Peter J. Hatch

I really enjoyed this coffee table style book. I'm not a gardener, but I wanted to read this book for it's historical tidbits. I learned that Jefferson really loved his veggies and introduced a lot of new legumes to the States. He was one of the first gentleman farmers to start growing vegetables based on the seasons and he americanized gardening, and got away from the english style of planting.
This book is truly a treasure and so is it's author Peter Hatch. Hatch has devoted many decades to researching and restoring Monticello's gardens to their colonial glory days and this book is a terrific record of this labor of love.

… (altro)

A good guidebook, doing what such a book should do: (1) be an introduction to the subject, not too scholarly, not too dumb; (2) have good pictures, maps, and diagrams; (3) explain what you're seeing; and (4) keeping you entertained and intrigued. It is a good overview of Jefferson's career and life, especially focused on his home life at Monticello. The focus on Monticello's building, gardens, plantation, and home life are all covered quite well. The slaves are discussed too perfectly, describing their life without excoriating Jefferson as a slaveowner, but also not portraying slavery as some ante-industrial idyll. All well-balanced, interesting, and well-portrayed.

However, only the late historian Merrill D. Peterson falls into the political mire by trying to tell us what Jefferson means today. Listen to these progressive-liberal gems (p. 124): "Some of Jefferson's political and constitutional doctrines fall short of the standards of modern democracy and would, if firmly adhered to, defeat the liberal ends he had in view." Well, this assumes his views are liberal in the modern sense; that he thinks government should achieve these ends; and that democracy is a good thing. Indeed, liberal for Jefferson meant respecting freedom of the individual, not progressively democratic-socialist; he believed people themselves, not the government, should enlighten themselves; and that we had republic precisely because democracies could devolve into mobcentric tyrannies. Peterson continues: "His advocacy of the strict construction of the written constitution, for instance, has often been wielded as a weapon by conservative interests to hold back the exercise of governmental power for benign purposes." Wow! First, conservatives wield the constitution as a weapon? No. A shield, maybe. Unnecessary political swipe. And "the exercise of governmental power for benign purposes" assumes that, ipso facto, the government always has your best interests at heart. Tell that to the Soviets. Government power is almost never benign, I say, and I think Jefferson generally thought so too. He hated anybody telling him what to do, whether it be a priest or George III. I doubt Jefferson would have been all for the New Deal because it proposed to help people (even though it really didn't). Or Jefferson would be for LBJ's Great Society welfare programs because LBJ said it was a good thing (even though it destroys many of the people it hopes to help). I think Jefferson would have hated such programs because if the government is so big and can give you such "benign" things, it can take away your liberties. Jefferson was more concerned with personal liberties than, as Peterson says, "novel uses of power to advance the public good." Poppycock.

As I hate this soupy-sentimentalism that tries to make Jefferson an FDR/LBJ man, minus one star for Merrill Peterson's off-topic BS. Four stars for the good guidebook outside that.… (altro)