This book has a foreword by a William Murchison that refutes almost 100% of the message of the book. He claims this book is a support for a return to religious values (his) and it even has an endorsement by Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. What hypocrisy. Buried deep in the book you will read that Jefferson did not believe in the superstitions of the bible and he did not believe Jesus was divine. He rather felt that this was made up by the Christian Heirarchy principally at Nicea. The writer of the foreword ignores everything that Thomas Jefferson has written and says that Jefferson never meant for there to be seperation of church and state in the literal sense. He writes that some religious beliefs are more valid than others and sarcastically comments (a quote!) "No responsible democratic government could give preference to one opinion over another could it?" He then attacks the educational system saying that the religous material he approves of should be taught in schools. I am INCREDULOUS! An endorsement by the Christian Coalition only says that no only are these people intolerant, THey JUST WILL NOT LOOK AT FACTS. Reason, Common Sense. A wonderful book the parts by Jefferson, but again SKIP this irritating addition and buy the one by Forrest Church. I just returned this edition and am having them send the HISTORICALLY CORRECT one. I guess the Christian Coalition will try to create "support" when they can't earn it. What's next? will the Christian Coalition (in reality a corporate funded fascist front) endorse Darwin's "Origin of Species" and claim that Darwin agreed with them about the biblical talking snake theory and that this is what should be in schools? Go figure.

I thought this book was real neat. Imagine, Thomas Jefferson being so interested in religion that he spent all this time to "talk" about the Bible. How many critics of him have ever read the Bible? Like the authors of "AMERICAN SPHINX" and "UNDERSTANDING JEFFERSON" use their proficient writing ability to mask their dirtbag opinions and, unfortunately, are able to sell them as fact. There is just too much dishonesty in historical authorship these days. Maybe it's just me, but one of the few books on Jefferson that I have found to be intellectually honest is a "sleeper" I just happened upon called "WEST POINT", by Norman Thomas Remick. It's the best keep secret. Why? I don't know. I recommend that everyone should read it. It is absolutely complimentary to "JEFFERSON"S BIBLE". As it objectively lays out Jefferson's secular philosophy, he ceases to be an "American Sphinx", and you can better "understand" why he would interpret the Bible the way he did in "JEFFERSON'S BIBLE". Mr. Patton did an excellent job on this book.

Don't allow the endorsements of conservatives like Ralph Reed discourage the compassionate, liberal Christian from reading this brilliant work. Jefferon's love for the teachings of Jesus resulted in this creative example of how inspirational the "word of God" is and how it may serve as a guide to life.

Well as far as a book of fiction goes..it was readable..but to say that it is a true story is beyond any wild belief.The "plot" to kidnap Jefferson Davis was at best a ill conceived "dream" of the French characters of this book. Indeed if they had a true intent to kidnap the Confederate President,they would have had several back-up plans in the event all the pieces of the original plan did not fall into place. It turns out to be little more than a story of what the Confederates believed to be neutral frenchmen, traveling from Washington City to Richmond, on a lark. The story is full of the Frenchmen's value of self-worth and the feeling that the Confederates were ignorant fools that had no place in the civilized world. This book was hardly worth the read...and I do not say that about many books.

This book is very interesting, and an easy book to read for those who do not know much about the Civil War. It tells the story that very few people know about three brave frenchmen and their plot to capture the president of the confederates, Jefferson Davis.. Including the adventures they have a few weeks before and after their plot. I would recommend this book for anyone, especially those interested in Civial War History. This book was hard to put down.

I am definately not "into" Civial War history, but I found this to be a great book. I would make the same decision in buying it again.

The elements of a great mystery are here. A book that interweaves the issue of slavery, the questions around Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, and the imperatives of the Lewis and Clark expedition with a story about a serial killer sounds promising, but the book does not deliver...There's simply not enough suspense or mystery here, the writing is often annoying, and the characters aren't very interesting. Perhaps some will enjoy this as a light read. Not recommended.

Before reviewing this book, let me warn potential readers that this book contains much off-color language and disgusting details of extreme sexual misbehavior. This is not your normal Jane Langton novel where some sedate professor performs a fairly clean murder. Instead, there is a relatively uneducated serial killer of a most disgusting sort involved. To me, the gross aspects of the serial killer were not essential to the story, and simply lessened the appeal of the book.

Almost all of the characters in Murder at Monticello are obsessed by some aspect of Jefferson's life or of the Lewis and Clark expedition into the newly purchased Louisiana Territory. A July 4th celebration of the bicentennial year of Jefferson's becoming the third president draws these characters to Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia. While some characters are looking forward to the big fireworks show, others are planning to make their own fireworks.

The familiar Homer and Mary Kelly come down from Cambridge, Massachusetts at the invitation of a friend who offers them a free place to stay. A former student, Fern Fisher, is working on a new biography of Jefferson to help improve his reputation despite having been a slave holder and having possibly had sexual relations with one of his slaves, who was the half-sister of his deceased wife. Augustus Upchurch, a local benefactor of Jefferson studies, has helped raise the money to fund the book, but also becomes interested in Ms. Fisher despite the wide difference in their ages. Ms. Fisher sees apparitions of Jefferson in and around Monticello. Tom Dean, a local man who is about to enter medical school, is fascinated by Lewis and Clark, and through this meets Ms. Fisher and extends his interests to include her. The local police chief owns the Oxford English Dictionary and spends his free time looking up what the words in the Declaration of Independence meant in Jefferson's time. The serial killer imagines himself being related to one of the men in the Lewis and Clark expedition, based on having been raised on the Missouri River in Bismarck, North Dakota. Homer Kelly starts reading up on Lewis and Clark. Each chapter begins with a quote from the expedition's journals.

Like all Homer and Mary Kelly stories, there's not much mystery here. There are simply tangled skeins of lives and story lines that overlap. The individual stories are more of an excuse to delve into a particular period of history than serious fiction. Being quite familiar with Jefferson and the Lewis and Clark expedition, the only new knowledge that the book imparted were more details than I wanted to know about the sexual habits of the men on the expedition.

The overall theme of Murder at Monticello is that obsessions are bad for us, because they blind us to more positive opportunities to connect with others and more meaningful activities.

Unless you feel a compulsive need to read all of these stories by Ms. Langton, I suggest you skip this one. Of her recent efforts, I thought that Dead as a Dodo was far superior to Murder at Monticello. The ideas developed in that book about Darwin are far more interesting than the slim intellectual foundation of Murder at Monticello.

I do like Ms. Langton's new habit of taking the Kellys to new locations outside of Massachusetts. I hope Ms. Langton continues this trend in her upcoming novels.

Search for the opportunities to expand goodness, and then act on them!

I am always impressed by the ability Jane Langton shows in each of her books to encompass varying subject matters in such details. This book uses the expedition of Lewis & Clark to intertwine various lives and loves. As usual with Homer Kelly books, the reader knows the culprit, or at least knows who did NOT do the crime(s). This book contains some rather brutal murders, although the subject is handled in the usual Langton finesse. Homer and Mary do not figure so very much in this episode, with much of the action centering on guest characters. It is, as always, well-written, and, also as always, the pencil drawings by the author add to the enjoyment of reading this book. All in all, this is a fine addition to the series and I am looking forward to reading the next.

Matthews specializes in revisionist pseudohistory for the limousine liberal crowd. This book tries to portray Jefferson as a Democratic Radical and a quasi-socialist. The author is muddling his own socialist, left-wing philosophy with Jefferson, but misinterpreting quotes and out right fabrication. Matthews is down right distortive of both Jefferson and Madison...

I'd instead recommend Mr. Jefferson by Albert Jay Nock and The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson by David Meyer. The biographies by Dumas Malone are worth noting, but there is no better way to understand Jefferson than read his political writings. Get the Library of America volume with Jefferson's writings.

Over the years, I have noticed that many people make pronouncements about Jefferson without really reading him. When I was in college studying political science, Jefferson and Madison were pigeonholed together as Lockean liberals, for the most part. While his thought seems largely derived from Locke, he takes it in totally new directions.
One day, while doing research for a paper on the ideologies behind the Federalist-Antifederalist debates of the 1780s, I started reading the unabridged version of Jefferson's collected letters and papers. I was looking to get a better insight into how Jefferson viewed the Constitution, but for some reason, I started reading a letter to Madison in which Jefferson proposed his idea that no laws, constitutions, or public debt schemes should be valid more than 19 years after they were passed. Intrigued, I started reading more. The more of Jefferson I read, the more thunderstruck I was. I came to the conclusion that most of the historians I had read had completely misrepresented Jefferson. After I finished the paper I was working on, I took the next several months and read everything that survives of Jefferson's thought. And I came to the conclusion that while Jefferson and Madison were friends and political allies, Jefferson's views of democracy went far beyond anything that Madison (or any of the other leading American politicans of his time) ever dared to utter. In many respects, Jefferson was closer to the French revolutionaries who took power after the French Revolution of 1789 than he was to most of his fellow Founders.
That's why Richard Matthews' book is essential. Matthews explores at length several of the pillars behind Jefferson's thought, including his idea that the earth belongs to the living, from which he derives such ideas as automatic sunset of laws and constitutions and his idea that large estates should be broken up upon the death of the landholder and the land given to the poor. He also delves into Jefferson's concept of the "ward republic." Jefferson, unlike Madison, was confident that average citizens could manage their own civic affairs. To that end, he suggested that counties should be split up into small "wards", akin to the New England town meeting, and that these "ward republics" should directly govern all public matters within their boundaries. Jefferson believed that the man (and in Jefferson's time, it was only men) who learned to manage the affairs of such a "ward republic" would also be a better citizen of his State, and the federal union.
Now Jefferson was no head-in-the-clouds theorist. He was a successful practical politician, and, unlike many of the French Jacobins, knew that in the real world, one could only accomplish so much. So, unlike many other revolutionaries who have won political power, Jefferson was not interested in imposing his idea of the good society upon his countrymen at all costs. But he was quite serious about his ideas.
Matthews overstates his case in a few small areas. But, if one reads this book alongside one of the more conventional discussions of Jefferson's politics, one gets a more balanced view. And in most areas, Matthews seems to catch the nuances of Jefferson's thought better than have other scholars. The proof, of course, comes from reading Jefferson himself. If a library near you has the multi-volume edition of Jefferson's works, I recommend spending some time with him directly. It is no chore; Jefferson is a skillful prose stylist.
One other important area of note: Matthews does a fairly admirable job of assessing Jefferson's racism, and the moral dilemna of slavery. Like a lot of the men of his class and time, Jefferson owned slaves while asserting that slavery was evil. Unlike a lot of his contemporaries, he made no real effort to rectify the situation, and from all accounts, Jefferson was a hard slavedriver, and Jefferson's comments on the intellectual capacities of blacks are reprehensible. Jefferson was also something of a hypocrite when he addresses native Americans. On the one hand, Jefferson admired their societies; on the other hand, Jefferson was a supporter of policies that eventually resulted in the near genocide of native tribes. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile this Jefferson with the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and who came up with so many novel ideas..more than any other 18th Century democratic theorist on this side of the Atlantic. That said, the flaws in Jefferson's character do not change the fact that his radically democratic ideas still have merit.

Richard Matthews "Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson" is great interpretation on the radical nature of the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. It is amazing to me how the first two reviewers show their how their own ideology ie: "lockean liberalism" is engrafted onto Jefferson. Matthews points out how Jefferson went farther than his fellow revolutionaries in creating a radical democratic philosophy. Jefferson was a true believer in not only a philosophy of liberty, but the best way to preserve that liberty through societal revolution, the "earth belongs to the living" concept, and his view of "ward republicanism".

Jefferson saw the American Revolution as a fulfillment not only of Locke,and Sidney, but also saw it as a new begining for liberated man. This new begining would constantly renew the faith of the American Revolution through periodic change in laws and constitutions. Jefferson wanted to preserve liberty by extending democratic republicanism to virtually all white males through his granting of 50 acres of land to every man in Virginia in the belief that property ownership would secure the liberty fought for in the Revolution. Jefferson's proposals to abolish primogeniture and entail are radical attepts to equalize property relations by as he put it " to put all on an equal footing". This was to increase propery ownership by allowing estates to be given to more than just the eldest son.

Next is Jefferson's "ward republics". This proposal Jefferson saw as his most important. The ward would be the basic unit on democratic government. Similar to New England Townships, these wards would allow for participation in the affairs of society right down to it closest level. Public schools, militia duty, opposition to tyranny from other branches of government could all be begun here. He also included the "care of the poor" and "care of the roads". This proposal I consider as one of his most profound of democratic ideals.

Matthews books is fantastic it illuminates these ideals in the freat Mr Jefferson. A great buy.

This book is insulting to what Jefferson, and America stand for. It may be true that both wore great visionaries but, Jefferson's visions created the United States of America, while Ataturk's created the Republic of Turkey which does not allow religious freedom, which persecutes the Kurds, and has no concept of human rights. I think that this is a good book to read if you want to laugh, but if you want to learn about Ataturk and the republic of Turkey read a book that does not glorify them but gives the facts as they are, which this book does not.

Two Giants from two different eras and countries, July 30, 2001 Reviewer: Dr J.E.Botton from Lynchburg, VA United States
I have been looking forward to the publication of this interesting book by Prof.Garrett W.Sheldon. This concise work by a jeffersonian scholar (87 pages and an appendix outlining the American and Turkish Constitutions) had been inspired, according to the author, by an "uncanny resemblance between the ideals of republicanism, freedom of religion,liberty of conscience, public education,economic development and national independence found in Ataturk and Jefferson". Although I read it with great interest, I was somewhat dismayed by the the rather limited place given to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (only three references..) versus a man certainly very well known, particularly in the US, Thomas Jefferson (eighteen references). While the latter was a leader in the struggle for independence and foundation of a new State following a revolutionary war against England, Ataturk managed to establish a new Republic after a most difficult fight against the same England, as well as France, Italy, Russia, Greece,etc. during the First World War and, in the same time, getting the country rid of a much weakened Ottoman Sultanate and the Caliphate. In addition,and within only fifteen years, he managed a long lasting revolution in education by switching from an arabic to a latin alphabet, civil and political rights to men and women as well as minorities, complete separation of state and religion,etc. One can easily state that Ataturk had achieved the military successes of George Washington, the political savvy of John Adams along the qualities of a Renaissance man such as Jefferson, all of it within less than twentyfive years.
Nevertheless, this is an important work that, hopefully, may stimulate further evaluation of Ataturk, who, it may be useful to mention,had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the then greek prime minister Elefterios Venizelos, once his foe..
Not withstanding his deprecators acting on misinformation and personal hatred, he deserves to be placed among the greatest achievers of the 20th century..

I havent read this book yet but have breifly glanced over it and was impressed at how the 2 men can and were compared. With regards to the ignoramus who states that Turks don't give any rights to Kurds obviously has been living in a cave for the past 20 years or has no brain to speak of. I am Turkish and we Turks have given Kurds autonomy and the right to practice their own religion and culture. So anyone who says that we havent is not only hateful but ignorant and stupid as well and needs to get over his/her insecurities. Finally as for human rights against Kurds why dont you Mr. Reader from London tell that to the thousands of families of the Turkish Soldiers that lost their sons to the murderous PKK. I also dont think its appropriate for an ignoramus to critique a book about a legendary Turkish Leader. Go get some facts first before you speak ignorantly. I rest my case.

This book is a fascinating treatment of these three contemporaries, Burr, Hamilton & Jefferson, and their times. The author, I believe, successfully resurrects Burr from the usual dustbin historians like to put him in, while at the same time, showing many of the warts on the sometimes sterling-looking characters of Hamilton & Jefferson. With respect to these latter, the author does not bring out alot of new information ... the book is not too strong on Jefferson & a bit more on Hamilton. For the interested reader, there are numerous books on these two, so you needn't be too disappointed by the short shrift they get here. There is not alot of extant writing on Burr, however, so this book is a welcome addition to the literature. I disagree with some of the other reviewers about the treatment of Burr here -- the author shows that he was a man of his times, not that he was any saint. The author shows that his western expedition can be put into a context of expansionism, and that his 3 treason trials can be put in the context of both political rivalry (with Jefferson) and early political debate about slavery (Burr was a powerful anti-slavery advocate). The reason I gave the book only 3 stars was not because the book lacks originality or original information or interesting interpretations of already known facts. It has all that. I just felt it could have been written better ... with a less peculiar style that made it more readable. The book seems to have needed a better editor. Or perhaps Kennedy was "experimenting" with a different stylistic approach that didn't touch my fancy.

Roger Kennedy freely acknowledges at the beginning of this study that he has a point of view: Aaron Burr had a greater character and value to our nation than his reputation provides, while Hamilton and Jefferson had lesser character and value to our nation than their reputations. This book is a clear and concise defense of Aaron Burr, amply annotated, easily read, and quite entertaining. On a larger scale, the study gives reason to contemplate the formulation of reputation, especially historically. Had not Burr's daughter perished at sea with all his notes and letters, we might have a much greater opinion of Burr. Any fair reader of this book will come to a much deeper appreciation for Burr, the man, and the failures and shortcomings of Hamilton and Jefferson. I highly commend this book to your attention.

This is an enormously satisfying book, one that goes farther to rescue Aaron Burr from an undeserved historical contempt than any book since Gore Vidal's elegant fiction BURR. It is still a reflex to dismiss Thomas Jefferson1s first Vice-President as a sly scheming traitor who murdered the well-beloved Hamilton in a one-sided duel where Hamilton deliberately and romantically threw away his shot.. It is all thoughtless and unscrutinized balderdash, and Kennedy has a wonderful time proving it. There are surprising and provocative ideas on every page, and fascinating portraits of the brilliant neurotic Hamilton, and the almost perfect hypocrisy and subtle genius of Thomas Jefferson. Most of all, however, is the picture Kennedy draws of the witty, graceful gentleman who was Aaron Burr. Kennedy calls him America's first professional politician, but he was far more than that. To say that he was an abolitionist or a feminist does not really do him justice; he practiced what he preached, as Kennedy amply describes, fifty, even a hundred, even two hundred years ahead of his time. His generosity was outsized, his intellect without cant or self-delusion. A scion of one of the colonies first and oldest familes, he was an honest to God Revolutionary War hero not once but many times, (unlike The Sage of Monticello, to say the least). Like Jane Austen's Gentleman, Burr never apologized and never explained. This last was a grievous mistake, because his silence, to his contemporaries and to posterity, though elegant, ceded much ground to his enemies. There was much to admire in both Hamilton and Burr, and their contemporaries did so. But Hamilton carried molten envy of Burr for many years, years during which Burr apparently had not a clue that his friend-rival-ally-competitor was viciously and continuously slandering him, sharing opinions about Burr that went beyond the norm of political rivalry, making certain that Burr would not succeed in politics even if it meant that Jefferson whom he despised, would. But Kennedy suggests that Burr was more than Hamilton's opponent; he was the man who, in almost every respect, from military heroism to family background to manners to wit to success with the ladies, Hamilton yearned to be. And everything Hamilton hated in himself, argues Kennedy, he projected on to Burr. And then there is Jefferson. It has become open season on Jefferson these last few years, and high time too. Jefferson's undoubted brilliance as a literary stylist and his extraordinary ability as a practical and cunning politician have kept him at the top of the heap for decade after decade, but perhaps there is less here than meets the eye. Kennedy is wonderful in discerning plausible motives to Jefferson's unquenchable need to destroy Burr, a man who might very well have moved up abolition1s cause by 50 years. The various accounts of back room snakiness by The Sage, and the similarity between Jefferson1s Western machinations both before and after Burr's trial for treason for the same activities(which Jefferson pushed with a Shakespearean malignity) are priceless. There are greater tragedies in American's past, I suppose, than the consignment of Aaron Burr to the Most Reviled Villain Category, but it feels terribly unjust. And the easy unscrutinized way many of our teachers and historians wave airy hands of dismissal does rankle, to say nothing of the ongoing worship of The Sage, also airy, also unscrutinized. Roger Kennedy has created a thoughtful, witty, outraged response to all that.

Note to a previous reviewer: Virginius Dabney was a man. He was a longtime Virginia newspaper editor and died shortly after "The Jefferson Scandals" was published. He was unquestionably a sincere gentleman and passionate in his defense of Jefferson's honor and purity. He didn't live to see the definitive DNA evidence that confirms the Sally Hemings relationship. The consistent denials of the affair by Jefferson apologists, in my opinion, involve more than a tinge of racism. These same scholars have no problem affirming Jefferson's liaison with Maria Cosway, who was probably much less virtuous than Sally Hemings. It is entertaining, however, to read Dabney's book with Fawn Brodie's back-to-back. We eagerly await an up-to-date Jefferson biography that fully explores the new evidence.

The Jefferson/Sally Hemmings story has recently been accepted as fact. Before you accept Fawn Brodie's account (which re-fueld this 200 year old speculation) or the TV movie which recently told a highly inaccurate version, please read Dabney's smart little book. Dabney takes on Brodie point by point. I don't claim to know the truth of what, if anything, went on between Jefferson and Sally... But frankly, nobody else knows either. All these accounts are speculative at best. I am not a fan of Thomas Jefferson. Still, it seems wrong to trash him with a scandal two hundred years old that can't be proven one way or the other, inspite of DNA testing.

This book was mostly an okay one except that she was a bit repetitous and extremely harsh on Fawn Brodie's book Thomas Jefferson:an Intimate History. I have not read Brodie's book but from how Dabney puts it, it is rubbish, lacking in evidence, untruthful, and just plain nonsense. You almost got the sense that she didn't really like Brodie for more than just her book. Some of Dabney's sarcastic comments are quite funny, if not a bit harsh at times. But it is an intersting book if you like history and Thomas Jefferson.

Brodie's book captured attention when it was originally published, in 1974, because it was the first scholarly treatment of Jefferson to take seriously the claim that Sally Hemings was Jefferson's concubine. The book is far more than that, though, as it is a comprehensive biography of Jefferson. The book was also notable because of its emphasis on "psychohistory," at the time a young or nonexistent field. Reading it now, though, it seems remarkable neither for its emphasis on Jefferson's relationship with Hemings nor for its emphasis on his psyche.

Brodie's evidence for a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings is weak. It is based largely on speculation and imaginative interpretations of historical documents. The book does not use the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson as a basis for a critical look at Jefferson. On the whole, the book portrays Jefferson in a sympathetic light. Brodie is critical of him for not doing more to advance the cause of emancipation, but even in this respect she writes of him empathetically. He had made a serious effort earlier in his life and apparently chose not to pursue it more strongly later on practical grounds; he did not believe there was support for it. He believed slavery was wrong, though, and also was convinced that it would die a natural death as time went on.

The book portrays Jefferson as a romantic, as not only an idealist but also a person of great passion. He of course thought of himself as a supremely rational person and kept his emotions under tight control. But it was a constant struggle for him, as evidenced in his migraines, his head and heart letter to Maria Cosway, his extreme depression after the death of his wife, etc.

Brodie argues that Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana is not always sufficiently credited for how remarkable an achievement it was. Nations prior to that had expanded almost always through conquest rather than through an outright purchase. And she argues, convincingly, that had someone like Hamilton or Burr been President, we would have gone to war with France over possession of the territory. Brodie believes that Jefferson's greatest accomplishments as President were the purchase of Louisiana and the Lewis and Clark Expedition--both of which, of course, had to do with the expansion of the country.

The book stills holds its own as a good general introduction to Jefferson's life.

And I don't mean that in a bad way. This was the first biography I read about Jefferson and a dozen or so books later I still think it's one of the best. Brodie brings warmth, passion, and humanity to her subject. Yes, she gets important facts wrong, speculates wildly, and at times misses her target. I think the Jefferson she describes, though, is closer to the real man than the portraits which can be found in stodgier biographies. It's not academic history but it's not fiction either. Read it for her take on the spirit of the man. Btw, the DNA evidence which was presented in the journal "Nature" two years ago disproved Brodie's speculations about an affair between Jefferson and Hemmings in Paris (which was was also turned into a popular movie). Two lines of descent were tested. The one linked to Paris didn't pan out. If Jefferson and Hemmings had children together this relationship probably started later.

I have read this book several times over the past ten years, and referred back to it after reading biographies by others who often slander Ms. Brodies work. It is an excellent portrait of what Mr. Jefferson may have been like, both flattering and not so flattering, but always fascinating. I always enjoy it because it captures so many people around Jefferson so well, such as his mentor George Wythe and his father-in-law John Wayles, both who took a slave concubine after becoming widowers. This book is about relationships and their social times.

Ms. Brodie weighed in on Jefferson being the father of Sally Hemming's children when it was not popular to taint him with human emotions. She would be proved right on at least one of Ms. Hemming's children, Eston, being fathered by the same Y chromosome that Jefferson's own father carried. Unfortunately Ms. Brodie did not live to see the scientific vindication of her research and insight. The Jefferson family has long claimed that Sally's children who favored Jefferson were fathered by nephew Samuel Carr, Jefferson's sister Martha's son. But Sam couldn't pass that Jefferson Y chromosome!

This book is a must read for everyone who is interested in understanding the Sage of Montecello. It makes the world of Jefferson come to life and allow the reader to walk in the times of his day, his friendships, enemies, depressions, joys, trials, and triumphs. Brodie takes the time to richly describe the other individuals in Jefferson's life, there by providing to the reader great scholarship that is immensely personal and interesting.

No single book can capture Jefferson's philosophy and accomplishments; but this book is a must read for a study of the personality of one of the most complex and interesting men in the history of our civilization.

It is the most fun book on Jefferson and his times that one can read.

Alan Dershowitz has really outdone himself this time. Although it is true that the "Nature's God" of the Declaration of Independence is not the god of the Bible, and that Jefferson was a Deist,is true overall this book is awful. The most telling feature of this book is Dershowitz's politically correct deconstructionist attack on the concept of natural rights and his assault on Thomas Jefferson.

Dershowitz ridicules the concept of people being born with inherent rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". he believes rights are "man made" and have no sacred meaning. He trashed the Declaration's author in the typical modern bolshevik manner by applying the standards of the 21st century to the 18th. He clearly sets out to demolish natural law and the entire tradition of Anglo American libertarian ideals of which Thomas Jefferson was a subscriber. It is amazing that a man like Dershowitz can be so brazen and hypocritical in his evaluation of Jefferson. Dershowitz, critical of Jefferson on slavery, supports "torturing" terrorist suspects, and is a rabid supporter of Isreali despotism in the Middle East.

This book show how degenerate the entire history profession has become and how any evaluation of our Founding should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Overall a horrible piece of nonsense.

This could have been a great book, as one certainly expects from Alan Dershowitz; unfortunately, it reflects the American belief that democracy was invented here rather than realizing this country is part of a long evolution of freedom.

Dershowitz, a renowned Harvard law school professor and frequent commentator on individual rights, wastes most of his effort refuting, rejecting and attacking the Religious Right rather than understanding such people are the bell weather of American freedom. He doesn't seem to understand the impact of the Religious Right (or the Radical Left) is in inverse proportion to the level of freedom in this or any other country -- as the absolute rule of the Taliban religious extremists certainly proved in Afghanistan.

However, zealots exist in very society. Perhaps they counterbalance each other; if they become part of the Establishment, they crimp the freedom of everyone. Dershowitz uses the massive artillery of his intellect to attack the limited acumen of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes -- as if Justice Louis Brandeis would have been profitably employed attacking Father Coughlin.

Dershowitz doesn't seem to understand that freedom and individual rights have constantly evolved in Anglo society for more than a thousand years. Democracy wasn't invented when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, cribbing many ideas from the English Bill of Rights written in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Freedom and democracy is a constant and uneven struggle, not an accident or gift .

The Declaration of Independence was a quantum leap forward in defining some basic ideas of freedom, but it was not the end of the process. Before 1776, American colonists had legitimate complaints; the Thirteen Colonies were run by the English Colonial office, part of the executive branch of government. Colonists were ruled by King George III and his bureaucrats, instead of their own elected officials.

In response, the colonists said, in effect, "We're Englishmen. We have an absolute right to be represented in Parliament." If their rights were denied, according to the Bill of Rights of 1688, they had a right to overthrow the government. As Englishmen brought up with the Bill of Rights, the Declaration asserted their most basic rights.

Out of that came The United States of America, with a Constitution written to clearly avoid problems which led to the Declaration of Independence. Dershowitz recognizes the idea that freedom evolves in a society; his weakness is thinking there was an immaculate birth of freedom in America in 1776. He doesn't understand the Declaration of Independence was a bold and perfectly legitimate assertion of the basic rights of every free Englishman -- and from this a new form of "Democracy in America" (to use Alexis de Tocqueville's phrase) evolved.

There are two elements in society: a view that people are basically evil and must be restrained for their own good, as represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton and the current Bush administration. The countering view says people are basically good and must be free of as many social restraints as feasible, as represented by Rousseau, Voltaire and Thomas Paine and the usual Democratic politicians.

Either view, if carried to the extremes of a Father Coughlin or Alan Keyes, or the excesses of the French or Russian revolutions, destroys our freedoms.

Yet, history shows an uneven but very real expansion of human freedom. When freedom is limited, the response in 1775 was the shot heard round the world; today, the response is often footsteps that cross half the world to find freedom.

This screed by Dershowitz is a rant against the Religious Right. His recognized talents would have been much better used to examine and explain the English origins of the Declaration, rather than bashing baleful bigots who are mostly irrelevant in a free society.

All in all, perhaps a useful book to demolish straw devils; but, it could have been immeasurably better with a different approach.

I second the motion in the review of Aug. 19, 2003, "A good idea -- but hardley original", that Alan Dershowitz could have put his incredible talents to even further use by laying out the philosophy of history behind America's founding, and examining and explaining how America did not just happen, but is the result of a long evolution of blood, sweat, tears, and suffering for freedom. But, that is not to take away from the fact that "America Declares Independence" is very well written, very interesting, and very much a 5 star book. It comes to you highly recommended by this reader. And, if you value my recommendation, I would also recommend that, after you read Mr. Dershowitz's book, read Norman Thomas Remick's book, "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From The Readings And Writings Of Thomas Jefferson", a book that does explain how America did not just happen, but was the result of a long evolution of blood, sweat, tears, and suffering for freedom.

The PC, anti-Jefferson crowd jumped to conclusions upon the completion of the DNA study in 1998 and again with the shameful press conference at Monticello in 2000, obviously attempting to further an agenda rather than to search for the truth. This book exposes them.

You will learn much about the process, the quality of the scholarship, and the special interests that lead to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation's pronouncement that Jefferson was likely Eston Heming's father. They apparently found enough "evidence" to support the conclusion they hoped to reach a priori, that Jefferson fathered Hemings's children, while ignoring more persuasive exculpatory evidence.

As for Reed's motives,... view the Coolidge letter for yourself. You decide whether Reed's error was innocuous.

It is this reader's opinion that the "investigation" that gave rise to the original report will accompany fantasy Vietnam war veterans among the discredited pretenders whose works merit pity. This work provides a palliative to the shoddy "scholarship" that resulted in the original report.

Though the quality of the essays is uneven, to anyone interested in the truth of this matter I commend this book.

The anguished moans you hear are coming from politically correct academia as they witness the destruction by this book of their carefully burnished canard that Thomas Jefferson had one or more children by his black slave, Sally Hemings. The diligent research evident in the essays in THE JEFFERSON - HEMINGS MYTH is based upon careful analyses of historical, genealogical and scientific data by Jefferson experts. It is welcome new scholarship resulting in an eye-opening contrast to the recent spate of anti-Jefferson books that use flimsy or created "evidence" to draw one-sided conclusions only the flakiest conspiracy theorist could believe.

As the book shows vividly, the real story behind the creation and ongoing enhancement of the Jefferson - Hemings myth is absolutely fascinating. James T. Callender, who in 1802 created this hoax, was a paid character assassin who hated Jefferson and wanted to embarrass him by slandering him with miscegenation, the usual stock-in-trade charge Callender used against his enemies. More than seventy years later one of Sally Hemings' sons, Madison, was profiled in an Abolitionist newspaper. In that account, purportedly in Madison's own words, Madison claimed Jefferson was his father and that Sally's mother Betty Hemings was the concubine of John Wayles, Jefferson's father-in-law. This rambling profile has long been taken as fact by unwary (or uncaring) historians, despite the fact, as is amply shown through new historical and genealogical research, virtually all of what Madison said is extremely suspect as to accuracy and intent. Nonetheless, the words of Callender and Madison Hemings serve as a basis for modern books by Fawn Brodie and Annette Gordon-Reed, as well as several abominable movies.

The much ballyhooed DNA evidence was manipulated by the media. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was proved not to be the father of Tom Woodson, despite the Woodson family's allegedly long oral tradition to the contrary. Moreover, as is exceedingly well described, it is far more likely than Randolph Jefferson, Thomas' much younger and slightly retarded brother, was the father of Eston Hemings, the only Hemings descendant whose DNA was tested. Strangely, the Hemings family claimed not to know the burial site of a son of Madison Hemings (Eston's brother), despite the fact he was a Union Army veteran. When one of the authors of this book located the grave, the Hemings family refused permission for DNA testing. Were they afraid tests would reveal no Jefferson DNA, which in addition to damaging their claim would also show that Sally had multiple sexual partners?

Nonetheless, release of the DNA findings, such as they were, allowed Jefferson's enemies to attack his reputation with a vengeance. Foremost among them was the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the tax exempt operator of Monticello. They went so far as to say that Jefferson may have fathered all of Sally's children, and a compelling chapter in this book is an insider's view of the politically correct shenanigans that took place within the TJF as this charge was bullied into existence.

Publication of THE JEFFERSON - HEMINGS MYTH will no doubt raise the ire of Jefferson's enemies. Indeed, one can expect them to come out of the woodwork soon to attack the authors and their conclusions as "Hemings-deniers" or some such thing. And that is exactly why it deserves to be read by everyone who - like Jefferson himself - values the truth.

This book is long overdue, and a powerful piece of work. It exposes the lies,agendas,and duplicity involved in the interpretation of the DNA "evidence" obtained two years ago.From the first to the last chapter this book destroys the report of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which concluded that Jefferson was the father of all of the children of Sally Hemings. Particularly good is chapter five by White McKenzie Wallenborn,MD,which shows how the TJMF prevented his dissenting committee report from being published with the majority report. He exposes the political agenda of the TJMF, and their lack of honesty.Chapter seven by Robert Eyler Coates,Sr is a brilliant refutation of the supposed "evidence" using common sense and logical alternative possibilities for Eston Heming's father. I believe the Conclusion by Bahman Batmanghellidj is truly the most inspiring. He passionatly describes the principles and character of Thomas Jefferson,in both his public and private life. He refutes the agenda that is attempting to destroy one of the greatest champions of human liberty.If you believe in truth and liberty,buy this book. If you do not want to see the name of a great human being such as Thomas Jefferson maliciously destroyed,buy this book. Above all if you value truth and logic and wish for them to triumph, buy this book.