Was thomas jefferson an idiot?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I just finished a biography of Washington (:the indispensable man by flexner, which was superb), and one of the things I was surprised to see was how badly jefferson appears, entirely through his own quotes. He's generally considered one of the best presidents, but he sounds rather idiotic here. Of course, I assume the author is pro-washington. So, is the general picture of jefferson as great for the DoI and Louisiana purchase just a rose tinted glasses view?

Also, I'm feeling like going on a run of biographies of presidents/revolutionary era people, does anyone have recommendations?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Jefferson could easily be considered the most idealistic of what we call the "Founding Fathers" generally those who are most idealistic are those most likely to dispense both beauty in words, philosophy and politics and at some point in their life fail to deliver the goods through their actions either by inaction, failure or hypocrisy. This does not make Jefferson an idiot, in fact you can argue that this process made Jefferson uniquely wise beyond most others. Those that live life with mediocrity including their politics and language are limited in both their ability to inspire and their ability to disappoint thus they are given a lower standard to uphold. Jefferson's words of limited government (gross oversimplification) was challenged by the situation he was put in of incredible power by being President, as all idealists do he succumbed to practicality and chose the security and well being over the country over his principles in his expansion of the government both in military strength and in overall land area control.

In order for me to feel comfortable continuing I would like to know what exactly makes him sound like an idiot in this biography you read.

EDIT: Read "John Adams" by David McCullough

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here's an interesting op-ed piece that ran in the WSJ this past 4th of July.
A Cold Man's Warm Words.

American Sphinx: by Joseph Ellis is a worthy biography I can recommend.

Signing Their Lives Away: by Denise Kiernan & Joseph D'Agnese. A short synopsis of the fame & misfortune of the individual signers of the Declaration of Independence. I enjoyed this one immensely. The best part about this one is that you can find more info about the obscure participants from this era. The bibliography alone is worth the price of this book

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just finished a biography of Washington (:the indispensable man by flexner, which was superb), and one of the things I was surprised to see was how badly jefferson appears, entirely through his own quotes. He's generally considered one of the best presidents, but he sounds rather idiotic here. Of course, I assume the author is pro-washington. So, is the general picture of jefferson as great for the DoI and Louisiana purchase just a rose tinted glasses view?

Jefferson was very human and in some ways our quintessential "founder." He had towering strengths: intellect, skill with words, sense of what could be. He had towering flaws: spendthrift (even by planter standards), political knife artist, hypocrite (opposed slavery yet did not manumit much during his life). In short, he embodied the best and the worst of us -- a very human man and a compelling figure to study.

I concur with the suggestion of McCullough's Adams. I'd add (though this is from a later period) Kearns on Lincoln.

[Reenk Roink]

What are the quotes in question that make you think he was an idiot?

[Gregoshi]

What are the quotes in question that make you think he was an idiot?

Washington: "He's an idiot."
Adams: "Tommy - he's an idiot."
Franklin: "Jeffers is an idiot - but he's OUR idiot."
Jefferson: "I'm an idiot!"

[Reenk Roink]

Washington: "He's an idiot."
Adams: "Tommy - he's an idiot."
Franklin: "Jeffers is an idiot - but he's OUR idiot."
Jefferson: "I'm an idiot!"

Washington: jealous
Adams: ... obnoxious and disliked in general
Franklin: inebriated
Jefferson: humble

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Jefferson could easily be considered the most idealistic of what we call the "Founding Fathers" generally those who are most idealistic are those most likely to dispense both beauty in words, philosophy and politics and at some point in their life fail to deliver the goods through their actions either by inaction, failure or hypocrisy. This does not make Jefferson an idiot, in fact you can argue that this process made Jefferson uniquely wise beyond most others. Those that live life with mediocrity including their politics and language are limited in both their ability to inspire and their ability to disappoint thus they are given a lower standard to uphold. Jefferson's words of limited government (gross oversimplification) was challenged by the situation he was put in of incredible power by being President, as all idealists do he succumbed to practicality and chose the security and well being over the country over his principles in his expansion of the government both in military strength and in overall land area control.

hmm I don't think I agree with your definition of idealist. The fact that people fall short of their ideals isn't the only criticism of idealism. Sometimes the idealistic view is just inaccurate and wrong. But I'm not really out to call jefferson stupid, he was just surprisingly short of my impression of him.

Here's an interesting op-ed piece that ran in the WSJ this past 4th of July.
A Cold Man's Warm Words.

American Sphinx: by Joseph Ellis is a worthy biography I can recommend.

Signing Their Lives Away: by Denise Kiernan & Joseph D'Agnese. A short synopsis of the fame & misfortune of the individual signers of the Declaration of Independence. I enjoyed this one immensely. The best part about this one is that you can find more info about the obscure participants from this era. The bibliography alone is worth the price of this book

Thanks! Having read the description, I think the American Sphinx book might be just what I'm looking for, although I'll shop around.

I really enjoyed Edward S. Morgan's book about the revolution, so I might look at one of his or flexner's books first.

EDIT: Read "John Adams" by David McCullough

I concur with the suggestion of McCullough's Adams. I'd add (though this is from a later period) Kearns on Lincoln.

hmm, I read the first chapter of this, and it seems to be more in the "life story" vein (and also a bit on the feel good side? Like the 4th of july wsj piece hosa posted). Probably interesting, but I'd be more interested in the ideas and beliefs that led to his support of the revolution and the constitution. Was my feeling about the McCullough book correct?

In order for me to feel comfortable continuing I would like to know what exactly makes him sound like an idiot in this biography you read.

What are the quotes in question that make you think he was an idiot?

Similar to what the description of the biography that hosa posted says about him. Let me see what I can pick out from the flexner book:

The information which soon reached America of the Terror--the rise and fall of the guillotine to the seemingly endless plop of severed heads--did not dampen the enthusiasm of the American republicans. Jefferson wrote that the three of liberty had to be watered by human blood. He was willing to see "half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is".
Washington, who had seen men die in bloody anguish as Jefferson had not, was neither enthused nor encouraraged.

Under Genet's spell, Jefferson committed his greatest indiscretion while in the cabinet. To officials in Kentucky he backed, subtly but yet clearly, Genet's scheme for raising an army of American citizens that would liberate Louisiana from spain and create an independent nation under the French aegis. Jefferson must have known that this was exactly opposite to the policies of his president. Washington was doing all in his power to reduce the possibility of war with Spain. Such a conflict would surely involve the British

On June 9, 1793, Jefferson wrote Madison, "The President is not well...He is also extremely affected by the attacks made and kept on him in the public papers. I think he feels those things more than any person I ever yet met with. I am extremely sorry to see them." But, so Jefferson continued, Washington had brought the attacks on hmiself. "Naked he would have been sanctimoniously reverenced, but enveloped in the rags of royalty, they can hardly be torn off without laceration"

The profoundest reason for the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian controversy dates back to long before the birth pangs of the United States: it reflects one of the most basic shifts in the whole history of European man. For many centuries society was agricultural, regions being primarily self-sustaining, wealth (and with it temporal power) appertaining to the ownership of land. Gradually, as communications improved, merchants began to compete with the landowner...The American Revolution, which pitted the self-reliant individual against hereditary power, was a world-shaking explosion of new points of view. Yet the eighteenth-century American experiment was by no means the final move in the great cultural shift from the medieval to the modern world. Although fought a considerable distance down the read, the battle between Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism was a contest between the old agrarianism and teh new economics that was, for better or worse, on the rise. It was not inapposite that, when the conflict finally burst all bounds into the bloody Civil War, sourthern officers often thought of themselves in terms of medieval chivalry.
The Virginia Republicans saw in their own plantation society the forthright agricultural virtues claimed by the British country gentlemen.

Ok, so some of these aren't quotes, just bits from the book that are about what I was talking about. The last quote is beyond me to say anything significant about, but it does give cause for concern.

The impression I got was that jefferson was overly confidant in his beliefs and didn't have the necessary world experience to ground them. His ideas seem detached from the world in a way that washington's don't. His eager support for the french revolution and revolutions all over is an example. And the stuff about agrarian virtues, well I'd be interested to read a bit more about what led to the civil war really.

Jefferson was very human and in some ways our quintessential "founder." He had towering strengths: intellect, skill with words, sense of what could be. He had towering flaws: spendthrift (even by planter standards), political knife artist, hypocrite (opposed slavery yet did not manumit much during his life). In short, he embodied the best and the worst of us -- a very human man and a compelling figure to study.

But it seems like those pillars of strength need some support for the structure as a whole to be strong. An arch is no good without a keystone.

[Centurion1]

The McCullough book on Adams is superb. Actually all McCullough book are superb. Plus I have a soft spot for adamsasan unfairly overlooked president like his son who both did superb ions with little gratitude.

Plus Adams had my single favorite quote of all time

[a completely inoffensive name]

@Sasaki

The definitions of idealist:

1. One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.
2. One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary.

I don't think those definitions conflict with mine and I think they describe Jefferson perfectly. Your note of him being overly confidant of his beliefs is a symptom of being an idealist everywhere at any given time past, present and future.

I will agree that sometimes the idealistic view is wrong. History gives plenty of examples.
EDIT: See the fourth quote you posted.

The first quote in my opinion is not an indication of being "stupid" but is just in lacking tact. As my girlfriend likes to say when I start bashing religion in her father's house: "remember your audience". Anyone who has seen, lives and breathes death as much as a general and his soldiers do in the middle of a war begins to tire of the needless death that principles and ideals bring about when pitted against each other in a state of power vaccum that the colonies/early US was in at the time. Even if such principles (liberty, freedom from tyranny, all that good stuff) are of the most noble nature.

The second quote deals with Jefferson acting behind the scenes against the policies of Washington. Jefferson was a cabinet member as Secretary of State and his actions independent of Washington were a failure of Washington to keep his cabinet in line. There have been other presidents where the cabinet was left alone to handle their respective areas and the president bowed to their expertise on the matter and subsequently they became more independent from the president and resistant to any meddling when the president did want to take action. Those presidents are looked upon as weak, and Washington should be viewed a bit more harshly in this regard imo since the backlash against Jefferson in that quote would mostly stem from the fact that he simply was going against Washington which is not inherently bad in itself if Washington and other "Founding Fathers" were not deified. It was no secret that Jefferson had huge support for the French, everyone knew it.

In the third quote, Jefferson is completely right. Washington had and still has a cloak of no wrongdoing and deification going for him. All public officials, no matter how loved or beloved must be subjected to harsh criticisms in order to keep the overall power of the man and position in check.

In the fourth quote, it is just indicative that Jefferson in this matter was wrong. For a man ahead of his time in political thought he was behind in economic thought. Blame it on his upbringing in agrarian Virginia or blame it just on ignorance, he was wrong in the matter of the derivation, creation and holding of wealth for the future of human society.

I hope that last statement made it clear I'm not trying to be a Jefferson apologist here.