This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Writers often contrast Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. They depict Jefferson, despite his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his vigorous defense of the young republic’s rights against British and French aggression and the attacks of the Tripoli pirates as president, as a narrow-minded defender of states’ rights and Virginia’s interests. On the other hand, Hamilton emerges as a staunch nationalist concerned for the well-being of the whole country. In recent years, some historians have claimed that Jefferson was particularly hostile to the New England states, whose Federalist electorate he regarded as enemies of his Democratic-Republican Party. Allegedly, he even wished to
destroy
them during the War of 1812 for refusing to support the war effort. The first full-scale study of Jefferson’s attitudes toward New England, from his first visit to Boston in 1784 to the last years of his life, when he recruited Massachusetts scholars to teach at his University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and New England reveals that Jefferson was a consistent nationalist and friend of the region. Tracing Jefferson’s lifelong affair with New England, a
love-hate relationship
in which love definitely won out, historian Arthur Scherr shows that Jefferson admired New Englanders’ Revolutionary patriotism, especially that of his friend John Adams. He considered their direct democracy and town-meeting form of local government, translated into
ward republics,
as a model for the rest of the Union. During his lifetime, Jefferson stood for national ideals and national goals rather than divisive sectionalism. Indeed, his nationalist point of view is most evident where some historians claim to see it least: in his opinion of the people and politics of New England.
