Alan Pell CrawfordRecensioni

Reading this made me feel like I was reading some current scandal directly from the tabloids, although in reality it happened during the 1790’s. In short, Nancy’s sister Judith married Richard Randolph. Nancy was accused of having an affair with Richard and killing the resulting child (although whether she was pregnant or not was never proven and the body of the child was never found). Patrick Henry and John Marshall defended Nancy in the ensuing court case, where Nancy was acquitted. But that didn’t end the gossip and ugly rumors, and after Richard died, and his brother Jack became convinced Nancy had murdered him. In an attempt to seek revenge, he leveled charges that Nancy had become a prostitute and decided Nancy’s husband, Gouverneur Morris, needed to be warned that Nancy might also murder him. Morris didn’t believe any of it, but some of his relatives (who were expecting to inherit a fortune before he married Nancy, who was still of childbearing age) did and tried to make Nancy’s life miserable. The whole scenario started in 1793 but all of it sounds like something that could happen now.
It was interesting to read this after [b:Jefferson's Daughters: Three Sisters, White and Black, in a Young America|34859714|Jefferson's Daughters Three Sisters, White and Black, in a Young America|Catherine Kerrison|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1492222278s/34859714.jpg|56101496]because Nancy and Jefferson’s daughter Martha were cousins and became friends. Martha ended up marrying Nancy’s brother in 1790, and their marriage was discussed in detail in “Jefferson’s Daughters.”

Thomas Jefferson comes across very poorly based on this quote, “Childbirth, Thomas Jefferson liked to tell his daughters, “was no more than a jog of the elbow,” but women who had to endure it knew better. Many never survived it, and all women feared it.” (Page 64).

The book wasn’t limited to the scandal but also included a broader analysis of the politics of the time, which showed that the ideas behind the Civil War were percolating as early as the Adams administration:

“Relations between President Adams and Vice President Jefferson had broken down completely. Although Nancy’s cousin Jack had won election that spring as a Democratic-Republican [you read that party name right], the Federalists had triumphed in other races, picking up four of nineteen seats in the Congress. John Marshall, whom Washington and Henry had endorsed, was elected to Congress as a Federalist. These setbacks for the “cause of republicanism” surprised Jefferson, who had begun to speak of the day when the southern states might need to “sever ourselves” from the federal union.” (Pages 139-140).

Similarly, during the War of 1812, Jack came to believe that its outcome would ultimately be irrelevant to the fate of Virginia, and that increasing industrialization would ultimately lead to the downfall of the agricultural southern states.

Gouverneur Morris agreed with him, although he approached the issue from the perspective of the industrializing northern states:

“The country had yet to confront the “awful secret” that “commerce and domestic slavery are mortal foes; and, bound together, one must destroy the other.” He did not “blame Southern gentlemen from striving to put down commerce, because commerce, if it survives, will, I think, put them down, supposing always the Union to endure.” But the “only means under God to preserve American freedom,” he concluded, was in a “union of the Northern states,” which would require that they cut themselves free of the slaveholding states, including his wife’s beloved Virginia. This would constitute a bloody rupture that Morris opposed.” (Pages 222-223).

To me, Gouverneur Morris’s take on the situation was especially interesting, because he actually wrote the US Constitution, something I did not know until I read this book.

Very interesting and I learned a lot about the social mores and politics of the time.

Reading this made me feel like I was reading some current scandal directly from the tabloids, although in reality it happened during the 1790’s. In short, Nancy’s sister Judith married Richard Randolph. Nancy was accused of having an affair with Richard and killing the resulting child (although whether she was pregnant or not was never proven and the body of the child was never found). Patrick Henry and John Marshall defended Nancy in the ensuing court case, where Nancy was acquitted. But that didn’t end the gossip and ugly rumors, and after Richard died, and his brother Jack became convinced Nancy had murdered him. In an attempt to seek revenge, he leveled charges that Nancy had become a prostitute and decided Nancy’s husband, Gouverneur Morris, needed to be warned that Nancy might also murder him. Morris didn’t believe any of it, but some of his relatives (who were expecting to inherit a fortune before he married Nancy, who was still of childbearing age) did and tried to make Nancy’s life miserable. The whole scenario started in 1793 but all of it sounds like something that could happen now.
It was interesting to read this after [b:Jefferson's Daughters: Three Sisters, White and Black, in a Young America|34859714|Jefferson's Daughters Three Sisters, White and Black, in a Young America|Catherine Kerrison|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1492222278s/34859714.jpg|56101496]because Nancy and Jefferson’s daughter Martha were cousins and became friends. Martha ended up marrying Nancy’s brother in 1790, and their marriage was discussed in detail in “Jefferson’s Daughters.”

Thomas Jefferson comes across very poorly based on this quote, “Childbirth, Thomas Jefferson liked to tell his daughters, “was no more than a jog of the elbow,” but women who had to endure it knew better. Many never survived it, and all women feared it.” (Page 64).

The book wasn’t limited to the scandal but also included a broader analysis of the politics of the time, which showed that the ideas behind the Civil War were percolating as early as the Adams administration:

“Relations between President Adams and Vice President Jefferson had broken down completely. Although Nancy’s cousin Jack had won election that spring as a Democratic-Republican [you read that party name right], the Federalists had triumphed in other races, picking up four of nineteen seats in the Congress. John Marshall, whom Washington and Henry had endorsed, was elected to Congress as a Federalist. These setbacks for the “cause of republicanism” surprised Jefferson, who had begun to speak of the day when the southern states might need to “sever ourselves” from the federal union.” (Pages 139-140).

Similarly, during the War of 1812, Jack came to believe that its outcome would ultimately be irrelevant to the fate of Virginia, and that increasing industrialization would ultimately lead to the downfall of the agricultural southern states.

Gouverneur Morris agreed with him, although he approached the issue from the perspective of the industrializing northern states:

“The country had yet to confront the “awful secret” that “commerce and domestic slavery are mortal foes; and, bound together, one must destroy the other.” He did not “blame Southern gentlemen from striving to put down commerce, because commerce, if it survives, will, I think, put them down, supposing always the Union to endure.” But the “only means under God to preserve American freedom,” he concluded, was in a “union of the Northern states,” which would require that they cut themselves free of the slaveholding states, including his wife’s beloved Virginia. This would constitute a bloody rupture that Morris opposed.” (Pages 222-223).

To me, Gouverneur Morris’s take on the situation was especially interesting, because he actually wrote the US Constitution, something I did not know until I read this book.

Very interesting and I learned a lot about the social mores and politics of the time.

As I was reading America's First Daughter by Stephanie Dray and Laura Kamoie, I did research on the internet to enhance my reading. While doing that, I came across this book about an incident that is mentioned in the novel. Unwise Passions is a nonfiction book about Nancy Randolph, the sister-in-law of Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She was accused of a heinous crime (mentioned in the novel), but even after being found innocent, suffered greatly from the accusation. It was interesting to see that scandal isn't new to our history! Nancy's story is interesting, interwoven with names of people recognized from American history.

A decent narrative account of Jefferson's post-presidential years. There must be background, though, so the first third of the book cover's his life up to 1809. Crawford handles the Hemings stuff perfectly. He holds that Jefferson probably was the father of Sally's children, but he notes that the DNA only proves A Jefferson fathered Sally's last son. (I think he probably fathered them all). He discusses Jefferson's less than perfect family, his horrid debts, and his intellectual life in the years 1809-1826 fairly well. I learned some new things and found it interesting.½

How Not to Get Rich is a financial biography of Twain; his writings are mentioned only in relation to his finances. A great nephew claimed that Twain "tried to be an Edison as well as a Shakespeare, and a few other great men besides" p. X. I was amazed to read how often and far Twain kept getting into debt, sometimes for an invention which did not pan out and sometimes for poor publishing decisions. (He was involved with publishing other people's books.) He went through both his and his wife's fortunes. He finally got a robber baron who liked his writing to manage his business affairs.
Much of his income in his later years came from giving lectures.

I enjoyed the first part of the book which discussed his experimenting in different fields prior to discovering himself as a writer. Mr. Crawford included a lot of humor there. Reading about his later financial difficulties and his stubbornness at not giving up when he was losing great sums of money on a particular venture got rather tiring in my opinion.

So this was mistakenly put in the historical fiction section at my local used book store. And then the back cover made it sound really sensationalist when it wasn't. But it was still a really good read about that period in US history.

Interesting. Fascinating person.

I'm a big fan of historical non-fiction but, I have to admit that I picked up this book with some hesitation. I wasn't so sure that I would enjoy the American historical aspects this book offered because my tastes generally run to the British Victorian era. Imagine my surprise when I found it to be quite a lovely book (in spite of the story) that turned out to be immensely readable and very interesting.

Initially Nancy Randolph seems a bit naive and a little short on the ability to stand up for herself after being involved in a terrible scandal, but by the end she proves to be the most stable and competent member of her extended family. The protaganist, Jack Randolph, deals with the demons of alcohol and opium abuse (and perhaps some sort of mental illness) by lashing out at the only person who can't/won't fight back. Eventually she does begin her retribution and, while it fails to completely destroy Jack, it does provide some long-awaited satisfaction.

The story includes Thomas Jefferson, his daughter, Patsy, and other recognizable historical people which makes this tale even more interesting. I highly recommend this book for anyone who reads historical non-fiction.

Very well written. The author provides a whirlwind tour of Jefferson's early life before the book settles on his latter life after leaving the President's House. Struck by the fact that Jefferson spent his whole life in debt. His land was the only thing between him and the status of a pauper.

Interesting, but very dry, written almost like a documentary about the lives of the Randolphs of Virginia during colonial times. Nancy Randolph, accused of incest, murder - acquited but hounded by a brother-in-law (John Randolph, flamboyent member of Congress). Nancy Randolph was a cousin and sister-in-law to Patsy Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's daughter. Lots of political history of that era.

This book got off to a slow start, but was eventually entertaining and informative. Despite the title, the book seemed to focus more on family conflict than societal scandal.½

Will post my review on Amazon.com.