Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Talk page archives

• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 1
• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 2
• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 3
• Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 4

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.

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)

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)

This Article Continues to Be Disputed

re: the following summary action without Talk Page discussion or resolution by the following user

Contrary to the personal opinion and activity of Rjensen

Revision as of 22:08, November 25, 2006
Rjensen (Talk | contribs)
(the article is not "totally disputed" by anyone)

The reasons for the dispute are described fully above. RJensen has no grounds to suppress disputed tags. He has provided no 'on point' argument why the tag ought not continue in place. Let's make this even more clear. There is ambiguity to Jefferson's life that is not reflected in this article. It is more hagiography than accurate reflection of the life he lived. Sources for those views are provided above. Rjensen provides no sources at all, except his own personal bias. Skywriter 16:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Skywriter slaps a nonsense "totally disputed" tag because some trivia he inserted was left out. The article tries to be neutral in terms of POV --AND-- it tries to focus on the big picture. We have to be fair to Jeffersons and to readers. For example he signed thousands of bills that he had nothing to do with and never vetoed any. Skywriter wants to talk about some of these bills even though no Jefferson biographer thinks they are worthy of attention. That is not the way to create a NPOV article. Rjensen 18:47, 3 December 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 aspersions, though primary and secondary sources can help clear out some of 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 and focus, but made absolutely no mention of changing any article. This is called putting words in someone else's mouth; this is not the first time Pmanderson|Septentrionalis needed to create a strawman argument. Skyemoor 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor's own words include "I believe the more that people read these articles, the less they'll view today's Republican Party as the party of Lincoln, a radical abolitionist (to oversimplify). Let me know if I am on target or 180 degrees off." Septentrionalis 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I made absolutely no mention of changing any article on that topic, so you are attempting a red herring distraction here about op-ed vs. encyclopedia. WP:Lame is not our objective. Skyemoor 22:17, 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)

(edit conflict; thanks to Skyemoor for having moderated his language)

I congratulate Skyemoor on his mastery of the art of selective citation. This issue is discussed at some length on Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States)/Archive 1. Dozens of books were referenced; Skyemoor has brought over the only six of nearly fifty which use Republican Party. This search finds more than a hundred recent pieces of scholarship which do not.

The quotations from Jefferson and Madison above use "republican party", which is not the same thing. In some cases, it is not even a name, but a description.

I see Skyemoor has given up using Madison's quotation:To William Eustis, May 22, 1823. "The people are now able every where to compare the principles and policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats with the career of the adverse party. and to see and feel that the former are as much in harmony with the Spirit of the Nation as the latter was at variance with both."

This is one party of several names. I find three choices acceptable:

• To use Republican and explain in full, as is done at Democratic-Republican Party (United States)#Party names. Some history texts do this; some do not. Do we have room in this article to do so?
• To use Democratic Republican, as unambiguously distinct from the modern parties. Political science texts do this, or use DRP; as Skyemoor neglected to mention.
• To use neutral language and link to the article on the party. This will not always be possible, especially in the infobox. Septentrionalis 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the three choices you list, preferably the second, but if the first used, it should properly explain that it has no correlation to the modern-day Republican party as there is no direct linkage/lineage. However, FWIW, just to throw in another view on whether the Bush and Lincoln parties are the same, it doesn't matter if the platform has changed, the direct lineage is clear, and it's been argued that in essence it is the same: a pro-business party with elements of religious ideology (abolutionist movement then was a religious ideology) --plange 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The first choice can indeed be explained with economy, as has been done on other pages (when Pmanderson|Septentrionalis does not delete the text and references);

"Madison and Thomas Jefferson created the the republican (later the Democratic Republican) party..".

Indeed, this position is also ironically supported by some of the hits that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis found in his Google Scholar search (see below). And if we are counting hits off of Google Scholar (he didn't notice that many references were to Jefferson Davis, "Democratic Republican Society" [a French-based network], etc), then this search (removing "Democratic Republican" from the criteria) would carry the day with over 7400 hits. However, we'd rather look at the evidence with a more discerning eye. Many of the hits found by Pmanderson|Septentrionalis are multiple duplicates (for example, I counted 5 hits on one text) or actually state the opposite of his position;

• "The political party he co-founded began as the Republican Party but later became known as the Democratic Party.", CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY, Vol. 29, #2, 2002 pages 185-246 [1]
• " ...was to evolve into the state's Jacksonian, "Democratic Republican"party", The Kentucky Tragedy and the Transformation of Politics in the Early American Republic, by Dickson D. Bruce Jr., The American Transcendental Quarterly, Vol. 17, 2003 [2]
• "Jefferson's party is sometimes referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party, but at the time they called themselves Republicans.", The Changing Presidential Election System., RL Mahan - White House Studies, 2002 [3]
• "In January 1843, Tyler officially founded the Democratic-Republican Party". Presidential Politicization and Centralization across the Modern-Traditional Divide, D Galvin, C Shogan - Polity, 2004, [4]

Skyemoor 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Those mostly have the advantage of writing for scholars. The Constitutional Law Jourmal can assume its readers know American political history; we can't. Many of our readers aren't Americans at all. Septentrionalis 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Those references that argued against your position were provided by you. I provided the history textbook examples above that students are now being taught from. Skyemoor 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good for you; nevertheless, we are not going to include Tyler's abortive project of 1843 in the history of a party which split up by 1829; or the life of Jefferson, who died in 1826. Septentrionalis 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Red herrings (again). The references speak for themselves. Skyemoor 02:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tyler is one of the references Skyemoor claims. And they do; as Jefferson's letter quoted at length below, shows.

No-one agrees with Skyemoor, or ever has - for more discussion, see Talk:List of United States Presidents, or this response by a user who would have reverted Skyemoor if I hadn't done it first. Septentrionalis 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a lame complaint: Everyone with a decent high school history teacher knows that Jefferson and Madison called their party Republican and if one had history in college, that the Democratic-Republican party came about later in the Monroe administration. Stop POV pushing. 198.151.13.8 19:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange; my high-school history teacher taught me that Monroe was Madison's Secretary of State and that they belonged to the same party. College textbooks seem to agree. Septentrionalis 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson's letter

The relevant extract of Jefferson's letter of May 23, 1792 is, in full

[Public opinion holds t]hat the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change, from the present republican form of government, to that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the model. That this was contemplated in the Convention is no secret, because it's partisans have made none of it. To effect it then was impracticable, but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing every thing for it's ultimate attainment. So many of them have got into the legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses. 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, who, tho they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general government: but being less so to a republican than a 'monarchical one, they naturally join those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil.

Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before mentioned, none is so afflicting, and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it became the instrument for producing the rest, & will be the instrument for producing in future a king, lords & commons, or whatever else those who direct it may chuse. Withdrawn such a distance from the eye of their constituents, and these so dispersed as to be inaccessible to public information, & particularly to that of the conduct of their own representatives, they will form the most corrupt government on earth, if the means of their corruption be not prevented. The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members will probably be either in principle or interest, with the present majority, but it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the republican party. They will not be able to undo all which the two preceding legislatures, & especially the first, have done. Public faith & right will oppose this. But some parts of the system may be rightfully reformed; a liberation from the rest unremittingly pursued as fast as right will permit, & the door shut in future against similar commitments of the nation. Should the next legislature take this course, it will draw upon them the whole monarchical & paper interest. But the latter I think will not go all lengths with the former, because creditors will never, of their own accord, fly off entirely from their debtors. Therefore this is the alternative least likely to produce convulsion. But should the majority of the new members be still in the same principles with the present, & shew that we have nothing to expect but a continuance of the same practices, it is not easy to conjecture what would be the result, nor what means would be resorted to for correction of the evil. True wisdom would direct that they should be temperate & peaceable, but the division of sentiment & interest happens unfortunately to be so geographical, that no mortal can say that what is most wise & temperate would prevail against what is most easy & obvious? I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts. Yet when we review the mass which opposed the original coalescence, when we consider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter, that the legislature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, but on the contrary whenever Northern & Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed & the former soothed; that the owners of the debt are in the Southern & the holders of it in the Northern division; that the Anti-federal champions are now strengthened in argument by the fulfilment of their predictions; that this has been brought about by the Monarchical federalists themselves, who, having been for the new government merely as a stepping stone to monarchy, have themselves adopted the very constructions of the constitution, of which, when advocating it's acceptance before the tribunal of the people, they declared it insusceptible; that the republican federalists, who espoused the same government for it's intrinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons, that which they denied as prophecy being now become true history: who can be sure that these things may not proselyte the small number Which was wanting to place the majority on the other side? And this is the event at which I tremble, & to prevent which I consider your continuance at the head of affairs as of the last importance. The confidence of the whole union is centred in you. Your being at the helm, will be more than an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm & lead the people in any quarter into violence or secession. North & South will hang together, if they have you to hang on; and, if the first correction of a numerous representation should fail in it's effect, your presence will give time for trying others not inconsistent with the union & peace of the states.

I have bolded the party terms. This refers to three parts or parties in Congress:

• the anti-Federalists, who oppose the existence of a Federal Government; less than half-a-dozen.
• the republicans (no capital) or republican federalists, who want the present, republican form of Government; Madison, for example.
• the Monarchist federalists, who once opposed the Constitution, and who now wish to convert it into a monarchy. Hamilton.

This voting bloc or caucus in Congress was in fact the beginning of the Democratic-Republican Party known to history, whatever Tyler's project may have been. It bore various names, which are fully discussed, and sourced, at Democratic-Republican Party (United States)#Party name. Before 1800, they were known as republicans, republicans and federalists, Jeffersonians, Pinckney men, Madisonians, and so forth; their opponents called them Democrats, Jacobins and anarchists. By 1800, they began to call themselves Democrats and Democratic Republicans; the first is a revival of the practice of 1793 (Malone, Jefferson, III 162) Septentrionalis 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Ironically, I'm in the middle of reading "The Rise of American Democracy" by Sean Wilentz at lunch, and just got to the point today where it goes into great detail about the second bullet above, and called them republicans, but made a distinction between the elected officials at the time I'm in the middle of reading (1790s) that formed the faction in the second bullet point, and the citizens who formed the anti-Administration clubs and societies which were variously called such and such X Society, where X was either Republican or Democratic, and that the author grouped together under the term "the Democratic-Republican societies" but would refer to the anti-Administration faction in the government (the Congressmen and cabinet members) in the 1790s (which was all pre-political parties) as the "Republican interest" --plange 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has interpreted as "republican federalists" is explained in Jefferson's letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813 as those federalists who are not Federalists leaders, but have been hoodwinked by them. Pmanderson|Septentrionalis also is quoting "parts" where it does not appear in Jefferson's letters, thus inserting his POV;

"That each party endeavors to get into the administration of the government, and exclude the other from power, is true, and may be stated as a motive of action : but this is only secondary ; the primary motive being a real and radical difference of political principle. I sincerely wish our differences were but personally who should govern, and that the principles of our constitution were those of both parties. Unfortunately, it is otherwise; and the question of preference between monarchy and republicanism, which has so long divided mankind elsewhere, threatens a permanent division here.

Among that section of our citizens called federalists, there are three shades of opinion. Distinguishing between the leaders and people who compose it, the leaders consider the English constitution as a model of perfection, some, with a correction of its vices, others, with all its corruptions and abuses. This last was Alexander Hamilton’s opinion, which others, as well as myself, have often heard him declare, and that a correction of what are called its vices, would render the English an impracticable government. This government they wished to have established here, and only accepted and held fast, at first, to the present constitution, as a stepping-stone to the final establishment of their favorite model. This party has therefore always clung to England as their prototype, and great auxiliary in promoting and effecting this change. A weighty MINORITY, however, of these leaders, considering the voluntary conversion of our government into a monarchy as too distant, if not desperate, wish to break off from our Union its eastern fragment, as being, in truth, the hot-bed of American monarchism, with a view to a commencement of their favorite government, from whence the other States may gangrene by degrees, and the whole be thus brought finally to the desired point. For Massachusetts, the prime mover in this enterprise, is the last State in the Union to mean a final separation, as being of all the most dependent on the others. Not raising bread for the sustenance of her own inhabitants, not having a stick of timber for the construction of vessels, her principal occupation, nor an article to export in them, where would she be, excluded from the ports of the other States, and thrown into dependence on England, her direct, and natural, but now insidious rival ? At the head of this MINORITY is what is called the Essex Junto of Massachusetts. But the MAJORITY of these leaders do not aim at separation. In this, they adhere to the known principle of General Hamilton, never, under any views, to break the Union. Anglomany, monarchy, and separation, then, are the principles of the Essex federalists. Anglomany and monarchy, those of the Hamiltonians, and Anglomany alone, that of the portion among the people who call themselves federalists. These last are as good republicans as the brethren whom they oppose, and differ from them only in their devotion to England and hatred of France which they have imbibed from their leaders. The moment that these leaders should avowedly propose a separation of the Union, or the establishment of regal government, their popular adherents would quit them to a man, and join the republican standard; and the partisans of this change, even in Massachusetts, would thus find themselves an army of officers without a soldier.

The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution."

There is the meaning of republican federalist Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has been pondering over in the other letter; Jefferson referred to three types of federalists:

• Minority of Federalist leaders (Essex junto) supporting Anglomany, monarchy, and separation
• Majority of Federalist leaders (Hamiltonian) supporting Anglomany and monarchy
• Rank and file Federalists who embrace Anglomany "imbibed from their leaders...as good republicans as the brethren whom they oppose"

And note that even in 1813 he is still referring to the party called republican, a named party. And note that Democratic-Republican Societies were organizations started by Genet (a French diplomat), not the aforesaid party created by Jefferson or Madison. Skyemoor 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor typed the date of this letter twice. It's twenty-one years later. By that time meanings had changed drastically; including widespread usage of Democrats for Jefferson's party. This is anachronism. Septentrionalis 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what either of you are really trying to assert about republican federalists, but at the time period I was referring to, Jefferson identified as a member of the 'Republican interest' which had ties to the Democratic-Republican societies, which actually were not started by Genet (The German Republican society in Philly predated his arrival), though he did galvanize the start of others, etc. The only problem I would have is if just the word "republican" caps or no caps, was used in the infobox, as, without the historical context of what that meant then (as is provided when reading the article and the link to Democratic-Republican Party wiki article), it is misleading to the Average Joe who would assume it's the same party as Lincoln and Bush. Since the wiki article is called Democratic-Republican Party, shouldn't discussions of changing it to Jeffersonian Republicans (or something else) be more appropriate there instead of changing the name in the infobox and disambiguating the link? The problem is, both usages are conventions used by later historians, so saying that Jefferson was the founder and leader of the Jeffersonian Republican Party (as it currently says) is just as wrong as saying the was the founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party. How about this compromise: "the founder and leader of a political party that eventually became known as the Democratic-Republican Party."? --plange 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Although I would prefer to leave out eventually. In fact DR is contemporary with Jefferson; it began to be used when he was President, and became one of the chief names of this multinamed party in his lifetime. Septentrionalis 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Background

There was an extremely long discussion of this question at the talk page of the party's article; it's most of the archive. At the end of that discussion, only Skyemoor wanted to move it. Rjensen had originally wanted to move it to Jeffersonian Republicans, because he knows history texts that say "Republicans" (after explaining fully); but he is no longer requesting that, after finding political-science texts saying "Democratic Republican".

The party always had many names: before 1800, "republicans", "republican party" or "republican interest" was the most common, but also "Jeffersonians", "Madisonians", "Pinckney men". Both parties called themselves "republican federalists" sometimes; these weren't yet party names, but descriptions. "Democrats" began to be used by 1800, and "Democratic Republicans" thereafter. Jeffersonian Republican was also occasionally used, but was, as a general term, invented by Bryce in the 1880's. For almost all of this see Democratic-Republican Party (United States)#Party name, which is sourced. Septentrionalis 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC}

See below. Skyemoor 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Science and Invention

Perhaps it would be valuable to add a section on Jefferson's overwhelming interest in natural history, anthropology, agriculture, etc...as it was a defining passion, and he contributed in large amount to agricultural science.((unsigned|Mookster}}

Comments

One editor has been persistently editing this and related articles to say simply that Jefferson founded and led the Republican Party, which has an obvious potential to mislead; the existing Republican Party was founded in 1854, long after Jefferson's death. The party had many names, which may be found at Democratic-Republican Party (United States)#party name; they included republican party, Republicans, Jeffersonians, Democrats (often, but not always, from their opponents) and Democratic-Republicans I see five options: Septentrionalis

You seemed to have left off the second sentence which states; "The party and its members identified themselves as the Republican party (not related to the present-day Republican Party),..." Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Use Republican Party without explanation.

Misleading. Septentrionalis

?? Historically accurate. Jefferson and Madison referred to themselves and their party as "republican" or "Republican", except in those instances later on when some local chapters called themselves DR. Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Use Democratic Party.

The OED's usage, for example. Septentrionalis

Historically inappropriate, though the lineage claim is recognized. Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; as the article on the party notes, it was used for the 1824 caucus. "Anti-Caucus/Caucus". Washington Republican. February 6, 1824. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) But it has a less serious form of the same problem as "Republican Party"; although the connexion is much stronger. Septentrionalis 16:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Use Republican party and explain.

This is unexceptionable, but it won't always fit; for example, in the info-box. Recent histories have taken to doing this; but they have room to explain. Septentrionalis

It's easy, short, and simple to put in a couple of words to get the idea across, "Madison and Thomas Jefferson created the the republican party (later the Democratic-Republican party)" A sampling of the references that can be used for this are;

• 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."
  
• Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, January 13, 1813. "The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution"

The above quotes are but a tiny sampling; See Google Scholar for the search results of;

• "Federalists and Republicans" (490 hits)
• Jefferson "Republican Party" "Federalist Party" -democratic-republican (337 hits)
• Note that the comparable DR search (see below) only returns 89 hits.

While this is by no means a fine tooth comb search, it does give a sense of where the academic community comes down on this topic. Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[Use Jeffersonian Republican Party (option referred to by Rjensen, added by Skyemoor)

A common compromise that extends the accurate historical usage by the 1st and 3rd options above. Google Scholar search;

• Jefferson "Jeffersonian Republicans" "Federalist Party" (140 hits)

Skyemoor 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)]

Use Democratic Republicans/Democratic-Republican Party.

The traditional compromise, used by political scientists and some historians Septentrionalis

This "traditional compromise" is a claim without support. Historians are reverting to Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republican Party, which is now becoming their standards in history textbooks. Google Scholar search;

• Jefferson "Democratic-Republican Party" "Federalist Party" (89 hits).

Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Avoid the name of the party altogether

Again, not always possible. Septentrionalis

No need to avoid informing people. Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I support any of of the last three, but think the explanation belongs in the article on the party. Septentrionalis 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support the 1st, 3rd, and last options; a couple of words extra does not impact readability, but enhances comprehension and keeps us from promoting a Disney-like altered version of history. Skyemoor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

for TITLE of the article my first choice still is Jeffersonian Republican, #2 is Republican and #3 D-R. Historians have largely switched to 1 or 2, but indeed political science college and AP US Govt texts prefer #3, so #3 is OK with me. INSIDE the article I strongly prefer #1 or #2. (that is, we can speak of a D-R party, but should avoid "Democrat-Republicans turned out in large numbers." People before 1820 or so used #2 about 90% of the time and #3 less than 1% I'd guess. Rjensen 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What do we use in the infobox? That's a big problem, as there's no room to explain context there. --plange 16:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Democratic Republican, as we did before Skyemoor began his crusade. Septentrionalis 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rjensen on Jeffersonian Republican, though I'm also open to republican. Jefferson was definitely not a 'Democratic Republican', even the term Republican would be more correct, as the article would provide context in the lede, with the infobox link back to the DR article (which sufficiently explains the situation in the first sentence). So all but the most laziest readers would understand the situation without difficulty or confusion. Skyemoor 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deist

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the problem of creation - a matter which was solved after his time by Darwin. Therefore, Jefferson considered a god as a creator but not in a christian sense, simply as the only available and today outdated solution to the creation problem at the time. He claimed not to be christian (You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819). He never believed in a god in the christian sense because he was a scientist. At best, he may be called an agnostic. (Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787) The article is simply wrong and highly misleading as most Wikipedia stuff. I do not edit the stuff because most qualified comments by PhD-scientists like me are routinely erased from wikipedia by some bold american high school kids.

Where did Jefferson ever say that he himself was a Deist? [The Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.152.13.170 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The information on Jefferson as a Deist is properly cited, so there's no call to remove it. The quote that you're using is out of context. The full quote:

[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 this quote, he used the term 'Christianity' to mean 'one who follows the teachings of Christ' rather than 'one who worships Christ as a God.' Jefferson considered his brand of Christianity, as outlined in the Jefferson Bible, as real Christianity; implying that mainstream Christianity is 'false.' Thus calling him a Christian, as opposed to a Deist, would be disingenuous, as it implies a belief in the divinity of Jesus, while Jefferson considered Jesus a great teacher, but not a God. -- Vary | Talk 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, please note that one of the instances of the word 'Deism' that is persistantly being replaced with 'Christianity', as in this edit, is a direct quote from Jefferson himself in a letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley. -- Vary | Talk 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jefferson considered his brand of Christianity, as outlined in the Jefferson Bible, as real Christianity"

Christianity is Deism?63.152.9.217 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No,Christianity is not Deism. User 63.152.13.170 is right, Thomas Jefferson never did say he was a Deist, although he talked like a Deist he did claim that he was a Christian and he attended Church functions. As I recall the church he went to was an Episcopal church like his father and his fathers father before him. --TheDOC1958 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a credible source that says Jefferson was not a Deist, then please provide it. The information currently in the article is cited and supported. Most biographers and scholars say that Jefferson was a deist. The proof is in the article and elsewhere on this talk page, so I won't waste my time laying it out for you here. If you can bring us a source, then we can discuss it here after your block expires. Otherwise, please put your socks back in their drawer and stop being disruptive. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important what Jefferson says he was, but less important than what he actually was. I think Hitler claimed to be a christian, but assuming he did say he was, it wouldn't make him one, for a number of reasons. Meanings of words change, and if the word "christian" is going to be used in the article it needs to be used in the modern sense that almost all readers would understand. By that sense Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. Hu 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vary,I under stand that you say that you are a Roman Catholic. If I were to write a biography on your religious beliefs and said that you was a atheist thus starting the "rumor" of your atheism and several other biographers and scholars followed suit and from that it became to be known that you were an atheist,although you said you was a christian. Would it be fact that you were an atheist?Would it make it so?I can only see biographers from the 1900's who did not know Thomas Jefferson and they assume that he was a Deist based solely on the way he talked and wrote,you must know that back in those days people talked and wrote vary differently then we use today. I see that Thomas Jefferson called himself "a real christian"(The Jefferson Bible,His only publication) and he did NOT call himself a real Deist.So you are saying I should not listen to the facts as Jefferson laid out in the Jefferson bible and that I should listen to biographers who were born almost 200 years after his death? Any of this make sense to you?So the real question here is, who are you going to believe? And are you willing to be an accomplice to one of the most notorious history blunders of all time?

Hu,“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, --63.152.1.50 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vary, your term sock puppets does not apply to me or to what I do. =) http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SOCKS.html

A protocol for handling TCP traffic through a proxy server. It can be used with virtually any TCP application, including Web browsers and FTP clients. It provides a simple firewall because it checks incoming and outgoing packets and hides the IP addresses of client applications. --63.152.1.50 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:SOCK. SOCKS, all caps, is an Internet protocol. Socks, in Wikipedia jargon, are sock puppets. Someone who uses different IP addresses and alternate accounts to give the illusion that his or her beliefs are widely supported, as you did above, or to avoid a block, as you did several times on the article until it was semi-protected, and again just now, is using sock puppets.

As you have used a sock puppet to evade your block, which was set to expire at 22:11 gmt, December 6, I am resetting it. If you edit the article again before it expires, the block will be extended. -- Vary | Talk 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP SOCK..ROFLMAO!! YET ANOTHER FINE WIKI JOKE 63.152.1.50 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet im on the same SN Im just not logged on to my account You do know that every time you log on or (dial up) to your ISP the last three octets of your IP changes and the user has no controle over this...HAVE A NICE DAY!<<<< pun intended! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.152.1.50 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Miller's commment here: In reference to Jefferson going to school in Fredericksburg "which is 12 miles from Shadwell", this information is completely wrong and someone who has privileges needs to go to mapquest to see this fault.

Good spotting. Should be Fredericksville Parish [5] –Shoaler (talk) 12:40, 17 December 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)

This article is marked as too long. I suggest getting rid of the Trivia section since the majority of it is redundant. The part about the lisp should probably be moved to the Appearance & temperament section. Other than that, the other tidbits can be found elsewhere (Adams last words are in his article, the part about him and Adams being the only presidents to sign the Declaration is found at the DoI article, the Thoreau misquote is noted on TJ's Wikiquote page, and so on. Is noting who portrayed him in movies really necessary? Does the Washington article note that he has been portrayed by Barry Bostwick and Kelsey Grammer, among others? No. --Sparkhurst 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

These all seem like things that should be removed. Go for it. Gwernol 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Other things to consider: Is the See Also section necessary? Are all the links in the Externl links and sources section necessary? The format of the Presidency section is odd, to say the least. --Sparkhurst 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson and the Qur'an

If anyone wants to add something about Keith Ellison's use of Jefferson's Qur'an for his private swearing-in ceremony, Mark Dimunation, chief of the Rare Book and Special Collections Division of the Library of Congress, was recently interviewed on NPR. Here is a short clip from the interview:

"We think that he acquired it in 1765, which would make sense -- this is a 1764 edition of the translation by George Sale. This would have been a period of time when he was studying law. In fact, many of his law texts refer to the Qur'an as an alternative view of certain legal structures and maybe that when he saw this offered, he picked it up as part of his legal studies."

The full interview can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6718662 --Catalyst

Under the current heading "Jefferson and slavery" it's stated that Jefferson only freed his five most beloved slaves. Under the following heading, "The Sally Hemings controversy", it's written that most modern scientists believe that Jefferson was the father of at least some of his slave Sally Hemings’ six children. Since he freed fewer slaves than Sally Hemings had children and since (at least if the same principles applied as in ancient Roman law) the child of a slave automatically became a slave with the same owner as was the owner of the child's parent, it seems likely that at least some of Jefferson's children remained slaves after his death. I think this point deserves mentioning. As it then turns out, one of the most esteemed US presidents probably let his own children remain in slavery.--Smallchanges 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's children remained slaves?

Under the current heading "Jefferson and slavery" it's stated that Jefferson only freed his five most beloved slaves. Under the following heading, "The Sally Hemings controversy", it's written that most modern scientists believe that Jefferson was the father of at least some of his slave Sally Hemings’ six children. Since he freed fewer slaves than Sally Hemings had children and since (at least if the same principles applied as in ancient Roman law) the child of a slave automatically became a slave with the same owner as was the owner of the child's parent, it seems likely that at least some of Jefferson's children remained slaves after his death. I think this point deserves mentioning. As it then turns out, one of the most esteemed US presidents probably let his own children remain in slavery.--Smallchanges 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's children remained slaves?

Under the current heading "Jefferson and slavery" it's stated that Jefferson only freed his five most beloved slaves. Under the following heading, "The Sally Hemings controversy", it's written that most modern scientists believe that Jefferson was the father of at least some of his slave Sally Hemings’ six children. Since he freed fewer slaves than Sally Hemings had children and since (at least if the same principles applied as in ancient Roman law) the child of a slave automatically became a slave with the same owner as was the owner of the child's parent, it seems likely that at least some of Jefferson's children remained slaves after his death. I think this point deserves mentioning. As it then turns out, one of the most esteemed US presidents probably let his own children remain in slavery.--Smallchanges 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this repeated three times? Sally Hemings had five known children. The oldest was a daughter that died around the age of two. Four children lived to adults. Two were freed in his will and two were allowed to run away.Welsh4ever76 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearance Section

Just noticed that in the 'appearance' section Jeffersons height is given as eight feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.148.192 (talk • contribs) 23:14, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not. The page was vandalized at 16:25, January 24, 2007, and that was one of the changes made, but that edit was reverted within a minute (more than two days before your comment). -- Vary | Talk 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Text of "Letter to Virginia Baptists" extremely doubtful

It looks like somebody made a mistake that got copied over and over again.

Look here: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Look here: http://candst.tripod.com/studygd7b.htm

Scroll down almost halfway. Jim Allison makes an excellent case for deeming the quoted portion at Wikipedia as inauthentic (though of course he doesn't mention Wikipedia by name!).

He also provides the entire text of the 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists from another source. The portion in question is not included.

This also appears to explain the odd use of quotation marks where "wall of separation" is mentioned. Why would Jefferson have used them?

In my opinion, the case against this quotation is overwhelming. It should be removed after only the shortest of delays (by confirming Allison's work through examination of a copy of the letter). Crowtreboot 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. The "quotation" is simply a potted summary of Jefferson's general views by the editor of the virginia site. Paul B 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

K2 Y Chromosome

This DNA actually originated in Iran and is considered the Phoenician haplotype. Although it may be found in a certain Pharaoh and the ancient Egyptians in general it did not originate there. Also it is found in Wales. As is the typical Ancient Egyptian MtDNA haplotype of U6 and U5b. I know because a relative of mine has these DNA markers. I do not think that it belongs under the Sally Hemings article. Welsh4ever76 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I wanted to point out that ancestral Y chromosome DNA can be difficult to trace. For instance the K2 DNA originated near the Caucus mountains. Some the people with the DNA went north into Scandinavia and Germany and some went south into the middle east. It is unkown which line he may be descended from. He may not have any ancestors that lived in the middle east. More research would need to be done. It is irresponsible to make claims based on this information. From middle eastern or Phoenician ancestors to telling people they are or are not his descendants is using this type of testing in the wrong way. Welsh4ever76 18:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Several British white men have now been found with this gene [6]

perfectblue 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below on the possibility of remote Sephardic Jewish ancestry for Jefferson as the reason that he carried this K2Y Chromosome. --Wassermann 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Cox shot on the White House Lawn

In the movie Swordfish (film) John Travolta's character mentions Jefferson killing someone on the White House lawn. I found one internet reference to it. Anyone got anything else? --Gbleem 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish influence

There are numerous exaggerated claims about Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki influence on Jefferson. Goślicki did not say "all men are created equal". See the Goślicki article for more details, and note that no one has demonstrated any direct link betwen Goślicki and Jefferson. Goślicki is not mentioned in the many Jefferson biographies. Rjensen 12:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless the connection is world famous in Poland. A source in English would be nice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Goślicki did influence Shakespeare, esp the Polonius character in Hamlet--but not Jefferson. Rjensen 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Jane Randolph line

The following line refers to Jane Randolph. But it follows the line defining Jefferson's father. It should be moved up 1 sentence.

Through her, he was a descendant from King Jean de Brienne of Jerusalem, King John of England, twice from King Edward I of England, twice from King Edward III of England and once from King Pedro I of Castile [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why we should include this at all; it amounts to the assertion that the Randolphs are descended from Edward III, which is by no means unusual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitchen's quote

This makes no sense. We know the name of the five slaves freed in Thomas Jefferson's will. Three of them were not the children of Sally Hemings. Welsh4ever76 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait. What? Back that up. I've read that they were. -- Calion | Talk 09:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves; the others were sold after his death to pay his debts. The slaves who were freed may have been Jefferson's own offspring with Sally Hemings (see below). According to journalist and essayist Christopher Hitchens, Sally Hemings "exacted a promise from Jefferson to free any children she had with him as soon as they achieved adulthood. And the "only" evidence for that promise is that he did indeed free them, all of them."

The above quote is what I deleted. This five slaves freed in his will were not all Sally Hemings' children. Only two were. It was a misleading statement. Two of her children were allowed to run away and two freed in his will. Welsh4ever76 07:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Vary | Talk 13:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's Partial Jewish Ancestry? -- New York Times Article: 28 February 2007

"Study Raises Possibility of Jewish Tie for Jefferson" -- [7] --172.132.32.76 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the relevance of this is to the article. --TeaDrinker 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson did not have partial Jewish ancestry. He was of Welsh descent on his father's side. Welsh4ever76 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By going back and reading the NYT article posted here on March 1st, one can read that some DNA tests have revealed that a certain amount of Jefferson's 'deep genetic roots' (one or some of his non-recent ancestors) can be traced back to non-European ancestors. Again, go look at the March 1st edit and read the article for yourself; parts of the article say: "Researchers studying Jefferson’s Y chromosome have found it belongs to a lineage that is rare in Europe but common in the Middle East, raising the possibility that the third president of the United States had a Jewish ancestor many generations ago." -- "The fact that K2 is common in the Middle East, however, raises the possibility that Jefferson had a Jewish ancestor, Dr. Jobling said. Jewish Y chromosomes resemble those of Middle Eastern peoples, and the Jewish Diaspora is one way Middle Eastern chromosomes entered Europe." -- "Dr. Hammer said he would “hazard a guess at Sephardic Jewish ancestry” for Jefferson, although any such interpretation was highly tentative. Sephardic Jews are descendants of those expelled from Spain and Portugal after 1492." -- "Even if Thomas Jefferson had had a Sephardic Jew in his ancestry in the 15th century, very little of that ancestor’s genome would have come down to him along with the Y chromosome, given that in each generation a child inherits only half of each parent’s genes." --Wassermann 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson did not have any Jewish ancestry. The Y chromosome K2 is more common in the middle east. It is also found in European populations. All that I have been able to find is a ten marker sequence for Field Jefferson's descendants. It is difficult to determine which population he comes from based on that. This Y chromosoms originated in Iran and is not found amongst Jewish populations very often. As a matter of fact it is more come in areas that were inhabitated by enemies of the Israelites such as Egypt, Arabia and Rome. It should also be noted that Jewish populations did not fare very well in Spain, France or Great Britain. King Edward expelled the Jews from Great Britain late in the 13th century and France forced many to leave around the same time. Spain expelled the Jews after 1492 but none of these people went to Wales. Even though it has been difficult tracing the Jefferson line it was not in Spain at that time. There is a town named Cadiz that has a high frequency of K2 lineage however it is more likely that this is due to the fact it was an ancient Phoenician port. It is irresponsible to state Thomas Jefferson has Jewish lineage as this DNA is not found in any Jewish population at a high frequency. It is irresponsible to tell families that Thomas Jefferson is their ancestor or that he is not their ancestor based on a ten marker ancestral Ydna sequence. It certainly should not be included in an article about him. Welsh4ever76 07:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of ignoramuses are these researchers who speculate about Jewish ancestry of T.J. We have some anonymous genius Welsh4ever76 who easily destroyed their argument. I still wander where from this bride secretive genius got his information that stupid reserachers could not abtain. In brief, any idiot can make the most absurd claim in Wikipeida. User: BTPH

Thanks. I know a lot about ancestral DNA studies and groups. I suspect someone has a political agenda in this claim. Welsh4ever76 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Someone might want to check this edit, as I'm not sure if it is or isn't vandalism. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

With the way that's writen, I'd say vandalism. Plus if that was the case it would to be written NPOV and with a citation.--Wizardman 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Draftsman, continued

I've reverted the changes, made at some unknown point in the past and with no explanation in the Talk pages or in the comments to the edit, to the Declaration quote. I'm not going to reiterate the reasons for this here; they're worked out in detail in the archives at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_2#Draftsman.

This is what I hate about Wikipedia. The Dynamic Quality is great, but the Static Quality sucks. Things can get worse, and there's no real way of making sure that those things are caught and corrected. I can't be expected to constantly police every page I edit. If even there were a feature that emailed you when the actual text you wrote got changed, that would be a big help. As it is, I can't even figure out who changed this and when.

I'm not saying that this has to be done "my way." I am saying that it shouldn't be done without any discussion, reasoning or context, especially when there has already been significant dicussion on the subject. -- Calion | Talk 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I would like to request an edit, as I can't seem to find when it was added: of In 1771 Jefferson courted Angela Mc Shane' Who is Angela McShane? I have been a Jefferson researcher for over 20 years and this is news to me. TJ met MWS in June of 1770 and after that there was no one else. kelt1111 06:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've put the line below. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1771, Jefferson courted an 18-year-old plantation owner's daughter, Angela McShane, for a short time.

Misleading or incorrect statement

Article contains the following text:

"Jefferson interpreted the Alien and Sedition Acts as an attack on his party more than on dangerous enemy aliens; they were used to attack his party, with the most notable attacks coming from Matthew Lyon, congressman of Vermont."

This appears to be saying that Lyon used the A&S Acts to attack Jefferson's party; but the Matthew Lyon article states that Lyon was himself imprisoned under the A&S Acts for attacking John Adams. Need clarification here.

155.104.37.18 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson was not the principal author of the DoI. He was in Paris, France at the time. (source to come soon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxyash (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I for one can't wait to see the source that alters the history of the United States, as it has been known since its very inception. - auburnpilot talk 04:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was in Paris when it was written. In June of 1776 Thomas Jefferson was in Philadelphia, PA. writing the Declaration of Independence and was there to sign it on July 4th, 1776. Welsh4ever76 07:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)