Review of Friends of Liberty by Gary Nash and Graham Russell Gao Hodges

Too many books, too little time to post. I have been reading but not posting. I'm going to try to get back in the habit of putting brief reviews on the site. My first review is Friends of Liberty by Gary Nash and Graham Hodges. Nash is of the course the dean of the history of the common man. Along with Alfred Young and others, he has been a prime proponent of bottom up history. To great benefit, he has taken our eyes of the elites that have traditionally been the focus of historical writing. Instead, he has invited us to see history through the eyes of those whom history has tended to forget.

At first a book about Thomas Jefferson and Tadeusz Kosciusko would seem to betray Nash's normal style. After all, Jefferson are "great men," enshrined in the pantheon of history. It is only the inclusion of Agrippa Hull that hints at Nash's usual interests. Still, Hull is not present for long stretches of the book. And in many ways, the argument of the book could advance without his him. When I first picked the book up, I figured that Hull would somehow be linked to both Jefferson and Kosciusko. That is not the case. In fact, Hull is really not even that closely connected to Kosciusko. While Hull served for several years as Kosciusko's personal servant during the Revolution, there was little interaction between the two men before or after that time. Of course, war can forge bonds that are deep and emotional in a short time. But Hull comes across as ancillary to the main plot. He serves largely as a foil to Jefferson, damning Jefferson by his industry, frugality, and virtue. Hull's life emphasizes how much Jefferson was lacking in these qualities. (I suppose that Nash and Hodges would posit that Hull was also inspiration to Kosciusko, nurturing his anti slavery sentiment. For reasons that will be seen shortly, I am less convicned of this).

The centerpiece of the book is a betrayal. Kosciusko entrusted Jefferson with funds that were to be used to liberate Jefferson's slaves and educate them upon Kosciusko's death. The funds were never used for their intended purpose largely because Jefferson lacked the courage and conviction to carry out his dear friend's wishes. Jefferson is definitely the villain in this book. The title is clearly ironic in his case. That is not to say that Nash and Hodges' portrait of Jefferson is not nuanced. Nash and Hodges place Jefferson's decisions in the context of his culture showing how political prudence, class consciousness, and racism shaped Jefferson's choices.

It is the nuanced portrait of Jefferson that leads to the key criticisms of this work. While Jefferson is portrayed warts and all, Kosciusko is almost regarded as a saint. It seems that there were no faults or inconsistencies in Kosciusko's own character. In regard to Kosciusko, the work almost borders on hagiography. Think of Weems' portrayal of Washington and you have an idea of how Nash and Hodges lionize Kosciusko. The same is true of the author's portrayal of Hull. Though here, the authors may be forgiven because the evidence is slim, and virtually all the evidence speaks well of Hull.

Evidence is the other key difficulty in this work. At times, the authors fail to use evidence critically. At other times, they reach conclusions almost devoid of evidence. As an example of the former fault, see the story about Hull dressing in Kosciusko's clothes and Kosciusko's subsequent reaction. While Nash and Hodges do situate the story in the cultural practices of New England's black community, they really do little to investigate whether the story has a basis in fact. They also do little to deconstruct the story, analyzing its metanarratives. The second fault shows up in several places. Nash and Hodges at times appear to be omniscient narrators, speaking confidently of the thoughts and emotions of their subjects without true evidence.

Still, for all its rather substantial faults, this is a work worth reading. I have to admit that before this book my knowledge of Kosciusko was rather limited. (I knew he was a Pole. I knew he was a Revolutionary general. And I knew that he had a bridge named after him). And Agrippa Hull is a man worth knowing too. Considering how much his society constrained his liberty, it is instructive that he still can be called a friend of American liberty.