" . . . as we have employed some of the best materials of the British constitution in the construction of our own government, a knolege of British history becomes useful to the American politician. there is however no general history of that country which can be recommended. the elegant one of Hume seems intended to disguise & discredit the good principles of the government, and is so plausible & pleasing in it’s style & manner, as to instil it’s errors & heresies insensibly into the minds of unwary readers. Baxter has performed a good operation on it. he has taken the text of Hume as his ground work, abridging it by the omission of some details of little interest, and wherever he has found him endeavoring to mislead, by either the suppression of a truth or by giving it a false colouring, he has changed the text to what it should be, so that we may properly call it Hume’s history republicanised. he has moreover continued the history (but indifferently) from where Hume left it, to the year 1800. the work is not popular in England, because it is republican . . .' — Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 11 June 1807

"Baxter . . . has taken Hume’s work, corrected in the text his misrepresentations, supplied the truths which he suppressed, and yet has given the mass of the work in Hume’s own words. and it is wonderful how little interpolation has been necessary to make it a sound history, and to justify what should have been it’s title, to wit, ‘Hume’s history of England abridged and rendered faithful to fact and principle.’ I cannot say that his amendments are either in matter or manner, in the fine style of Hume. yet they are often unpercieved and occupy so little of the whole work as not to depreciate it. unfortunately he has abridged Hume, by leaving out all the less important details. it is thus reduced to about one half it’s original size. he has also continued the history, but very summarily, to 1801 . . . this work is so unpopular, so distasteful to the present Tory palates & principles of England that I believe it has never reached a 2d edition. I have often enquired for it in our book shops, but never could find a copy in them, and I think it possible the one I imported may be the only one in America. can we not have it reprinted here? it would be about 4. vols 8vo." — Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 12 August 1810

"Baxter . . . gives you the text of Hume, purely and verbally, till he comes to some misrepresentation or omission, some sophism or sarcasm, meant to pervert the truth; he then alters the text silently, makes it what truth and candor say it should be, and resumes the original text again, as soon as it becomes innocent, without having warned you of your rescue from misguidance. and these corrections are so cautiously introduced that you are rarely sensible of the momentary change of your guide. you go on reading true history as if Hume himself had given it. it is unfortunate, I think, that Baxter has also abridged the work; not by alterations of text but by omitting wholly such transactions and incidents as he supposed had become less interesting to ordinary readers than they were in Hume’s day. this brings indeed the work within more moderate compass, accomodated perhaps to the time and taste of the greater bulk of readers; yet for those who aim at a thoro’ knolege of that history, it would have been more desirable to have the entire work corrected in the same way. but we must now take it as it is; and, by reprinting it, place in the hands of our students an elementary history which may strengthen instead of weakening their affections to the republican principles of their own country and it’s constitution. I say we should reprint it; because so deeply rooted is Humism in England, that I believe this corrective has never gone to a 2d edition. it still remains, as at first in the form of a ponderous 4to of close print, which will probably make 3. or 4. vols 8vo. After bringing the history down to where Hume leaves it, Baxter has continued it thro the intermediate time to the early part of the French revolution. but as he had no remarkable talent for good writing, the value of this part of his work is merely as a Chronicle. On the whole, my opinion is that in reprinting this work, you will deserve well of our country . . ." — Thomas Jefferson to Mathew Carey, November 22, 1818

"there is a valuable history of England Baxter's, which I have long wished reprinted here. it was too republican for the meridian of England, and therefore never went there beyond the Original edition, which was a single 4to vol. but would make 3. or 4. 8vos. this has prevented it's becoming well known here, & I do not know of a single copy but the one which went to Congress with my library. it would be singularly valuable in the US. as a substitute for Hume . . . " — Thomas Jefferson to Thomas W. White, 5 February 1820

" . . . there is a History by by Baxter, in which, abridging somewhat by leaving out some entire incidents as less interesting now than when Hume wrote, he has given the rest in the identical words of Hume, except that when he comes to a fact falsified, he states it truly, and when to a suppression of truths he supplies it never otherwise changing a word. it is in fact an editio expurgata of Hume. those who shrink from the volume of Rapin, may read this first and from this lay a first foundation in a basis of truth." — Thomas Jefferson to George W. Lewis, 18 October 1825