Talk:Thomas Jefferson

• Talk page Archive

Thanks to an anon

I wanted to thank 199.88.16.253, who noticed when I failed to revert all the vandalism when I submitted. It's really nice to have help from an anon in the midst of all the attacks. Thank you, kind sir or madam! Wnissen 14:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on his philosophy?

This is my first visit to this article, and I am struck by the fact that there's no section discussing his political philosophy. Instead there's a huge section on his religion. His contribution to political philosophy far outweighs any religious influence. This article is outrageous. RJII 20:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right, RJII, the article needs a good section on Jefferson's political philosophy. The section that has been added in response to your call for it is, right now, a steaming pile of wikicrap. Care to fix it? -EDM 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

His philosophy is scattered in documents, letters, and books, but I think if we do some research we can come up with something, by piecemeal, somewhat coherent and presentable. I'll see what I can dig up. RJII 17:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the best summations of Jefferson's political philosophy are presented by Rick Matthews, in The Radical Politics and other essays. We should definitely have something on his "pyramid" conception of popular government based in ward-republics and extending to the national level. Also, we need to distinguish his theory of representation: unlike the "trustee" model proposed by the likes of Hamilton, Jefferson held that government representatives should act as "delegates" with no other function than the transmission of the popular will from localities to higher levels of government. - AnarchyeL 14:36, 6 March 2006

Most historians disagree with Rick Matthews--see the reviews. Much better is Lance Banning. Rjensen 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Historians are far too concerned with events and behaviors to be adequate judges of political thinking. I can think of only a rare few philosophers whose political activities perfectly accord with their speculative thoughts, largely because--as for Jefferson--the opportunities to establish this accord are wanting. Thus, I trust the noted political theorist Rick Matthews to analyze his political thought, historians such as Lance Banning to analyze his behaviors. -- AnarchyeL 15:06, 6 March 2006

Better read Banning, he's quite good. Critics in political science also dislike Mathews saying he has his own agenda that he tries to impose on Jefferson. See especially Jack Rakove, “The Liberal Prince on the Democratic Seesaw,” Reviews in American History 23(1995), 582-87. abstract: Although Mathews gets many facts about Madison right, his conclusions “fall somewhere between wrong-headed and silly.” Rejects Mathews’s claim that Madison’s differences with TJ were more important and consequential than their shared antipathy to Hamilton. Accuses Mathews’s presentation of TJ to be “a caricature.” ... For an encyclopedia we really can't rely on caricatures. Rjensen 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're to go by what scholars say of one another, they almost all call each other's readings "caricatures" at one point or another. It would be disingenuous to reject one scholar's work based merely on others criticisms. Meanwhile, political theorists have not been nearly so critical of Matthews as you pretend. Certainly the eminent C.B. MacPherson was a fan; Asher Horowitz, Sheldon Wolin, and the late Carey McWilliams read him most approvingly; and Drucilla Cornell is impressed with his comparison of Jefferson to Rousseau--just to name a few. For a political science review, you might also see the one by Alkis Kontos in The Journal of Politics (Nov 85). As for historians, a simple EBSCO search reveals at least one very positive review from Harry Fritz of the University of Montana, who calls it a "strong, well-argued, and persuasive case." Even your own Lance Banning writes of Matthews' book, "I do not mean to write a uniformly negative review--far from it. This is a bold, provocative, and often quite insightful work. The product of a penetrating mind and a forceful pen, it challenges both liberal and classical republican interpretations of the democratic statesman. It offers us a Jefferson whose 'humanism', 'communitarian anarchism', and 'radical democracy' do 'make his views stand as an alternative to the market liberalism of the past and present.' It can be read with profit by everyone who has a good acquaintance with the subject. ... General readers, however, deserve some words of caution. Although it is possible to extract this sort of Jefferson from some of his more speculative writings, the thinker who emerges is only distantly related to the historical architect of American traditions."

Ironically, it appears that your hero admits essentially what I claimed to begin with: that if one is interested in Jefferson as a purely historical figure, one will find little help in Matthews' work--but he is, after all, a political theorist, not a historian. If, on the other hand, one wants to understand Jefferson's speculative philosophy--which, I thought, was the purpose of the Wiki section on his philosophy--then one would appropriately turn to the discipline of political theory. -- AnarchyeL 16:00 6 March 2006

Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and has to search for the consensus of scholars. Anarchists may indeed admire Mathews -- and indeed he writes in lively strong style. But we are NOT allowed to use our own POV to select readings from left-wing or right-wings polemics and pretend they are a consensus reading. Rjensen 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I should have chosen a different name. I am not, as you presume, an anarchist; the name having been taken for, as it were, "historical" reasons. At any rate, none of the theorists I named in support of Matthews' thesis are anarchists by any stretch; moreover, the only political theorists I can think of who really oppose Matthews' reading are themselves right-wing libertarians. Can you point to any mainstream critiques within political theory? -- AnarchyeL

It's Matthews who's the anarchist. The historians who have studied Jefferson most say Matthews is lively and wrong. That's a pretty heavy load to carry, as you saw by reading the reviews in history journals. Let's find a political theorist who is an expert on late 18th century American thought. Rjensen 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Matthews may or may not be an anarchist. At least, I doubt he would volunteer the term to describe himself, although he sympathizes with anarchism in much the same way Jefferson did. As for what historians think, I have already established that I think the real experts on Jefferson's political thought must be students of political thought, not history. Moreover, in my EBSCO search I turned up a thoroughly divided opinion in historians' reviews -- literally, 50/50. Matthews is, of course, one of the best experts in political theory on 18th century American thought. The best would have been Carey McWilliams, whom we unfortunately lost to a heart-attack last year: and as I have already mentioned, McWilliams was a good friend and supporter of Matthews. I will not reiterate the list, although I should add Dan Tichenor--who is not a political theorist per se, but rather a scholar in the American Political Development school of political science; he is also, from what I understand, extraordinarily well respected among historians. Now, I will await your evidence that mainstream political theory has rejected Matthews in any way. In the meantime, historians should stick to history. AnarchyeL 16:41, 6 March 2006

The problem with political theorists studying historical characters is they assume a lot of false history. The best example is Louis Hartz who had enormous influence but totally missed the entire history of republicanism in Jefferson and everyone else. Dahl is another example (I like Dahl--he was on my dissertation committee--but he does not quite get the history of democracy.) Rjensen 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your (by now accepted) criticism of Hartz. Dahl, too... Likeable though he may be, he has a habit of making unwarranted assumptions that support his conclusions (often, I think, without realizing it... esp. in his analysis of Supreme Court efficacy). However, the fact that some people do political theory badly should not damn the field. Of course, I will even agree to a large extent with a criticism against Matthews (above) regarding his evaluation of the relationship between Madison and Jefferson. However, the question here is neither other political theorists, nor Matthews' work on Madison... but his work on Jefferson, which I personally consider very compelling--this being an evaluation with which my more eminent colleagues agree. -- AnarchyeL 22:06, 6 March 2006

Rjensen: As a meaningless aside, it seems we are intellectual cousins, of a sort. One of my mentors was also a student of Robert Dahl. ;) -AnarchyeL

Small world indeed! Rjensen 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

I'm not sure about this sentence, saying that the opening section of the Declaration of Independence "... laid the foundation for the American Revolution and American democracy". It's a nice sentiment, but considering that the Revolution had already started in 1775 (and was the consequence of events spanning decades), and America had democratic instutions going back to the House of Burgesses in 1619, I don't think it's really accurate. --JW1805 22:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography & some text problems

I cleaned up the bibliography and added numerous important items, such as the Boyd and Bergh editions. I deleted the esoteric material on 16th Polish influences, which might fit in a 6-volume biography but not in an encyclopedia entry that is already thin on too many topics. The religion section is unsatisfactory--it's mostly a collection of annotated TJ quotations that do not help readers with the basic questions. Rjensen 09:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson's political philosophy was called republicanism

So that's what he named his political party. Take a look at the textbooks, for example [1] the chapter entitled: Republicanism: Jefferson and Madison or look at monographs [2] = Jefferson's Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism by Susan Dunn or Sellers: [3] or Onuf: [4] Rjensen 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just putting "He... is the person most responsible for defining Republicanism and making it the basis of American political values." isn't going to work. It makes him sound like the founder of the Republican Party, which he was not. The word "Republicanism" needs to be clarified if this sentence is left in. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So if someone favors Democracy then he's from the Democratic Party? Jefferson favored a republic over a democracy --that's republicanism. RJII 16:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • We need to be clear on possibly confusing terms. We don't want people to be confused. It probably would be better to use a lowercase "r" (republicanism). In modern American usage, "Republican" means "Republican Party". That's just how it is. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • True. But, right now the lead says he favored democracy. That's very misleading. Here's a quote from him: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." RJII 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
        • • I think the mob rule quote is a hoax. It's not in the list of 9000 Jefferson quotes at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/foley/ . Rjensen 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I replaced "meritocratic democracy" (whatever that means) with "republicanism". But maybe "representative democracy" would be better? I don't know. A lot of these terms are used interchangeably. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I did some minor tweaking on this issue. I referred to the original Republican Party instead of making it look like a continuance of the current political party, and also referenced the Federalists under John Adams. Chadlupkes 19:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I worked on the philosophy section a bit, but there is a more to be done.Rjensen 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The long quotation in the philosophy section does come from a letter addressing primogeniture, but by the end of the quotation Jefferson has included several additional points of his political philosophy. For instance:

• • • "If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be permitted to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.... It is too soon in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent, but it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land."

This describes his belief that every (adult male) citizen who has never owned land should be entitled to claim some, a provision that he included in one of his draft constitutions for the State of Virginia (but which obviously never made it into a finished version). We should either separate this doctrine and comment on its reasons and implications (it is basically an inversion of the traditional republican logic that only landholders should vote)... or, we should delete it from this passage, because it is misleading to include ALL of this as a critique of "primogeniture." (In fact, taken as a whole, the quotation is a strong critique of property as a natural rather than a positive right.) AnarchyeL 16:19, 13 March, 2006

It's better to add than substract. Add a new subsection on promoting yeoman farm ideal. Rjensen 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried to clean up this article at bit with this edit. It still needs work, though. I tried to trim down the opening section, which was too long, and arranged the biographical info more logically, and also added a "personal life" section with subsections. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How about fixing the intro? It is way too busy as it stands now. I don't think that a blanket list of things Jefferson was or was interested in is necessary in the first paragraph of the article. Such things can go under "interests" or "personal life" sections. For example, Jefferson's importance does not stem from the fact that he was a revolutionary landowner interested in horticulture, archaeology, etc. As I see it, stating he was (1) President, (2) Vice President, (3) Secretary of State, (4) author of the Declaration of Independence, and (5) founder of the University of Virginia should suffice for the opening paragraph. The second and third paragraphs of the intro are fine as they are. Any thoughts? -Parallel or Together ? 08:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes, with additions in bold and substractions:

Thomas Jefferson (13 April (2 April Old Style), 1743 – 4 July 1826) was the third (1801–1809) US President of the United States , one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. He was the second (1797–1801) Vice President, first (1789–1795) United States Secretary of State, and an American statesman, ambassador to France, political philosopher, revolutionary, agriculturalist, horticulturist, land owner, architect, etymologist, archaeologist, mathematician, surveyor, paleontologist, author, inventor, lawyer and founder of the University of Virginia.

Obviously the part about the Declaration of Independence would have to be taken out of the second paragraph. -Parallel or Together ? 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest he is even more important as a theorist for democracy and for republicanism. That has made him one of the most important world leaders of last 1000 years and should get top billing. Rjensen 09:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, maybe it is a bit busy, but it is important to show how much of a Renaissance Man he really was. He wasn't just a politician, so we can't just mention his political accomplishments and offices. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree with JW1805. I think it is important that we portray Jefferson as the "Renaissance Man" that he was. It is important for people to know this and also important for people to understand his various contributions and interests.Oktemplar 00:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying we take out the things about him being a Renaissance man or theorist for democracy and republicanism. However, as it stands now, the first paragraph is one sentence long and takes up 5 lines. It is just a list of Jefferson's interests. My contention is that it would be better to spend the first paragraph mentioning those things for which he was most well-known. I realize that he had many interests and was a political philosopher, but people don't really go around saying "Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson." The information about his political philosophy is better left to the second paragrah and his Rennaisance man nature to the third. This is, in fact, more or less how the article already mentions it, just minus that laundry list to start. How about this suggestions (minus links):

Thomas Jefferson (13 April (2 April Old Style), 1743 – 4 July 1826) was the third (1801–1809) President and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was the second (1797–1801) Vice President, first (1789–1795) United States Secretary of State, an American statesman, ambassador to France, author of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the University of Virginia.

A believer in republicanism, liberalism, and liberty, Jefferson was one of the most influential political thinkers in world history. In addition to the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), which later served as the basis for the Religion Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson was also the founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated American politics for over a quarter-century.

Many people consider Jefferson to be among the most brilliant men ever to occupy the Presidency. President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962, saying, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Jefferson was a Rennaissance man whose various activities included political philosopher, revolutionary, agriculturalist, horticulturist, architect, etymologist, archaeologist, mathematician, surveyor, paleontologist, author, inventor, and lawyer.

Jefferson's portrait appears on the U.S. $2 bill and the U.S. five cent piece, or nickel. Jefferson also appears on the $100 Series EE Savings Bond.

How about it? Did I miss anything or take away something important? -Parallel or Together ? 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is fine.....although the current opening section is total crap, and contains some broad generalizations, and badly written sentences. I think I will rvt it to be closer to the version above. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum.... Putting Governor of VA & a bunch of other mind-numbing stuff before DoI? LA purchase is the bigger deal than Lewis & Clark - which is less TJ's accomplishment than theirs. For "see talk" am I supposed to repond to your sparse "total crap" statement or to your broad statment about "broad statments and badly written sentences"? Before I got there, they were not even sentences --JimWae 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Many people think the $2 bill is phony - that, the nickel, and some bond are not the stuff that makes good lead sections - nor are mind-numbing lists of accomplishments without context--JimWae 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting in the lead that he turned to Federalism, that his presidency was something of a bust - perhaps even mentioning his resignation from cabinet - might catch people's interest enough to get them to read on.

A few of the problems I was trying to correct:

• There were two mentions of the First Amendment, which Jefferson didn't have anything to do with. It's enough to say that he believed in separation of church and state.
• "completing the Louisiana Purchase" - "completing" is unnecessary word, and confusing. Makes it sound like somebody else started it.
• "A man of the Enlightenment" - I thought that was sort of ill-defined....but don't have a major problem with it really. I replaced with "a political philosopher".
• "was one of the two or three most influential..." - "two or three" unnecessary. "One of the...most" imples that he was up there at the top.
• I didn't like the "Additionally...." last paragraph where political offices were tacked on to personal hobbies.
• "the last being one of three things he had put on his tombstone, none of which were being president." is a badly worded sentence.

The way I tried to organize the three paragraphs are:

1. Broad statement about his influence, and major political offices held.
2. Political philosophy and writings.
3. General brilliance, and other interest.

To address your points:

• I don't have a big problem with moving the currency referernces. But it should be included.
• Lewis and Clark was a major event of his Presidency, and it was his idea.
• I don't think putting details about quitting the cabinet, etc. is necessary for the opening.
• I don't think the lists are mind-numbing. Jefferson is famous for his wide-range of interests. Not just for being a politician, or author of the DoI.

But, I would agree that it still needs work. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree mentioning 1st amendment twice was a problem & would have edited it myself. But why would I bother when you had already "announced" you were going to revert me? Now it's not mentioned at all. He was not just FOR separation of church & state, he DID something about it in 2 ways - he held out for a Bill of Rights - and his writings influenced including non-establishment clause in there
    • The current version says he "promoted" separation of church and state. I think thats fine for the opening section, without added details about the first amendment, the wall of separation, etc. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ok, he "carried out" the LA Purchase - I still do not think having Lewis & Clark explore it is one of HIS big accomplishments, though this is less a problem than others
    • Well, it was an accomplishment "of his presidency". The LA Purchase and L&C are the two things people most remember about his term in office. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "man of enlightenment" was a leftover - not mine
  • same for "one of 2 or 3"
  • the list is VERY mind-numbing - and should be moved to body or at least further down in lead. There are too many links in lead - it would help to eliminate links to solitary years, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting
    • As long as there is some mention of his wide range of interests. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • there needs to be some mention that not everything about his terms in office was "peachy"
    • That's probably OK, but I don't think a lot of details in the opening are necessary. Best left to the Presidency section. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Presidency & DoI need top billing. (I think every other president article has HIGHEST office listed first, not buried inside a bunch of links.) After that, Founding Father, separation of church & state, LA Purchase.
    • Unlike most other Presidents, Jefferson is not most well-known for being President. That being said, I could live with something like "TJ was the third President, author of the DOI, and one of the most influential FF of the US" as an opening sentence. Although I do like having the DoI and the Virginia Statue in the same sentence, since these go together as the two most influential documents he was responsible for. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • --JimWae 19:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I say Be Bold! Feel free to change everything I've done! --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Jefferson Important?

Jefferson is not important because he was president #3. (He is vastly more important than president #2). Instead it's his political principles that reshaped the USA and indeed most of the world. We should lead off with that. Rjensen 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• It was his sources that did any reshaping in the rest of the world. In which other countries is he supposed to have great influence, and how? --JimWae 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Shootermcgavin7 Do you mind sharing why he was "vastly more important" than Adams? Personally I think you're vastly overlooking Adams' contributions to our society. Thanks in advance -- 1:20 13 April 2006

The idea that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was a stunning statement. It was immediately important in the French Revolution, in most countries of Europe, and was the inspiration for independence in Latin America c. 1820. Those folks did not read Locke, they read Jefferson. More important, they saw in real life that a colony COULD declare independence and set up a real republican government based on the sovereignty of the people. Previous writers (Locke, Montesque, Hobbes etc) had never even speculated this might be possible but TJ (and Washington) proved it could be done. To this day republicanism in places like Canada and Australia represent a revolt against George III's descendant. How influential do you want? It's hard to name, say, two Frenchmen of equal importance, or two Russians, or Chinese or Indian, etc... Rjensen 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Somebody's removed the sources section from the article, so I'll have to dig that up. The French Revolution was based on much more than the US DoI - people in Europe actually read Locke too - even the French guys. I'll find the name of the French author TJ got some of his ideas from too. I cannot find any section in the article that states TJ wrote books that were widely read in Europe. The notion that the DoI electrified Europe is a pleasant fiction, though it - and the success of the entire American revolt (for which TJ never took full credit) - did have some influence. --JimWae 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The views expressed by Rjensen are common in the US, where the philosophy in the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence is viewed by some as new and original, even though Jefferson himself said that it wasn't. But, even though Jefferson's writings were based on other European thinkers, Jefferson did contribute to political philosophy, especially in the areas of separation of church and state, the separation of powers, federalism, and states rights. As a political thinker, I would say he had profound influence on American government and political philosophy....but I couldn't say about other countries. It is certainly true to call him one the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States.--JW1805 (Talk) 05:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Among those who influenced TJ, Madison, AND the French: locke, kant, rousseau, Thomas Paine, Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu--JimWae 06:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson indeed read voraciously. But the key point is that he is the first in history to show in real life actuality (not just in a book) that: 1) a colony can revolt and 2) it can form a government based on the will of the people. THAT was entirely new and is the basis of most democratic movements ever since. That is pitting the ideas into practice, something not done by any of the other great thinkers. (Locke set up a very strange government for North Carolina that was never adopted.) So that makes Jefferson one of the greatest political figures in world history, and more important in 2005 than ever before. The article should point this out. Rjensen 06:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• TJ was not solely responsible for the revolt, which had already begun when he wrote DoI. He was not part of the Articles of Confederation convention, nor the Constitutional one (which did not "show" that the US could work until perhaps after the Civil War). TJ himself seems uncomfortable in gov't. There's far more support for statements showing the US was an example to the world than that TJ was. The article is becoming a puff piece - its first statement "tells us" that he was influential instead of showing us, and then presents a laundry list with 1> details with little context, and 2> ill-defined isms he is supposedly responsible for. --JimWae 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson was more important than anyone else (save Washington and Franklin)in creating and defining the new nation. He was already one of the 2 or 3 most important proponents of independence before the Declaration (which oc ourse is why they had him write it). Do historians give TJ the lion's share of the credit for creating America? yes they certainly do--there really is no debate on the issue. But it did not stop in 1776, he was just getting started. Rjensen 07:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson's Place in History

Interview with George Will  

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Will.htm George Will is a syndicated columnist, best-selling author, and ABC News analyst. His recent political books include The Leveling Wind, Restoration, and Statecraft As Soulcraft.

 Q How important is Thomas Jefferson?

He’s important to the United States because he defined our creed and we are a credal nation. He’s important to the world because he cast the American truths as universal truths. When the Soviet empire collapsed and Eastern Europe rose, you had, in effect, a second European Reformation—but no charismatic leader. No Martin Luther. Instead, you had the rhetoric supplied by the third and the sixteenth presidents of the United States. And the sixteenth, Abraham Lincoln, was always candid about his intellectual pedigree, which ran straight back to Jefferson. “The story of this millennium is the gradual expansion of freedom and the expanding inclusion of variously excluded groups.”

 Q What do you think about Jefferson’s place in the world?

Jefferson was, I think, the man of this millennium. The story of this millennium is the gradual expansion of freedom and the expanding inclusion of variously excluded groups. He exemplified in his life what a free person ought to look like—that is, someone restless and questing through a long life under the rigorous discipline of freedom. Freedom’s not the absence of rigor; it’s the absence of restraints imposed by others. But it also, if it’s going to be successful, it is going to be lived the way Jefferson lived it, this life of freedom—under severe restraints imposed on yourself. The severe restraints of scholarship and learning and the quest to get better and better—which Jefferson kept up right to the end. He also had a great sense of the perilous equipoise of a free society. You could put it in Shakespeare’s language: Shakespeare said, “Take but degree away, untune that string and hark what discord follows.“ Jefferson understood that you had to have an educated population living in certain kinds of circumstances, under certain kinds of institutions, with certain assumptions and beliefs. Take any of them away and hark what discord follows." Rjensen 07:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Decisive impact on Latin America

Historians of Latin America attribute decisive impact to the American example. See a standard scholarly source Rjensen 09:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy quote

The quote in question: "Many people consider him to be among the most brilliant men ever to occupy the Presidency. President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962, saying, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."" has been in the opening section for a while now. I think it's a good quote to include, it's well known, and is a nice concluding sentence to the paragraph describing Jefferson's general brilliance and wide-ranging interests. It it being deleted by Rjensen (talk · contribs), but I think it should stay. Anybody agree or disagree? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote is accurate but is misleading. It was an offhand comment Kennedy used to flatter his guests -- that is THEY were like Jefferson. Kennedy himself did not know much about TJ. The quote simply does not say anything about TJ and therefore should be considered trivia. Was Jefferson "smart" like a Nobel prize winning scientist? No; I suggest Kennedy's characterization was incorrect. It's obvious TJ was "smart" but he was a dilettante who dabbled in a hundred different scientific projects, none of which amounted to much. Franklin was MUCH more like a Nobel prize winner. He spent years systematically studying electricity and really did make major discoveries. Gallatin spent years studying Indian languages and founded the field--he was much more likely to get a Nobel Proze than TJ. Give TJ a peace prize! So why do we have this quote? Dining alone, by the way, is the opposite of scientific conversation. That's what philosophers do and TJ's greatest contributions were in political philosophy--though again, it came in snippets 500 words here and 500 words there, rather than in any sustained effort. Rjensen 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with JW1805 that the quote should remain in the article. It is a well-known quote and adds some color to the article. It is also a nice conclusion to the discussion of Jefferson's brilliance and wide-ranging interest, and also shows that he is well-known and revered for this intelligence. The quote reinterates that TJ was the United States' most brilliant President -- Franklin was never President, in fact he died long before the White House was built. I don't see Rjensen's point. -Parallel or Together? 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Rjensen's changes (here), as there is (1) no consensus for them, (2) seems to disparage Jefferson, and (3) adds an unneeded comparison to Benjamin Franklin in the intro. -Parallel or Together? 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote misrepresents TJ into someone who resembles a Nobel Pize winning scientist. That was not Kennedy's meaning (he was fglattering his guests) but it gives readers the wrong message. I think TJ was one of the 3 or 4 most important leaders in last 500 years because of the contents of his political ideas...not because he was a dilettante. Rjensen 00:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote only mentions talent and human knowledge. It doesn't mention anything about scientific achievement (on Jefferson's part) and instead just demonstrates that Jefferson is considered to be one of the most brilliant Presidents. I think the average reader is intelligent enough to see the quote as one President praising another - you don't need to qualify that JFK "had no idea what he was talking about" - in other words, inserting your own opinion. -Parallel or Together? 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote should stay.....and I agree with reverting Rjensen's statements, which are a bit POV and/or unnecessary. The explanation that "Kennedy knew little about Jefferson" is an odd thing to say.....what are you implying? That Kennedy didn't know basic facts about Thomas Jefferson, and wasn't aware that he is known as one of the most brilliant Presidents? The quote is about "talent and knowledge", not about TJ making Nobel-prize worthy discoveries. And of course, this isn't an article about Benjamin Franklin, so that was a bit off the wall too. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Newsflash: Benjamin Franklin was never president. Newsflash #2: Very few presidents were brilliant men, so the bar is set quite low. Newsflash #3: It is obvious that the quote was an attempt to flatter Kennedy's guests, but it is a charming and memorable quote. - JP

Part of article which needs to be cleared up.

In religious views it says Jefferson "refused" to support a national prayer day yet he openly participated in one. Can someone please explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJstroker (talk • contribs)

TJ & Religion is important

Jefferson's views on religion are quite important. Instead of splitting them up I think the discussion will have more impact if pulled together in one place. (Otherwise a reader will miss key point buried elsewhere) Rjensen 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Prayer for a Nation

That prayer has shown up in the article AGAIN - some people need to check things more before posting their "proofs" - maybe at leasst check the archives? 1805 March 4 was the date of his 2nd Inauguration. The quoted prayer from that date does NOT appear in his address. The prayer is from the Book of Common Prayer - except for one word being changed [5][6] Most likely it was read at his inauguration by someone else. I am deleting it AGAIN --JimWae 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

anarchism

I've read that Jefferson was called an anarchist by some of his detractors. But, I haven't been able to find any sources that contain the actual claims. Anyone have any info? RJII 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

from Schachner biography of Jefferson p 603: (1798)

"The French, too, were quitting Philadelphia by the shipload, he wrote to his son-in-law. Volney, whom Jefferson believed to be the chief object of the Alien Bill, was preparing to depart. "It suffices for a man to be a philosopher," he [TJ] exclaimed bitterly, "and to believe that human affairs are susceptible of improvement, & to look forward, rather than back to the Gothic ages, for perfection, to mark him as an anarchist, disorganizer, atheist & enemy of the government." Jefferson was thinking of himself as well as of the soon to be proscribed Volney. For all of these epithets had been applied to him in the past, and were to increase in volume in the future. Rjensen 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is speaking there? Jefferson or Volney? RJII 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

that is Jefferson writing to his son in law.Rjensen 22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)##

Democratic-Republican or Republican party?

The consensus among historians in 2006 is strong for using "Republican Party" That's what Jefferson, Madison and everyone else called it at the time. "Democratic-Republican Party" was in occasional use but not very often. It gets mixed up with the "Democratic Republican" clubs of 1793, which were not part of the party. Jefferson never used "D-R" to describe his party; the term was popular among historians in 1930s - 1980s but has faded away since the new studies of Republicanism have made Republicanism the central theme of the era. Will some readers think he founded the GOP? Not if they read Wiki. See the discussion by many hhistorians on H-SHEAR in January 2006 at January 2006 Logs Rjensen 07:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on H-SHEAR and the issue didn't seem at all settled to me. I read arguments from both sides and didn't really see a consensus. I also read your comment, and followed your advice there to check out the D-R page and the D-R talk page, where I see you have put in that in 2006 the preferred name is Republican Party, although you didn't cite there. I promise to investigate the matter myself a little further, but I don't agree with the unilateral move on your part to change it to "Republican Party" (which indeed will confuse some readers - this wikipedia is meant for all speakers of English, not just college/high school graduates, Americans, etc.). I'm changing it back for now so that we can have some more discussion of the matter. -Parallel or Together? 07:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The main reason to use "Republican party" is that's what the people of the time usually called it; the D-R usage was rare. As for confusing people, all we have to do is add a phrase "not to be confused with the modern Republican party or GOP, which was founded in 1854." Doesn't that solve all problems? THE D-R designation does not really help anyone understand the 1790s+ period, and so as a service to readers we should say "sometimes called the D-R party in older books". A search through google.books show only a few uses by historians since 2000. Rjensen 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After doing a little more reading, it seems that the term "Republican", usually with some kind of qualifier like "Jeffersonian", is most prevalant now. So, in essense, I agree with you; however, I think the use in wikipedia should reflect the following concerns:

1. Many other resources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, still use "Democratic-Republicans". The use on this page should help wean readers away from that usage, not completely abandon it.
2. Jeffersonian Republicans (or just "Republicans" prior to the so-called Second Party System) are claimed as the political "ancestors" of the modern day Democratic Party, much like modern day Republican Party claims Lincoln's Republicans as political "ancestors". However, there is contention about both of these claims, as the "genealogy" for both parties claims is hardly a straight line.
3. People without extensive background in Early American History or American Political History will get confused by 1800 Republican equally 2000 Republican.

Calling them "Jeffersonian Republicans" doesn't seem to me to be any better since once again that is not what they would have been called back in Jefferson's day. What do you think is a good change? -Parallel or Together? 08:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Jeffersonian Republicans" has the same problem. I suggest 1) call them Republicans. 2) add sentence that they are often called "D-R" in history books, but did not call themselves that. 3) add sentence that they should be distinguished from Republican Party of 1854-present. That will add information and REMOVE confusions people may have. do you agree? Rjensen 09:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about changing the following sentence:

He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated American politics for over a quarter-century.

to:

He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the founder and leader of the Republicans, (sometimes referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans to avoid confusion with the modern day Republican Party), the dominant American political party for over a quarter-century.

I don't know if really flows all that well, but I think it kills all three birds with one stone. I hesitate to put "Republican Party" because this more clearly draws a false line of descent to the modern Republican Party and creates the concept of a modern day "political party" in the 1800s. Do you agree? Also, do you mind if I change the wording on the D-R page to reflect this? Namely, remove the "as of 2006" part and instead simply say that there is a current trend to use "Republican" to reflect the terminology of the day. What do you think? -Parallel or Together? 11:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent solution! will you make the changes or should I?Rjensen 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just did it, and will go to the Democratic-Republican Party page and make the change there and point users of that talk page to this discussion. -Parallel or Together? 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

nice job!Rjensen 12:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, I reverted your changes to the opening before realizing that it was being discussed here. Anyway, I disagree with your version. I think it is just too verbose. The opening is too long as it is without adding extra sentences explaining the different names of political parties. I don't see the problem with using "Democratic-Republican". If people want to know what that is, they can just click the link, or read the rest of the article.--JW1805 (Talk) 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

the problem with "Democratic-Republican" is that the name is obsolete and misleading. Wiki can do better. Good point about verbosity...I'll try my hand at it. Rjensen 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is neither obsolete or misleading. I can think of nothing more misleading than saying that Thomas Jefferson was the first Republican President! Democratic-Republican Party (United States) is the name of the Wikipedia article about the party in question. That is the term that should be used in other articles. Disamb about the name of the modern-day Republican party should be located there, not in every article where that party is mentioned. That is just a recipe for confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson said he was the first Republican president. He almost always used the term "Republican" to describe his party. The article clearly says it's different from modern GOP. So who will be confused? What will the confusion be? And why should Wiki be locked into an obsolescent term? Over 90% of the historians writing on the subject in last 5 or 10 years have used "Republican" -- most recently Wilentz (2005) and Gary Wills on Henry Adams (2005). Rjensen 05:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just part of the ongoing war right now between historical revisionists and those who want to go for historical accuracy. Both political parties would love to point to Jefferson in their own history, because it scores points for their side. And the truth is that both parties can. That's why I added 'original' to Republican instead of changing it. Maybe we should just be up front and put in a disclaimer in the text about the academic debate and establish a policy about how we're going to make the reference to the D-R party, then defend it. I wouldn't mind seeing the Republican name used if he used it, I just want it clear that it was in the late 1700's, not 2006. Chadlupkes 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There, how's that? I put both in there, and made it clear which article the link jumps to, as well as how he referred to it. Does that work? Chadlupkes 06:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see "both" in there. I disagree that there is a debate between "historical revisionists and those who want to go for historical accuracy." Maybe you should name some people in each camp. Rjensen 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jefferson and James Madison founded and led the original Democratic-Republican Party, although he referred to it as the "Republican Party" at the time." And the war is between the parties themselves. Depending on who you talk to, the other side is the side trying to change history. Chadlupkes 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Republican Party was formed in 1854. That cannot be refuted. Even the Republican Party itself says so. Kingturtle 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed. of course it thought of itself as the heir of Jefferson. The question is why Wiki should change the name TJ gave his own party? Rjensen 07:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not change, just clarify the difference between the Republican Party of the 1790's and the Republican Party of 1854. Chadlupkes 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please see this article from Encyclopedia Britannica which says that the party officially adopted the title "Democratic-Republican" in 1798. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The EN indeed says that...I think they got it from Lalor's encyclopedia of 1880 that makes the same point. No history book or biography mentions the event. Rjensen 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read every history book and biography? Wow! Anyway, I consider Britannica to be a reputable source of information. And every other encyclopedic source I can find also uses "Democratic-Republican". We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for original research. We have to go with reputable sources. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson as architect

I've just noticed this passage, which, I must say is utter baloney:

Jefferson was an accomplished architect who was extremely influential in bringing the Neo-Classical style he encountered in France to the United States. He felt that it reflected the ideas of republic and democracy where the prevalent British styles represented the monarchy. Jefferson designed his famous home, Monticello, near Charlottesville, Virginia..."

As any book on architecture will tell you, Jefferson's style is essentially a variant of Palladianism, which is an almost entirely British style, and is in no way related to French neo-Classicism (French classical style has distinctive features that are not to be found in Jefferson's work). There have been debates about the extent to which Palladianism was an expression of Whig political values, one of the principal sources of Jeffersonian liberalism, but it is generally accepted that the style was at least strongly associated with Whig grandees in England. So a political meaning may reasonably be ascribed to it, though, of course, the "colonial Georgian" manner was already well established and was not seen as unusual or politically loaded. Paul B 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that this passage completely contradicts what is said in the article on Monticello, and in any case it is an historical absurdity, since France was an absolutist monarchy when Jefferson developed his architectural style, and the most prominent example of French Classicism was the Palace of Versailles - a monument to Absolutism. Paul B 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

added info to Jefferson religious beliefs.

"...[I]t [the Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw." (in a letter to Charles Thomson 9 January 1816)

This quote reinforces the view that Jefferson was heavily against organized religion. It is matter of controversy because it can be interpreted to mean what he says; that he is a "real" Christian. The quote may indicate that he like many others of his time felt that many Christians where hypocrites and corrupted by the institution of the church, and ironically didn't actually follow the principles of the bible. Past experience with the government instituted Church of England can give insight on this viewpoint. This quote may be perceived to mean that Jefferson was a Christian, but it may also substantiate deist philosophies but it is a matter of personal interpretation.

I wrote this to give insight to the quote. This quote is very important so I feel that its good to show all viewpoints. I tried to be as balanced as possible. What do you all think?

JJstroker 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is NOT the job of editors to tell readers how to interpret facts. Your addition is clearly editorial comment - it is your voice. NPOV means we report POV, we do not present our own POV or our own interpretations - nor do we present material and then say "it is a matter of personal interpretaion" - - personal views do not belong in the encyclopedia. Please review NPOV. We do not present POV, though we may report on it.
• "heavily against" & "didn't" are too informal - but that does not matter - the sentences are also filled with weasel words "can be interpreted" "may indicate" "ironically didn't actually" "can give insight" "may be perceived to mean" "may also substantiate" see: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• I think you will find the style you are using more welcome at wikiChristian - but even there they must have some limitations on editorial comment --JimWae 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And I can find your writing at wikideist.org. First of all I dont want to state Jefferson being a Christian as a fact, because it is open to personal interpretation. (Just like him being a deist) That needs to be explained in the article. That is why I put "weasel words" because it is open to personal interpretation as I have stated. I was sure not to state it as a fact because I am explaining the viewpoint that he is also seen as a Christian which is very legitimate. I feel that it establishes equilibrium and shows both viewpoints. I dont see the problem then other trying to eliminate the alternative view. At the end it says this can also reinforce deist philosophies but him being a Christian is open to personal interpretation. The article is already biased as it is and if we left my edits in the article would still slant towards deism. Many people think that Jefferson was a Christian and refer to this quote so I feel that it is important to show the popular viewpoints from both sides.

PS- I cant help but get the impression that you are contradicting your own argument. The article states that Jefferson was "widely regarded" to be a diest. This is not a statement of fact but opinion. Yet I try to show the alternate opinion and it is not allowed. Do you see the irony?JJstroker 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I note again your words above "I am explaining the viewpoint.." Please read NPOV We do not put in what WE need to explain --JimWae 05:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why do you say "please finish discussion" when I was the last one to comment here? - and then simply put in the same rubbish again. --JimWae 05:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Like explaining the viewpoint of Jefferson being a deist is not in the article? I am trying to establish equilibruim and show the alternative viewpoint which many people have. If Jefferson was 100 percent a deist without a doubt I wouldnt say anything but it is a matter of personal opinion as the article even states. "It is widely regarded that Jefferson was a deist" Widely regarded is not a fact but a viewpoint. The article goes on to explain why he is regarded to be a diest. He is also "regarded" to be a Christian. The article is doing exactly what you are telling me not to do. Do you see the contradiction? The fact of the matter is that it can not be substantiated that Jefferson was a deist or a Christian therefore both views need to be explained. Explaining viewpoints is not against wiki policy if it is relevant, and in this case it is.

PS- Yes I am explaining the viewpoint, that is speaking on behalf of others just like every single other wiki editor. JJstroker 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, you are presenting your own POV, not reporting on POV. You could not have ever read and understood NPOV. That TJ was opposed to clergy is obvious from the rest of the section - and is not in contention. Also not in contention is that, though he revered Jesus, he did not hold Jesus to be God. Even suggesting that he was a Xian (as commonly understood by that term) is misleading -- especially without a single source. --JimWae 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am representing the POV of many people. I really felt that I conformed to the NPOV policy. That is I didn’t state that TJ was a Christian nor did I say the quote indicated that he was not a deist. The edit I made was in context with the article by explaining both viewpoints fairly. If I didn’t conform to the NPOV policy I would have said “This indicates TJ was a Christian” and left the deist part out, also I wouldn’t have said it is open to personal interpretation. I didn’t state anything as a fact or lead people to think one way. I merely showed both viewpoints.

The Jefferson bible does indicate that Jefferson was a deist, although it can not be 100 percent substantiated. At the end of the day it comes down to speculation and people are still in debate; this will not change. Therefore both sides need to be explained because Jefferson being a deist is not 100 percent certain. The article does explain the viewpoint of Jefferson being a deist but leaves the alternative viewpoint out. I am not trying to unfairly push views in the article; I am really just trying to make it as fair as possible. Who wants to have a viewpoint shoved down their throat? I know I don’t. I feel that I was very fair in the way I wrote it and conformed to the NPOV policy. It wont hurt to show the alternate view that many people have. People can decide for themselves to whether or not he was a deist, which should be the goal of the editors. Although I feel some people are trying to lead the reader down a certain path. But at the end of the day facts will speak for themselves. Even Jefferson himself said that "Americans will always make the right choices if they are given -all- the facts" If my edits where left in and Jefferson was really a deist the truth will come out. In other words you have nothing to worry about.

JJstroker 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV - since you apparently have never read it, does not say only that POVs need to be balanced. It also says that POVs are not to be presented as editorial comment. You also need to read WP:NOR. I seem to be wasting my time with you. --JimWae 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jim, I respect your opinion because you do good work. I am impressed with how you get information. But in this case I have to stress that I am not putting editorial comment. If I am putting editorial comment, the line in the article "Jefferson was widely regarded to be a deist" should be removed. How is that not a POV?

If the line where to say "Jefferson was a deist" and it was 100 percent factual, I wouldn’t add anything else. It would be the end of discussion. But this is a viewpoint and in order to conform to the NPOV policy we have to show the alternative view. Yes it is a viewpoint in a sense but it is appropriate to explain both viewpoints in this article because there isn’t 100 percent factual evidence to see if Jefferson was deist. Yes, information does indicate that he was but it was not 100 percent certain therefore it is a viewpoint. If we are going to have viewpoints on wikipedia it needs to show the alternative view. I hope you understand what I am saying. I really am just trying to make the article more accurate and I feel that I did a pretty good job at showing both views.

I actually agree now after looking over the quote for the paragraph commentary. The part I dont agree with is the first sentence where you added the citation. I hope we can work this out.

JJstroker 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PS- Woah im sorry that paragraph really was pretty bad. It reaked with commentary. I just realized sry you where right. Sry for the mixup.

JJstroker 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well - glad we finally worked that out - and thanks for having the courage to admit an error --JimWae 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

July 4th

The article stated, "Jefferson died on the Fourth of July, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence...". The 50th anniversary of the SIGNING would have been August 2, 1826, the 50th anniversary of its ADOPTION would have been July 4, 1826, so I changed it. I don't think it's necessary to get into the whole thing on the TJ page. MusicMaker5376 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

don't blank correct information

Jefferson was famous for creating a party so that has to be in the article. He was famous for attacking the judiciary so that belongs as well. GRIOT has actually added nothing new to the article he only erases correct information that displeases him. That is not a good way to build Wiki. Rjensen 06:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hofstadter is an extremely controversial historian. Why you do present his views as fact in this article. This is POV. GriotGriot

• I think it's fine to include information about Jefferson's "purge" of Federalists from the government. It just needs to be written in a NPOV way, and it should specifically focus on Jefferson and his actions. The article is so long as it is, we don't need long essays on all the political maneuverings of the time. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No real mention of the Kentucky Resolution

I'm a little disappointed I didn't see this discussed in detail (it got a little blurb), as I feel the Kentucky resolution is one of his most important works. M00 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and it mentioned and points to a whole article on the subject. Rjensen 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "whole article" on the Kentucky Resolution is two paragraphs. What I would want to see on the Jefferson page is a little more about the significance to the politics of that time. M00 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some more discussion in the K-V article. Rjensen 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your changes looks great! M00 08:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rjensen 08:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

trivia is fun

Trivia is fun. As long as it is in good taste, trivia can help humanize grand figures and make history more lively for all (especially us kids of all ages) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

Some trivia is better than others. A good trivia section would focus on stuff that actually interests the reader or clears up common misconceptions. I agree with Rjensen that most of the trivia in that section is useless. I do like the Jefferson, Adams, and Declaration of Independence bullet. I have added a bullet about one of the most famous of Jefferson's quotes that really isn't from Jefferson. - JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.16.98 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

Also, I suggest moving the THOMAS trivia to the Library of Congress mention in the Interests and Activities section. So, that paragraph of the Interests and Activities section would read, "After the British burned Washington and the Library of Congress in August 1814, Jefferson offered his own collection to the nation. In January 1815, Congress accepted his offer, appropriating $23,950 for his 6,487 books, and the foundation was laid for a great national library. Today, the Library of Congress' website for federal legislative information is named THOMAS, in honor of Jefferson." - JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.16.98 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

You know what? I just went ahead and did it. I commented out some trivia rather than outright remove it, so it's easy to undo if people don't like my change. Hopefully this will be a happy compromise between Rjensen and others. It's better to remove part than have a fight over the whole thing. The THOMAS sentence has been moved to the LOC mention in Interests and Activities. - JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.105.208 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

well it looks a lot better now. (The trivia I cut out mentioned that a certain student project was named "Tommy" after TJ, and that one state included TJ on President's day. :) Rjensen 11:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What's with this DARPA Challege Team trivia? I really don't see why naming something after Jefferson deserves to be in the encyclopedia article. Many, many things have been named after Jefferson over the last 200+ years. - JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.14 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

The DARPA thing did get national news coverage. It doesn't do any harm to include a reference here. It is "trivia" after all. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But it really doesn't have anything to do with Thomas Jefferson, except the name. The trivia should be about Thomas Jefferson, the man, not stuff named after him that has nothing to do with him. - JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.17 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

Sorry, JW, I know you're going to hate me for this but I removed the "tommy" trivia, again. I just don't think it has anything to do with Thomas Jefferson, the man. I like his portrait on the nickel that you posted. Got any $2 bill portraits you can post? - JP 71.252.53.167 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with JP. Anyone have details about the many portraits of TJ?? Rjensen 10:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Slave Ownership

To whoever keeps inserting that Jefferson inherited slaves "from his wife at her death" -- that is incorrect. Please see his Farm Book, p. 7, where Jefferson wrote in his own hand "A Roll of the slaves of John Wayles which were allotted to T.J. in right of his wife on a division of the estate Jan. 14 1774." TJ inherited slaves from the estate of his father-in-law; his wife was very much alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.91.212 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 February 2006 UTC (UTC)

Please note that the correct # of slaves TJ owned in his lifetime is a little over 600, NOT 650. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.50.115 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 March 2006 UTC (UTC)

Smallpox and introduction of vaccination to USA

Jefferson corresponded with Edward Jenner[7], congratulating him on formalising vaccination, and in concert with Dr Benjamin Waterhouse - one of the founders of the Harvard medical school, took an interest in the problems of transport of vaccine material in th eheat of the southern states. I don't know whether this is sufficiently significant to add here, but I suppose of the religion section was a line or so shorter, this might be a line that could be added. Midgley 16:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Bible

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Jefferson Bible that could benefit from the input of other editors who are familar with the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. ^BlankVerse 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

TJ and religious views

It really sways across POV. He is generally regarded to be a diest? By who? What gives one group more credibility then the other? It is a matter of opinion and both sides should be explained and let the reader decide for themselves. It really can't be proven if he was a Christian or Deist because he was private in these matters. You have many sides which show both viewpoints. It really comes down to a viewpoint and this is against wikipolicy. Jerry Jones 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

difference of opinion? maybe not. The one reference cited in the article that TJ was a Christian in fact says he was NOT a Christian. I think all his biographers call him a deist--is there one who disagrees? Peterson sums up his beliefs: [pp 50-51] : "It was the stage that established two main propositions for enlightened men. First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground. " Rjensen 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference I posted implies that he was a Christian through historical information just like the diest cititation does. At the end of the day it comes down to personal interpretation for both sides. Many biographers and historians say he was a Christian while others say he was a deist. In fact he is officially listed as an Escopalian by most historical sources but it wasn't until recentley where the debate about his faith started to be challenged. It is debatable and will not change therefore we can't label him a Christian or Deist considering he was very private in these matters. My goal is not to say that he was a Christian but present both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Even that is being generous. Also Peterson doesn't really have the authority to by the sole person to decide whether or not Jefferson was a Christian or not. Please talk to me if you want to make a change so we can both come to an agreement.

Thanks, Jerry Jones 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is right. Jefferson was very clearly a deist, not a Christian. He took scissors to the Bible, cutting out the parts he couldn't take seriously!

We can't give undue weight to those who would posthumously convert him. I'm restoring the text. If you disagree, come back here and get some consensus in support of your change BEFORE making it, not after. Alienus 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He was clearly a Deist to whom? You? He is clearly a Christian to others. This is a viewpoint and not accurate. Even the main page says he was considered by "most" historians to be a Deist. I hate to break it to you but you can't always go with the view of historians considering anyone can be one. Historians are not immune to political agendas. Secondly he condensed the Jefferson Bible for the Indians and this is actually being heavily discussed in the jefferson bible page. My goal is not to say that he was a Christian or a deist, but to merely show both viewpoints and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Both sides have presented information which suggests he was a Deist/Christian and they both need to be displayed. He is officially listed as a Escopalian in many sources and it wasnt until recently where deism has been taking a hold on this topic. The article is clearly POV and needs to be change to show both viewpoints equally. Jerry Jones 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Joines wants to add a link to [8] in which minister James Kennedy clearly states: "Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian".

Is there anyone who says Jefferson was a genuine Christian?? Can anybody be a historian? Yes in the sense that anyone can be a heavyweight boxer--it's a matter of whether you can punch--and take the punches. :) Rjensen 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Like positive atheist is a more legitimate source? I put that link because I felt that it summarized the viewpoint very well but I can put others if you would like that match up more with the deist provided link. My changes will establish equilibruim and it will not say that Jefferson was a Christian. This article is a POV violation and should add a banner that the factual accuracy of the religious views is debated. You are putting your opinion into the article and this is against wikipolicy. Jerry Jones 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jones seems to be saying that Jefferson was really and truly a Christian. He needs to show some serious sources that make that claim--the one he did provide says the opposite. Rjensen 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to say he was a Christian. I am merely trying to show the legitimate alternative viewpoint that many people have and needs to be explained. TJ can't be labeled a deist or a Christian. It is simply a viewpoint and there is not enouch evidence for it to be 100 percent documented for both sides. Please do not remove my edits. I am just trying to make the article balanced. If you feel that there is info that may suggest TJ was a deist add it but just dont say he was a deist because that is a personal POV. Jerry Jones 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TJ wrote many thousands of words on religion and historians classify him, without much disagreement, as a deist. If TJ wanted to keep his views secret he did a very poor job of it. If there is a consensus among scholars--and there is--then Wiki goes with that. Rjensen 05:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of you please show me 100 percent accurate verifiable information of Thomas Jefferson saying that "Yes, I am a deist" and I will shut up. But it simply doesnt exist therefore you cant say that he was. How would you know that he was a deist? It is personal interpretation from events which can not be presented as a fact as the wiki article does. You can not say that he was 100 percent a deist as a fact. This is clearly in violation of wiki policy and false information. There are many other events and writings which clearly suggest he was a Christian.

Rjenson - Many historians believe also believe that he was a Christian. Secondly writing on religion doesnt automatically classify your point. Nearly all of his writings can be refuted to show Christian influence. Bottom line we cant post it as a fact because it is debatable and unknown. TJ talked a lot about religion but he was private when it came to showing his own religious beliefs. Jerry Jones 05:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that "many historians" believe he was a Christian. I do not know a single historian who says that--reference please! TJ talked edlessly about religion--even putting deist terminology in state documents like the Declaration of Independence. Rjensen 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree TJ did talk endlessly about religion but he still did not disclose his own religion once and for all. If anything the closest thing he came to it is saying that he was a true Christian by following the principles of the bible as stated in the article. There are some legitimate Deist concerns such as what you mentioned which should be added to the article. I dont have a problem with that. But there are many concerns which would suggest he was a Christian which should also be added. As for the historian question even the article states that "Most" or the "Majority" of historians agree (Not All). Can you please provide -facts- for me proving the Thomas Jefferson was a Deist that is irrefutable and lacking personal interpretation? If not I believe my edits should stand. My point is it can not be proven that he was a Deist therefore it cant be stated that he was one -Because afterall it comes down to personal interpretation. Wikipolicy clearly states information must be factual accurate verifiable information and NO personal interpretation. Jerry Jones 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're asking for original research. (not allowed in Wiki) Wiki reports the consensus of scholars which is that he was a deist and not a Christian. that is a verifiable fact and is reported. Maybe he was a really secret Buddhist--how could anyone disprove that? Should Wiki mention that possibility? Try this: name a few prominent Christian leaders who say he was a genuine Christian. TJ wrote that he rejected Jesus as God or saviour; he rejected miracles; he rejected the gospels as authentic. he thought Jesus had some good ethical ideas. Rjensen 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide a citation for consensus of scholars. Even the article states that it is not 100 percent agreed upon and a substantial number of scholars still say that he was a Christian. Majority rule is not always correct. Many Christian leaders say he was a Christian that is why I feel the viewpoint should be explained. As for the gospels it was a condensed version for the Indians and he did not exclude all miracles. I added that in and it was removed. Can you please provide facts that he rejected Jesus as God and saviour?

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

on historians and TJ religion see Peterson, "The Jeffersonian Image" who notes that the Unitarians claimed him as one of their own. also: Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson by Edwin S. Gaustad pp 25-26,91-92,95,105,115,128, 141-43,215-17; Kerry Walters The American Deists (1992); and probably best of all: Charles Sanford The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson (1987) pp 7-9 and 84-91 Rjensen 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, Just because Peterson is a biographer it doesnt give him the sole authority to decide whether or not TJ was Christian or not. Sure Unitarians claim TJ as their own, as do Christians, as do atheists, and as do diests. That doesn't mean anything. I hardly find a few scholars claiming that Jefferson was a deist accurate information. A few scholars does not make it accurate. They have agendas and have to interpret information themselves. The fact is TJ never said that he was a Deist therefore it cant be proven. There is plenty of information that suggests he was a Christian. I do not want to say he was a Christian because it cant be proven. I am not going to say that he was not a deist only show both viewpoints. I dont see what the hang up is. I hardly find positiveatheist and interpretive information from deists credible also.71.131.180.37 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• so, provide a source that says he was Xian that others can assess --JimWae 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• What does Xian mean? What do you want me to provide? I only want to say that he is ocnsidered a Christian and a Deist because this is factually accurate. TJ cant be proven to be a deist so it can't be listed as so. I just want to make the article to be fair without a force fed agenda to the reader. The bottom line is TJ being a deist is just a consensus (Which should stay in the article) but it cant be proven 100 percent and other people raise legitimate points that he may have been a Christian. (This is a big view that most people have so it should be explained. Again I will not say he was a Christian just add a sentence saying that others consider him a Christian. My main concern is in the article states that TJ is a deist as a 100 percent undeniable fact which is clearly just not true. It cant be proven and comes down to consensus. 71.131.180.37 05:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Who says TJ was Xian? --JimWae 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hardly anything in any encylopedia can be "proven" to a highly rigid standard - but here we at least need sources - preferably scholarly --JimWae 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Please sign in, Jerry - and please connect your signature to your words - do not make it appear as a heading for the next person's --JimWae 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not a scholarly product it is an enyclopedia that tells people what is the scholarly consensus. If you want definitive proof of something, switch to math and forget history. Rjensen 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Jim. Thanks for being reasonable, I appreciate it. But I only want to remove that Jefferson was a deist because it is stated as a fact which can not be verified. Wikipolicy clearly states the information has to be verifiable factual information for it to be stated as such.

NPOV says :"Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias."

TJ article is clearly baised in favor towards Deism.

NPOV says:"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

This is exactly what I am advocating. Rjensen is clearly force feeding his views on the article and it is clearly against NPOV. Bottomw line again Rjensen prove to me that TJ was a deist. Show me a fact which proves he was and not interpretive information from scholars. Otherwise you cant state that he was a deist as a fact. You must state that the "viewpoint of scholars believes he was a deist" you cant say "Thomas Jefferson is a diest". If you cant prove it I am changing it. Since you keep strongarming it I am going to call editors, wikipedians against censorship, put a baised disclaimer and enter discussion if you cant prove it. You cant just state a consensus from scholars as a fact.

Btw I am not trying to say he was a Christian I am just trying to establish NPOV because this is clearly innaccurate, biased, misleading information. Also who is Peterson? He didnt even know TJ and his viewpoint shouldn't be stated as authority in the main article of religious views. He is just one biographer who never even met Jefferson! Other biographers have different views his doesn't mean anything.

Jerry Jones 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

the article is not biased toward Deism--that belief has pretty well died out. There is no POV controversy-- Jones has found zero people who say Jefferson was a genuine Christian. All the biographers say he was a deist--see the books listed. (Some people call him a Unitarian Deist in terms of TJ's agreement with Priestly. TJ Said God exists and created the world --and Jesus was not the son of God; the Gospels are not true; there are no miracles; there is no personal God. Maybe Jones will tell us what verifiable sources Jones is using???? Let's name two and start there. Rjensen 07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost everybody says Jefferson is a Christian. Pat Robertson and most Christian groups talk about it all the time and most American people believe it. There are plenty of websites saying Jefferson was a Christian. I will give you a few if you want but its not necessary. I already posted two. Yes, the scholars that you specifically chose say that TJ was a deist while others do not. Scholars can not dictate information they are only people who gather information and make a consensus. All information was not granted to them either. For all we know Jefferson could have wrote letters and said how much he loved Jesus to his friends but they were lost and history doesn't know about it. Even if 100 percent of scholars said that "we believe that Thomas Jefferson was a diest" You still cant say "Thomas Jefferson was a diest" Because it is not proven regardless on how many scholars and biographers feel that way. It is still an opinion. Thomas Jefferson never said "Yes, I am a deist" It is only speculation. As for the Jefferson bible:

http://christianparty.net/tjchristian.htm

Read the monticello letter and he says himself that his writing was a abridgement of Jesus moral philosophy. I tried to add that to the article and it was removed. This is a clear lie by deists to say that his dileberate abridgement of the bible by only including Jesus moral philosophy proves that he was a deist because he cut out miracles. He was only including Jesus moral philosophy! Miracles had nothing to do with Jesus moral philosophy. Does this prove that he was a Christian? No. It does however reinforce the fact that he approved of Jesus's moral philosophy but it still doesnt disapprove that he was not a deist. Whats the big deal? You cant continue to powerblock this.

If I receive my edits, I will not say that he was a Christian or a deist. The reader will be allowed to draw their own conclusions. What do you have to worry about? If he was a deist as you say the truth will come out. The information would just be too big for the reader to ignore. Also please show me verifiable information for your claims. Also can you please show me why that this was written "TJ did not believe in the divinity of Jesus" What info brought this viewpoint? Please provide it so I can review it.

71.131.180.37 08:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Pat Robertson agree with Jefferson about Jesus? -- no heaven or hell for Robertson any more? no Savior, no Redemption, no Resurrection??? Good heavens!! So far we have not been given one credible citation that calls TJ a Christian. So how can there be a controversy when there are zero on the other side? The article clearly states he approved of Jesus's moral philosophy. He also agreed with the Koran, which I suppose should be mentioned. Rjensen 08:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not been given one credible source proving that Jefferson was a deist.

Here is one: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006

"D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., is senior minister of the nearly 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and president of Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian broadcasting organization which reaches more than 3 million people weekly by radio and television. He also is the author of more than 60 books, founder and president of Evangelism Explosion – a lay evangelism training program used in every nation on earth – and founder and chancellor of Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla."

This guy represents a organization that reaches 3 million Christians weekly. For gosh sakes my own high school textbook and all my teachers said TJ was a Christian! If i am not mistaken he is listed as an escopalian by most official sources. Go to any Christian forum and they will think the same thing.

I do not want to say that TJ was a Christian. I just want to present both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If he was a deist I assure you no matter what I put they will believe that he was one. This is a legitimate viewpoint that many people have and it needs to be addressed. As NPOV policy states the accepted opinion is not always the right one and all legitimate views should be presented with accuracy and non bais. The bottom line is again it is not proven that TJ was a deist so it cant be stated as a fact. We can write the article together and come to an agreement I just want to make it better by showing both viewpoints. I hate just having views shoved down my throat and that is what this article is doing. I dont have a problem with letting the reader drawing their own conclusions even if it will bring them to the conclusion that Jefferson was a deist.

71.131.180.37 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Minister Kennedy clearly states: " Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian." So let's put that in and keep you happy. Rjensen 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe he was your conventional Christian either. I just want to write the article that doesnt state that Jefferson was a deist because it can not be proven and is in fact false information. I want to present both viewpoints and let the reader draw their own conclusions. We will still leave the sentence stating that "Most scholars agree that Jefferson was a Deist" but that is as far as we can go. We cant state that he was a deist. If he really was a deist you have nothing to worry about. The Christian point of view will be destroyed and it will only reinforce the view that he was a deist by the reader. Plus when the reader has this viewpoint they will be prepared to address people who say he was a Christian. So can we come to an agreement?

71.131.180.37 03:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. How is the claim that he was a Deist "false information"? It's almost universally believed to be the case. It does not mean that Jefferson, as a folloower of Christ's "philosophy" could not consider himself to be a "Christian" in the same sense that follower of Plato is a Platonist. We can say that Jefferson presented himself as a Christian in this sense. It does not contradict the assertion that he was a Deist. Paul B 09:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the "claim" false information? That is exactly what it is, a claim. The article states that TJ was a deist when it can not be proven. That is only the consensus of scholars. That consensus of scholars definitely needs to be left in the article but we just cant state it as a fact. We have to let the reader draw their own conclusions. Personally even if we removed the lines that state TJ as a deist the information would still lead people to believe he was a deist and would be accurate that all people can agree on. It is merely a "belief" as you pointed out and beliefs can be wrong. I will wait for your response but I want to remove some statements in the article that are inaccurate. I hope we can all agree on it. I do not want to impose my beliefs but just make the article more accurate and fair for everyone while complying with wiki policy.

71.131.180.37 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"inaccurate statements"??? which statement is inaccurate? Rjensen 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute among historians that TJ was a deist and not a Christian. To suggest that he was a Christian because he supported Christian ethics (the same ethics common to Judaism and Islam) ignores the fact that he refused to join any Christian church. Christian ministers are not credible historical interpreters because their purpose is evangelism, not historical understanding. Ahlstrom's Religious History of the American People (National Book Award), says TJ was a "critic of 'sectarianism' in religon and an eloquent defender of deism" (p.364), "Jefferson was more doctrinaire in his materialism than his confreres", and "Because of ferocious attacks against him by Federalist clergymen, he became more bluntly anticlerical." (p. 368) The task of creating this encyclopedia is to document the scholarly record, not original research to "prove" anyone's beliefs. --Blainster 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can the D. James Kennedy quote be removed? Not only does it come from an unreliable source, but it is also quoted out of context and used in the middle of something unrelated (it is a modern quote, yet the article makes it seem as if it is a quote from a baptist of jefferson's time). It is also used in support of Jefferson's Deism when the article in question clearly opposes it. There are many better sources showing that Jefferson is a Deist and no need to show it by quoting an unreliable source out of context. Shadowoftime 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Draftsman

I really wish I could remember where I got it, but the phrase "should more properly be called its draftsman" is not mine. I believe it is important to show that all of the wording in the finished Declaration is not his, in particular the very important "self-evident truths" bit. Also reference the Wikipedia entry, which states: "On 11 June 1776, a committee consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, was formed to draft a suitable declaration to frame this resolution. Jefferson did most of the writing, with input from the committee. His draft was presented to the Continental Congress on 1 July 1776."

Jefferson was not the author of the Declaration. Congress was. He wrote the majority of the draft. I, in particular, don't want people thinking that Jefferson believed in "self-evident truths," as the current wording strongly implies. -- Calion | Talk 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • He wrote every word. Congress did NOT dictate it or tell him what to say (they did make some changes after he wrote it.) It is not true that Congress spent time saying "we should make points 1, 2, 3, 4, ...12 and now will someone please write those up." Did NOT happen that way. The committee gave him the whole job because he was the best writer and the strongest advocate for independence. He of course was synthesizing and articulating ideas that everyone already held. --- Did TJ believe in inalienable rights? yes--who denies that? Rjensen 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Draftsman" does not, to me at least, imply that anyone told him what to write. It merely states that what he wrote was subject to change and final approval by somebody else. It was changed, in important ways, from his original draft. For reference, see this EB article, which frankly has a better entire introductory paragraph than ours. As for the "inalienable rights" bit, my brain cramped. I immediately changed it to the correct "self-evident truths," but obviously not quickly enough. -- Calion | Talk 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost every author discovers there are editors who will change some words. Look what Ezra Pound did to TS Eliot! A "draftsman" is one of many anonymous people who work over a draft. TJ insisted that his tombstone be inscribed "Author of the Declaration..." Rjensen 03:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

True enough on the epitaph. Alright; although I believe my "draftsman" language is legit (and borne out by several sources), what do you think about my compromise? Heck, it's even used later in the article. -- Calion | Talk 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Jefferson was the author. Some other people made some changes (see Jefferon's autobiography for a comparison of his version with the final version). Also, I reverted the "reconstructed rough draft" that was inserted. We should go with the final version. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations! You've changed the truth to a lie. The article says "In the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:" This is simply untrue. Jefferson never wrote those words. He wrote some of them, of course, but the paragraph in the article is not his writing. This is patently unacceptable. I thought "primary" was a fair compromise. He did NOT truly author the work; Congress did. He presented a draft to the committee, which modified it and presented a draft to Congress, which modified it and presented it to the states on July 4, 1776. All in all, eighty-six changes to his original document were made. Jefferson was critical of changes to the document. Richard Henry Lee said "I wish sincerely, as well for the honor of Congress, as for that of the States, that the Manuscript had not been mangled as it is. It is wonderful, and passing pitiful, that the rage of change should be so unhappily applied[9]. It is dishonest, disingenuous, and unacceptable that the text of the Declaration, as it stands, should be ascribed solely to Jefferson, particularly in the "Political Philosophy" section. I won't re-revert anything. Yet. But this must be fixed. -- Calion | Talk 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of rewriting of history around here, and it seems to be by the same people. We don't have to wonder how much of the Declaration Jefferson authored. He tells exactly how much he wrote and how much the rest of Congress wrote in his autobiography: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Jefferson/Autobiography.html#declaration --Carla Pehlke 02:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm changing both things back. What is needed is a "Declaration of Independence" section where this issue is explained a bit more in depth, but I'm at a loss on how to work it in. Does anyone want to give it a stab? -- Calion | Talk 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have a major problem with adding "principal" or "primary". But, I don't know about this rough draft quote. The link says it is some sort of "reconstruction". I would like to investigate this further. I do agree with expanding this discussion a bit more, but I think a section at United States Declaration of Independence would be more logical. Actually there is already a short "Differences between draft and final versions" section, which can be expanded. I will try to work on that. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a little on this at United States Declaration of Independence. Also, Committee of Five. What do you think? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice. If you are uncertain of the authenticity of the draft I put in, by all means check it out. Your changes to the "Declaration" article make it clear that Jefferson wrote the "fair copy" draft submitted to Congress; I'd be fine with using text from that (even if it contains the hated "self-evident truths" language) if you can find it (I'll be a little embarrased if that turns out to be identical to what Congress approved). I understand why you wanted to make changes to Declaration (nice "Committee of Five" article, BTW; I'd never heard that phrase), but I really think it's more important here. The process of the writing of the Declaration is important there, of course (I'd mention the number of changes made there, for instance), but some reference to the content of the original draft, important differences, and Jefferson's discontent with the finished product should be here. It helps to illustrate the man and his ideas. In particular, in reference to his philosophy, the difference between "self-evident" and "sacred and undeniable" is important here ("self-evident truths" are a philosophical peeve of mine; I don't think that they are, in general, possible, and it's nice to see that Jefferson may have agreed with me), whereas in the context of the Declaration itself, it's a fairly minor issue. Also, his anti-slavery tirade that was taken out of the finished document is already referenced here, and ideally should be pulled out into the hypothetical "Declaration" section. -- Calion | Talk 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

According to the lisp article, Thomas Jefferson spoke with a lisp. Should this be added to the trivia section? Rmpfu89 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would add it, but not to the trivia section; add it where it talks about Jefferson being a poor speaker. -- Calion | Talk 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim in the lisp article is unsourced. We should not spread unsourced information from one article to another. john k 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

True friend of the church

Moved from my talk page:

==Thomas Jefferson== Hey, I saw that you reverted my removal of the following text to the Thomas Jefferson article without explanation:

At the time the Baptists supported his efforts to disestablish the state church; thus D. James Kennedy, a prominent evangelical theologian, says that Jefferson was "a true friend of the Christian faith." But Kennedy concludes, "Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian." (followed by a reference to www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006).

This wikipedia text claims that D. James Kenedy calls Jefferson "a true friend of the Christian faith" because baptists supported his efforts to disestablish the church(something not mentioned at all in the sited article). A look at the source sited shows that D. James Kennedy (a presbyterian) called Jefferson "a true friend of the Christian church" because he thinks believe Jefferson DIDN'T support seperation of church and state. Thus, a claim is made in the wikipedia article which is contradicted by the very article it sites. Shadowoftime 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted without explanation because you deleted without explanation. Now that you've explained, I will undo my revert, if you haven't beaten me to it already. Simple. Alienus 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are his Rules of Conduct?

see topic. (Stevenwagner 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).

Notes on the State of Virginia

Not only do we not have an article on this, it isn't even mentioned in the text of the article! This is pretty shameful. john k 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. If you know about it, write the article and add it here! Peyna 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know of it, but not very much about it. I do a lot of stuff on wikipedia, but I surely can't be expected to correct every one of the incredibly huge number of omissions that I notice and know some limited amount about on wikipedia. Noting the absence of any discussion on the talk page might alert an editor of this page who does have sufficient knowledge of the subject to give it a decent write-up. john k 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just commenting on your calling it "shameful." Perhaps the right editor just hasn't come along yet. Peyna 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of wikipedia is still pretty shameful, sadly. I'm much more surprised when an article is good than when it's bad (well, certain types of articles I expect to be good, others not so much). Not that I don't love it all the same. john k 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea, I just started Notes on the State of Virginia. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good start! john k 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Slave controversy in intro

I really don't think that the slave/paternity controversy merits a mention in the intro. The paragraph is about Jefferson's important political philosophies and government positions. It seems very out of place there, and the subject has due coverage in the slavery section of the article, and in the Sally Hemings article. --Jon Stockton 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does Jefferson's death come before his life?

It seems very odd to be reading about his death before his life? Does anyone object to moving his death nearer to the ending? Skywriter 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

mistake on the part about TJ and Religion

in the part about religion it is stated:

"Jefferson used deist terminology in repeatedly stating his belief in a creator, and in the United States Declaration of Independence used the terms "Creator", "Nature's God", and "Divine Providence"."

however the term "Divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independence is not from the version written by Jefferson, but was added later by the convention, in other words, obviously Franklin or Adams.

-Juha Uski

Thomas Jefferson: The Black President.

No-one is going to add into this little document that the only reason Thomas Jefferson was elected was because of the 3/5ths compromise? No one is going to mention that he was elected because slaves were 3/5ths of a vote, and he was the southern candidate? NO-ONE will mention the fact that without the 3/5ths compromise theres no way he would've been president?

What kind of ridiculous crap is this? 69.181.56.152Sajun777

Jefferson and Slavery section dispute

Notice of Intention to Place POV Flag on Page

User JW1805 and others have summarily removed comment by former American Historical Association President John Hope Franklin from this page several times, without discussion on this page, so far. In the last revert, User JW1805 claimed the historian's comments were "speculative." In reply, I would ask, what are the other comments in that section?

• The quote basically said "I don't know if Jefferson fathered Sally's children, but he could have. Other slaverowners had children by their slaves." It added absolutely nothing to the section, and was very speculative. This guy seems to base his opinion on "everybody else was doing it". The Jefferson-Hemmings argument is based on DNA, historical evidence, and oral tradition of Hemming's children. That is what should be mentioned. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is factual, not speculative, and it adds a perspective different from the commission. Mayer's opinion has been removed as his opinion is represented in the report of the scholar's commission, which I have linked to directly. The following is new and is not elsewhere represented.

Franklin said it does not matter "whether he slept with her or not. He could have. After all, he owned her. She was subject to his exploitation in every conceivable way. ... But, you see, it's not the important subject, it seems to me...."

Why would you want to suppress that viewpoint?Skywriter 23:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article fails utterly to integrate the contradictions of Jefferson's lifestyle of being a major slave owner with his commendable philosophy for which we are eternally grateful. Nuance and contradiction ought not be thrown out the window. They must be addressed.

Further, there is an apparent difference of opinion on the placement of the discussion of slavery near the end of the article rather than placing it higher up and certainly before Jefferson's death. I have previously questioned the placement of the section on his death above discussion of his life and no one has replied to that comment, either defending its placement or otherwise. That constitutes the other unresolved controversy. I will leave this note here this weekend to await comment before placing the POV flag on this article. I of course welcome comment. Skywriter 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't is fairly obvious WHY he kept his slaves? Having no slaves would have meant he'd have to pay workers & charge more for his goods. He would not be able to compete, would go bankrupt, and lose his influence with others. There must be some historian who can cite cases of what happened to any planataion owners who freed their slaves. Making himself an noble example would likely have had only a small effect upon the institution itself. Advocating independent action on this would be advocating financial suicide - something for which he'd be mocked. Only by changing/abolishing the institution could freeing slaves be economically feasible. Does anyone know what he proposed be done with the slaves once they were freed? --JimWae 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probed, using primary sources, in the discussion by the legal scholar Paul Finkelman, cited at the bottom of the article. Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson (2001) Ben Franklin, e.g. had owned slaves but eventually morphed into an abolitionist. The short story, as Finkelman documents, it is that Washington freed his slaves upon his wife's death, but Jefferson did not free his slaves upon his own death because he loved the good life and spent more than his plantation slaves earned in profits during Jefferson's lifetime. His debts were such that the bondage of all but three or four of his several hundred slaves continued after his death to pay off his debts. He freed several in Sally's family but not Sally. Finkelman compares Jefferson's practices as a slave owner with his contemporaries in Virginia, and that is worth the price of the book. He also details how Jefferson made a special deal with Sally Hemming's brother. Bringing slaves into France was prohibited, particularly during the Enlightenment. Jefferson did not want to risk breaking French law. He loved France and the Enlightenment and wanted to be thought well of there. The contradiction is he also loved luxury and being waited upon. The substance of the signed contract with Sally's brother was-- come with me to France, wait on me, and cook for me. When we return in five years, you will be free. The man was freed in Philadelphia upon their return to the states. Skywriter 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• So, an author has pointed to some selfish reasons too. But there is surely more to it than that. Freeing all his slaves while others kept them would also have meant financial ruin --JimWae 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, we do feel his pain. And that's saying nothing of how you'd feel as one of Jefferson's slaves. House or yard? What's your preference? Skywriter 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• It was, at least in part, a judgement call. Which was more valuable to the future of humanity - freeing 700 slaves or having people continue to listen to you about freeing 2 million? While he was by no means an exemplary human in every way, there's no reason to single Jefferson out on this - numerous slaveholders opposed it in principle -- better than upholding it completely --JimWae 03:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Single out? This is a biographical article of Thomas Jefferson. It should accurately reflect who he was in all major aspects, the complexity of his being, not cherry-pick those parts of his biography that are appealing, or make him look good. Most astounding is that this article does not reflect the duality of who he was. Many scholars have discussed that his words "All men are created equal" did not apply to people of African heritage, yet this is nowhere on the radar here. As Finkelman, the constitutional scholar and expert on slavery, and others have shown, the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution ensured the continuation of slavery. Jefferson was the major writer. The contradiction, the elephant in the living room of American history, is ignored in this article in favor of hagiography on a subject of racism that continues to trouble the United States to this day. Skywriter 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Jefferson was not a writer of the Constitution. He was in France at the time. He originally wrote a passage against the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, but it was edited out by the Congress.--JW1805 (Talk) 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tags now affixed to Slavery section and Hemmings subsection

...due to previously discussed aggressive suppresion of a viewpoint. The section on slavery is hagiography and does not come close to examining the subject in a non-adoring fashion. I welcome discussion but will not support suppression of differing viewpoints. Skywriter 01:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not really care if the template appears or not, though it does uglify the page - I'd like to see it on more articles. Just what do want to change that is not there, other than move it up? --JimWae 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, please propose a specific change. (Other than adding back those ridiculous quotes). I do not support moving the section up, either. It is in the proper place. The structure of the article is biography, then sections on his views on various issues (including slavery). --JW1805 (Talk) 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

JW1805, thank you for responding on the Talk page. The tags were affixed to reflect the latest of the several unexplained reversions. Would you explain in more detail your objections to the historian's observations introducing a valid viewpoint. "Ridiculous" does not apply. Skywriter 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Come on. "...we know that someone is busy sleeping with the slaves, and I see no reason why Thomas Jefferson should be excused from that." IMHO, that is a ridiculous quote. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is your sole objection, delete that phrase and reinstate the remainder. Thanks. Skywriter 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we please extend this to a conversation - rather than a dialogue? --JimWae 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can contribute, JimWae.Skywriter 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please try to contribute to the page, or suggest specific changes. A "Totally Disputed" tag is really uncalled for, I think. What you want is an expansion of the "Jefferson and slavery" section, right? I agree, and I've added some more info, and plan on expanding it even further. What about an {{expand}} tag? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence was not a personal document. Jefferson was not bargaining with SC & GA. Only the Congress could adopt it in its final form. --JimWae 05:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE JW1805 quikcly replied a tad over-enthusiastically in interlinear fashion that tends to mute the intent and substance of my earlier post, and destroying the separate arguments of what I said vs what JW1805 said. My earlier post is therefore reposted here for the purpose of remaining intact for future readers of this archive.

In response to the comment by JW1805 (above), last night's revision, and in support of why this article is totally disputed is the following.

I have contributed to the page, beginning months ago, with the addition of Finkelman (Slavery and the Founders in the Age of Jefferson) a spot-on resource, and I added a primary source: Edwin Morris Betts (editor), Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book (1953) (upon which Finkelman bases part of his salient analyses, together with the other key primary resource on slavery and TJ's faux-scientific racism, Notes on the State of Virginia.)

As editor of the 20-volume encyclopedia on slavery and numerous books on the subject, Finkelman, a legal scholar is not to be ignored. What he has to say about TJ should be summarized in this article.

I added the section with John Hope Franklin's views on why the paternity in the matter of Sally Heming's children does not matter. His is a viewpoint distinctly different from what is presented, a relevant, incisive perspective, yet it was, and continues to be rejected outright in several reversions, prompting the dispute tags. I offered a compromise, as requested (above, in this thread), and it was not accepted.

The material on what did not go into the Declaration is not nearly as important as say, Ira Berlin writing of 1778 in Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Belnap Press: 1998) pp 231-232 -- "The wartime erosion of slavery encouraged direct assaults against the institution itself. The heady notions of universal human equality that justified American independence gave black people a powerful weapon with which to attack chattel bondage, and they understood that this was no time to be quiet... Black people throughout the North made themselves heard...denounced the double standard that allowed white Americans to fight for freedom while denying that right to blacks.... Success bred success. Black people who gained their freedom by legislative enactment, individual manumission, and successful flight pressed all the harder for universal emancipation, demanding first the release of their families and friends, and than all black people still in bondage.... Such actions could not be ignored easily by those who marched under the banner of Jefferson's declaration."

The material in the book with the title that mocks both black people and Thomas Jefferson ( Negro President) is hardly as cogent as Berlin (above) or Finkelman in getting to the point.

The addition of one sentence by Abrose, who did not study Jefferson on racism and slavery in depth, is palliative in that it fails to explore the contradiction between the noble phrase "all men are created equal" and the reality that as he wrote it, one fifth were not, and even not free on his own plantation, an economic situation from which he personally profited.

Here are some resources that could be incorporated into this article to make it less hagiography. The central problem with this Wikipedia article (and not just on the stepchild section on slavery) is that it does not give the subject credit for complexity, and it ignores historians who point to the contradictions between the powerful words "all men are created equal" and the wink and the nod that implied "except black men and women."

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/frame.htm Particularly the views of the two historians who have done the most work in the area of Jefferson and slavery: John Hope Franklin | Historian Paul Finkelman | Historian

Why is what Finkelman says about Jefferson and slavery important? http://www.law.utulsa.edu/faculty_staff/pfinkelman/vita2006

Why is Jefferson's words and deeds on slavery and black people the second to the last item on this Wikipedia page, with only monuments and trivia following? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/slavery/ "Slavery has often been treated as a marginal aspect of history, confined to courses on southern or African American history. In fact, slavery played a crucial role in the making of the modern world. Slavery provided the labor force for the Slavery played an indispensable role in the settlement and development of the New World." Jefferson's opinions on blacks (laid out in copious detail in Notes on the State of Virginia) should be summarized within the main body of this article and not thrown in at the end of this article as an afterthought.

Why? Because his views about black people and segregation were influential in affecting the course of U.S. history. On that point, both the left and the right agree: http://www.vahistorical.org/publications/abstract_parkinson.htm

Why are the words of John Hope Franklin on the Heming's controversy excluded from this Wikipedia article? Likely for the same reason another historian points out here:

"I'm not saying that all these people are racist and that they hate blacks," she added. "No. I think that the response to this story is the legacy of slavery. This is absolutely the way people have been taught to think whether they consciously know it or not, of devaluing black people's words when they are inconvenient." [Looking Beyond Jefferson the Icon to a Man and His Slave Mistress NYT, June 28, 1997 By Daryl Royster Alexander]

What is another viewpoint other than the claim (incorporated into this Wikipedia article last night) that Jefferson meant well with an early draft of the Declaration? In a review of three books published in the Washington Post, Kahlenberg says the following of Africans In America: America's Journey Through Slavery by Charles Johnson, Patricia Smith and the WGBH Series Research Team Harcourt Brace. 494 pp.

Captives of History By Richard D. Kahlenberg Sunday, November 8, 1998; Page X01, WP

"One inescapable theme is the great contradiction in the nation's founding, which was grounded in liberty but coupled with the enslavement of a fifth of the population. At the time of the Revolution, the Americans fought for freedom, but it was the British who promised to liberate any slaves who joined their side. The nation's patriarch, George Washington, began owning slaves at age 11. Thomas Jefferson appropriately denounced the British for their role in the slave trade in an initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, but was forced to delete the clause under the weight of the obvious contradiction."

If you require more discussion or disagree with the foregoing, I will be happy to reply. Skywriter 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC) End of Repost for Purpose of Clarity in Argument

<beginning of JW1805 interlinear reply to the notes above In response to the comment by JW1805 (above), last night's revision, and in support of why this article is totally disputed is the following.

I have contributed to the page, beginning months ago, with the addition of Finkelman (Slavery and the Founders in the Age of Jefferson) a spot-on resource, and I added a primary source: Edwin Morris Betts (editor), Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book (1953) (upon which Finkelman bases part of his salient analyses, together with the other key primary resource on slavery and TJ's faux-scientific racism, Notes on the State of Virginia.)

As editor of the 20-volume encyclopedia on slavery and numerous books on the subject, Finkelman, a legal scholar is not to be ignored. What he has to say about TJ should be summarized in this article.

I added the section with John Hope Franklin's views on why the paternity in the matter of Sally Heming's children does not matter. His is a viewpoint distinctly different from what is presented, a relevant, incisive perspective, yet it was, and continues to be rejected outright in several reversions, prompting the dispute tags. I offered a compromise, as requested (above, in this thread), and it was not accepted.

• The quote was in no way relevant and certanly not "incisive" in any way. Franklin was saying that he didn't know if Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children, but he could have been. What on earth does that add to the article? --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The material on what did not go into the Declaration is not nearly as important as say, Ira Berlin writing of 1778 in Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Belnap Press: 1998) pp 231-232 -- "The wartime erosion of slavery encouraged direct assaults against the institution itself. The heady notions of universal human equality that justified American independence gave black people a powerful weapon with which to attack chattel bondage, and they understood that this was no time to be quiet... Black people throughout the North made themselves heard...denounced the double standard that allowed white Americans to fight for freedom while denying that right to blacks.... Success bred success. Black people who gained their freedom by legislative enactment, individual manumission, and successful flight pressed all the harder for universal emancipation, demanding first the release of their families and friends, and than all black people still in bondage.... Such actions could not be ignored easily by those who marched under the banner of Jefferson's declaration."

• How is that relevant to a biography of Jefferson? Just because his name is mentioned in the quote doesn't mean it should go in the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The material in the book with the title that mocks both black people and Thomas Jefferson ( Negro President) is hardly as cogent as Berlin (above) or Finkelman in getting to the point.

• I'm confused, where the Berlin or Finkelman references removed? By all means, add them to the Further Reading section. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The addition of one sentence by Abrose, who did not study Jefferson on racism and slavery in depth, is palliative in that it fails to explore the contradiction between the noble phrase "all men are created equal" and the reality that as he wrote it, one fifth were not, and even not free on his own plantation, an economic situation from which he personally profited.

• The article mentions the contradiction, and says that some people consider him a hypocrite. What would you add? Again, I'm confused. What material was removed from the article? Some of what you are saying would more properly go is the Slavery in the United States article, since it is more about society in general, and not really about Jefferson (Jefferson didn't invent slavery after all). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some resources that could be incorporated into this article to make it less hagiography. The central problem with this Wikipedia article (and not just on the stepchild section on slavery) is that it does not give the subject credit for complexity, and it ignores historians who point to the contradictions between the powerful words "all men are created equal" and the wink and the nod that implied "except black men and women."

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/frame.htm Particularly the views of the two historians who have done the most work in the area of Jefferson and slavery: John Hope Franklin | Historian Paul Finkelman | Historian

• By all means, expand the article! --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is what Finkelman says about Jefferson and slavery important? http://www.law.utulsa.edu/faculty_staff/pfinkelman/vita2006

• I don't know what this guy's vita has to do with anything. What does he say about Jefferson that should go in the article? --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Jefferson's words and deeds on slavery and black people the second to the last item on this Wikipedia page, with only monuments and trivia following? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/slavery/ "Slavery has often been treated as a marginal aspect of history, confined to courses on southern or African American history. In fact, slavery played a crucial role in the making of the modern world. Slavery provided the labor force for the Slavery played an indispensable role in the settlement and development of the New World." Jefferson's opinions on blacks (laid out in copious detail in Notes on the State of Virginia) should be summarized within the main body of this article and not thrown in at the end of this article as an afterthought.

• The main body of the article is a biography. There are separate sections about Jefferson's views on certain important issues (Such as philosophy, government, slavery, etc.) This is completely logical. The slavery section can easily be expanded. I agree, the Notes passages should be mentioned (and I am planning on adding them to the section). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because his views about black people and segregation were influential in affecting the course of U.S. history. On that point, both the left and the right agree: http://www.vahistorical.org/publications/abstract_parkinson.htm

Why are the words of John Hope Franklin on the Heming's controversy excluded from this Wikipedia article? Likely for the same reason another historian points out here:

"I'm not saying that all these people are racist and that they hate blacks," she added. "No. I think that the response to this story is the legacy of slavery. This is absolutely the way people have been taught to think whether they consciously know it or not, of devaluing black people's words when they are inconvenient." [Looking Beyond Jefferson the Icon to a Man and His Slave Mistress NYT, June 28, 1997 By Daryl Royster Alexander]

• What does that have to do with Jefferson? I removed the Franklin quotes because I thought they were dumb. As far as I know, that's the only thing you added that I removed. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, you can't take it personally when somebody edits your stuff. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What is another viewpoint other than the claim (incorporated into this Wikipedia article last night) that Jefferson meant well with an early draft of the Declaration? In a review of three books published in the Washington Post, Kahlenberg says the following of Africans In America: America's Journey Through Slavery by Charles Johnson, Patricia Smith and the WGBH Series Research Team Harcourt Brace. 494 pp.

Captives of History By Richard D. Kahlenberg Sunday, November 8, 1998; Page X01, WP

"One inescapable theme is the great contradiction in the nation's founding, which was grounded in liberty but coupled with the enslavement of a fifth of the population. At the time of the Revolution, the Americans fought for freedom, but it was the British who promised to liberate any slaves who joined their side. The nation's patriarch, George Washington, began owning slaves at age 11. Thomas Jefferson appropriately denounced the British for their role in the slave trade in an initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, but was forced to delete the clause under the weight of the obvious contradiction."

• That is incorrect (or at least, misleading). Jefferson did not delete the slave trade clause. Congress did, during debate. They made numerious other edits. Jefferson was not happy about it. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you require more discussion or disagree with the foregoing, I will be happy to reply. Skywriter 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hemings discussion is extremely biased.

1) Callendar's claims have been conclusively disproved by DNA evidence. Jefferson is demonstrated not to have fathered any of H's kids at or before the time of Callendar's slanders.

2) The Thomas Jefferson Foundation's current position is far more ambiguous.

3) Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's conclusion was not that the claim was "not persuasive" but tended much more to contradiction of it.

Very typical of the far-left slant of wikipedia. BulldogPete

How is concluding that someone fathered children "far left"? Right wing history denies such things does it? I can see them all now, leaping to the defence of Karl Marx against the calumny that he had a baby with his servant. Someone fathered those kids. It's no more left wing than it is right wing to conclude that it was Thomas rather than someone else. Paul B 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The desire of notably leftist institutions, such as the TJ Foundation, to tar Jefferson as having had a baby by a slave, was evident. It is a beloved pastime of the left to take jabs at the Founding Fathers and, indeed, any American institution.

Again, this portion of the article is hideously biased. If you -- for whatever bizarre reason -- want to ignore the obvious left/right imbalance, then focus on the imbalance in the telling of the tale. The strong inference to be drawn is that Jefferson fathered the kids. This is by no means the concensus in the scholarly community.BulldogPete

I thought the conclusion of the DNA research was that the father was LIKELY either TJ or his cousin/brother? - Further comment on this being that the brother/cousin was only occassionally a visitor to the plantation -- all suggestive & noetworthy but still inconclusive. --JimWae 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, historical evidence is neither left wing or right wing. The truth sits on neither side, and evidence speaks for itself if it's allowed to do so. Founding fathers are not plaster saints. And of course Jefferson himself was on the left in terms of the politics of his day, so it was the right that made political capital out of the allegation. Paul B 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical evidence may be neither right nor left, but it was not the John Birch Society who gleefully exploited the junk science that proclaimed Jefferson literally a founding father. His political stance in those days is irrelevant, as I suspect Paul knows. Attacks on American icons perpetrated by, say, Zinn, make no distinctions as to the contemporary political leanings of their targets.

This article is colored by a deliberate ideological slant.BulldogPete 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Which of Zinn's books are you referring to in which you found him to be critical of Jefferson? That would be genuinely newsworthy, if true. Skywriter 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading comprehension much? BulldogPete 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

BulldogPete, did you intend for the 3-word comment above to be meaningful or simply a random placement of words that bear no relation to one another? Skywriter 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sally Hemings controversy is such an emotional one for many people. I do not think that it should be a major part of a biography of Thomas Jefferson however. In 1998 when the DNA testing was performed there were five men that participated from the Woodson family. No one in this family had a match with the Jefferson Y chromosome. I think it is important to point this family out as an example of how this myth can go terribly wrong and hurt people. At the time the article came out the big news was a match between descendents of Eston Hemings and descendants of Field Jefferson. It was very compelling evidence indeed. Much overlooked at the time was that the test excluded all of Woodson's descendants and even showed a Y chromosome that neither matched a Woodson or a Jefferson and one man's DNA clearly indicated someone commited adultery somewhere in the past. In the seventies the magazine Ebony published stories about this African American family being the illegitimate descendants of a President and his slave concubine. Told as an uplifting story of overcoming hardship all while keeping an amazing secret. The story spawned books and a movie all portraying it as gospel. Years later we find out Woodson was the liar and at least one of his descendants was an adulterer. There is no proof. Contrary to what the Nature article claimed. Any DNA service will tell you that there is no way to prove paternity by this method. It is irresponsible to tell people they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson when they may not be. As a media form Wikipedia should use caution in this story. Welsh4ever76 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of the paternity & DNA issues seem to lack any useful discussion of the limits and meanings of the technology used nor are the results that were obtained described in any manner that could allow a reader to make sense of it. I agree that the discussion appears to be POV but it should be capable of remedy by including additional information. One place to start might be to describe the political circumstances of Callendar's many hateful diatribes against Jefferson. In many ways, Callendar was worse than any of the modern tabloid trash publishers simply because there were far fewer publications to which people could turn in that era. Ande B 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• The section only mentions Callendar because of his mention of Hemings. The DNA info here is not POV at all. It says "A 1998 DNA study concluded that there was a DNA link between some of Hemings descendants and the Jefferson family, but did not conclusively prove that Jefferson himself was their ancestor." That is 100% true. That's all the DNA data says. The link to Jefferson specifically is based on the DNA + historical evidence. It is the historical evidence (for example, who was at Montacello at what time, or how reliable the oral history is) that can be disputed. I don't think the Woodson story is really necessary here. Maybe at Sally Hemmings. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, JW1805. I don't know that we are really talking about the same issue. The discussion seems to my ear to attempt to be persuasive rather than simply informative. Some of this may be subtle differences in how we read these things or a misreading on my part. But when I read something that says: "A 1998 DNA study ... but did not conclusively prove that Jefferson himself was their ancestor" it sounds to me that what is being said is not that these types of tests can never prove paternity but instead that this test does indeed "prove" paternity unless you can come up with even stronger contrary proof. That's the effect of using the word "conclusively" in this sentence. This paternity stuff has been argued for a long time and I was very interested in it when I first learned about it. But every reference that I read seemed to be misused or misquoted in the articles and books that I read in support of the hypothesis. Same thing when I first heard about the DNA results, I thought, gee, this should be interesting. But it really didn't show much of anything. It just left us in the same condition that we were in prior to the DNA tests: some people asserted that Jefferson fathered Hemings' child while others claimed that one of his nephews did. So there is nothing substantive that was gained by the tests. This article makes it sound as if there was, indeed, something new here. The only real news was that the one person believed most likely to have been fathered by Jefferson was not. When I checked the two articles linked to this one, I was disappointed in their quality, although that may be remedied in time. Now this article certainly has a lot of links to other sites that may well have some great information. But at this point, the information as to this part of Jefferson's life still needs work. Considering the amount of disagreement on this topic, that is not surprising. Ande B 05:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What was gained by the tests was proof that paternity came from within the Jefferson family itself, and thus supported that oral tradition rather than the alternative claims re the Carrs. As has already been mentioned the other evidence is essentially historical rather than scientific. But the result is that the different types of evidence work together to suggests that TJ's paternity is the most likely explantion. Most scholars now seem to accept that the evidence points that way. Of course it's not proof. Unless some unanwserable piece of historical evidence is found it's never likely to be proven. What we should provide, though, is an account that fairly describes the evidence, and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it. Hysterical claims from the left that this proves TJ was a "rapist" or "abuser" are certainly no help. The equally ridiculous claims from the right that this is part of "postmodernist" denigration of DWMs hardly help sensible discussion either [10] (nothing could be less "postmodernist" that combining science with conventional historical sifting of evidence). Paul B 12:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous to claim that "[m]ost scholars now seem to accept that the evidence points" towards TJ's having been the father of the children. Adding junk history to calumny to junk science does not amount to "evidence." Why is Callendar still held up as part of your vaunted equation when he has been proved wrong? BulldogPete 20:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right, Paul B. I'm about as far from "right" as one can get and still be in the US, but I do tend to sometimes over-react to language used in WP articles because, for large parts of my life, I have worked with professional and educational materials with the express purpose of removing trigger words that can bring down heat on professional organizations, governmental entities, and educational establishments. Of course, I am not immune to the same failings. Things that don't bother me on a personal basis still bring out the editing pen because I've learned that some are hyper sensitive. Beyond that, I also have some graduate school background on forensic DNA recovery and analysis and find coverage of these techniques in the media is often misleading or incomplete. Probably inevitable given that it's impossible to cover everything in detail and still make it readable. When I re-read the Hemmings article, I had a much more positive opinion than on my first read through. Peace. Ande B 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nature article has been manipulated to inundate the public as proof when in fact it is not. I bring up the Woodson family because they did the same thing. By continually saying they were his illegitimate descendants they convinced many in the public they were. Yet evidence obtained through the DNA testing later excluded them as being Jefferson descendants. If it happened once it can happen again. Dr. Foster acted very unprofessional and frankly reckless in his statement that he had proven paternity. He could not do that with this test. To continue on tagging this story to Thomas Jefferson in any serious article of him is irresponsible on our part. A simple reference to the other wiki page is appropriate. In the future something may come along that proves Eston Hemings was not his son. Much like Woodson we may look back and realize there was not much proof to begin with. What Ande B said about media manipulation and trigger words used in papers is very important and a good discussion concerning Thomas Jefferson and this story but I think we should just leave it out altogether because as stated above some people get funny about this story. Welsh4ever76 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Welsh4ever76-- The source for your claims about Foster? Skywriter 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Foster proved that one descendant of Eston Hemings and five descendants of Field Jefferson shared a common male ancestor at some point. That is all the test could do. Any testing of ancestral DNA as was performed here cannot prove paternity. It is unethical to to tell someone they are a descendant of a particular person based on it. An example from OA...

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/faqs.htm#15 Can the Y-Clan™ or the Y-Line™ analysis prove paternity? No. Neither our Y-Clan™ nor our Y-Line™ services can prove paternity. If you want a test of this nature, then you should contact a company which specialises in paternity tests. However, both our Y-chromosome analysis services will show if two males are paternally unrelated. For example, if two brothers have totally different Y-Clan™ or Y-Line™ results, then they cannot have the same biological father. Please be aware of this possibility before requesting our Y-Clan™ or Y-Line™ service. A similar question to Family Tree DNA http://www.familytreedna.com/faq.html#q1.4 How is your test different from a paternity test? Family Tree DNA's primary test attempts to determine if 2 people thought to be unrelated actually had a common ancestor. Our specific purpose is to help recreate lost family links. Our test is for genealogy NOT for paternity, alimony or other legal purposes.

Thomas Jefferson was neither married to their mother nor said they were his children. Therefore the only way to prove paternity in modern times would be to have a sample from Thomas Jefferson and a sample from Eston Hemings. A descendant or relative will not do. After a sample is attained from both corpses then a test would be performed. A test can tell the difference between two brothers and then we could have PROOF. Eight weeks after releasing this story, Nature realized they made a mistake and issued a retraction, admitting, "The title assigned to our study was misleading." Because after proving that Jefferson had not fathered Woodson, it was revealed that their paternity conclusions about Jefferson fathering Eston were based on inaccurate and incomplete information, both scientifically and historically. Welsh4ever76 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion, welsh4ever76. Of course it is disqualified because it is personal opinion. It is unverifiable and it is not sourced. I am sure it is a good theory in your view. However, the basis in agreement for the writing of Wikipedia articles is to avoid personal opinion and original research. So, I will ask the question again, will you cite proper sources for your allegations? If you can not, we can safely discard your claims in so far as reaching agreeemtn as to what should go in or stay out of this article. Skywriter 23:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That was rude and meaningless. Nature retracted the article and apoligized. Even they admit they were wrong and it was irresponsible to print it. Not many know about the retraction. Nature, January 7, 1999 edition has the retraction and states they were wrong to entitle the article. Even Foster has said this. It is a questionable study and proves nothing so it should stay out. I think we should discard your contribution as you have not given a good reason as to why it should stay in. Welsh4ever76 23:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC) welsh4ever76

welsh4ever76, you have failed to source your claims, and have made a provably false claim. Nature did not retract the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/may99/critics010699.htm Skywriter 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read it. It looks fine to me, and it is well sourced. It warns that it is "a subject of considerable controversy," it presents a reasonably mainstream view, and it links to two articles that present Sally Hemings and Jefferson DNA Data that go into great detail and present more references that the reader can follow up. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the article again. The link that you gave is a perfect of example how the study was flawed and has the journal and the Foster backtracking on their original statement and stating that it was misleading. It is not the job of ancestral DNA analysis to determine paternity. This is not a POV. This is excepted methodology. In the original article Foster does say this. However the title leads one to believe he proved it. He did not. It is irresponsible to tell someone they are a descendant of Thomas Jefferson based on this DNA analysis. They could be incorrect and as we see in the link that you provided Foster had to admit that later. I will stand by that and insist it is not a POV. I am ok with the current article and link to the more in depth article under Sally Hemings and Jefferson DNA. I think it should remain seperate and nothing should be added on to it on the Thomas Jefferson Page. Welsh4ever76 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Here is some evidence that what the article presents is indeed "the mainstream view." Emphasis mine:

The 1998 DNA study that linked Thomas Jefferson to the final child of his lover Sally Hemings has settled one argument and fired up another. 'Most historians who had argued that Jefferson was too pure of heart to bed a slave have re-evaluated 200 years of evidence and embraced the emerging consensus: that Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings and probably fathered most, if not all of her children. Having acknowledged the relationship, these historians are now trying to explain it.

Staples, Brent (2005): "Lust Across the Color Line and the Rise of the Black Elite," The New York Times, April 10, 2005, Editorials, p. 11.

That is, the New York Times says published an editorial saying most historians, even those skeptical in the past, have embraced the "consensus" that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source, to the effect there are important historians who disagree, and if you can get consensus about it here, it would be reasonable to add a short note about this, perhaps following the sentence that says the subject is "of considerable controversy." I see no reason at all to remove anything that's there. This article should not be Jefferson hagiography. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• This part isn't quite accurate: That is, the New York Times says most historians, even those skeptical in the past, have embraced the "consensus" that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. The New York Times did not say anything, an editorial writer said something and that's quite different. Just as the statement made by many that Nature magazine retracted its article does not accurately report that the magazine, coming under fire by its professional readership, issued a statement regretting that a misleading headline was used. They stood by the data; there was little or no reason to believe the data itself was erroneously collected. (My guess, at the time, was that Nature was just trying to grab some media attention.) This is why I am concerned about the use of words or language that can be interpretted to mean much more or much less than the content it attempts to represent. When we have a highly contentious issue, it becomes more important than ever to use neutral descriptions and terminology. This is not always easy to do since even reasonable people can disagree about what, exactly, constitutes neutral phrasing. Ande B 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've adjusted my comment accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

More evidence for this being "the mainstream view." The Encyclopedia Britannica includes a long paragraph about Hemings in their main article on Jefferson. They mention a disreputable journalist in 1802, corroboration by one of Heming's children in 1873, a 1968 book by WInthrop Jordan, and then "Finally, in 1998, DNA samples were gathered from living descendants of Jefferson and Hemings. Tests revealed that Jefferson was almost certainly the father of some of Hemings's children." As far a Britannica is concerned, the issue is essentially settled. "What remained unclear was the character of the relationship—consensual or coercive, a matter of love or rape, or a mutually satisfactory arrangement."

The balance in our article seems to be about the same as that taken by the New York Times editorial writer and by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Britannica feels that the phrase "almost certainly the father" captures everything that needs to be said about the reliability or unreliability of the DNA evidence. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia[11] puts it this way: "In the 1990s long-repeated rumors that he had fathered a child or children by the slave Sally Hemings, his wife’s half-sister, appeared to be supported by DNA research. Although the subject remained controversial, in 2000 the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation concluded after an exhaustive study that Jefferson was almost certainly the father of one and quite probably of all six of Hemings’s children. Some admirers of Jefferson hold that his younger brother, Randolph, is the more likely father of Hemings’s descendants."

Our article is not "extremely biased." It's a reasonably neutral summary of a controversial topic and reflects the mainstream view as of 2006. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think you've found a good cite there in Britannica etc.. It might be helpful to defuse POV objections to say something along the lines of Although this type of Y chromosome DNA analysis can never be used to prove actual paternity and many continue to reject the conclusion of paternity, a wide consensus has developed, as noted by the the Encyclopedia Britannica which states... Then encourage the reader to click to the full discussion in the other article. Clearly, you'd want to tweak the wording to make sure it flows smoothly, but I think this is where a neutral presentation of sources is helpful to everyone without seeming to be argumentative or denigrating those who continue to disagree. Ande B 02:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a change at all. I was just doing a reality check. This discussion was started by someone claiming that our article is "extremely biased." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't doubt that you do not find the article biased. What matters is that some of it's language can legitimately be read as being either misleading or POV. The current language implies Y chromosome DNA tests can be used to determine paternity but, for some reason, the results were just not quite as strong as the reviewers might prefer. This is a factually inaccurate description of this type of DNA test. Seems easy enough to remedy but then you've just indicated you have no interest in remedying such language or understanding why it is misleading. In this instance, a semantics check might be more useful than a "reality" check. Ande B 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the text that says anything about what kinds of DNA tests prove what; I see a series of source statements saying report A concluded thus-and-such, report B concluded thus-and-such, and so forth. The overall impression I get is that Jefferson's paternity is thought likely, but not proven, and is still disputed... which is exactly the sort of summary others give. But if you think the text needs to be changed, go ahead and change it. Your changes probably will not stick unless you post them here first and get consensus before you make them. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has been changed many times. Someone kept referencing back to a quote that had nothing to with Thomas Jefferson and making some disparaging comments. On the other hand there have been additions that look like it came from the TJHeritage site's own work. This YDNA analysis can not prove these are Jefferson's kids. It is true that the results were not as strong as reviewers would prefer. For instance if all of Field Jefferson's descendants and all of Thomas Woodson's descendants and all of Eston Hemings descendants had the same DNA it would almost be impossible that anyone other than Thomas Jefferson fathered them as he was the only Jefferson male in Paris. However it would still be irresponsible to tell any of them they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson specifically. The actual test had many more results and in the Woodson family there were no matches to the FJ DNA. The way the article on TJ page is set up is neutral now and should stay. I think Ande B has a point but even putting it simple terms that are made in the most neutral sense so people can come to their own conclusions does not work with this particular subject. People are forever going back and forth. I myself have deleted things that were added that made no sense but someone thought they were pertinent. People have their opinions. Some of them based on pure nonsense because of the wrongly titled Nature article. It is wrong for wiki to perpetuate the story when in fact it may be false and gives people the wrong idea about the study. It is not always about Thomas Jefferson either. There are people in the here and now this influences. Welsh4ever76 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

The following links to the story as reported by the NYT's respected science writers (not Staples, the opinion columnist) but Nicholas Wade and Dinitia Smith.

November 1, 1998 DNA Tests Offer Evidence That Jefferson Fathered a Child With His Slave By Dinitia Smith and Nicholas Wade The New York Times "Science" November 1, 1998 http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/thomas_jefferson/dna_tests_offer_evidence/index.html

For your further consideration, before it disappears into the paid archive. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/magazine/21uva.html

The central concerns with the recommendations of Welsh4ever76 is that he offers conjecture but nothing verifiable. This violates Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

As the NYT story makes clear, the value of the research --that Welsh4ever76 disparages without benefit of citing sources to support his personal opinion,-- is that the chromosone study specifically, and for the first time ruled out the Woodson claims to TJ lineage, and specifically ruled in the probability that Eston Hemings is TJ's direct descendant. Discarding one part of this research while clinging to another part is not properly the purview of those who add items to this or any Wikipedia article. Our job is to cite or link to sources who support our POV, not spell out our POV without supporting research by knowledgable researchers who specialize in the area. This is not my personal opinion. It is Wikipedia policy. Skywriter 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That NYT article says DNA tests rule out Woodson. The DNA tests do not rule out Hemmings - they are consistent with TJ being his father, but do not establish paternity. The findings mean that looking for other links between TJ & Hemmings is not wasting one's time, but would be for Woodson. Interpretation of our wikiarticle presently trades on the ambiguity of the word "valid" --JimWae 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I bring up the Woodson family only to show that things can change with this story as technology becomes available. There is a seperate wiki article on the Jefferson DNA itself and that is where one should look for more information. From a scientific viewpoint the Nature article was most likely right in that they had TJ's main sequence through his uncle's line and that was a match to the Hemings descendant. Most likely is all Dr. Foster can put forward. It actually did not prove Woodson as not his son. It only excluded him as being a descendant of Field Jefferson. I am not clinging to one part. Dr. Foster was wrong all the way around to make such claims. That is why I say this influences people even now. Once the researchers had a mixed bag of DNA results they should have used caution. Telling thousands of people that they have believed a lie for the last two hundred years was wrong just as telling the Hemings descendents they were also Thomas Jefferson's descendents was wrong. He made his best guess but that is all. It should be studied but we should use caution in attaching it to Jefferson when it may be incorrect. Welsh4ever76 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we put to rest the idea that the current article is "extremely biassed?" What I see at the moment is

• Whatever it is, the current article is not "extremely biassed"
• it is hard to capture the essence of an ongoing complex controversy in any short statement
• Our short section is no worse than anyone else's
• However you slice it, as of 2006 the bottom line is still "a) very probable but b) not proven;"
• This article should not have a long, detailed treatment; we have two other articles where such a treatment might be appropriate;
• This article limits itself to objectively verifiable statements of the form "X said Y about Z". Any additions should be of the same general form.

A case can certainly be made that the present text needs some small additions or changes. People who think these changes are needed should propose the specific changes they'd like to make here. For example, if someone has a good source citation from a source meeting the WP:RS guidelines that says "Dr. Foster overstated his claims" that should be presented here, and we should discuss whether it is appropriate to include it in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The alleged overstatement was the headline of the article, which, as anyone who has had any experience of journalism will know, is not usually created by the author. In this case it's not clear from the debate whether it was Foster or editors at Nature who chose the headline "Jefferson fathered slave's last child." Paul B 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Placement of, and Viewpoint of Section on Slavery is in Dispute

I have reverted changes by JW1805 for failure to discuss disputed changes on this Talk page while discussion is in progress.

I specifically dispute the truncating of and sidelining of the references to summary by Finkelman, a noted scholar on this subject, and replacement of his views with the expanded views of Ambrose, who has been in the news in recent years for plagiarism.

The fact and POV tag has been on this page for several weeks because the discussion of Jefferson and slavery is not fairly represented. It is hagiography with critical views excluded.

The placement of the section on slavery as an afterthought --at the end of the article-- is not warranted and this is also a point-of-view decision that is in dispute. Skywriter 14:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ummmm, you are incorrect. This is the series of edits you are refering to. Here are my reasons:
  • Replaced "very high in debt" with "deep in dept", which is the more commonly used phrase
  • Added a quote by Annette Gordon-Reed (Not Ambrose, as you say.) To give a specific commentary about Jefferson's contradictions. You had previously complained that Ambrose had not studied Jefferson in detail, well Gordon-Reed has. She wrote a book on Jefferson and Hemings. You should read it, it's quite good. I can't possibly see how you can say that this quote is "hagiography".
  • Once again, you added a quote (Finkelman) that didn't significantly contribute to the article. His quote basically said that Jefferson only freed 8 slaves who were related to him. This is a statement of fact, and unnecessary to have this information given as a quotation, it can just be summarized, which is what I did. It was also redundant, he says that Jefferson only freed 8 slaves, and then says that he didn't free any others (which is implied by the only in the previous statement.) I kept Finkelman as a cited reference for the "only freed 8 slaves" information. By all means, if you have a quote where Finkelman does some deep analysis or commentary on Jefferson, include it in the article! But there has to be a reason to include a quote. The other quotes give commentary on the issues being discussed. Bare facts should be included as declarative statements.
  • Added the Bacon quote, because it is related to the fact that he only freed 8 slaves. It is the counterargument to why he may have done that. That's what NPOV is all about.

Once again, I say that you shouldn't be so sensitive when someone else edits your material, that is the nature of Wikipedia. Also, I would like to get the opinions of other editors besides Skywriter. Does anybody else think the article or this section is wildly POV? --JW1805 (Talk) 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

JW1805 did not edit me. He edited Paul Finkelman, a subject matter expert, who presented a tight summary of facts. The effect of editing this legal scholar is to water down and remove pertinent facts. JW1805 previously edited John Hope Fanklin by deleting Franklin's view, based on JW1805's claim that his own personal point of view trumps comments by the historian, also a subject matter expert. JW1805 defended his deletions with the ill-considered (unpersuasive) argument that Franklin's view on the Hemings affair is "dumb." JW1805's unilateral actions precipitated the placement of tags on this page, and most recent activity suggests they are properly placed. The substance of the dispute has been ignored, and pertinent facts and informed viewpoints suppressed. JW1805 has an axe to grind. At the moment, his personal viewpoint dominates, to the detriment of the fairness in this article. Skywriter 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Where do you think the section should go? Do you think it should be the first section in the article? Does that make any sense at all? Do you disagree with the underlying structure of the article, to have the biography, and then specific sections on Jefferson views on various issues (Religion, Politics, Slavery, etc.) You didn't respond to my point-by-point responses to your comments in the previous section. If you are going to put a "Wildly Disputed" tag on an article, you have an obligation to work with the other editors and discuss the issue. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I got here from the RFC page. Can one of you post the full Finkelman quotation and the truncated version here so we can evaluate the decision to truncate it?

--Richard 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Full quotes: "Most of Jefferson's slaves were sold after his death to pay his many debts. (Finkelman is cited as reference)" And then later, a direct quote: "During his life, and in his will Jefferson freed a total of eight slaves, all of them members of the Hemings family. These slaves were the children and grandchildren of Jefferson's father-in-law, John Wayles, and thus related to Jefferson through marriage. Jefferson made no effort to change the status of the three to four hundred other slaves he owned during the fifty years between the signing of Declaration and his death, on July 4, 1826."

My summary: "Most of Jefferson's slaves were sold after his death to pay his many debts. During his lifetime, and in his will, Jefferson had freed only eight of his slaves (all of them members of the Hemings family) (cite Finkelman)" --JW1805 (Talk) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following deletion of facts from the legal scholar and subject matter expert Finkelman's summary is objectionable. "Jefferson made no effort to change the status of the three to four hundred other slaves he owned during the fifty years between the signing of Declaration and his death, on July 4, 1826." Skywriter 06:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue where to place this among this mess of an argument, so I'll place it here. This historian who goes by the name of Ambrose is clearly a moron. "Thomas Jefferson did not achieve greatness in his personal life. He had a slave as mistress. He lied about it." He didn't lie about it. How could he when he said nothing about it? As the section says, "Jefferson never responded publicly about this issue." I removed that particular Ambrose quote for obvious reasons. --S. Parkhurst 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Originally there was only one Ambrose quote (the one about "of all the contradictions...") which I put in. Skywriter added in all the others. They are from the same website, I think it was an interview or a speech that he gave. I'm not sure about adding all these additional quotes from that site, since as Skywriter pointed out, Ambrose is not specifically a Jefferson scholar. I only included the first quote because it is the sort of thing that others have said before, and was a good way to end the section. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• I tried to clean things up a bit. See [12]. I removed the one where he says "He never freed his slaves", which isn't quite true, he did free a few. I kept the others though, and also restored the Bacon quote, he was a first-hand witness and I think his view is valid. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is instructive that JW1805 picks and chooses quotes from Ambrose, whom I objected to earlier. As everyone reading this must know, Ambrose was famously in the news, in the years before his death-- for plagiarism. JW1805 earlier chose to ignore that objection, and even after I removed Ambrose, he insisted on re-instating Abrose in this article. JW1805 replaced subject matter experts (Paul Finkelman and John Hope Franklin, both of whom have written extensively on this subject) with non-subject matter expert Ambrose who has had ethical issues. JW1805 chose the least revealing comments by Ambrose to replace factual summary by Finkelman. As long as JW1805 insists on including this non-subject matter expert in this article, it is fair to use the material from the same article that JW1805 quoted from, despite his claim above to the contrary, to fully reflect what Ambrose said, and not just the part of it that JW1805 likes. If JW1805 now rejects what his own source said, why did he bring that source and that web page into this article to begin with? If Ambrose is wrong about some facts, why is he in this article at all, and why are we referencing to that article? This is an example of selectively using a source to press personal viewpoint. Skywriter 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The central fact is that Thomas Jefferson had a tremendous impact on the lives of hundreds of people who served his family and whom he held in bondage their entire lives, and even after his own death. His influence impacted millions of black people who were held as slaves throughout the United States. This is not trivial. Those facts should be integrated into this article and not treated as an afterthought as they are now. The history of Jefferson's views on African Americans and on slavery are played down, and even ignored for the most part in this article, and left to the end of the article. For example, one "most important" fact of the Jefferson presidency was the Louisiana Purchase. The article as it now stands calls it "most important." Jefferson had the choice of permitting or prohibiting slavery in the vast new territory, and chose to promote slavery in the then new western region of the United States. This article is flawed because it specifically excludes that discussion. It is omission that contributes to the St. Thomas factor in this article, instead of an honest assessment of an important man's life. Skywriter 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Bacon is pure speculation, is based on nothing factual, and should be removed. It was in fact removed, and then reverted, thus giving further cause for this article being tagged as reflective of the St. Thomas Jefferson viewpoint to the exclusion of factual analyses by scholars who have studied his life and contributions, the good with the bad. Skywriter 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following user at the time shown removed the disputed tag, without discussion: 05:16, 30 May 2006 71.139.182.34. This anonymous user, with a history of jacking in only to remove evidence that there is a dispute about how Jefferson's views on slavery and black people are portrayed in this article, is reversed for cause. Skywriter 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Under Interests and activities, would someone explain why there is no discussion of how Jefferson lived as the bon vivant only because he exploited hundreds of black people whom he kept in slavery? Why is there no connection between the fact that black people were sold after his death to pay off his debts and the following, which is stated so cheerily, as if there were no cause and effect, and no consequence to his actions?

"Jefferson was an avid wine lover and noted gourmet. During his years in France (1784-1789) he took extensive trips through French and other European wine regions and sent the best back home."

And, as Finkleman points out in Slavery and the Founders, Jefferson did in fact bring slaves into France where it was prohibited. Finkelman describes the secret contract Jefferson used to get around French law. Further, there is wide discussion in history articles and books about the contradiction in the praiseworthy notion that "All men are created equal" and the fact that the man who penned those noble words explicitly excluded black people from the concept. Jefferson is justly remembered for these words more than any others, and he is known throughout the world for writing them. Why is it that the central contradiction of his life is not discussed here? (I notice, with concern, that in the history of the Wikipedia article on those very words http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_men_are_created_equal&oldid=48586755 that JW1805 removed discussion of this contradiction from that article. This appears as axe grinding-- the intentional removal of a valid viewpoint that needs to be addressed for the common good. This idea should not be suppressed either from this article or from All men are created equal. It is a mark of the maturity of this enclyclopedia when this common history can be discussed frankly. At the moment, this subject is treated badly. Skywriter 09:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter 09:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a rant. Here are some comments:

• "Jefferson did in fact bring slaves into France where it was prohibited. Finkelman describes the secret contract Jefferson used to get around French law. " Huh? What exactly are you saying here? My understanding was that Jefferson actually paid Sally and John Hemings wages while they were in France, because as you say, technically they were free. Also, the oral history of the Hemings family claims that Sally actually was going to stay in France, but Jefferson made a deal with her that if she came back to the US, he would free all of her children when they were 21 (which he did).
• "The quote from Bacon is pure speculation, is based on nothing factual, and should be removed. " I don't see why, the guy worked on the plantation for 20 years, seems like his opinions have some merit. I have also read historians who make this same comment.
• "Jefferson had the choice of permitting or prohibiting slavery in the vast new territory, and chose to promote slavery in the then new western region of the United States." Again, huh? What specifically are you saying? The President didn't have any power to prohibit slavery anywhere! Please read the discussion on the Northwest Ordinance, when he was a legislator, he did try to prohibit slavery in the new territories, but he was not sucessful.
• On the Ambrose quote(s). Like I said above, the only reason I put the one in was that it is sort of a general comment that a lot of historians say in one way or the other.

--JW1805 (Talk) 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This amazes me. Please remember Thomas Jefferson lived in the late 1700's and early 1800's and life was different then. It is correct to point out that what is wrong is wrong and Jefferson should have known that. I am sure he did as a matter of fact but to criticize his liking of wine and good food because he was able to live the good life off the bondage of others is not fair. Everyone in Virginia did that. Many Europeans did this. Why is it only Jefferson you criticize. His mother was wealthy and raised her kids a certain way. What may seem strange to you or me did not seem all that out of the ordinary to Jefferson. He was very intelligent but still a product of his time and his upbringing. In my POV he was more fair and understanding than most men of that time. The above argument makes no sense and is just an attempt to elevate the minor issue of his tastes to becoming an argument of his contradictions. It is a waste of space. Welsh4ever76 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

• Agreed, we have to be careful about Presentism when talking about issues like this. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

re: JW1805's "everybody did it defense"

Everyone in Virginia did that. Many Europeans did this.

1. Everyone did not keep hundreds of slaves. Only a very small percentage of the populaton did. 2. Slavery was specifically banned in France, and Jefferson illegally brought slaves into France. Finkelman documents this. Read the book. Skywriter 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that. Many people had their lifestyles elevated due to slavery. Jefferson was not the only President that had a good life because he owned slaves. Washington did so as well. Washington and Jefferson both grew up with it as a part of society. Specifically Washington didn't think twice about it until he retired and then he realized it was an odd institution and became against by the end of his life. Jefferson was a wealthy person. This was part of their world. They knew it was out of sync with what they believed. Why he did not do more is a good question. I do not think he considered it an important part of his life like we do now. It is attached to everything he does but it is pointless to point that out with everything little thing. Other people liked wine and good food. Why is it that only Jefferson is criticized because of its connection to slavery. Do like strawberries? It is tied to illegal immigration. You are abusing illegals then? You are benefiting from their cheap labor after all. It is a waste of time to connect everything to slavery. This is not a book. It is an article. Welsh4ever76 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Jefferson and the Post Office

Another quote added from John Hope Franklin: In 1803, President Jefferson signed into law a bill that specifically excluded blacks from carrying the United States mail. Historian John Hope Franklin called the signing "a gratuitous expression of distrust of free Negroes who had done nothing to merit it." Can sombody provide some context for this? Does this really belong in the Jefferson article? The implication seems to be that Jefferson personally conceived and executed a plan to exclude blacks from the post office. Is that true? Or was this just a bill that had a lot of items in it, and that just happened to be one of then? At that time, President's didn't use the veto very often. So, I'm not sure blaming Jefferson for this is really accurate. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

United States presidents are responsible for the bills they sign. Do you want to argue he did not know what he was signing? If so, please provide evidence of that. The evidence that we have is that he was brilliant, and not prone to signing documents that did not reveal his intent.

Do you want to argue that if Jefferson or any U.S. president had signed a bill excluding all members of any other ethnic or racial group from working in the United States Post Office, that this would not be a subject to include in his bio, please make that argument, and support it with sources. Skywriter 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)