Author: M. Andrew Holowchak

M. Andrew Holowchak, Ph.D. is a retired professor of philosophy and history, who taught at institutions such as University of Pittsburgh, University of Michigan, and Rutgers University, Camden. He is editor of the Journal of Thomas Jefferson and His Time and author/editor of over 50 books and over 200 published essays on topics such as ethics, ancient philosophy, science, psychoanalysis, and critical thinking. His current research is on Thomas Jefferson, and has published nearly 150 essays and 20 books on the subject. Like Jefferson, he has a passion for “putting up and pulling down,” but his putting up and pulling down is not architectural, but done on a landscape or in a garden. He also enjoys lifting weights, bike riding, conferencing, and talking about Thomas Jefferson. He can be reached at

Books and Publications Posted on

Thomas Jefferson and the Conditions of Good History: Writing About the American Revolution

Thomas Jefferson has a Thucydidean, or fact-based, approach to the praxis of history. Evidence of that approach appeared early in his life, in his Literary Commonplace Book. There, Jefferson, quoted Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke (1678–1751), who wrote of history, rightly practiced. For history to be authentic, Jefferson, continuing to copy Bolingbroke, added that “these […]

by M. Andrew Holowchak
Critical Thinking Posted on

George III’s (Implicit) Sanction of the American Revolution

In Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774), Jefferson wrote of King George III’s unwillingness to use his “negative” to veto unjust proposals. Two years later, Jefferson echoed this sentiment in his first draft of Declaration of Independence. Here, Jefferson listed a “long train of abuses & usurpations,” at the hand of King George […]

by M. Andrew Holowchak
Critical Thinking Posted on

“Acts Against the Oppressions of the Government”: Jefferson on Rebellion, Revolution, and “Treason”

Jefferson’s views on rebellion and revolution, when they are addressed, are often largely misapprehended in the secondary literature. One reason for the confusion is that rebellion and revolution are sometimes judged to be equivalent, or nearly so, and thus are often uncritically lumped together, or are viewed merely as symptoms of liberalism, taken too far. […]

by M. Andrew Holowchak