Talk:Thomas Jefferson: Difference between revisions

Talk page archives

• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 1 includes the following sections: Miscellaneous, other images, Request for expansion of this article, Sayings, First Lady?, Jefferson Memorial Picture, Sally Hemings and slavery, Liberty and slavery: a paradox, Jefferson and patents, Featured article?, Reference to Michael Moore is tendentious and unnecessary, What happened to the page history?, Major revisions July 2005, Question: When Did Jefferson Change His View on Domestic Manufactures, Did he really kill someone, huh?

• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 2 includes the following sections: Thanks to an anon, Nothing on his philosophy, Declaration of Independence, Bibliography & some text problems, Jefferson's political philosophy was called republicanism, Cleanup, Why is Jefferson Important?, Jefferson Place in History, Decisive impact on Latin America, Kennedy quote, Part of article which needs to be cleared up, TJ & Religion is important, Prayer for a Nation, anarchism, Democratic-Republican or Republican party?, Jefferson as architect, added info to Jefferson religious beliefs, July 4th, don't blank correct information, No real mention of the Kentucky Resolution, trivia is fun, Slave Ownership, Smallpox and introduction of vaccination to USA, Jefferson Bible, TJ and religious views, Draftsman.

• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 3 includes the following sections: Trivia, True friend of the church, Where are his Rules of Conduct?, Notes on the State of Virginia, Slave controversy in intro, Why does Jefferson's death come before his life?, mistake on the part about TJ and Religion, Thomas Jefferson: The Black President, Jefferson and Slavery section dispute, Jefferson and the Post Office, Anon vandalism, Louisiana Purchase, Democratic Party, Vetos

• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 4 includes the following sections: Citation needed, Cause of Death, White supremacy, Jefferson Foundation Report, Disputed paragraph on freeing of slaves, The First Pillar of Wikipedia, Thomas Jefferson the anarchist?, Please stay on topic, Criticism of Thomas Jefferson, Man of contradictions/hypocrite, 3rr, Number of slaves, Picture of Thomas Jefferson

If any discussion from these topics has not been finished, feel free to bring the thread back to this page.

GA status

GA awarded, things to work on :

• Lead section should reflect the breadth article a bit more.
• In the paragraph, In 1772, Jefferson married a widow, Martha Wayles Skelton (1748-82). They had six children: Martha Jefferson Randolph (1772-1836), Jane Randolph (1774-1775), a stillborn or unnamed son (1777-1777), Mary Wayles (1778-1804), Lucy Elizabeth (1780-1781), and Lucy Elizabeth (1782-1785). Martha Wayles Skelton died on September 6, 1782, and Jefferson never remarried., it is stated two times what date his wife died, it is not really necessary.
• The inline external references should be placed in the References/Notes section.
• Missing a lot of inline citations (needed for FA status). Lincher 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think there needs to be far more information on Jefferson's time as Minister to France.

Annette Gordon Reed

I deleted the last paragraph added under the Sally Hemings section. There were numerous words that were spelled wrong and the accuracy is questionable. Sally Hemings was never manumitted and I am unaware of any of her children becoming millionares. Maybe there were grandchildren that did so but that is not what was stated. This is not correct information. Welsh4ever76 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this supposed sourced information again because Annette Gordon Reed is mistaken if she thinks Thomas Jefferson ever freed Sally Hemings even at his death. She was a slave until the day she died. His daughter, Martha Randolph, inherited Sally Hemings and for a time she was a servant in her household. She did give Sally Hemings her time. This means that Sally Hemings was allowed to live in town. It was a retirement of sorts. Martha Randolph did draw up a will in which she would free two slaves upon her death. One of them was Sally Hemings. However Sally Hemings died before Martha Randolph so she was never manumitted. Welsh4ever76 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find any information that indicates any of Sally Hemings grandchildren were millionares. Could someone site Annette Gordon Reeds sources for this. Also this is different information from what was originally posted. The contributer said children. Did Ms Gordon Reed make this change or did you? Welsh4ever76 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The section didn't say Sally was manumitted, it refers to the laws in France and England. In England she was automaticlly free just by putting her feet on English soil, in France she could have pursued freedom, but she didn't.

What was the actual circumstance with the French? What was their actual position with regard to slaves who people brought into their society?

If the slave was in England, there was a statement that the air of England is "too pure for a slave to breathe." If you were on English soil, you were free. That was not the case in France. At the time of Jefferson was there, the slave would actually have to make a petition to an assembly. These petitions were granted, but it wasn't clear that they would always be granted. His slaves would have had a chance to make this petition and would have a chance to be free.

Is there anything to indicate that the two Hemings servants in his household--Sally and her brother James--were ever interested in pursuing freedom in France?

Nothing besides Madison Hemings's memoir, in which he says that his mother wanted to remain in France, and then Jefferson promised her various things if she would come back.

Sally was in England for several weeks along with Jeffersons doughter Polly:

So he wrote and said that we should send his youngest daughter, Polly--her real name was Mary, she was later called Mariah, at that time she was Polly--to send her along with a mature woman who had been inoculated against smallpox. Instead, the person that they were going to send was pregnant. So they sent Sally instead. Sally, at this point, was between 14 and 15 years old. She had been the companion of Polly, the nurse companion for Polly for many years. And so they went to London, and stayed at the home of Abigail Adams and John Adams for several weeks until Jefferson sent for Polly. And that's how Sally ended up in Paris.

And about Sally's children and grandchildren, which were classified as "white" after gaining freedom [1], Reed says:

You're focusing on the bad. If you focus on his perspective--not from Madison's perspective, not from Sally's--but from his perspective, look what he's done. They're white, and they're going to be free white men. Within one generation, two of his grandchildren are millionaires. They own businesses in Madison, Wisconsin.

Grandchildren from the descendants of Sally?

From the descendants of Sally. The thing is, if you're a white man, a white person in America, and you apply yourself, that worked. That's exactly what happened.

CoYep 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Reed states that Jefferson payed wages to her and other slaves:

She was paid wages along with James, her brother, who was paid wages. But that was a practice that Jefferson followed whenever he had any of slaves in a place where the other servants were free workers. He paid them wages along with the others, so that there wouldn't be slaves there working along with servants and not getting paid.

For the sake of balance, those informations should be included into the Slavery and Hemings controversy sections. CoYep 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, the article implies that for Jefferson, being a slave and being black was one and the same. That is not correct. In Jeffersons opinion, as well as by the laws of the time, slave status was not connected to skin color or race. And Sally's offspring indeed registered as white after emanzipation. See this source[2] CoYep 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am referencing this paragraph:

Using a large-body of non-DNA evidence, African-American historian Annette Gordon Reed argues that not only did Hemings and Jefferson have sexual relations, but that they were in love with each other. She explains that Jefferson didn't manimate Hemings until his death because it wasn't possible for them to openly have a relationship because of miscegenation laws of the time. Hemings took trips to France and England, where by law she was free, yet she returned to live as a "slave" with Jefferson. Jefferson ensured that Sally's children received a good education - within one generation two of his grandchildren became millionaires - and that their live together resembled a family rather than a master-slave arrangment.[3]

I read this as Thomas Jefferson freed Sally Hemings after his death. He did not and this is why I state it is incorrect information. She was never manumitted or freed. As a teenager she was free to go in England and in France but he dies many years later. What am I missing? I do not see what one has to do with the other. She was property of his daughter until she died. I think the author is implying she must have loved Jefferson to return to the US with him but I think this is nonsense as her entire family was back in the US and she may not have even been aware she was free to go. Her brother returned as well. Did he do it because he loved Jefferson? Also, Jefferson did not ensure that Sally Hemings children had a good education. This another lie. I am not sure where it came from but Madison Hemings himself said he was never formerly taught how to read. Jefferson's grand-duaghter sometimes taught him to read but this was the only education he recieved. Jefferson seemed to care very little about her kids. The descendants of Eston Hemings did own a hotel but I do not think they ever became millionares from this. Any other sources besides Gordon Reed? This quote has many things wrong with it. Specifically it is historically inaccurate. Welsh4ever76 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this paragraph again. This is incorrect information even if it was said on PBS. The web site http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/sallyhemings.html has information about what happened to Sally Hemings after the death of Thomas Jefferson.

--Sally Hemings was never officially freed by Thomas Jefferson. It seems most likely that Jefferson's daughter Martha Randolph gave Sally "her time," a form of unofficial freedom that would enable her to remain in Virginia (the laws at that time required freed slaves to leave the state within a year). --

Martha Randolph did include a provision to set Sally Hemings and another slave (Wormley Hughs I believe) free in her will however Sally Hemings died before Martha Randolph so she remained a slave until she died.

Please stop posting incorrect information.Welsh4ever76 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this revised paragraph again. Madison Hemings states that Jefferson did not ensure that he or his siblings received a good education. Here is a quote from Madison Hemings concerning his education.

I learned to read by inducing the white children to teach me the letters and something more; what else I know of books I have picked up here and there till now I can read and write.

This is from the website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/cron/1873march.html

Annette Gordon Reed seems to be mistaken in much of what she writes concerning this subject. Please stop using her as a reference. Welsh4ever76 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted a qoute from Annette Gordon Reed under the slavery section. It is poorly written and does not make sense. It has many spelling errors as well. Welsh4ever76 17:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no spelling errors in this quote. It is from a book published by the University of Virginia. It's clear to me that you object to Reed not on scholarly grounds, but because you disagree with her interpretation of history. This does not give you authority to remove her opinions from this article. Please quite trying to white-wash the Thomas Jefferson article. Griot 17:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have shown at least two different instances where incorrect statements were made by Annette Gordon Reed. I also disagree with some of the assertions she has made in the referenced passage. I do not believe that Thomas Jefferson encouraged a black family to send their children to an all white school. All that I can find is her claim. I believe this to be inaccurate information. I do not like the way it is written either. She uses the term on the one hand and on the other too much. It is just bad writing and questionable material. Welsh4ever76 19:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be removing quotes from Annette Gordon Reed, a published researcher on this subject, because you "disagree" or "do not believe" what they say. This is original research on your part and inappropriate. If you can find citations to cite your point of view, it would be reasonable to include those points of view as well as AGR's, both appropriately cited. As it stands, it appears to me that you are dramatically pushing a point of view in the article based on what you believe. bikeable (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this again. The original research is on Annette Gordon Reeds part. Thomas Jefferson never said this. Welsh4ever76 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would paste the qoute that I have a problem with.

On one hand, Jefferson wrote that slavery was an abomination. On the other hand, he seldom freed slaves. On the one hand, he argued that slaves could not be freed because they were like children. On the other hand, he saw to it that many slaves on his plantation became skilled craftsmen....On one hand, Jefferson seems to have been revolted by the notion of amalgamation and social relations with blacks. On the other hand, he took products of amalgamation and made them favored members of his household. He also maintained cordial relations with some blacks and encouraged one black family to send their children to the local white school in Charlottesville. The truth is that Thomas Jefferson can be cited to support almost any position on slavery and the race question that could exist [40].

I have not been able to confirm any such story. In colonial Virginia slaves were not permitted to attend school with whites. Free black people were not permitted to live in the state. So to tell a black family that they should send their kids to the local school in Charlottesville simply does not make sense. It was illegal for them to even be there.Welsh4ever76 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you continue to misunderstand WP:OR. You don't need to "confirm" this point for it to be in here: AGR has published the quote you keep removing, and she is a published academic researcher. You say above, The original research is on Annette Gordon Reeds part. True: she is a researcher, and that is her job, and it is our job to cite her work and that of other researchers. Unless you are also a published researcher -- in which case, please provide a citation -- it doesn't matter whether you disagree, cannot confirm, or even can disprove AGR's words. If you disproved quantum chromodynamics in clear English we still wouldn't let you put your proof into the article: publish it in the literature, and then it will be cited. Similarly, you should find a direct citation in the historical literature that disproves AGR's point. Otherwise, you persist in promoting your own point of view which you arrive at via original research. bikeable (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to put my proof or point of view in the article. All I did was delete something because I think it is incorrect and misleading. I do not care where it came from. The historical record contradicts what Annette Gordon Reed wrote. It may have been a mistake like the other qoutes above but bottomline it did not happen so why have it in the article. It gives people an impression of Jefferson that is false and promotes a story that didn't happen. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote her view. There are numerous authors who have published works about Jefferson that turned out to be incorrect. There is no place for them in this article and there should not be for Annette Gordon Reed either. I have heard similar tales about comments he made that could not have happened because of timeline issues, laws or known discrepancies so just because someone publishes it does not make it so. Welsh4ever76 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to delete the qoute by Annette Gordon Reed again. In 1806 a law was passed that forbade manumitted slaves from staying in the state of Virginia for more than one year. Also, there were laws prohibiting free and enslaved African Americans to be taught to read or write. Neither free nor enslaved blacks could attend schools with whites. So even a black family with a waiver to live there, which was uncommon but not unheard of, would not have been allowed to attend schools with whites. Thomas Jefferson would not suggest to a black family to send their kids to the all white school knowing it was illegal to do so.Welsh4ever76 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Specificity - It was illegal to teach enslaved, free and orphaned blacks to read. Free blacks over the age of twenty-one had to leave the state within 12 months of being freed. If not they could be re-enslaved. It was illegal for free blacks to move to Virginia. A teacher would be fined for teaching a black student enslaved or free. I can find no record of a school in Charlottesville until around 1800 and these laws were strictly enforced at that time because of the attempted revolt of Gabriel Prosser in 1800. I am going to delete this again.Welsh4ever76 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your actions are the textbook example of original research. Specifically, it appears that you are arguing with the phrase, ...encouraged one black family to send their children to the local white school in Charlottesville. Even if you are correct that it was illegal to teach blacks to read, perhaps TJ was encouraging them to do something illegal. I don't know, and I don't really care -- the page cites a well-known academic researcher on the subject, and until you come up with a citation that says that she is wrong, your opposition remains original research. bikeable (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it then until I can find a published source to refute it. It is incorrect. I am just having trouble finding a good source to counter it. Welsh4ever76 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed's footnotes for this passage are Malone's book, 1:265; 3:206, 4:493. She also refers to McLaughlan and Miller. Unfortunately she has a habit of footnoting a whole paragraph with one note, so it is unclear which text is the source for the point about the family. Of course by "black" she may mean mixed race. Paul B 09:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I orginally added this quote to the article. The incident with Jefferson ...encouraged one black family to send their children to the local white school in Charlottesville. is also mentioned in another part of the book, if I remember correctly, which gives more details. I will try to find it. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious views

There is a statement included in this article that reads, "most of his biographers agree he was a deist." This statement, however, is not referenced. If it is a true statement, though, then that means there exist some biographers who do not agree that he was a deist. Their views however are not presented. I do not think it can be argued that their views are not significant, as I have witnessed serious debates about Jefferson's deism, and I think for NPOV the other side should at least be presented, although in accordance with the policy on undue weight, I don't think there is a problem if it is presented in less detail.

My recollection from some things I read years ago was that Jefferson changed over the course of his life so that at some points he was a deist and at some points he was not. This resulted in there being quotes from him both affirming his deism and affirming him not being a deist, which is part of why people could debate so seriously, because both had quotes that they thought proved them right. But that is just my recollection from like ten years ago, and (unfortunately) I really don't remember the reference. HalfDome 15:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is an important question that should be thoroughly covered in this article. I have some books that cover some of the founders religious beliefs that may contain information that presents the idead that he was not a deist. Gaytan 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The following passage from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (pp. 42-43) might be apropos:

... it is tantalizing to speculate that at least some of the Founders might have gone beyond deism. Might they have been agnostics or even out-and-out atheists? The following statement of Jefferson is indistinguishable from what we would now call agnosticism:

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.

Christopher Hitchens, in his biography Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, thinks it likely that Jefferson was an atheist, even in his own time when it was much harder:

As to whether he was an atheist, we must reserve judgment if only because of the prudence he was compelled to observe during his political life. But as he had written to his nephew, Peter Carr, as early as 1787, one must not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. 'If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in this exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.'

I find the following advice of Jefferson, again in his letter to Peter Carr, moving:

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Remarks of Jefferson's such as 'Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man' are compatible with deism but also with atheism.

There's a counterpoint to Hitchens' argument here.

chocolateboy 20:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

"Jefferson and John Adams were the only signers of the Declaration of Independence to become Presidents."

Perhaps this should clarified as being President under the present Constitution as John Hancock was a president under the preceding one.

"The least governed country is the best governed country"

I managed to track down the actual quote which was being falsely modified to say "That government is best which governs least." Jefferson's actual words were: "I hold the world is governed too much. I hold that when we have established justice and so legislated as to prevent the strong from preying upon the weak, then the least governed country is the best governed country." It was written from Jefferson to John W. Eppes and is quoted in The Freeman, November 3 1920, page 185. How's that for research? C-Liberal 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good find. Welsh4ever76 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A quotation in "The Freeman" from 1920 is not a good source (what is "The Freeman" anyway? A magazine?). We would need something far more authoritative - an edition of Jefferson's letters, a book on his political philosophy. The quotation does not sound right to me, but that's just a hunch about the use of English. More to the point, I can find no authoritative source for it. I such a quotation were authentic, it would be splashed everywhere. It isn't. Paul B 08:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a journal dealing with classical liberal issues ...The Freeman. Apparently, the quote got lost over the years and I found it. C-Liberal 09:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Got lost over the years"? If it were lost and then found - in authetic form - it would certainly be incorporated into the literature on Jefferson. Paul B 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean "will" be incorporated into the literature...I mean the internet. A lot of you people think if you can't find it on the internet, it's not real. The internet is not even the tip of the iceberg of all the information that's out there. I'm not going to force it into the article. If any historian wants to delve deeper, there it is. Jefferson wrote it to John W. Eppes. C-Liberal 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I rather doubt it. And I mean literature - books, articles, and, yes, also authoritative websites. Paul B 10:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also it appears that you have miraculously "found" a 1920 edition of a journal that was founded in 1946. You are a brilliant researcher indeed! Congratulations. Paul B 09:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith. Look at the bottom of The Freeman article. There was another Freeman: "Albert Jay Nock, a noted literary figure and author, edited a magazine called The Freeman in the early 1920s." That's the one I'm talking about. C-Liberal 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's great. Who's assuming bad faith? It's still just an unregulated, unpeer-reviewed magazine, and not a legitimate or authoritative source. Paul B 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul A. Rahe quote

I thought I would copy and paste a quote that I do not think we need on the wiki TJ article page.

Prof. Paul A. Rahe, who authored the lone dissenting opinion in the 2001 report of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society commission, remarked on the inconclusive findings regarding the question of Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings' children:

What we do know, however, is damning enough. Despite the distaste that he expressed for the propensity of slaveholders to abuse their power, Jefferson either engaged in such abuse himself or tolerated it on the part of one or more members of his extended family. In his private, as in his public life, there was, for all his brilliance and sagacity, something dishonest, something self-serving and self-indulgent about the man.''

-We do not know what he thought or what he did. He may not have been the father, he may not have known what was going on and did not feel the need to control every aspect of the slaves lives. He may have become angry when he found out. While we do know a lot about him we do not know everything. Since there is no way of knowing exactley what went on concerning him, someone else or what he even knew about it, I think this quote is a point of view and in a section of the article that does not have other points of view to counter it. We could easily add the points of views of others on the panel but we decided earlier that this was pointless and to just add a link to the Sally Hemings page was sufficient. Welsh4ever76 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• The edit war on this quote should end, and we should discuss inclusion here. I agree with Welsh4ever's concerns about this quote. My view is that if this guy was the lone dissenting opinion, then maybe he isn't really the best source of information on this subject. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • He appears to have been the "lone dissenter" on a report whose conclusions were contrary to the other reports cited as well as contrary to the DNA evidence -- so he's hardly in the minority. I would be much happier seeing another quote added, perhaps one from the body of the report, rather than deleting this one. bikeable (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Lone dissenters merit neither extensive quoting, nor the "last words" on a topic--JimWae 18:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

He was the lone dissenter in this particular effort. Keep in mind there was another study which found the reverse. Further, Rahe's comment is a valid one, regardless of the paternity of Hemings' children; it is an informed observeration/criticism of the character of Jefferson, and that's the point. deeceevoice 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• No one else is quoted from any of these reports. Rahe's quote doesn't even have anything to do with whether Jefferson father's Sally's children or not. It is also a negative POV of Jefferson ("...self-serving and self-indulgent"). If we include it, we have to put in another quote that argues the opposite (yes, there are many). The article is too long as it is. The reports are linked, so people can read them if they want. I agree with JimWae, there isn't any reason for this to be the "last words" on the topic. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Inventions

Reverting a long list of inventions added without citations. Jefferson did introduce a swivel chair to the united states after seeing them in Europe, and did create an improvement to the dumbwaiter, but he didn't invent either one. The other additions, so far as I can tell, are entirely fabricated, and Jefferson's actual inventions are omitted entirely. If I'm wrong, could someone provide a verifiable citation before re-adding the text? Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Length

This article is 85 kilobytes in length. It could use some trimming much like the George Washington article recently went through. --Sparkhurst 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, and trimmed it a little today. Still needs work, though. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Thomas Jefferson

I believe that the current picture of a gray-haired Jefferson, similar to the one found on the two-dollar bill and many other famous portraits and depictions of Mr. Jefferson, should be left as the one for this site. This portrait is overwhelmingly the one recognized by the majority of Americans as well as foreigners, and the former portrait was one of a far less recognizable Jefferson, one with brown hair that may confuse the uninitiated with another president, a young Andrew Jackson or James Monroe being the most popular. CinnamonCinder 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Any evidence to back your assertion? Popular movies in the US in recent years protray him as the red haired Jefferson. I recognized the picture over the grey haired one you reverted to. JPotter 21:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the red/brown haired version better too. Jefferson did some of his mos important work while he was still young (he wrote the declarataion at 33) -- the image of an old, gray-to-white haied man perpetuates a false image of TJ. Justforasecond 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I too prefer the red/brown haired version. I think this image is better than either, but that is just my opinion. Also, if you are going to use an image of Jefferson painted while he was president use one of the Rembrandt Peale paintings since they are of a higher quality. --Sparkhurst 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Justforasecond and Sparkhurst. Can we get one of the younger images of Jefferson in there? KingWen_€ŸØãç 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And the pic that Sparkhurst pointed to is great. I love that painting of Jefferson. KingWen_€ŸØãç 01:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the matter was settled but apparently not. Therefore, I retrieved this thread from the archive. --Sparkhurst 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discrepencies with Sally Hemings article

It seems there is a massive discrepency between the Jefferson article on wiki and the one of Sally Hemings. The Hemings article actually goes on to provide further proof that Jefferson was the father of her four children and the National Genealogical Society Quarterly conclusion that he did indeed father the children. However, it seems the Jefferson arcticle is highly edited to keep out as much of a blemish as possible on Jefferson's record. It seems rather seedy to me.Sally Hemings

• I think the idea is to briefly mention the subject here, and provide detailed info at Sally Hemings. This article is long enough as it is. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand...but the issue is not the fact that it only breifly deals with the subject. By all means, it should only do so briefly. The issue is that it deals with it almost as if it concluded that the claims have been proven false. Whereas in the Sally Hemings article, quite the opposite opinion and view is held, as the article goes to greater length and uses more researchers...and in comparison the Jefferson only uses specific references and articles from the Sally Hemings' one, all being ones that decline the theory, while completing ignoring any of the articles that prove otherwise. It just seems like propoganda. Or at best...whitewashing.

No offense, but I've kept track of the DNA and Lineage testing of Sally Hemings offspring. All that was proven was that Thomas Jefferson and some of Heming's descendents have a common ancestor. There exists no exact proof that Thomas Jefferson actually fathered any of Sally Heming's children. I'd say it's extremely possible, but until some undeniable proof of this surfaces, it should remain as speculation and, therefore, not VERIFIABLE.

In a letter written by 19th century biographer, Henry Randall, it was widely known around Monticello at that time, that Jefferson's nephew Peter Carr was actually the individual who fathered Sally Heming's children. LRS

Jupiter

I was suprised to see that Jupiter, Thomas Jefferson's childhood friend and, as an adult, his most respected slave, didn't have his own page--not even a small one. I was even more suprised to see that Jupiter isn't even mentioned in Thomas Jefferson's page.

I don't really know much about Jupiter other than he was TJ's friend. In fact, that's why I was hoping Wiki would have something more, because I would love to know. So I just think anyone who knows anything about Jupiter should put it at least in the TJ page, just so that he's mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.25.198 (talk • contribs)

No Good Hustler

Yeah, I'm not an editor or anything, but you should probably take out the part about Thomas Jefferson being a rapper and no good hustler.

Spouse?

I do not see any discussion of the matter on the current discussion page, and because there is not even an allegation that I have read anywhere to the effect that Jefferson actually married Sally Hemmings, I am changing the 'spouse' entry in the sidebar to reflect the name of the woman he actually did wed. Ari 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism from earlier today-- thanks for catching it! The person who rolled back a vandalism didn't roll it back far enough. This page is constantly hit, and so pretty much most edits to it are rolling back, but we all need to be careful and click back until we get to a good version. --plange 18:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Slaves Freed

Here is the quote.

During his lifetime, and in his will, Jefferson had freed only eight of his slaves (all of them members of the Hemings family) .

http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/freed.html

He freed two men during his lifetime. Robert Hemings and James Hemings. In his will he freed five men. Joe Fosset Jr., John Hemings, Burwell Colbert, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings. I counted seven people. He allowed three slaves to run away. Jayme Hemings, Beverly Hemings and Harriet Hemings. That would be ten. Welsh4ever76 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommended changes to section titled: Political Career 1774 to 1800

First, my thanks to everyone who contributed to this very thoughful article.

I would like to make a suggestion for a change in the section titled: Political Career 1774 to 1800 that would be in keeping with the spirit of NPOV. The current article reads..."Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, the Jay Treaty proved that Washington and Hamilton favored Britain, so Jefferson retired to Monticello." Stating that Washington and Hamilton favored Britian may be a misrepresentation of the President's convictions. Washington did not believe that America could win another contest against Great Britian, doubting that our county had the means and collective will to pursue such a course of action. Hamilton did not believe that the nacent union could financially sustain another major conflict. The Jay Treaty was as much an acknowlegement of our nation's persistent dependence on Britian as it was an example of the lack of any real leverage, the nation had at that time, in negotiating with the British. For the reasons listed above, and others not mentioned here, Washington and Hamilton favored neutrality in the conflict between France and Britian. It is a correct observation, however, that Jefferson strongly supported France against Britian when war broke out between those nations.

I would suggest modifying the sentence to read thus: "Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, Washington and Hamilton favored a policy of neutrality. After the Jay Treaty was narrowly approved by congress and was signed into law by Washington, Jefferson departed from Washington's cabinet and retired to Monticello." I believe that this modification would more accurately characterize the opposing points of view, between Jefferson/Madison and Washington/Hamilton, without detracting from the theme of the overall article.

Top Quark 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)David Israel 10-05-06

Stating that Jefferson favored France as Here:

Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, the Jay Treaty brought peace and trade with Britain--while Jefferson wanted a trade war with Britain and closer ties with France.

is a misrepresentation of his acttions. Septentrionalis 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, he simply wanted to remain independent of strong ties at that point in time. Skyemoor 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the phrase "ran for the Presidency in 1800" shouldn't be changed to "stood for the Presidency in 1800". Certainly the notion of actively seeking office and campaigning as we now understand it didn't come in until very much later, as the very next sentence indicates. It seems a bit contradictory to me as it is currently worded. What would the contemporary usage have been? (And why am I interested in such trivial points?)

Bruce E Baker 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the contemporary usage would have been even more reticent: Madison avoided Jefferson's letters so he would not have to hear Jefferson's refusal to run. Septentrionalis 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Thomas Jefferson

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Enlarge Presidential section

It's time to have a full discussion of the presidency. I will start off, with heavy reliance on Malone, Smelser and Henry Adams (via Garry Wills). Please help out! Rjensen 00:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson - Biographical Information

• Thomas Jefferson by Adam, G. Mercer (Read online or download for free)

• Chronological Events In the Life of Thomas Jefferson

Random Question

Does anyone know anything of Thomas Jefferson ever being suicidal?

Zidel333 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF?? no

Watersoftheoasis 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson and First Segregation of the Postal Service

At this day and time, anon user 132.32.201.8 deleted the following entry and its reference from this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=56312281&oldid=56312127

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." Throughout his two terms, Jefferson did not once use his power of veto.

The anonymous user had no cause to remove this item and failed to state a reason for doing so.

The archived discussion of this item is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_3#Jefferson_and_the_Post_Office

If anyone else would like to revert this entry again, please offer supporting evidence.

It is a disservice to Thomas Jefferson to exclude information contrary to sainting him, and it is a violation of the principles for which he stood. Every living being has contradictions. This is one of Thomas Jefferson's. To include his contradictions shows that he was human. To leave them out, especially on such an important subject, does no service to him or to history or to readers.

Skywriter 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Jeffferson had minimal involvement and no biographer even mentions the issue. It was inserted not to help readers study Jefferson but to express one editor's POV. That is un-Wiki. Rjensen 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Minimal involvement? He was the president who signed a bill into law! That is not minimal involvement. Rjensen, who advertises that he taught history in Chicago, has stated on Wikipedia his dislike of John Hope Franklin. Rjsensen has even made the racist statement that Franklin is an unimportant historian except for his race. Rjensen is not qualified to make these judgments. He is not the peer of John Hope Franklin, either in scholarly works authored or in recognition by the community of historical scholars. Rjensen is a radical conservative who spends a lot of time on Wikipedia distorting articles that touch on the history of African Americans. That is why many of these articles are biased in favor of white racist historians, which Rjsensen favors. Rjensen's bias on this subject must not bar the introduction of factual and sourced information about the subject. If this item is deleted from this article, then the article goes into factually disputed and POV status. Skywriter 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Presiden ts sign thousands of bills they had little or nothing to do with. Not one of Jefferson's many biographers think this episode worthy of mention. Franklin never wrote a biography of Jefferson and is not considered an expert on him. I have never stated any dislike of JH Franklin. Rjensen 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's editorial comment in reverting the item noting that Thomas Jefferson introduced segregation into the postal system is ridiculous on the face of it. He wrote: (Jefferson did not propose or comment on issue; irrelevant to his career) First of all, Jefferson had a lot to say about black people and it is in his Farm Book and especially on his writings on the State of Virginia. The acclaimed legal historian Paul Finkelman explores in depth Jefferson's opinions as to race relations. You might like to read them.

In reverting factual item, Rjensen makes the unsupported and unsupportable claim that "Jefferson did not propose or comment on issue." Whether it is irrelevant to Jefferson career is rjensen personal opinion. It certainly was not irrelevant to the people affected by TJ signing this bill into law and it is not irrelevant to history and his legacy. Since when is presidential bill signings excluded from, or irrelevant to history? That is a POV claim if there ever was one. Whether or not Rjensen knows whether or not Jefferson's comments on his signing this bill were recorded is entirely unrelated matter. Rjensen can not prove either way whether Jefferson commented on this aspect of segregation, which makes his claim all the more foolish. Fact is, Jefferson is on record at length, in his own hand, as to his opinions about segregation. Skywriter 21:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As to your stating contempt for John Hope Franklin, oh yes you have, when he was used as reference in other articles. I don't have time to search your comments but that certainly made an impression. You are a bigoted editor. Of that there is no doubt. You push conservative pro segregation POV on Wikipedia in articles on Reconstruction and civil rights history, and just like in this article, you try to minimize the effect of the horrors of segregation. And then you try to bully people into accepting your biased viewpoint. Skywriter 21:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue heere is the POV by one editor--Skywriter--who wants to insert material that no biographer mentions--because TJ had nothing to do with it. As for expertise, perhaps Skywriter will explain HIS expertise in the matter? Rjensen 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen POV is rejected because rjensen rejects documentation by well-known and respected historians. Rjensen brings nothing to this discussion-- no references whatsoever-- except his personal POV based on his narrow readings of history from first half of 20th century and earlier. I cited my references and requested that rjensen bother to read the legal historian Paul Finkelman on this subject and John Hope Franklin (citation included). Many historians ignored the effect of racist policies on the population. This has begun to change in the writings of the last 50 years but rjensen favors historians who wrote in the first half of the century, historians who are famously discussed in historical journals as being openly racist. For anyone to argue that a president signing a bill into law that mandates segregation in the federal hiring process as "unimportant" shows POV, not wisdom. I object to the exclusion of these facts from this article. This supports the affixing of the totally disputed tag to this article. It leans in the direction of ignoring an important aspect of Jefferson's effect on history. One need read only his Notes on the State of Virginia to grasp that Thomas Jefferson's views on black people were deeply racist. To ignore this, in his role as President of the United States, is to suppress history and referenced fact. Skywriter 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I also reject the bait by rjensen insisting that I demonstrate personal expertise. That is not and never has been a requirement of Wiki contributors. In fact, it is just the opposite. We are not permitted to do original research. Rjensen's infliction upon this article of his personal viewpoint and research, and his insistence that other editors prove "expertise" directly violates stated Wikipedia principles. Skywriter 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Rjensen on this point. Let's try to discuss the issues, and stop the personal attacks, please. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why this article is disputed

For the record, and just so all editors are clear on what this controversy is about:

Without attribution and based entirely on personal POV, rjensen deleted this item, which contains two references from a noted historian and former president of the American Historical Association:

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." Throughout his two terms, Jefferson did not once use his power of veto.

This item had previously been removed, as this archive documents earlier on this page, by an anonymous user who gave no reason for removal of this factual, referenced material of importance to a great many people, and to the legacy of Thomas Jefferson.

Now, I will go further, repeating what has been previously stated (May 31, 2006) in this archive and to which no one responded.

Why is the following item still under Interests and activities, without any 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 made 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. He is noted for the bold pronouncement: "We could in the United States make as great a variety of wines as are made in Europe, not exactly of the same kinds, but doubtless as good." While there were extensive vineyards planted at Monticello, a significant portion were of the European wine grape Vitis vinifera and did not survive the many vine diseases native to the Americas.

That there was a cause and effect to Jefferson's bon vivant lifestyle is thoroughly documented by the legal historian Paul Finkelman in Slavery and the Founders in the Age of Jefferson and no other historian has questioned its truth.

I respectfully ask that editors consider the implications of Jefferson' policies on Black people. rjensen and the anonymous editor are too quick to revert, and in rjensen's case, two (!) heavy-handed reverts today, of a documented aspect of Jefferson's life that suggests he was a complicated individual and imperfect like the rest of us. If this article is intended to canonize Jefferson for sainthood, let's please state that at the top of the article. If not, let's make an attempt to be fair and representative of diverse viewpoints.

Why is discussing wine important to Jefferson's legacy but not segregation or the selling of Black people to pay for a decadent lifestyle?

I wish there could be a serious conversation about this without personal attacks. Skywriter 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The point you are trying to make would have more weight if Jefferson actually supported the bill. All you are presenting is the fact that he signed the bill. As pointed out, he signed thousands of bills without a veto, so he gave deference to the representatives of the citizenry. What I don't see shown in these pages is the nail company that he helped start made up completely of African Americans. We must be careful not to provide only the negative actions he was responsible for, but the positive as well, in order to maintain a NPOV. Skyemoor 09:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you add information about the nail company, Skyemoor, if you believe it is important?

As to any president signing thousands of bills, surely this is true. And then one must decide which of those bills has sweeping implications for the population. The segregation of the U.S. Postal Service surely did that, or would you provide evidence that this was a minor bill of no real import and that we should ignore it as rjensen and jw1805 seem to be arguing (albeit without offering a shred of evidence)?

Or would you postulate that the buck does not stop at the desk of the president who signs bills into law and that someone else bears responsibility for the legislation presidents sign? If that precept is accepted, then there will be an awful lot of editing of Wikipedia articles to take credit away from all of the U.S. presidents who have signed legislation into law-- and in each case, we will refer back to the argument here that presidents bear no responsibility for the legislation they sign.

What exactly is the principle you are arguing-- that a U.S. president is not responsible for legislation he signs? Or that this bill segregating the Postal Service, which John Hope Franklin thought important enough to discuss in two of his books, somehow got past Jefferson and he did not know what he was signing?

If you want to claim that Thomas Jefferson was somehow duped into signing legislation segregating the Postal Service, how do you explain that it is entirely consistent with his views in the only book he wrote-- Notes on the State of Virginia in which he calls for segregation in Virginia and also pressed for legislation while he was in the Virginia legislature to require African Americans (former slaves) to leave Virginia immediately after acquiring freedom. His bill requiring former slaves to leave Virginia was voted down by fellow lawmakers in the Virginia Legislature, most of them slave owners and plantation owners like Jefferson. Finkelman, the prolific legal historian, discusses this in detail in the previously referenced Slavery and the Founders in the Age of Jefferson among others of his books.

Skywriter 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson and the Republican Party

No, Skyemoor, Jefferson did not found the Republican Party; saying that he did is pointless pedantry, misleading to any soul unfortunate enough to rely on this article.

It seems that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has a very strong, emotional POV about this subject. Skyemoor 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Skyemoor is alone is supposing that this would be helpful, through original research from primary sources he does not understand.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis casts apersions, though primary and secondary sources can help clear the air from all this hot air (see below)

Skyemoor also believes that we should refer to Lincoln and Bush as of different parties (diff); that would be an op-ed, not an encyclopedia.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis should speak for himself, I said no such thing. I did question whether or not the party still had the same platform, but made absolutely no mention of changing any article. This is called putting words in someone else's mouth; Pmanderson|Septentrionalis seems to need to create a strawman argument. Skyemoor 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson and Madison called that part of Congress that adhered (in their view) to the republic formed by the Constitution, the "republican party" (no caps). This is the same group that elected Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe: the Democratic-Republican Party. Septentrionalis 18:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis pronounces his position with a certain confident appeal, but when we examine the primary and secondary evidence, we see another picture;

Secondary Sources:

Dr. Rjensen checked 8 current college US history textbooks that have online tables of contents

- 1 uses Dem-Rep (see #3) - 6 use Republican - 1 uses Jeffersonians (#6)

• 1 Tindall-Shi (W W Norton) “Republican Party” http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/history/usa6/TOC.pdf

Longman: http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/discipline/0,,72158,00.html

• 2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty,

ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties.

• 3 Jones: Created Equal

ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation. Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action.

• 4 Gary Nash American People

ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted

• 5 Divine, Am Past & Present

ch 8 = Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision.

• 6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"

from Bedford St Martin http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html

• 7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/

Jefferson's Agrarian Vision Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson.

• 8 Roark American Promise (Bedford)

Republicans in Power 1800-1824 http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/roark/pages/bcs-main.asp?v=&s=09000&n=00010&i=09010.00&o=

Hence, the textbooks vote is 7-1 against D-R and 6-2 in favor of Republicans.

Primary Sources: (There are many more references than these, but this will provide an example)

• Thomas Jefferson to President Washington, May 23, 1792 "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it's present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists,..."
• James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794. "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."
• James Madison to William Hayward, March 21, 1809. Address to the Republicans of Talbot Co. Maryland
• Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, January 13, 1813. "The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution"
• James Madison to Baltimore Republican Committee, April 22, 1815.

There are certainly times when correspondence to some local republican chapters used the term Democratic Republican after 1802; my point is the term used at the national level is overwhelmingly "Republican" or "republican" until well after 1810. If it's good enough for history textbooks, it should be good enough for us. Skyemoor 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)