Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Religious views

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.237.68 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} In the religious views page, the article states as a certainty what Jefferson's dieing words were.

This is not known, as shown on the following pages:

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Jefferson%27s_Last_Words http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Thomas_Jefferson%27s_last_words http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/famous-last-words/41-famous%20last%20words.htm

Most sources claim his final words to be, "Is it the Fourth?", referring to Independence Day. Very few sources claim that they are what the page says now.

---

Please change: His last words were, "I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country."[69]

to: His last words cannot be known for sure, most sources show them to be, "Is it the Fourth?", referring to Independence Day.

Use http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Jefferson%27s_Last_Words as the source.

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The source for the current text seems reliable and the book referenced by that source is accessible on Amazon and does make that claim. Your monticello.org source also seems reliable, but the other three do not. Is there some other way to include the text you'd like to add, without removing the existing text? Celestra (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sure, but if you include the text I desire, the original text is contradictory. The original claims that those WERE his last words, then the addition would go on to say that it cannot be known for certain. Perhaps something like this would be better:

His last words cannot be known for sure, some sources claim: "Is it the Fourth?", referring to Independence Day, while other sources claim: "I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country."[69] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.128.32 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about: Jefferson's last words are commonly claimed to be "Is it the Fourth?",<your ref> but other sources claim [existing words]" That might fit better in a religious views section. Celestra (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good.Buckk Dich (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Celestra (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Please change: referring to himself in private letters as a "Christian" (1803), to: referring to himself in private letters as a "Christian" (1803, 1816),

and add the following to footnote 91: Letter to Charles Thomson, Jan. 9, 1816, "I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it 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. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”

---

The quote "question the very existance of God" is taken out of context. If you read the entire letter, Jefferson is not expressing a doubt about the existance of God, he is telling his nephew to explore the topic ernestly because in so doing his faith in God will grow. Essentially, Jefferson is advocating Christian Apologetics. I suggest printing the entire letter for contaxt or replacing this quote with nothing or at least something that is not out of context. Publiusohio (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The quotation about "being obliged to believe..." is attributed to Galileo all over the Internet, not Jefferson. Is there any reliable citation that it was, in fact, written by Jefferson? 13 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.20.135 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It was unsourced so I removed it. Station1 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson supported the separation of church and state

This should be clarified. Jefferson opposed an establishment of religion, meaning a national religion like the Church of England in Great Britain. If Jefferson actually supported a separation of church and state he would not of authorized church services in Congress during his administration. My source is the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is your private interpretation. I'd say "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" and "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State", speaks of a different sentiment. It is, of course, not up to the president to decide what happens in congress - see separation of power. And TJ, despite all his talent and ability to set great ideals into great words, was never the most consistent - just ask Sally Hemings about her inalienable right to liberty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should quote the source of your quotes, or post the FULL quote so you don’t change the meaning, but I guess that would be counter productive to your goal.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.“ -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814 And here is the source…look you can read the whole thing and decide for yourself what the meaning is instead of just taking it out of context to suit your goal.

And here is the source to the other quote you posted, please look at how he closed the letter. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

This is not MY private interpretation, it is the Library of Congress, you apparently did not even look at the source.

"Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion."

Since you disagree with the Library of Congress please tell my why the author of the quote “thus building a wall of separation between church and State" decided to host and attend Christian Church services in House of Representatives, which is a government building, paid for by tax dollars and hosting religious services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This boils down to a disagreement on the meaning of Seperation of Church and State. Thomas Jefferson was a religious man. He held strong beliefs in his faith. His stance on the Seperation of Church and State was more, keeping Government out of Religion, and letting people worship, or not worship as they see fit. No more mandatory church services in small towns or Tax dollars going to Church.

Excercising our inalienable right to worship as we see fit. Congressman are of course free to invite clergy and pray as they see fit in Washington DC, todday. Nobody was made to pray, that is the key here. It was never about removing religion or faith from the Nation's Government institutions. It was about keeping clergy from controlling the Government and keeping the Government from controlling the people through Religion.Jon3800 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it even matter what actually happened? Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, which was a code word for agnostic. Notice how there where no atheists or agnostics back then, but there where plenty of deists. You apparently don't understand what it was like back then. Most rulers at that time ruled by "divine right", meaning God gave them the right to rule. Religion was deeply entrenched. He had to pretend to be religious or he wouldn't be as popular as he was. And he STRONGLY supported the ABSOLUTE separation of church and state, in fact he didn't believe there should be any churches or states, but that was just unrealistic. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Culinary Statesman section

One or two of the sources seemed reliable, but overall the section had WP:SYNTH problems as well as generally poor sources included as embedded links. One source even refuted the fact it is cited to confirm. If Jefferson is well known for having introduced these food items to America, there should be a reliable, scholarly source for that information. Celestra (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Jefferson a mason or a brick layer?

It seems funny to me to read that Jefferson "BUILT his home there" after that "Jefferson inherited about 5,000 acres (20 km²) of land AND DOZENS OF SLAVES"

¿Did he raised it with his own hands?

Please forgive my poor english but I would suggest that he surely "HAD his home BUILT there"

I realize that to raise a home and a house are different things but I think it well worths to give a little credit to his manual workers.

--80.39.165.245 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he certainly was the architect, engineer and construction manage. So "built" seems ok. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sally Hemmings topics are too large and even unnecessary

Sally Hemmings was basically considered a sex slave. To include her in this article with a large topic that's larger than his own family's bio is showing an agenda. Most of the information is uninteresting and should be edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty offensive POV pushing. Let the reader make up their own mind.--Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The disparity in this Sally Hemmings section of the Thomas Jefferson article is disappointing and unprofessional. It's fair to mention the controversy in a paragraph and then break it out into a separate article. But that section is currently unbalanced with the rest of the article on Thomas Jefferson. (1) For example, there are ~18 paragraphs of information on the Hemmings topic near the top of the article and only 3 paragraphs on his time as Secretary of State. (2) Another example of how this is skewed is that the section on Sally Hemmings appears below the subheading Marriage and Family, yet only 2 sentences mention his wife and 6 children, while 18 paragraphs talk about Sally Hemmings CSJscience (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the same section on Sally Hemmings violates the Wikipedia "Neutral point of view" policy which states: (1) "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." and "An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic." CSJscience (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No evidence Jefferson was racist

Numerous people have set out to prove that Thomas Jefferson was a racist. They search through his letters for racist quotes. Of course, they use these based on contemporary language, even though they where written 200 years ago and are an example of extreme decontextualization. None of this mentions that Jefferson had easily the least racist views of anybody at the time.

It refuses to mention did not believe in the veto power at all, so that is why he didn't veto a bill banning free blacks from being postal service workers.

It doesn't mention that he was one of the most dedicated abolitionists of his time, perhaps only Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin put more effort into it.

It doesn't mention that his views on race where based on his beliefs that two or more races could not live under one government with equal liberty for all, which has so far been true.

It doesn't mention that it was literally impossible for him to free his slaves, that he also worked at Monticello, and that his treatment of slaves was literally the best of any Southern Plantation in history.

The source citing Jefferson's role in Indian Removal(Genocide) is completely biased, and in the wikipedia article for Christopher Columbus, there is less about relations with natives, even though he was a specialist in genocide at the time and led the genocide against the indigenous Haitians, and it lies about the Pre-Colombian population.

This article needs serious review. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to back up all of your claims, otherwise, they constitute original research. Almost everything in this article is backed by reliable sources. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Racist" is a word frequently tossed around without being defined. Does it mean one actively dislikes a race or does it mean one simply believes there to be fundamental differences? He most definitely stated that he observed negroes to be intellectually inferior to whites - though was open to persuasion. He made the inadvertently humorous (measured against contemporary idioms) Archie Bunkeresque observation that negroes are a "musical people" but generally not too bright. While he favored their emancipation, he also thought they should be shipped off elsewhere. Does reaching honest conclusions based on honest observations make him a racist?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, at first I thought that the "DarkOne" was attempting to make a valid point, but the racism in his own statement boggles my mind. Archie Bunker was a satire in order to confront racism, not perpetuate it. If reaching "honest conclusions and honest observations" about the lack of intelligence and musical ability in another race is not a racist statement, then I don't know what is. I am stunned that this person could be allowed to edit any articles.

As to the original poster's comment, which were valid, "racism" is defined in the Webster's dictionary "as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1]" Ergo, the readers should be given the information about Jefferson and allowed to make their own decisions. I think that most people realize that Jefferson was a man of his time. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are themselves prone to the bias of human editors, as such a dictionary definition doesn't settle an argument. There's plenty of evidence that there most certainly are physiological differences between races. In fact to deny this is absurd.

If reaching "honest conclusions and honest observations" about the lack of intelligence and musical ability in another race is not a racist statement, then I don't know what is It's a factual statement that Jefferson made such observations. What you're saying however is that you're unwilling to objectively examine evidence and have already decided that you'll never accept a particular conclusion. Extraordinarily unscholarly.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Modified topic title regarding Sally Hemings' children

Not a single study has been able to definitively substantiate without qualification that Jefferson fathered any of Hemings' children, only that someone in his family did. Ergo it remains an allegation. To simply title it "Children by his slave Sally Hemings" is loaded and biased.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be POV pushing. Short of digging up Thomas Jefferson and testing his DNA there will never be "absolute" certainty. However, there is a great deal of qualitative and circumstantial evidence. In addition to the "Nature" study, which linked Eston Hemmings to the Jefferson family line, Annette Gordon Reed did an in-depth analysis of this subject. Whether or not it is true is debatable, which is why the reader should be able to draw their own conclusions. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

???....You have it utterly backwards. Attempting to assert as fact that which is only speculation is POV pushing. The dispute isn't whether there's a link to the Jefferson family line but whether it stems from Thomas Jefferson. No matter how much "qualitative and circumstantial" evidence there is, it remains only that and not definitive and the title should reflect that.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt even without the strongly suggestive DNA data that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. Motive, means, and opportunity, all check. Witnesses. Contemporary remarks on how Jeffersonian the children look. The DNA data simply clinches it. Note that the few opponents really have a Mystery Father of the Gaps approach - essentially, it's everybody but TJ. When one hypothesis is conclusively ruled out, the next absurd one is dragged out - without ever considering the obvious one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

thomas jefferson also had 2 girland 3 boys.