sisters” – corn, beans, and squash to help heal the soil and they were derided for allowing weeds near crops even though weeds are known diversifiers. The Washington-MacGillivray Treaty was upheld until Jefferson becomes President in 1801 after which the future of all Natives Americans in the South was toast due to Jefferson’s allegiance to the capitalist Planters first. “Jefferson was the most convincing advocate of Southern agrarianism.” Why is a dollar called a buck? Because a dollar “bought a buckskin until the 1820’s and even beyond”. Who laid out Washington D.C.? A Quaker and a black mathematician named Benjamin Banneker. I can picture Jefferson saying to Ben, can you hurry drawing those streets to make the Capitol of White America great, so I can deport you? Historian Franklin Knight writes the threat of the Haitian Revolution was that, it was considered the opposite of the U.S. because it chose Yeomen over Planters. Jefferson wanted to exterminate that “cannibal republic” before either he or Napoleon became a chief of state. The Louisiana Purchase was the sale to the U.S. of something Napoleon did not own (legally Spain had first right of refusal) to Jefferson who had no constitutional authority for the purchase. Oops… Plantations soon needed new lands to consume and render barren, and so Louisiana and Florida was taken. Jefferson removes Indian planters with the help of Talleyrand, Madison and Monroe. Three American Presidents working TOGETHER to push Natives off their own nurtured soil and land to make America Great Again (minus the red Baseball cap) with monoculture and state sanctioned violence. Makes you feel teary eyed and patriotic, don’t it? Let’s advance a fake ideal of a “Land of Independent Yeomen” over a reality of ruthless capitalist planters and speculators and call it America. Yeah that’s the ticket – and Latin America and Central America loves it when we call only ourselves America. This great book makes clear that Indian removal was set in place not by Jackson but earlier by Jefferson. “His (Jackson’s) Indian policy was Jefferson’s, as was his disinclination to accept the diversification of the Southern economy”. Brilliant…
Paragon of virtue Jefferson referred to blacks as “pests in society by their idleness.” Free blacks had no place in Jefferson’s ideal republic. Nor did Native Americans. If you weren’t white, he wanted you “removed” because you were blocking his view of a racially pure Fatherland. Jefferson prattled on about the farmer but historian Joseph Ellis thinks that farming bored him. Hardly self-made, Jefferson’s “mother left him thousands of acres and many slaves, and his wife brought him more.” “The South sank into a plantation culture.” Capitalist farmers (Planters) screwed over the yeoman farmers after the Revolution because they quickly made self-sufficiency impossible for the yeomen and Jefferson took the side of the capitalist farmers, abandoning his “Lost Cause”. The bacon trade was a poor people’s occupation. Two thirds of the South’s cattle were for local consumption. By 1790, Russia, Britain and Spain were all looking for good ports in Washington and Oregon. By 1820, The United States, the vaunted land of freedom, had 1,528,000 slaves. In 1779, Jefferson “proposed stiffening restrictions and penalties meted out to slaves.” Later in life, when he ‘softened’, Jefferson hoped to deport all freed blacks. Hey Tom, what about that ‘All men are created equal’ and “liberty and pursuit of happiness” bit you wrote? TJ: Ah that, I obviously lied big time about that, didn’t I? Yep… As Southern land “degenerated around them”, Planters would raise slaves instead for market. To tide them over, Southerners knew from much experience it was easier to rape female slaves awaiting sale than it was to keep a farm animal still.
In Jefferson’s draft for the Declaration, Native Americans appeared as “merciless Indian savages”. Natives were a threat alright: unlike soil-killing planters, they planted the “Three Sisters” – corn, beans, and squash to help heal the soil and they were derided for allowing weeds near crops even though weeds are known diversifiers. The Washington-MacGillivray Treaty was upheld until Jefferson becomes President in 1801 after which the future of all Natives Americans in the South was toast due to Jefferson’s allegiance to the capitalist Planters first. “Jefferson was the most convincing advocate of Southern agrarianism.” Why is a dollar called a buck? Because a dollar “bought a buckskin until the 1820’s and even beyond”. Who laid out Washington D.C.? A Quaker and a black mathematician named Benjamin Banneker. I can picture Jefferson saying to Ben, can you hurry drawing those streets to make the Capitol of White America great, so I can deport you? Historian Franklin Knight writes the threat of the Haitian Revolution was that, it was considered the opposite of the U.S. because it chose Yeomen over Planters. Jefferson wanted to exterminate that “cannibal republic” before either he or Napoleon became a chief of state. The Louisiana Purchase was the sale to the U.S. of something Napoleon did not own (legally Spain had first right of refusal) to Jefferson who had no constitutional authority for the purchase. Oops… Plantations soon needed new lands to consume and render barren, and so Louisiana and Florida was taken. Jefferson removes Indian planters with the help of Talleyrand, Madison and Monroe. Three American Presidents working TOGETHER to push Natives off their own nurtured soil and land to make America Great Again (minus the red Baseball cap) with monoculture and state sanctioned violence. Makes you feel teary eyed and patriotic, don’t it? Let’s advance a fake ideal of a “Land of Independent Yeomen” over a reality of ruthless capitalist planters and speculators and call it America. Yeah that’s the ticket – and Latin America and Central America loves it when we call only ourselves America. This great book makes clear that Indian removal was set in place not by Jackson but earlier by Jefferson. “His (Jackson’s) Indian policy was Jefferson’s, as was his disinclination to accept the diversification of the Southern economy”. Brilliant…
February 29, 2020
Kennedy was Director Emeritus of the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution and past director of the National Park Service. He spent 50 years studying Jefferson, seemingly become increasingly disenchanted by his subject. In this book Kennedy has written an cognizant, knowledgeable, academic eco-politcal history of Jefferson's influence past the Louisiana Purchase, the good and the bad of Jefferson, his actions, and the consequences of those actions are explained in dry, economical language. I had to spend time remembering what I know and filling in the imagery of understanding. Reading this book was worthwhile work.
Kennedy
1. Shows his readers the nature of Jefferson's character.
2. Describes how the rift between 18th-century and 19th-century worldviews left some behind, brought others forth, and changed others completely (such as Jefferson).
3. Describes the damage Jefferson's encouraging the plantation system did to the expansion of slavery and to our eco-system
4. Tells how we have have our memories of Jefferson, allowing us to remember him as we improve our world through thr Homestead Act of 1862 and t the Morrill Act if 1862
Kennedy
1. Shows his readers the nature of Jefferson's character.
2. Describes how the rift between 18th-century and 19th-century worldviews left some behind, brought others forth, and changed others completely (such as Jefferson).
3. Describes the damage Jefferson's encouraging the plantation system did to the expansion of slavery and to our eco-system
4. Tells how we have have our memories of Jefferson, allowing us to remember him as we improve our world through thr Homestead Act of 1862 and t the Morrill Act if 1862
January 21, 2023
Jefferson is rightly enshrined in the pantheon of American Founding Fathers. His singular gifts of politics and rhetoric still shine brightly down the centuries. Less known is how he turned these talents again and again to the support the interests of his fellow Virginian plantation owners at the expense of the independent farmers, veterans, and even arguably the nation as a whole.
Mr. Kennedy methodically and exhaustively lays up evidence before, during, and after the Jefferson administration to show that Jefferson consistently supported not only the sustaining of the plantation system, but it's wide and rapid expansion --- and by extension it's required institution of slavery. In contrast to the Washington and Adams administrations who treated with the native populations and our Spanish/French neighbors, Jefferson and his allies pursued aggressive policies to turn the natives off their land to give these new territories over the cultivation of cotton and tobacco. Ego, politics, greed, and poor land management made even these new acquisitions insufficient to slake the appetite for land. Consequently, Jefferson, Madison, and others saw to it that the way was paved to acquire more lands in Louisiana and Florida (by filibuster, purchase, or any other means). Furthermore, by both the methods and agents of acquisition, they ensured the slave holding plantation culture would spread into these new lands, largely sweeping aside those small land holders who were already in place.
The fact that Jefferson so often extolled the yeoman farmer as the very image of the ideal American while so constantly working to stymie him is perhaps what I find most galling. I am not surprised that Jefferson might consider himself or his peers the better of such hardscrabble folk - but to praise them on the one hand while ensuring that those of his class can speculate in land, aggregate it into large holdings, and do all of this largely on the taxpayer dime -- effectively closing his 'heroes' out of the best land while making them subsidize the enrichment of the upper class and the expansion of slavery is nothing short of heinous.
It does feel a bit like Kennedy might have something of an ax to grind against Jefferson on this score, and the evils of the plantation system and slavery can hardly be laid solely at the doorstep of Monticello. Having said that, it is clear that if anyone could have altered the course of history for the better on this score, it was Jefferson. Had Jefferson made efforts to limit or even slow the expanse of slavery and the plantation would likely have paid a great boon to the country and boosted him even higher into the firmament. Instead, Jefferson is proved all too human and he and his peers set this country on a path to Civil War.
The book is a little dense, and sometimes better understood with references to the ample footnotes, but is broken into many "bite sized" sections which compensates nicely. Anyone interested in the south, agriculture, and especially early American politics should give this a read.
Mr. Kennedy methodically and exhaustively lays up evidence before, during, and after the Jefferson administration to show that Jefferson consistently supported not only the sustaining of the plantation system, but it's wide and rapid expansion --- and by extension it's required institution of slavery. In contrast to the Washington and Adams administrations who treated with the native populations and our Spanish/French neighbors, Jefferson and his allies pursued aggressive policies to turn the natives off their land to give these new territories over the cultivation of cotton and tobacco. Ego, politics, greed, and poor land management made even these new acquisitions insufficient to slake the appetite for land. Consequently, Jefferson, Madison, and others saw to it that the way was paved to acquire more lands in Louisiana and Florida (by filibuster, purchase, or any other means). Furthermore, by both the methods and agents of acquisition, they ensured the slave holding plantation culture would spread into these new lands, largely sweeping aside those small land holders who were already in place.
The fact that Jefferson so often extolled the yeoman farmer as the very image of the ideal American while so constantly working to stymie him is perhaps what I find most galling. I am not surprised that Jefferson might consider himself or his peers the better of such hardscrabble folk - but to praise them on the one hand while ensuring that those of his class can speculate in land, aggregate it into large holdings, and do all of this largely on the taxpayer dime -- effectively closing his 'heroes' out of the best land while making them subsidize the enrichment of the upper class and the expansion of slavery is nothing short of heinous.
It does feel a bit like Kennedy might have something of an ax to grind against Jefferson on this score, and the evils of the plantation system and slavery can hardly be laid solely at the doorstep of Monticello. Having said that, it is clear that if anyone could have altered the course of history for the better on this score, it was Jefferson. Had Jefferson made efforts to limit or even slow the expanse of slavery and the plantation would likely have paid a great boon to the country and boosted him even higher into the firmament. Instead, Jefferson is proved all too human and he and his peers set this country on a path to Civil War.
The book is a little dense, and sometimes better understood with references to the ample footnotes, but is broken into many "bite sized" sections which compensates nicely. Anyone interested in the south, agriculture, and especially early American politics should give this a read.
December 31, 2012
A good read, especially given recent op-ed page and magazine article tussles over Jefferson
Don't believe reviewers who rachet this book down on grounds of its being "revisionist history." Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when one of the Founding Fathers is shown to have, at the least, feet of clay.
If you are willing to accept heroes with feet of clay, or even see them toppled from pedestals, don't flinch from this book.
More than any other early president except Washington, Thomas Jefferson had a large moral bankroll to spend. And yet, he consistently and repeatedly kept his wad of cash in his pocket on the slavery issue.
Author Robert Kennedy documents several points in early American history -- namely, in the first few years of independence (more at the Virginia level than nationally), in dealing with the settlement of the trans-Appalachian west, with the aquisition and settlement of the Old Southwest, and finally with the Lousiana Purchase -- where Jefferson could have at least checked the spread of slavery. But he did not. In fact, many of his actions at these points in time actually promoted the growth of slavery. Kennedy details his connection to freebooting expeditions against Spanish Florida and his connection to unsavory characters such as Gen. James Wilkenson, along with his aching desire to be liked and accepted by fellow members of his planter class, as background to this.
Jefferson is not being scored for not being an abolitionist. Rather, the idealistic author of the Declaration of Independence is being faulted for not even lifting a moral finger, let alone a whole hand.
Kennedy also includes discussions on matters such as Southern cotton and tobacco monocrop soil depletion as part of the price of Mr. Jefferson's lost cause.
Though some would fault this as revisionist history, they can't attack Kennedy's credentials, as he is both former director of the National Park Service and director emeritus of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.
That said, this book is not perfect. I had three major editorial dislikes.
One is explanatory endnotes. Endnotes are fine for citations, but I feel explanatory material should either be in footnotes or worked into the body of the text.
The second is the relative lack of maps, primarily for the Gulf Coast, to illustrate the provenance of some of the freebooting.
The third is a desire for more charts and other illustrative material for information such as soil depletion, if applicable.
That said, this is a must read. (It's arguably somewhere between four and five stars, but given the amount of negative reviews, I give it the bump.)
Don't believe reviewers who rachet this book down on grounds of its being "revisionist history." Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when one of the Founding Fathers is shown to have, at the least, feet of clay.
If you are willing to accept heroes with feet of clay, or even see them toppled from pedestals, don't flinch from this book.
More than any other early president except Washington, Thomas Jefferson had a large moral bankroll to spend. And yet, he consistently and repeatedly kept his wad of cash in his pocket on the slavery issue.
Author Robert Kennedy documents several points in early American history -- namely, in the first few years of independence (more at the Virginia level than nationally), in dealing with the settlement of the trans-Appalachian west, with the aquisition and settlement of the Old Southwest, and finally with the Lousiana Purchase -- where Jefferson could have at least checked the spread of slavery. But he did not. In fact, many of his actions at these points in time actually promoted the growth of slavery. Kennedy details his connection to freebooting expeditions against Spanish Florida and his connection to unsavory characters such as Gen. James Wilkenson, along with his aching desire to be liked and accepted by fellow members of his planter class, as background to this.
Jefferson is not being scored for not being an abolitionist. Rather, the idealistic author of the Declaration of Independence is being faulted for not even lifting a moral finger, let alone a whole hand.
Kennedy also includes discussions on matters such as Southern cotton and tobacco monocrop soil depletion as part of the price of Mr. Jefferson's lost cause.
Though some would fault this as revisionist history, they can't attack Kennedy's credentials, as he is both former director of the National Park Service and director emeritus of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.
That said, this book is not perfect. I had three major editorial dislikes.
One is explanatory endnotes. Endnotes are fine for citations, but I feel explanatory material should either be in footnotes or worked into the body of the text.
The second is the relative lack of maps, primarily for the Gulf Coast, to illustrate the provenance of some of the freebooting.
The third is a desire for more charts and other illustrative material for information such as soil depletion, if applicable.
That said, this is a must read. (It's arguably somewhere between four and five stars, but given the amount of negative reviews, I give it the bump.)
June 16, 2020
The biggest mistake the author makes is in the title--and it may be the publisher's fault and not his own to attempt to cash in on hostility towards the Lost Cause and Jefferson's role in prolonging slavery in the United States and expanding its spread through territorial acquisitions. The title of this book infers that Jefferson's cause was for free yeomen to spread over the continent after native inhabitants had been disposed of by treaties and moved off of desirable lands, but that seems to have been mere pandering, while Jefferson's real interest was in the spread of plantation monoculture and the illusion of being non-capitalist farmers indebted to British (and Yankee) manufacturers for the necessities of life while inflicting misery upon millions of blacks and destroying the land and economic base of the land of the South in the process. I happen to find a lot about this book very easy to relate to and agree with, as decisions have consequences and Jefferson's decision not to stand up to the planter class and urge them to act in a manner that was consistent with the long-term health of the land and of its people and according to his and their ideals had serious and negative consequences that we are still paying for to this day.
This book is about 250 pages long and is divided into four parts and fifteen chapters along with other supplementary material. After acknowledgements and a chronology, the author discusses Mr. Jefferson's relationship with the land, including a discussion on the relationship between land and slavery and the type of farming it encouraged (1), a contrast between the approaches of Jefferson and Washington (2), a discussion of the psychology and politics of Jefferson as a planter who sought to appeal to yeomen without really wanting to encourage them (3), a discussion of the economics of plantation agriculture (4) in dependence to manufacturers and bankers, the powers of the earth in land speculation (5), and Jefferson's opportunities and the land (6). The second part of the book shortly discusses the invisible empire of imperialism (7) and textile geopolitics (8) that Jefferson was a part of without realizing it. This leads into a discussion of the resistance to the plantation system (III), including chapters on those who supported Indian statehood (9), the experience of Bowles and the Seminoles (10), the contrast between Indian and Yankee yeomen (11), and Jefferson's strategy for expanding the plantation world into the Deep South (12). The last part of the book looks at those who were assistants to the plantation system (IV), including a discussion of Fulwar Skipwith (13) and his background and early career, the premature attempt to seize Florida (14), manifest destiny in the old Southwest (15), and the decision of Virginians about how the land would be used in the South (16). An epilogue discusses the legacy of Jefferson in the Civil War and the Homestead Act, as well as an appendix with a discussion of various interesting things that did not fit in with the main narrative of the author, after which there are notes, a bibliography, and an index.
The hunger for adoration by other people tends to lead people astray. This is a lesson that we can see poignantly when it comes to Jefferson's life, and how he felt unable to act on his ideals because it would harm his popularity with the planter class he was a part of. Jefferson's inability to accept being ruled by others and his desire to be approved of by his peers marks him as the sort of liberal that many people find in the contemporary world, but that which marks him as being beyond the sympathies of contemporary politics is precisely what allowed him to be respected by his peers. This book is full of discussion about the patterns by which Jefferson and his contemporaries wasted the land in stark contrast to the land-friendly behavior in farming by white and red yeomen whose agricultural was less profitable but far less destructive. The author spends a lot of time expressing sympathy for the people involved in making decisions but has some harsh judgments against Jefferson and his peers for the destructive and unwise course they pushed the South towards. This condemnation is just. But all generations stand condemned before the bar of history for their sins, and we will be no different.
This book is about 250 pages long and is divided into four parts and fifteen chapters along with other supplementary material. After acknowledgements and a chronology, the author discusses Mr. Jefferson's relationship with the land, including a discussion on the relationship between land and slavery and the type of farming it encouraged (1), a contrast between the approaches of Jefferson and Washington (2), a discussion of the psychology and politics of Jefferson as a planter who sought to appeal to yeomen without really wanting to encourage them (3), a discussion of the economics of plantation agriculture (4) in dependence to manufacturers and bankers, the powers of the earth in land speculation (5), and Jefferson's opportunities and the land (6). The second part of the book shortly discusses the invisible empire of imperialism (7) and textile geopolitics (8) that Jefferson was a part of without realizing it. This leads into a discussion of the resistance to the plantation system (III), including chapters on those who supported Indian statehood (9), the experience of Bowles and the Seminoles (10), the contrast between Indian and Yankee yeomen (11), and Jefferson's strategy for expanding the plantation world into the Deep South (12). The last part of the book looks at those who were assistants to the plantation system (IV), including a discussion of Fulwar Skipwith (13) and his background and early career, the premature attempt to seize Florida (14), manifest destiny in the old Southwest (15), and the decision of Virginians about how the land would be used in the South (16). An epilogue discusses the legacy of Jefferson in the Civil War and the Homestead Act, as well as an appendix with a discussion of various interesting things that did not fit in with the main narrative of the author, after which there are notes, a bibliography, and an index.
The hunger for adoration by other people tends to lead people astray. This is a lesson that we can see poignantly when it comes to Jefferson's life, and how he felt unable to act on his ideals because it would harm his popularity with the planter class he was a part of. Jefferson's inability to accept being ruled by others and his desire to be approved of by his peers marks him as the sort of liberal that many people find in the contemporary world, but that which marks him as being beyond the sympathies of contemporary politics is precisely what allowed him to be respected by his peers. This book is full of discussion about the patterns by which Jefferson and his contemporaries wasted the land in stark contrast to the land-friendly behavior in farming by white and red yeomen whose agricultural was less profitable but far less destructive. The author spends a lot of time expressing sympathy for the people involved in making decisions but has some harsh judgments against Jefferson and his peers for the destructive and unwise course they pushed the South towards. This condemnation is just. But all generations stand condemned before the bar of history for their sins, and we will be no different.
April 20, 2026
I found this book in Savers recently, and kept thinking about while shopping the rest of the store so I went back and grabbed it.
I have a basic sense of American history, but there are so many details I don't know. I get the impression Kennedy knew most of those details - so many that he sometimes writes of fascinating incidents so briefly that he must have assumed they were common knowledge.
Fortunately, his biggest points are made thoroughly enough, even if I'm not 100% convinced Thomas Jefferson was bothered much by the failure of his early stance that land should be divided into small plots and run by yeoman farmers rather than gathered into giant plantations which required the use of slaves. Jefferson may have overwhelmingly wanted to please his friends, but he didn't get to be President for eight years without having some of his ideas get done whether others liked them or not.
Still, Kennedy's strongest point is that plantations and slavery were never absolutely going to happen - there were other ideas, and sometimes, the planters got their way by the skin of their teeth. I hadn't been aware of how bad cotton was for the land - planters had to keep looking for new places to grow the crop. I certainly was not aware of how important American cotton was for the British textile industry nor of how important that industry was for the power Great Britain controlled in the 19th Century.
There is a lot of new information - to me, at least - concerning the Louisiana Purchase and its relationship to this theme of plantations and cotton and slavery becoming so overwhelming a part of the South. It also becomes obvious, in ways beyond what I already knew, that there was no interest among whites to ever be fair to Native Americans, all of whom were losers again and again in the events described in this book.
I have a basic sense of American history, but there are so many details I don't know. I get the impression Kennedy knew most of those details - so many that he sometimes writes of fascinating incidents so briefly that he must have assumed they were common knowledge.
Fortunately, his biggest points are made thoroughly enough, even if I'm not 100% convinced Thomas Jefferson was bothered much by the failure of his early stance that land should be divided into small plots and run by yeoman farmers rather than gathered into giant plantations which required the use of slaves. Jefferson may have overwhelmingly wanted to please his friends, but he didn't get to be President for eight years without having some of his ideas get done whether others liked them or not.
Still, Kennedy's strongest point is that plantations and slavery were never absolutely going to happen - there were other ideas, and sometimes, the planters got their way by the skin of their teeth. I hadn't been aware of how bad cotton was for the land - planters had to keep looking for new places to grow the crop. I certainly was not aware of how important American cotton was for the British textile industry nor of how important that industry was for the power Great Britain controlled in the 19th Century.
There is a lot of new information - to me, at least - concerning the Louisiana Purchase and its relationship to this theme of plantations and cotton and slavery becoming so overwhelming a part of the South. It also becomes obvious, in ways beyond what I already knew, that there was no interest among whites to ever be fair to Native Americans, all of whom were losers again and again in the events described in this book.
August 5, 2022
A pretty good book overall. Pretty thorough. While some people may be scratching their heads at why a book about Jefferson starts of by going into detail about the environment, plants, gardening technique,etc, I was actually interested. It really went into detail about why slavery expanded in the way it did down south, some of the motives of the plantation owners, Jefferson's actions and reactions to all these related events, etc. It was a relatively long read, but definitely worth reading, nonetheless. Someone who cares about nuance and all the pieces of the puzzle when it comes to history will enjoy this book. Someone with a short attention span might suffer a little.
I didn't give it 5 stars because even though the quality was pretty good and the author was very thorough, even when citing resources and explaining particular events after the epilogue, I didn't care much for the author's cute little remarks here and there. To be honest, the remarks weren't that grating. I just would rather read the facts and decide how I feel based on what happened.
So if you want to go beyond the simple mindset of "South is bad cuz they like slavery," then this book is for you. It really brought the issue down to reality in a sense.
I didn't give it 5 stars because even though the quality was pretty good and the author was very thorough, even when citing resources and explaining particular events after the epilogue, I didn't care much for the author's cute little remarks here and there. To be honest, the remarks weren't that grating. I just would rather read the facts and decide how I feel based on what happened.
So if you want to go beyond the simple mindset of "South is bad cuz they like slavery," then this book is for you. It really brought the issue down to reality in a sense.
April 23, 2023
Fantastically researched, powerful and impactful arguments, but the writing is terrible. Kennedy is often insufferably pretentious, with more artificial gravitas than a Cecil B. DeMille film. His metaphors are as exhausting as they are corny, as is his ridiculous and superfluous use of “we” (we all know perfectly well he just means “I.”)
Highly recommended for people wanting to learn more about America from the Revolution to the Civil War, particularly those interested in the history of the South. I truly learned a great deal from this book, and it has significantly bolstered my understanding of economic and political development of my country. The topics of slavery and Native genocide and other sins of our early history have been handled with great care and precision and openness in a way that we are in sore need of these days, and I will be employing lessons from this book forever.
But damn, dude, my eyes are tired of rolling.
Highly recommended for people wanting to learn more about America from the Revolution to the Civil War, particularly those interested in the history of the South. I truly learned a great deal from this book, and it has significantly bolstered my understanding of economic and political development of my country. The topics of slavery and Native genocide and other sins of our early history have been handled with great care and precision and openness in a way that we are in sore need of these days, and I will be employing lessons from this book forever.
But damn, dude, my eyes are tired of rolling.
February 26, 2020
Roger G. Kennedy takes Jefferson at his word and demolishes the mythical aura that he promoted and grew into a 'given' in American history. The Lost Cause in the title refers to the 'Empire of Liberty' based on the 'yeoman' farmer. In page after page, Jefferson is shown to be a scheming stalwart of the slavocracy, which made the South a colonial appendage to Northern and British banks and industry, ruined the land, and was nothing less than tragic for African slaves and their descendants, as well as initiating Indian removal policies, twenty years ahead of Jackson. Must reading, especially for those who cling to an image of Jefferson as a bastion of liberty. In addition, his footnotes are informative, his bibliography is wide, and his bibliographic notes deserve reading as well.
February 3, 2021
This read was extremely interesting as it describes his struggle between his ideals of a country based on the small, free and independent farmer and his actions which were quite the opposite. One experiences his dilemma as he presides over one one of the greatest territorial expansions driven by the need of the plantation owners for new land. This need was driven by their method of farming which deletes the nutrients in the soil. While he morally cannot support slavery, he does little to stop it and actually participates in it. A great read into a man whose writings help to forge this great country.
November 21, 2019
A look at the Jeffersonian myth of the American yeoman farmer as the backbone of the people. He supported the plantation class and slavery as it ruined the soil and kept moving west. The Louisiana Purchase was partially financed the removal of the Native Americans and the sale of the land for cotton plantations.
June 11, 2018
Look, I love an anti-Jefferson screed as much as the next person. I do. And there's nothing better than a take down from an eminent historian. It just went on too long, was laid on too thick, and my attention waned. Preaching to the choir, maybe.
September 23, 2018
Very interesting history of the SW United States that includes relationships of Britain, France, Spain, and the many Native American Nations in the Floridas over to Texas and up. Many military escapades, treaties and diplomacy of the time-Napoleon, Talleyrand, Jefferson, Madison and more.
March 31, 2023
Dense textbook like detail and repeated names that seem to never advance any type of narrative to conclusion.
Read
September 23, 2010"Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause: Land, Farmers, Slavery, and the Louisiana Purchase by Roger G. Kennedy (2004)"
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews