Thomas Jefferson

I am a fan of Ken Burns films, but "Thomas Jefferson" is probably the nadir of the talking-head living-history documentary style he favors. In many respects "Thomas Jefferson" is a beautiful film, and it is clearly the work of intelligent people. Ultimately it inspires me to visit Monticello, which is admirably photographed. It fails to answer the question it poses at the outset - whether Jefferson the lover of Liberty can be reconciled with Jefferson the Master of Slaves - and by default suggests that raising this question is the film's chief contribution to Jeffersonian discourse. It's a timely question, but it isn't new. The mood of the film is outrageously depressive, a sedate musical score of American chestnuts underscoring lethargic readings from Jefferson's writings, and images of Monticello, slaves, Jefferson (portrait), historically significant parchments, John Adams (portrait), George Washington (portrait), etc. If this film is anything specific, it is a memorial service for the myth of Jefferson. I don't like it, but I appreciate the film maker's effort and the contributions of scholars involved in the project. A related Ken Burns biographical film, "Lewis and Clark," is similar in tone but less confused and more forthright in its storytelling. See it.

Ken Burns and company do an excellent job of giving us the whole Jefferson, warts and all. But one begins to wonder why they didn't do a documentary about someone else of the times, someone who didn't own slaves, didn't deport all Eastern Indians to the West, didn't build a museum for his personal abode, didn't praise the French Revolution in the most immoderate terms and didn't sink deep into debt. Whether he impregnated slave Sally is almost tangential and immaterial. He "did" so many other things! It is often said, one shouldn't judge a historical figure by today's exacting standards. Yet it is also said, by those same people, that time must pass to allow us to objectively evaluate today's leaders. And as if this weren't enough, one also hears these souls denounce "moral relativism". Go figure. But one needn't judge Jefferson by today's "politically correct" standards. One can be content with judging him by his own time's and, indeed, by his very own standards. And, one can emulate his own extremely harsh judgments of fellow founding father Alexander Hamilton. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers not to judge them. They judged each other, and they wanted to be judged. This good documentary is marred by interruptions from overexposed, self-important pundits from all corners of the vaunted political spectrum, a common documentary flaw. Interpretation and opinion should be served on a separate plate - please! A little more verve and humor would have added spice and made for a less reverential opus. Jefferson wrote so many letters. There should have been more quotations from the horse's mouth.

In reading this review I find myself asking what this viewer is really looking for. In one voice we are told the production show Jefferson "warts and all" and in the next appears to condemn the work for showing he was a Southern with slaves and that his relationship with those slaves (i.e. Sally Hemings) and his animosity towards other "Founding Fathers" as inappropriate at the least and cruel at the worst. This viewer states more of Jefferson's own words should have been used - which would have been wonderful, but if this viewer truly knew Jefferson's history, this viewer would also know that Jefferson destroyed nearly everything he had ever written about or two anyone along with nearly everything anyone wrote to him. Therefore we can only piece together a picture of this man by others of the period who wrote "about" him, not necessarily to him as well as records found in France, England and our own Archives. An American who wishes to examine American history is hard pressed to find the facts which would make our history clear and easy to understand and perhaps that is for the better as it forces us to look closely and most of all to think.

Compared to other documentaries from Ken Burns this one is less successful though still informative.

The weakness in my opinion is in the presentation; the narration, the images and music are all ok but less polished. I initially assumed that part of the problem was that it was difficult to tell a visual story without photographs - but watching the Ben Franklin documentary i saw that it could be done more successfully.

The story of Thomas Jefferson and his accomplishments as well as his shortcomings is an intriguing story and this an informative documentary but I believe with the people involved it could have been better presented..

This may be one of the worst documentaries ever made., with so much mis-information it's hard to believe it was made, unless it was some tongue-in-cheek satire that I didn't understand. Let's look at it piece by distorted piece.

According to this 2 part documentary, Jefferson was moral, ethical, wary of politics, a great believer in the power of the people and fearful of monarchies, and true to his "all men are created equal" language. These are the assertions. Here are the facts -

Moral

Jefferson was a slave holder and over time held hundreds of slaves. While in France, Sally Hemings threatened to remain in France and Jefferson promised to free her to get her to return with him. He held his children with Hemmings as slaves and freed them only upon his death.

Jefferson's home in Monticello had a secret room that remained undiscovered for nearly 200 years. Some believe the small, windowless room was used to punish slaves but others believe it was used by Jefferson's mistress, Sally Hemmings.

Jefferson allowed slavery into the Louisiana Territory, with only a one-year ban.

In 1804 Haiti was declared an independent republic, but Jefferson, the slave-holding President, refused to recognize it and imposed an economic embargo on trade.

Ethical

While serving under Washington, Jefferson wrote anonymous letters published in prominent newspapers attacking Washington. Jefferson's subversion got so bad that it strained their relationship. Jefferson refused to attend Washington's funeral and when he later visited widow Martha Washington, in 1891, as part of his presidential campaigning, Martha was reported to say it was the second "most painful occurrence" of her life, apart from Washington's death: she referred to Jefferson as "the most despicable of all mankind."

He also wrote, again anonymously, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 designed to disrupt the government he was serving. The New Hampshire Patriot on December 6, 1798, warned that the resolutions provoked Civil War.

The violence suggested in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions was not Jefferson's only foray into threats of violent actions. Virginia Governor James Monroe threatened to send troops to Washington if Jefferson were denied the Presidency. Jefferson himself, in a letter to Monroe on Feb 15 said " the day such an act passed (a coalition giving the vote to Adams) the middle states would arm, & that no such usurpation even for a single day should be submitted to (bold added)."

Man of the People

Jefferson's plan for a public university was one in which only selected individuals would enter and in this way he would foster an elite or what he called a "national aristocracy." Franklin also promoted a university, but one open to everyone.

Afraid of Monarchies

The program claims Jefferson was opposed to Washington's monarchical attitude and behavior. But Jefferson was far more the monarch than Washington ever was.

Jefferson conducted the Louisiana Purchase in secret and never sought the approval of Congress. Jefferson wanted to convert the vast territory into an agricultural base where slavery would flourish, thus insuring the balance of power would remain in the South. For this reason, he acted in secrecy, as getting Congress to vote in favor of expanding slavery was doubtful.

In January 1803 Jefferson sent a secret message to Congress asking for $2,500 to fund the Lewis and Clark expedition, referring to it as "extending the external commerce of the United States," which is was not. For the new lands to foster slavery they required the kinds of soil and weather for large plantations. Lewis and Clark would provide that information, and that information might be used by Jefferson for a foray into land speculation.

Not a Politician

During the debates on the Constitution, behind the back of his good friend James Madison, Jefferson wrote secret letters to delegates urging them not to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was assured. Ironically, Madison and Jefferson teamed together, in secret, to write articles in The National Gazette using the pseudonyms "Helvidius" and "Pacificus" to attack Federalist principles put forward by Alexander Hamilton, Washington's Secretary of the Treasury.

When he was Adam's Vice-President, Jefferson wrote letters attacking Adams' policies and referring to his administration as a "reign of witches." He also used intermediaries (e.g., James Callender) to do his dirty work.

OK. This isn't a history lesson and I'm sure this is enough to convince you that the documentary fails to deliver a two-sided view of Jefferson.