Jonathan Den Hartog is Professor of History and Chair of the History Department at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is hard at work during a university sabbatical.
The Arena caught up with him to pose some questions…
What is the focus of your current book project? What are the big questions that you are investigating and the main stories that you hope to tell in this book?
I’m writing a biography of the Revolutionary jurist, diplomat, and political leader John Jay (1745-1829).
I want readers first to grasp all the significant contributions Jay made: supporting independence, serving as President of the Continental Congress, working as a key diplomat to secure the Peace of Paris, guiding diplomacy as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for the Confederation, advocating for the 1787 Constitution, creating the Supreme Court as the First Chief Justice, negotiating the Jay Treaty, helping to end slavery in New York as governor of the Empire State, and even serving as the president of the American Bible Society. With a resume like that, he deserves attention!
For more on Jay’s efforts, readers can watch or listen to this interview.
More than just what Jay did, I want readers to understand how Jay approached the challenges of the revolutionary era. That is, he brought informed thought and an important style of leadership to the table—one that sought the common good and approached public issues carefully and strategically. He pursued what he believed was right, rather than what he thought would be popular. That approach proved important, as he confronted a host of issues, including guiding revolutionary politics, reconstructing the legal system, addressing slavery, improving America’s position in the world, and articulating a role for religion in the new nation.
But, Jay didn’t do that alone. He was embedded in a network of family and friends, and he acted within a complex world. He knew how to work with others to get things done—people like George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.
Can you give us a taste of something surprising or unexpected that you have found in your work on this project so far?
Jay had a very dry sense of humor, but he only let it out among friends. It wasn’t something he led with or shared publicly. So, you have to read carefully. This humor showed he was well aware of the follies and foibles of mankind. For the 18th-century, his humor could even approach the risqué.
I’ll share one joke I recently ran across. Writing during the debate over the U.S. Constitution, Jay was preparing a letter to George Washington. In highlighting the need for more livestock breeding, Jay observed, “As yet we have no four footed asses [donkeys] in the state, and I sincerely wish we would exchange some of the other sort [i.e., two-legged humans] for them. We might then obtain a much more valuable race of mules than those we now have.” In other words, a few more real donkeys would be more useful than the ones then involved in New York politics!
Jay tried a different version of the joke in a second draft of the letter, before cutting it entirely.
So, the official correspondence simply provides information about agriculture. Reading the originals shows a deeper level of John’s humorous critique of his opponents—the wry smile behind his public presentation.
What are the broader questions that fascinate you in your thinking and writing?
With this project, I’ve been thinking a lot about continuity and change. That is, some parts of Jay’s character appear pretty constant through his life, but he also changed and developed on some points. Responding to new challenges and new dynamics forced him to emphasize different things. He definitely shifted on the topics of slavery and public religiosity, so tracing how and why those changes occurred makes for interesting stories.
More broadly, I’m fascinated by what people believe and think and then how that leads to action in the broader world. I want to understand how they viewed the world—and they could view it wrongly!—and then what steps they took in response. In those decisions, humans make choices, and at many points they could choose differently. So, contingent actions really do shape historical development.