Thoughts From the Lawn

The Changing Face of War

Lifetime Learning — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:19:52 +0000

University of Virginia at Oxford University August 9 – 15, 2013
U.Va.’s Lifetime Learning Program offers you the opportunity to spend a week at Oxford University. Enjoy this educational experience with two renowned Revolutionary War scholars, Andrew O’Shaughnessy and Jeremy Black. Learn more about U.Va. at Oxford.

COMMENTARY

Andrew O’Shaughnessy
(Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello)

This is a commentary on the following book entry:
“American War of Independence (1775-1783)”
by Stephen Conway
(UCL)

Stephen Conway is a leading British historian of the American Revolution. He is an appropriate successor to his former supervisor I.R. Christie at London University. His major work on the subject is entitled The British Isles and the War of American Independence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) which assesses the impact of the Revolutionary War on Britain. He is also the author of a much to be recommended history of the war, The War of American Independence 1775-1783 (London: Edward Arnold, 1995). In addition, he has written numerous articles which particularly relate to the British army in America. Indeed, he is unusual in his focus upon the war and the military dimension but in the social and political context. John Shy has long lamented the failure of modern scholars to integrate the war into accounts of the American Revolution.

It is possibly because of his broader knowledge of the British background to the Revolutionary War that Professor Conway gives such emphasis to the international aspects of the Revolutionary War. In the article under review, he also stresses the importance of this dimension in the causation of the American Revolution. He acknowledges that the origins of the war were multiple and long term, but he gives particular prominence to the role of the Seven Years’ War in Europe (1756-63) which also encompassed the French and Indian War in America. It increased the national debt in Britain and crucially influenced the decision of Britain to tax America. Conway also reminds us that the Seven Years’ War left Britain isolated in Europe. He makes a rare observation that the war was responsible for a realignment of Dutch sympathies during the Revolutionary War. The consequence was that Britain was more isolated during the Revolutionary War than at virtually any time in its history other than 1940 which is a theme of Brendan Simms’ recent book, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire 1714-1783 (London: Allen Lane, 2007), which is listed in the further reading suggested by Professor Conway.

It is worth adding that this isolation was a factor in the war even before 1778, when it became a global struggle with France, and later Spain (1779) and the Dutch Republic (1780). Along with the constraints of the budget, it was a factor in the failure of Britain to fully mobilize its military forces in 1775. It wanted to ally French concerns that the war in America was merely a prelude to a British attack on the French West Indies. Before its formal entry into the war in 1778, France made direct loans to the revolutionary cause, it exported military supplies and protected privateers in its ports. France and Spain were able to concentrate on a naval build up in the absence of fighting a British ally in Europe. For virtually the only time in the eighteenth century, the Royal Navy lacked parity with the combined fleets of France and Spain. Even before 1778, the British navy was too small to give logistical support to the army, suppress privateers, provide convoys for all trade routes and blockade America. After 1778, it was forced to make invidious choices between America and the protection of Britain which was threatened with invasion for the first time since the Spanish Armada (1588) every summer between 1778 and 1781.

The chief architect of the war in Britain was Lord George Germain who was the Secretary of the American Department in 1775-1782. He is the most popular target of blame for British defeat. Like Piers Mackesy, Conway argues that Germain should not be underestimated. He succeeded in sending the largest force hitherto sent overseas to America and Canada in 1776. It required virtually the entire shipping availability of the British Isles. He sent more troops than requested by either of his generals, Sir Guy Carleton in Canada or Sir William Howe in America. He recognized the need for a quick victory and a knockout blow to the Continental Army. It is the strategy that arm chair generals have retrospectively suggested might have resulted in a British victory in America. His generals attempted to appease opinion in America which Germain blamed for the failure of the campaigns in 1776. Germain held Carleton rather than Howe chiefly responsible for the setbacks at Trenton and Princeton owing to his not proceeding with the advance from Canada which Germain thought would have deflected and divided the Continental Army.

Conway concedes that Germain exaggerated the strength of American loyalism. This was indeed a fundamental weakness in British strategic assumptions in America. It was based seemingly on good sources including the testimonies of American loyalist exiles like Joseph Galloway. Although much is made of the confusion of orders in 1777, assumptions about loyalist support were basic to the British defeat at Saratoga. Burgoyne expected little opposition between Fort Ticonderoga and Albany. Howe was similarly expecting little opposition in Pennsylvania. Germain thought it possible for both generals to achieve their objects before the proposed junction of their armies. He was more concerned about Howe needing to be reinforced and helped by Burgoyne. After 1778, Germain persisted in the belief that the majority of the population in America supported Britain. His view was challenged by the opposition parties in Britain and the testimonies of numerous officers in Parliament during the hearings that followed Saratoga. By 1781, Germain was placing his hopes in the more realistic idea that the revolution would simply implode owing to bankruptcy and dissent. Along with George III, Germain thought that there was little choice but to persist in the war because the loss of America would leave Britain a secondary power in Europe. It was too economically important to lose.

Conway has elsewhere developed other secondary arguments explaining the British defeat.1 He has that the very presence of the British army alienated potential support in America. He has described how it was increasingly perceived as a foreign force and that both sides began to regard each other as foreign. He has similarly discussed the problems of plunder by the British army in America. The British generals ultimately understood that it was a war of opinion. Sir Henry Clinton, the British Commander-in-Chief between 1778 and 1782, actually wrote of the need “to gain the hearts and subdue the minds of America.” John Shy regarded the Revolutionary War as Britain’s Vietnam. He argued that enforced militia service formed the political education of many Americans. It was an important means of persuasion.

Britain had an army of conquest rather than an army of occupation. It took every major American city at some stage during the Revolutionary War. It failed when it attempted to take territory when its army was necessarily spread out. They did not have enough troops to overcome the insurgencies led by leaders who are now folk heroes like Marion Fox and Thomas Sumter. The revolution was popular. Even be fore the outbreak of fighting at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, Britain had effectively lost political control of the elected assemblies, local government, militia and courts. With the withdrawal from Boston in March 1776, the British army was driven out of the thirteen mainland states of America. It was thereafter a war of reconquest whose chances of success were made less likely by a political system that mitigated against a united war effort, without a clear concept of collective cabinet responsibility, and a primitive administrative system which was overwhelmed by the logistical demands of the war in which most of the supplies for the army had to be sent from Britain because of the failure to gain territory in America.

After the British defeat at Yorktown (1781), George III and Lord George Germain wanted to continue the war which was militarily feasible. The British army still held New York, Charleston, Montreal, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Savannah, St. Augustine, Jamaica, Antigua, Barbados and the Leeward Islands. As Conway suggests, the war ultimately fell victim to the opposition in Parliament. Lord North resigned rather than suffer a major defeat in the House of Commons. As I.R. Christie demonstrated in his book on the end of the government of Lord North, the government had numerous defections among independent members and even office holders when it became clear that Lord North was unable to give an unequivocal commitment to withdrawal from America.

1 To Sudue America: British Army Officers and the Conduct of the Revolutionary War,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 48, no. 3 (July, 1986), pp. 381-408; ibid., “’The Great Mischief Complain’d of” Reflections of the Misconduct of British Soldiers in the Re volutionary

War,” The William and Mary Quarterly 47, no. 3 (July, 1990), pp. 370-391; ibid.,

“From Fellow-Nationals to Foreigners: British Perceptions of the Americans, Circa 1739-1783,”

The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 61, no. 1 (January, 2002), pp. 65-101.

A Thankful Thomas Jefferson

alw4k — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:03:49 +0000

By John Ragosta
Faculty Director, Summer Jefferson Symposium

I just received a very nice electronic wish for a happy and healthy Thanksgiving season from UVA’s Lifetime Learning. I always appreciate such cards, electronic and otherwise, bringing my thoughts back, if only briefly, to people, places, and times that are very fond memories.

I was also asked today what Thomas Jefferson might think of the government’s proclamation of a day for national thanksgiving. After all, as president, Jefferson adamantly opposed proposals that he issue a proclamation for a day of fasting and prayer during a time of national crisis or any other proposal for an official call to prayer. Writing one correspondent, Jefferson not only insisted that such a presidential proclamation would violate the First Amendment but made it clear that it would also be a bad idea: “I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; . . . Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. . . . Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, . . .”

Jefferson could quickly deflate proposals that he found ill-founded.

That, though, leaves us with several questions: First, when governor, Jefferson did issue a proclamation for a day of prayer and thanksgiving in 1779. True, but in that case Jefferson was simply implementing the policy of the General Assembly as it reacted to a request from the Continental Congress. Similarly, he referred to a 1774 call for a day of fasting and prayer to support Boston as something that he and some political allies “cooked up,” hardly a robust endorsement. In any case, Jefferson’s views on religion and government evolved considerably before he took the emphatic position as president that any such government proclamation was an unacceptable violation of the First Amendment.

Second, in both of his inaugural addresses, Jefferson specifically prays for divine guidance and asks that his fellow citizens pray for his success as president. “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are,” he wrote in his second inaugural, “to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications.” Yet, Jefferson obviously saw this as different, an acceptable act for the president whereas an official presidential proclamation of thanksgiving and prayer was not. The difference lay in his role: His inaugural address was a personal statement, not an official declaration to which anyone must, or was even asked to, conform. James Madison made this point expressly, observing that government officials, “[i]n their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, . . . might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever; in the same manner as any other individuals might do.” Madison cautioned, though, that “then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.” Jefferson would agree. A separation of church and state was never intended to prevent officials, in their private capacity, from behaving religiously, including public prayer or worship. Jefferson was strongly committed, though, to making sure that this religiosity did not invade their official functions.

Still, that leaves us with the uncomfortable question of whether Jefferson would have opposed the official Thanksgiving holiday – the turkey industry and football promoters are waiting on pins and needles. Of course, in the modern era, the holiday has lost much of its religious connotation – commercialism and consumption (Black Friday and over-indulgence) being the real object of devotion. Still, there is a lingering religiosity to the event. In fact, President Obama’s Thanksgiving speech in 2011 was heavily criticized in some circles for not being adequately focused on God. Jefferson (and Madison) would have provided another caution: President Obama should be clear that he is making a personal statement of thanksgiving, not a public call to worship. I suspect that Obama understands that; whether his critics understand the centrality of separation of church and state to American religious freedom is another matter. (I take up all of these issues in considerable more detail in Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s Legacy, America’s Creed (forthcoming UVA Press, 2013).)

Still, what about the holiday itself? Perhaps Jefferson would distinguish between a call to fasting and prayer (which he emphatically rejected in his official capacity) and a general call to thanksgiving – giving thanks to whomever or whatever you believe appropriate for the many blessings that we receive individually and as a nation. I certainly hope so.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Our Energy Future: Developing Domestic Resources

Lifetime Learning — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:35:03 +0000

Our Energy Future: Developing Domestic Resources

By 2050, the global energy demand is predicted to double or triple current levels. Access to new domestic energy resources that are clean and inexpensive is perhaps the country’s (and the world’s) most pressing need. Join Professors Brent Gunnoe of the Chemistry Department at UVA and Harry Gray of the California Institute of Technology for a discussion of approaches to increasing utilization of natural gas and solar energy, including scientific challenges and research efforts to address them.

Global proven natural gas reserves are double those of petroleum. Recent estimates of domestic natural gas reserves suggest ~650 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of recoverable shale gas, which is sufficient energy to remove dependence on imported petroleum for many years. Access to similar resources in remote locations, such as Alaska’s North Slope or off shore, would result in a substantial increase in useable domestic natural gas. What issues prevent scaled use of natural gas? Brent Gunnoe will discuss limitations and potential opportunities for this resource, including research at UVA and elsewhere on a low temperature process for conversion of natural gas to the liquid fuel methanol, which can be used as a transportation fuel, can be converted to gasoline or diesel fuel and can be used as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry.

The sun is a boundless source of clean energy, but it goes down every night. Harry Gray will discuss the challenges for scaled use of solar energy as well as strategies to overcome these obstacles. Along with others, Harry’s research group is trying to design devices that could be used on a global scale to store solar energy by splitting water into its elemental components, hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is a clean fuel that could be used directly or combined with carbon dioxide to produce methanol. One challenge in this research is identification of inexpensive and abundant materials for these devices. To aid in this research, hundreds of students have been recruited to join a Solar Army whose mission is the discovery of new materials for testing in solar water splitters.

Join us at More Than the Score for an informative talk presented by Brent Gunnoe and Harry Gray on November 10, 2012. Register

The Presidential Race: Where Does It Go From Here?

Lifetime Learning — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:31:00 +0000

The Presidential Race: Where Does It Go From Here?

Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley, U.Va. Center for Politics October 18th, 2012

Get a preview of the More Than the Score talk with Larry Sabato. It’s going to be interesting to see what Larry’s Crystal Ball will predict. Who will you be voting for this election?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

Is Our Ocean in Crisis?

Lifetime Learning — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:01:48 +0000

Stephen Macko, Professor, U.Va. Department of Environmental Science, will present his perspective on this precious resource at More Than the Score on September 29. Get a preview of Professor Macko’s work in this article in U.Va .Magazine titled, “An Almost Forgotten Oil Spill: Remembering the Ixtoc I Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico“.

About More Than The Score Pre-Game Lecture Series:

On the mornings of home football games, hear some of the University of Virginia’s top minds. The Lifetime Learning Program in the Office of Engagement partners with the Alumni Association in offering More Than the Score. Talks are free and open to all. Seating is limited; registration is required. All talks are held at Alumni Hall at 10:00 am on Saturdays before the home football games. View full schedule and register at http://hoosonline.virginia.edu/morethanthescore

Virginia Film Festival Announces the “Presidency in Film” Series

Lifetime Learning — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:01:31 +0000

by Jody Kielbasa, Director, Virginia Film Festival

We are thrilled to announce that the VFF’s 25th Anniversary year will feature the launch of a special “Presidency in Film” series presented in conjunction with the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. One of the series’ highlights will be a special screening of the political classic All the President’s Men to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Watergate, featuring special guest Bob Woodward, associate editor of the Washington Post. Mark your calendars for November 1 and remember tickets will go on sale October 5! Read more about our Presidency in Film series here. Join Jody Kielbasa at the More Than the Score pre-football game lecture series on Saturday, September 8th to hear about the Virginia Film Festival’s highlights.

How Jefferson’s Misinterpretation Led to His Masterpiece: The Lawn of the University of Virginia

Lifetime Learning — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:00:18 +0000

by Bruce Boucher, Director, U.Va. Art Museum

The Lawn of the University of Virginia is one of the great architectural masterpieces of America. It embodies not only Thomas Jefferson’s belief in the power of knowledge, but also the symbolic form in which it could be manifested in a university setting. He employed the classical orders to embody a hierarchy of knowledge on the Lawn, from the colonnades to the pavilions, and, of course, the central Rotonda (Rotunda). In doing so, he also indulged in a degree of “creative misinterpretation” about his sources.

An amateur architect, Jefferson never visited Rome or saw the majority of classical buildings that he esteemed; hence, his knowledge of ancient architecture was acquired largely at second hand. As a consequence, he had to rely upon the interpretation of earlier sources for much of his information, and he turned particularly to a classic treatise of the Renaissance, Andrea Palladio’s Four Books of Architecture (1570), as a guide to the best models of ancient and modern buildings. Jefferson did not own an original copy of Palladio’s book; instead, he owned an eighteenth-century English edition of Palladio’s book, which altered some of Palladio’s original designs, much as Palladio had employed guesswork in reconstructing the fragments of Roman temples into coherent illustrations for his book.

Adding to this creative mix was Jefferson’s collaboration with his younger colleague Benjamin Latrobe. Latrobe had been architect of the Capitol in Washington while Jefferson was president, and he provided crucial advice to Jefferson in 1817 when he reviewed initial plans for the Lawn of the University of Virginia. Latrobe suggested two new ingredients lacking in Jefferson’s design: a central Rotunda and the use of large and small orders of columns to animate the design of the Academical Village. Latrobe based these suggestions upon a creative misunderstanding of Roman architecture that had been perpetrated by Palladio himself, namely the relationship between the Roman Pantheon and the Baths of Agrippa. Palladio and archaeologists down to the nineteenth century believed that the Pantheon was the focal point of a large thermal complex, begun around 25 B.C. and rebuilt in the second century A.D. Many scholars in Jefferson’s day also believed that the Pantheon was not intended to be a temple, but rather a secular building devoted to libraries and public discussions, which took place in the baths. The link between the Pantheon and the Baths of Agrippa is now known to be false, but the visual connection, as bodied forth in Palladio’s reconstructions, obviously struck a chord with Jefferson and played a role in drawing together the strands of his thinking about the university into a coherent whole.

This talk will be presented on September 1, 2012 at More Than the Score

More Than the Score Pre-Game Lecture Series

Lifetime Learning — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:40:52 +0000

Dear Friends,

Summer is coming to a close and UVa students are returning to Grounds…this means More Than the Score Pre-Game Lecture Series is just around the corner!

We are excited to announce our fall season of More Than the Score. There will be six great lectures this fall–a topic for everyone.

The season will kick-off with an art history talk on Jefferson’s Masterpiece—the Lawn. You can expect an environmental talk about the state of the oceans and a talk on the future of domestic natural energy resources. In addition, the Virginia Film Festival will celebrate its 25th anniversary this year and the director will present its upcoming season to the More Than the Score audience and Virginia Tourism will share top reasons why Virginia is a cultural landmark for so many Hollywood stars. Don’t miss Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball prediction of the upcoming presidential race and learn about the defining decade for adulthood. All of these talks are free and open to—alumni, parents, students, and community friends. Did I mention that the talks are free? Do not miss any of these engaging discussions. See the website http://hoosonline.virginia.edu/morethanthescore for full details about each talk and check this blog for regular posts from faculty members participating in the 2012 upcoming More Than the Score Lecture Series. If your busy schedule doesn’t permit you to attend one of these talks, checkout the Podcasts http://www.virginia.edu/itunesu. Look for shorter Ted-like talks that are being introduced this year.

We look forward to seeing you this fall!

Althea Brooks
Director, Lifetime Learning Program
Office of Engagement

Thomas Jefferson’s Love of the Written Word: Concluding Thoughts

Lifetime Learning — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:18:39 +0000

by John Ragosta

I had a wonderful time this weekend, not only meeting a lot of fine folks, but also learning some things.

Thinking back briefly on the conference, I had a few immediate thoughts. First, in a conference about Jefferson’s love of the written word, one might have more methodically explored his famous texts – Summary View, the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (his version), the Declaration, Notes on the State of Virginia, the Head and Heart Letter, or the Adam and Eve Letter – and the historiography concerning each. We really only dug into the particular words and arguments concerning Summary View, the most obscure and disparaged of his major works.

Instead, we took an expanded view of Jefferson’s love of the written word and its significance. We saw his words in letters to children and grandchildren (and their observations on him); the correspondence with his private secretary, an “adoptive son,” provides another perspective on his use of words; we studied Jefferson’s treatment of scripture, some of the words of which he loved; the power of some of his most precious written words to affect policy even today was considered, and the power and beauty of written words that were intended to be spoken. All of these are interesting ways to understand more fully Jefferson’s love of the written word.

This divergent approach reflects the efforts of modern historians to take our understanding beyond idolization of a Founding Father, what Peter Onuf might refer to as fetishizing the Founders. Rather, looking at those around the Founders, and the influences on them and that they had on contemporaries, is equally important to understanding the early modern world. This trend of expanding our vision is both good and essential. Bringing back into our historic perspective women, African Americans, Natives, children, different classes of people, … is essential for any valid understanding of history.

Yet, in expanding our vision, we need to be careful not to forget why we honor the Founders in the first place. This weekend, while walking the Grounds before breakfast, I came each day upon the monument to Jefferson just north of the Rotunda, dedicated to preserving the teachings of the Founders. On that monument are representations of liberty breaking the bonds of tyranny, a blind justice with scales, law preserving religious freedom.

Returning our focus to those things might make some uncomfortable. After all, in honoring those Founders, for too long we forgot, or attempted to hide how unjust they could be, how tyrannical, bigoted, small minded…how human. For years, Monticello guides would not even mention the slaves who built the plantation and lived and worked there, perhaps in passing referring to “servants.”

Jefferson, too, was painfully aware of his and his generations’ many shortcomings. Slavery, obviously, and I do not even attempt to defend Jefferson in that regard, a discussion for another day. As a lawyer, he was aware of injustices in his world. He saw the same for religious liberty, writing “if the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism,…” He knew that his vision of religious freedom, however passionately he felt about it, had not been achieved, but he never shrunk from the vision.

Recognizing and studying those failings and injustices is extremely important. But to stop with that is to miss a powerful point. If we allow the failings to obscure the principles, it is we who are diminished and impoverished.

Peter Onuf, on Thursday evening, I think was speaking to why we gather to study the words of Jefferson and his love of the written word. Jefferson, through a republic of letters, through his own words and letters in a new world of equality, saw that, as Peter said, “what is beautiful is what can be.”

Jefferson’s words, and actions, and life remind us not of how wonderful and perfect life was in the late 18^th century. It was a time of human experience with the good and the bad, the sweet and the bitter. What he sees, though, what he tells us, is that America’s greatness lies not in its history, but in its promise.

Lincoln, who was weighted with almost unbearable challenges and the obvious failure of principles, was deeply dedicated to those principles nonetheless, and he honored the Founders for having declared the principles, even as he struggled to preserve them. Lincoln wrote: “All honor to Jefferson–to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.”

Truths, expressed in powerful words, matter.

“The Worlds of William Short” at U.Va.

Lifetime Learning — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:00:00 +0000

by Laura Voisin George

My Spring 2012 history seminar, “The Worlds of William Short,” confronted U.Va. students with the words of Thomas Jefferson and William Short, his private secretary and close friend, and challenged them to learn what these words do – and do not – mean. The students worked with microfilms of Short’s correspondence, the originals of which are in the Library of Congress (alas, still not formally published), and each student was required to transcribe at least one letter pertaining to their research topic. They soon learned about epistolary conventions of the era – with letters dated as ultimo and instant, courteous self-references as being a humble and obedient servant, and a myriad of abbreviations and superscripts that stand in for titles, measures, and frequently-used words (such as “would” being written wld, and “which” as wch). At a time halfway between Shakespeare’s day and our own, these expositions from the Republic of Letters show how the language itself was transitioning, through Jefferson’s and Short’s masterful use of it.

Beyond these technicalities, through studying William Short’s long life (1759-1849) and his experiences in Europe as well as in the burgeoning United States, the students were able to bring into focus the changes not only in Short’s relationship with Jefferson, but also in the world around them. Their research enabled the students to explore motivations and influences that affected Short’s choices and strategies, and in his voluminous correspondence they explored imprints showing the common (and sometimes contrasting) ideas he shared with Thomas Jefferson. These reflections and sidelights show Jefferson from the perspective of his “adoptive son.”

The students also learned what Jefferson’s and Short’s written words do not say. In cases of sensitive diplomatic matters, the perils of a letter’s long passage between them sometimes caused Jefferson and Short to either write in cypher or in euphemisms, promising to relate the matter fully when next they saw one another or a trusted representative face-to-face. And in some matters – those held close to the bosom, er, heart – one can feel how carefully each word was chosen, and how far each boundary could be pushed and stretched, without going too far.

In this game of diplomatic and Jeffersonian words, William Short was remarkably successful. To him, late in life Jefferson shared his early ideas about the morals and teachings of Jesus. Given the atheist brush with which Jefferson was painted in advance of the election of 1800 and his life-long public insistence that his religion was a matter between God and himself, he had considerable trust in William Short to open this door to him.

The third- and fourth-year U.Va. students’ insights about Short’s role in diplomacy abroad, his convictions about abolition and support for the colonization of freed slaves, his interests in land development and successful investments in the canals and railroads that connected the rapidly-expanding new nation – showing the balance between the ideals he shared with Jefferson and the pragmatic concerns of their age – will contribute to the holdings of the Jefferson Library at Monticello and to future research about Thomas Jefferson and the world and relationships of which he was a part.

We can look forward to exploring the careful use of words in Jefferson’s correspondence with Short in June at the Summer Jefferson Symposium.

Laura Voisin George