Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by hanuhmckee
Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham
3.0
“This book, I hope, neither lionizes nor indicts Jefferson, but instead restores him to his full and rich role as an American statesman who resists easy categorization” (p. 507).
I wish I had this one sentence at the very beginning of reading this. In my quest to read and learn more about the Founding Fathers, I’ve wanted to get a full picture of each man; good and bad. In this biography, the “bad” was mentioned on occasion, but never delved into in the depth I’ve seen with other biographies. For example, the rivalry with Adams and Jefferson felt incredibly glossed over, with blame (if any) being put on Adams instead of exploring what caused the rivalry. This positive perspective put on Jefferson was especially clear when we are told “Rendering moral judgements in retrospect can be hazardous. It is unfair to judge the past by the standards of the present” (p. 477). This, to me, felt like the reader was being told to feel a specific way about Jefferson, instead of being allowed to come to a conclusion for ourselves.
Frustrations with the books perspective aside, I still get the feeling that Jefferson was a brilliant politician, but not a good person. One day I might pick this book up again, but I’d also think about finding another biography. I definitely want to see Jefferson through a more neutral perspective.
I wish I had this one sentence at the very beginning of reading this. In my quest to read and learn more about the Founding Fathers, I’ve wanted to get a full picture of each man; good and bad. In this biography, the “bad” was mentioned on occasion, but never delved into in the depth I’ve seen with other biographies. For example, the rivalry with Adams and Jefferson felt incredibly glossed over, with blame (if any) being put on Adams instead of exploring what caused the rivalry. This positive perspective put on Jefferson was especially clear when we are told “Rendering moral judgements in retrospect can be hazardous. It is unfair to judge the past by the standards of the present” (p. 477). This, to me, felt like the reader was being told to feel a specific way about Jefferson, instead of being allowed to come to a conclusion for ourselves.
Frustrations with the books perspective aside, I still get the feeling that Jefferson was a brilliant politician, but not a good person. One day I might pick this book up again, but I’d also think about finding another biography. I definitely want to see Jefferson through a more neutral perspective.