Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

In "Jefferson and slavery"

There is a sentence that says "In 1807, he signed a bill abolishing the slave trade."

Can someone provide more information? This is also listed out of chronological order. Also, was this in any way related to the decades long work of William Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce) resulting in the 1807 Slave Trade act in England? Did Jefferson ever write about, or meet, Wilberforce given that they were contemporaries?

As well, shouldn't there be a section in Political Philosophy about Jefferson's views on Slavery. As it stands it seems this aspect of his views is buried and poorly organized in this article. To not list Jefferson's slavery views under political philosophy is a strange misplacement given how political and economic slavery inherently is. 24.215.141.50 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Daniel

In "Monuments and Memorials"

Why is the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (Gateway Arch) missing? Somebody should add that. 209.159.53.122 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)js

Suggested External Link

• The Thomas Jefferson Wiki A wiki by Monticello staff members and respected Jefferson Scholars.

Misleading Section: "View on the carrying of arms"

Would someone please remove the section "View on the carrying of arms"? The section implies that Jefferson was against gun control, but cites no real evidence. The passage starts, "Jefferson’s commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his 'Commonplace Book,' he copied a passage..." The quoted passage is clearly arguing against gun control laws, but the wiki section does not warrant drawing from this datum the conclusion that Jefferson was against gun control laws himself. For instance, Jefferson may have copied that quote into his personal book because he intended to refute it later. Instead of citing real evidence, this section on gun control ends abruptly after the quote, and tempts readers to draw this fallacious conclusion on their own. This passage would not be published in a professional encyclopedia, and should not be published on Wikipedia. Wskflair31 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this section misleading? Jefferson is well-known for his many quotes concerning the right or even necessity to bear arms. The section could probably be written better, but its point remains: Jefferson supported this as a right and wrote about it throughout his life.--Gloriamarie 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the section could be written better. If there are so many quotes that make clear Jefferson's true opinion on the matter, then why are none of them cited in this section? It is absurd that the reader must draw his own conclusion from evidence that does not prove the point. Wskflair31 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there a source for the "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." quote? None of the three citations (41-43, at this point) actually source that quote... (I don't know how to add the "citation needed" thing to that quote, so if someone else could, that'd be great.) Jeremymerrill502 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no such quote that anyone's been able to find; search for "tyranny" on jefferson's wikiquote page, or at guncite. Therefore, I'm removing that quote on this TJ page. Anyone adding it back without cite or with invalid cite should be publicly shamed. Why are there quotations on the wikipedia TJ page, anyway? Isn't that what wikiquote is for? Nevertheless, I'm leaving everything except the bogus quote. Thorne (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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. raven was a hoe

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)

While the subject of this bill is interesting and would make a good topic for a biographer to focus on, I agree that this article needs to look at the big picture and for the most part not just single actions in Jefferson's life.--Gloriamarie 04:09, 1 August 2007 (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)

Well, I don't understand what all this dispute is about. Robinhood754 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoor had been insisting on several pages that Jefferson's party must, and could only, be called the Republicans, despite the obvious danger of confusion. He's gone back to Hibbert peak theory now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 21 November 2007 (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)

I do not disagree that Jefferson was a deist, but I don't think it should be listed as his religion. In Bush's article, his religion is not listed as "creationist" because that is just an aspect of his religion. I

think that for Jefferson we should probably say "Episcopal*

• Never officially joined church, heavily influenced by deism" or something like that--Supernerd 10 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If Jefferson followed the teaching of Jesus Christ but did not believe in his divinity, the trinity, the resurrection or any other supernatural event in the bible, doesn't this make him, by definition, at the very least, a Non-Christian? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (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)

You, sir, get extra points. 68.102.179.135 22:57, 4 June 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) 23:14, January 26, 2007

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)

According to wiki.monticello.org it's not true. Station1 (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (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. The 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)

As noted above, one died before reaching adulthood. That accounts for all five. ;) 68.102.179.135 23:01, 4 June 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)

I think someone should fix the spelling error in Jefferson's name, in the title of "Jeffesron on Sodomy."

Be bold! Do it yourself! I doubt anyone would have minded if you corrected some slopppy splling.--Supernerd 10 (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (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

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)

I'm no expert but this sentence...

The Continental Congress delegated the task of writing the Declaration to a Committee of Five that unanimously solicited Jefferson, considered the best writer, to write the first draft, and in fact wrote all of them with no help at all.

...seems ridiculous and, more importantly, it contradicts information on the DoI page re: how and why Jefferson was the main author and how much help / editing he got from others.

Apologies for not knowing much about formatting.

Lanya 13:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The last phrase seems like a tacked-on piece of nonsense. I've altered it. Paul B 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"amalgamation"

Interesting to read Jefferson's comments on "amalgamation", especially given his own mixed-race lineage. Amalgamtion was the word that was used for race-mixing in the past, before "miscegenation" came into vogue in the 1860s. I have started a new article, amalgamation (history) on the history of this term.

'Jefferson's own mixed-race lineage'?! Pardon? You have this very wrong.kelt1111 23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you know anything about this topic, please contribute What else did Jefferson, for instance, write about "amalgamation"? Did he use the word only for white-black mixing or also for other forms of ethnic mixing?195.73.22.130 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was not of mixed ancestry or Jewish ancestry. He was white. His Y chromosome DNA is connected to the Phoenicians but it is Caucasian DNA. Thomas Jefferson was Welsh, English and Scottish. Welsh4ever76 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "Race-mixing", "Amalgamation", Miscegenation" sounds so archaic and just plain uneducated. This section of the article is pointless.

Thomas Jefferson was our 3rd president from 1801 to 1809. The chief attack on Jefferson was in a book written by Thomas Hazard in 1867 called "The Johnny Cake Papers." Hazard interviewed Paris Gardiner, who said he was present during the 1796 presidential campaign, when one speaker states that Thomas Jefferson was “a mean-spirited son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.” In his book entitled "The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson," Samuel Sloan wrote that Jefferson destroyed all of the papers, portraits, and personal effects of his mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, when she died on March 31, 1776. He even wrote letters to every person who had ever received a letter from his mother, asking them to return that letter. Sloan says, "There is something strange and even psychopathic about the lengths to which Thomas Jefferson went to destroy all remembrances of his mother, while saving over 18,000 copies of his own letters and other documents for posterity."

http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/5blkpres.htm#Thomas%20Jefferson

66.20.101.194 (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson's views on Natural History, Species Extinction and the Great Chain of Being

I think it would be appropriate to include a short sub-section relating to Jefferson's interest in natural history (he had the most important fossil collection in the early U.S. and commissioned Lewis and Clark to seek out species believed to be extinct). Interestingly, despite Jefferson's interest in natural history, he opposed the notion that species could suffer from extinction. Like many others of his time, Jefferson believed that God would not allow an entire species to vanish from the earth. This view derived from the medieval belief in a "Great Chain of Being", which held that every species, from algae to humans and onward to angels and God, formed an integral link in a chain of development, and that no individual link could possibly disappear. These thoughts are discussed in greater detail in other articles dealing with extinction and the Great Chain of Being, but seem appropriate to mention briefly in the main Jefferson article, as well. Objections? Cntreras 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)cntreras

"Jefferson views on Sodomy"

What is the relevance of this section? The quotation is not specifically about sodomy, it's about rape, polygamy, and sodomy. It is ill-fitting in the larger context of the article and also poorly formatted (the title should read "Jefferson's views on sodomy"). I recommend this section be removed. --207.171.180.101 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed this section. It's also not clear why it was under "Religious views", which assumes that whatever Jefferson thought about that issue, he thought because of his religion.--Gloriamarie 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an important section which should be put back, maybe in a better area though. It shows Jefferson's views on social issues, which would be classified in today's standards as conservative.--Southern Texas 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Southern Texas. Change the heading and move it, but, assuming the quotation is true, it's relevant and not well known.Station1 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it cannot be viewed in today's terms, because Jefferson isn't alive today and life was very different back then. Most people living in America at that time would most likely have agreed with what he said. Most people living in America today may not agree with it or may view certain things differently. I don't mind if it's put back in under a different heading and section.--Gloriamarie 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the original section in question was added by an individual (Agbook) who in effect "spammed" this article and several others with highly biased (and not well documented) information.drh 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it out. Jefferson's views on this matter are inconsequential in light of his many accomplishments and ideas. Griot 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of books

Are the books listed under "References" actually used as references? If they are simply a list of books about the subject, the section should be titled "Further reading" or "Additional sources" or something of that nature. Fawn Brodie's biography is also missing from the list.--Gloriamarie 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Brodie biography is controversial. Personally, I wouldn't list it (but I wouldn't delete it). Station1 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is controversial, I don't think it's as controversial now as when it was released. There should at least be a link to perhaps her bio so that someone could find it for themselves if they were interested in that.--Gloriamarie 17:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a gap in the talk archives?

Nothing for the first half of 2007.drh 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why were the nickels edited?

The Jefferson nickels have been edited to block out the words - "we trust". The inscription should read - "In GOD we trust" and all that is visible is "In GOD" with a black shadow going through "we trust." Can we please get this fixed, or get a real and accurate picture of the nickels posted?

21kev 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any editing. It appears to just be a reflection of light and how the picture was taken. I can read all the words. VirginiaProp 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On my computer screen, the words "we trust" are not visible. Can a new picture be taken, or find a picture without the black shadow?

21kev 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

These images were taken from the US Mint web site. [8] They look fine to me, too, and they're the highest quality images we're likely to get. I'm really not sure why the words aren't showing up on your screen. Have you tried adjusting your monitor settngs? -- Vary | Talk 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation request needs removal

The section titled "View on the carrying of arms" includes a citation request. I see three citations; more than several other sections which have no such request.

At the risk of myself violating WP:AGF, I must say that this citation request smells like a gun-control advocate violating WP:NPOV. If the existing citations were already in place, the request should not have been added. If they were not already in place, the request should have been removed as soon as they were added. There can be no complaint based on the quality of the citations provided, without raising the same issue for the majority of the article's citations.

In short, the section is a true and accurate reflection of Jefferson's views on the issue, and evidence of those views has been provided. The existence of a citation request draws the reliability of this section into question for the uninformed reader. This may cause them to believe, incorrectly, that Jefferson was not fully and completely in favor of a personal right to keep and bear arms, which he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, one demagogue meets another. The quotation from the Commonplace book has several lacunae; the requester is perfectly entitled to ask for a source to see what they are. After all, the law of Virginia protected a man's rights to bear arms on his own property; did Jefferson concur? It would also be nice to have a secondary source, confirming that Jefferson copied Beccaria because he agreed with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it would be nice to have verification that Jefferson, or indeed Beccaria, ever said this: most quotations from Jefferson can be found in full form on the UVa Jefferson papers, or Google Scholar; this can't. The section or date of the Commonplace book would suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson and His Views of Native Americans

I believe that there needs to be a section that contains Jefferson's many passionate statements about Native Americans. I hope this will be accommodated once it is entered. Any suggestions, anyone, before I add a section? Gunuin (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality would require, however, a place for the modern criticisms, often severe, of the Indian policy of the Jefferson Administration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's views

• Should these be here at all? Wikiquote exists for sections like this.
• Jefferson can be quoted on both sides of most issues; not all. We should acknowledge this; it can be sourced from Wills and Malone, and results both from Jefferson's courtesy (he tended to agree with his correspondents as far as he could in conscience), and from his tendency to base whatever particular stance he was taking at any given time on Universal Principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Honor Code

Acording to the U.Va. (virginia.edu) website they had the first honor code. Ben--Ben4UVA (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC) No, the first honour code originated at the College of William and Mary in 1779. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.30.8 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's Library link

Hi. Given the interest in Thomas Jefferson library--both for what it says about Jefferson and as its sale to the LC was an important moment in US library history--I wonder if the following link might be of interest: http://www.librarything.com/profile/thomasjefferson . That's Thomas Jefferson's library, cataloged on LibraryThing, a social cataloging site. (Full disclosure: I created LibraryThing.) His books were entered into LibraryThing drawing on Millicent Sowerby's reconstruction of the 1815 library, together with notes and organized under Jefferson's unique classification system. You can read aobut the effort here http://www.librarything.com/blog/2008/01/happy-1815-thomas-jefferson-in-done.php . Lectiodifficilior (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

Is anyone ever going to correct this part of the article? It states that "Jefferson seeked a wall of separation of church and state," and the proceeds to cite the letter to the Danbury Baptists. However, this matter isn't even relatable. It was a private letter stating that they were not favoring them over anyone else, and the the land deal was simply a matter of business: the government had land for sale and were not supporting one religious group over another. It says nothing about him seeking a wall of separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart, perhaps, the phrase about "a wall of separation". Paul B (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be seen in context of the general favorable attitude towards Christian activity so long as it neither favored one church or another such as in the case of Congress reccomending the Aitken Bible (not publishing it) Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which day of the week

Was Jefferson born on a Wednesday or on a Saturday? ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svato (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Election of 1800 and the 12th amendment

The section on the presidential election of 1800 creates the appearance that the issue that arose (no majority of electoral votes, election decided by the House of Representatives) was due to a problem eliminated by the 12th amendment. But that is incorrect: while the 12th amendment changed the way the President is elected, a tie vote throws the choice to the House either under the original Constitution, or under the Constitution as amended.

Paul Koning (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Carrying of arms

The section "View on the carrying of arms" is tagged with a marker saying it needs more citations. More than three, for a three-line paragraph? Paul Koning (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate, but perhaps it was the best tag that the editor could add to indicate the problem with the section. All it says is that he copied out what someone else said, but he may have been copying it out because he thought it succinctly expressed a view he wanted to argue against. Who knows? The section implies that this was his own opnion. Probably it was, but we can't be sure of that without additional evidence, which I suspect is what the editor who asked for "more citations" was getting at. Paul B (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Letters with John Adams

There really needs to be more about Jefferson's friendship with John Adams are the long series of letters between the two other than that they were "correspondents." It doesn't seem to fit in the section on his death, and the previous section seems a bit out of place altogether, but I feel it should have a mention, if not a paragraph+. - Boss1000 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson's Religion was Episcopal.

Jefferson wasn’t a Deist. He was an Episcopalian, and attended a Church of England, the Episcopal Church. Unitarians and Deists claim him, but he wasn’t ever one and never claimed to be anything but Anglican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingjordana (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't truly a practicing Episcopalian, he had bought & had his name on a pew at a Church of England, but this was mostly to keep up the appearance of a mainstream religion for political reasons. When asked about his religion, he would deny that he was a deist, but would not directly claim to be a devout Episcopalian. 71.185.220.57 (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth?

Profile box says "Shadwell, Virginia". However an article here states he was not born in the United States.ChessCreator (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It says he wasn't born in the United States only because the United States did not yet exist at the time he was born! Station1 (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson and the Bible

Jefferson's conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He edited his own version of the bible and omitted what he considered to be falsehoods. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus, and wrote of palpable interpolations and falsifications". He also decribed the Book of Revelations to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".

THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: contains:

Letter To William Short. Monticello, April 13, 1820.

DEAR SIR, Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.

But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent...

and on the Book of Revelation, "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." and "... what has no meaning admits no explanation." From THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: Letter to General Alexander Smyth, on the book of Revelation (or The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine) Jan. 17, 1825

Some of the People, Some of the Time (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like it would be a noteworthy addition, and it is well documented. Myth America (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Significant. Repentance 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

he so awesome!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.39.204 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sally Hemmings references are sloppy

Reference 75 is dubious at best- the link provided is to a site on a lecture, and not the article cited. Further, the "articles" (and it seems that there is only one) reflects the conclusion of a single geneologist (Helen Leary), rather that any official position of the National Genealogical Society. This should be clarified. Bee4 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Bee4

Timothy McVeigh reference

Is it really appropriate and necessary to have a Timothy McVeigh reference in this article? This is regarding a section on Thomas Jeffereson's views on political violence. I'd remove it, but wanted to see your reaction first. --24.185.3.164 (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it, I have no idea why that was in there in the first place. It has little, if anything at all, to do with Jefferson and doesn't belong in his article. If anyone has an issue with it, please bring it up for discussion here before adding it back, otherwise I'm sure it'll just get removed again. Cowicide (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. McVeigh, in terms of Thomas Jefferson, is off topic and wholly irrelevant.-DevinCook (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Missouri

Just having read the article, the inclusion of this section seemed to be quite the stretch. Without knowing anything on the subject, I found the connection, at least how it is written, to be weak. The inclusion of the large picture of the school and the reference to Mizzou also seemed inappropriate. Hartbc (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)hartbc

Jefferson and Slavery

In the section on Jefferson and slavery, an anonymous editor inserted, a year ago, in regard to Jefferson's views on racial inferiority, "On February 25, 1809, Jefferson repudiated his earlier view" followed by a quote of a letter to Bishop Gregoire, with which the editor purports to show that Jefferson had reversed his views on black inferiority.

The problem with that is twofold:

1. If you actually read the letter, it's not a "repudiation" of his views, but a careful restatement of them: he considers blacks the moral equals of whites, while harboring "doubts" about their intellect - but he's willing to consider evidence in their favor. This was his public position from Notes on Virginia in 1782 to the end of his life.

2. Even Jefferson's sympathetic biographers note that Jefferson's views on black intellectual inferiority, miscegnation and deportation changed little over the course of his life, or they hardened.

After he wrote the so-called "repudiation" to Gregoire, he sent another letter to poet Joel Barlow, where he scoffed at Gregoire, saying that in gathering up examples of black intellectual achievement, Gregoire made no allowance for determining what degree of white parentage the authors of the examples had. He than goes on to say that Gregoire's work is even less convincing than the work of black almanacist Benjamin Banneker, whom he suspects had assistance from a white neighbor, the British novelist George Elliot surveyor Andrew Ellicott, in producing his almanac, and that he purposely gave Gregoire a "soft answer":

Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, October 8, 1809

"I believe [Bishop Gregoire] a very good man, with imagination enough to declaim eloquently, but without judgment to decide... His credulity has made him gather up every story he could find of men of color (without distinguishing whether black, or what degree of mixture), however slight the mention or light the authority on which they are quoted. The whole does not amount in evidence to what we know ourselves of Banneker. We know he had spherical trigonometry enough to make almanacs, but not without the suspicion aid from Elliot[sic], who was his neighbor and friend, and never missed an opportunity for praising him. I have a very long letter from Banneker that shows him to be of very common stature indeed. As to Bishop Gregoire, I wrote to him, as you have done, a very soft answer..."

The Life and Letters of Joel Barlow, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1886, p. 242. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArguablyAdmireaable (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I know you're supposed to assume good faith, but this is starting to look like a purposeful misstatement of the meaning of the Jefferson quote. The citation given is to an obscure book called The Hoaxers: Plain Liars, Fancy Liars and Damned Liars (1970) by Morris Kominsky which is described in the author's wikipedia article as a "special study of the use of fabrications, distortions of truth, and out-of-context quotations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArguablyAdmireaable (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove this item. It's been six weeks with no objections. The Jefferson quote is authentic, but the characterization of it as a repudiation of his views is cited to an obscure, out of print work - perhaps published by a vanity press - by a fringe author who is not a Jefferson scholar. It is at odds with Jefferson's own characterization of his views, and with mainstream Jefferson Scholarship. ArguablyAdmireaable (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i added a bit about Jefferson and Edward Coles, most instructive on Jefferson's later views i.e. don't rock the boat, i like the Twilight book, it illustrates the aging Jefferson Pohick2 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Add category

Someone please add Category:American farmers to this article. --AmericanAgrarian (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

will someone please talk more about jeffesons administations as president and i didnt even see anything about the louisiana purchase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.133.142 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Epitaph text is missing an "of"

If you look at the picture of the gravestone, it clearly says "OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM", a word that is missing from the text. Minor, but worth cleaning up. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Station1 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson's views on Intelligent Design

From his letter to John Adams [9]: "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition." Apparently Jefferson did not think that intelligent design was a religious doctrine. This would be a good addition to his religious views.86.50.9.167 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that Intelligent Design is a modern movement and linking the two would be anachronistic or WP:OR. Ashmoo (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So-Called Triple Crown

"Thomas Jefferson and Martin Van Buren are the only two people to accomplish a so-called "triple crown": serving as Secretary of State, Vice-President, and President."

Who calls this a "triple crown?" Are there any references, or did someone make this up? I don't see any sources for this. 123.225.217.88 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I took it out. Station1 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unitarian

Unitarians state Jefferson was one of them.

Jefferson himself said he belonged to a sect of one which excludes the possibility of his being a deist since there were deist organizations even then but it does not exclude him from being considered a Unitarian. --Hihkite (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• No,there were no "deist" organizatiosn then - and the only Unitarian ones were in the North - none in VA. There are plenty of secondary sources to back up classifiying him as a deist. About the only sources for Unitarian would be Unitarian sources. Btw, one of the few deist organizations ever to form at that time were the Unitarians --JimWae (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson wasn't stupid he was well traveled and knew more about Religion than most people today.

The idea that he would know nothing about Unitarianism just because it was a few states away is laughable. --Hihkite (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Laugh to yourself then - I never said or hinted at any such thing. Find a non-Unitarian source & your idea would be more credible. Countless non-Deist sources list him as deist. Unitarians were Deists, but not all Deists affiliated with Unitarians. Deism is a religious philosophy, Unitarianism is a sect. To belong to a sect, one needs to do more than express agreement with its priciples, one needs to attend services of that sect as more than an occasional visitor. Since Deism is a religious outlook & since there were then NO (and for the most part never were) Deist organizations (so-named), attendance at deist services is not a criterion for being one. --JimWae (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• In this letter TJ has doubts about the future of Unitarianism & holds the Quakers up as an example for them. He does NOT include himself as member & speaks of them in the 3rd person - as a group to which he is not a party.--JimWae (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."
  • To the best of my knowledge deists don't believe people are judged in the afterlife. --Hihkite (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• read the Deist article --JimWae (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good read but there isn't a concensus on that matter.
  • I did check out a UU site though that explains Jefferson died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America. So while he was a Unitarian in theology, he was not not in church membership not due to a lack of desire but due to there not being a Unitarian congregation near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. --Hihkite (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• While true that not all deists believed in an afterlife, the article makes it clear that many believed in one, and in rewards not only there but in "this-life". There is no basis for saying TJ's belief in a divine judgement casts any doubt on his being deist --JimWae (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Like I wrote before, I checked out a UU site though that explains Jefferson died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America. So while he was a Unitarian in theology, he was not not in church membership not due to a lack of desire but due to there not being a Unitarian congregation near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. --Hihkite (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• How is that even relevant? His theology agreed both with unitarian & deist - and he clearly did NOT speak of himself as a being one of the Unitarians--JimWae (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you think shouldn't you list him as a deist and a unitarian? --Hihkite (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I explained above, to be counted as "belonging to" or "being part of" a sect, you need to attend services more than as an occasional visitor. Deism is not a sect. Adams & Jefferson very much agreed on theology. Adams, however, rgularly attended services at a church that was "unitarian" before the various Unitarian churches even got organized. Jefferson visited Priestley's church in PA a few times only, considered himself a sect of one, and spoke of Unitarians entirely in the 3rd person. --JimWae (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unitarians criteria for membership is not dictated by you or I but by the Church who sees Jefferson as one of them and since Jefferson said that he shared Priestley's God he did in fact identify himself as belonging to the same ideology as Priestley who was a Unitarian. --Hihkite (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• WHERE do even Unitarians count him as a "member" rather than as a "kindred soul"? Even if they did, you still have not provided even a single non-Unitarian source. TJ is counted as a kindred soul by many groups. --JimWae (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• WHERE is even the Unitarian source that says he WAS one - you have not provided that either - not that such would suffice.--JimWae (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• According to this SINGLE website: http://www.famousuus.com/ :: All individuals included have some connection with Unitarianism, Universalism, or Unitarian Universalism: they attended a congregation regularly, they were members or ministers of a congregation, or they identified themselves in public or private statements as Unitarians and Universalists. WHICH one of these 3 is the case with TJ?? ..with Ben Franklin? ..with Isaac Newton???? How about including Plato & Aristotle too? Since he certainly was neither a member nor a minister, where is the evidence that TJ "attended regularly" or "identified himself as sa Unitarian"?--JimWae (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good news jim I found what you wanted.

"I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, January 8, 1825

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Unitarian+by+myself”+jefferson&start=10&sa=N --Hihkite (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/published/uva-sc/viu01679.document might explain why that is NOT widely quoted: "This copy of a Thomas Jefferson letter, [January 8, 1825], to the physician Benjamin Waterhouse (1754-1846) is in an unknown hand". It also does not appear in any collection of his letters that I can find. It contrast with TJ's 1822 letter to the same person & without more context, is pretty sparse evidence for any conclusion. It also comes very late in TJ's life --JimWae (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice they call it "Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, 1825 January 8". It's also not odd for a man of a certain age to let others write while he dictates. --Hihkite (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your explanation for why it is not in his hand is worth consideration. Also, worth consideration are the number of existent letters after that date that WERE written by TJ himself. Also relevant: Apparently, TJ had made a request to New England Unitarians (Waterhouse was one) that they start a congregation near his home, and the reply was that there were not enough people who would join. This 1825 letter is the strongest case for TJ being a Unitarian - but this single best support must also be seen in context. Pretty clearly, he preferred attending Unitarian services to Episcopal, and was a "kindred spirit", but he also expressed himself in ways that separated him from the Unitarians. So, what do the historians have to say regarding whether or not he was Unitarian? Are there any non-Unitarian reliable sources who have designated him a Unitarian? --JimWae (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A full explanation of this debate is at [10]. He called himself a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). But he said, "But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell." Jefferson is a deist. Read the whole explanation.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Right now, the question that has locked the article (and which has not been responded to in some time) is whether to list him as a Deist, a Unitarian or both. I have requested reliable non-Unitarian sources that "Unitarian" is accepted by historians --JimWae (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait. positiveatheism.org would seem to have no motive to call Jefferson a theist of any kind yet they say that the quote is real.

--Hihkite (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should list him as a Deist as explained above and then add a Reference note explaining the issue.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Deism & Unitarianism are not incompatible. Matthew Tindal, clearly a Deist & not Unitarian, wrote Christianity as Old as the Creation, which presents Xty as a positive force for good. Calling TJ a Unitarian is misleading; making it seem that he was more than a "kindred spirit". He certainly was not a Unitarian in the same way Adams, or anyone else called so, was. --JimWae (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Section: "View on the carrying of arms"

The problem with this section has not been adequately addressed. The fact that Jefferson wrote down someone else's opinion does not mean it was his own, and selectively choosing from among Jefferson's numerous writings is original research. This section should be replaced with a recognized historian's conclusions on Jefferson's opinions.

Also, what is important is Jefferson's views on the right to carry arms in the US Bill of Rights, not laws about carrying arms.

The views on the judiciary should also be expanded because it does not explain how Jefferson thought constitutional disputes should be resolved, or alternatively state that he had no opinion on that issue.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson, Sex Offender

In consideration of the preponderance of evidence showing that Thomas Jefferson did in fact have sex with one of his slaves (a de facto sex slave) and that has been confirmed by genetic testing I suggest that we use the neutral label of 'sex offender' (rather then rapist) somewhere in the first few paragraphs describing him.

While the early historians of the American Republic did not care whether one had slaves, or had sex with them, a neutral point of view would mention the facts in the first breath one began talking of his other well known labels (statesman, president, writer). It is inappropiate to raise a national superstition of this individual being 'a good man, a statesman, not a criminal' to the level of a historical article. Neutralaccounting (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The likelihood of us referring to Jefferson as a "sex offender" is about as good as me bursting into flames, sitting right where I am. In otherwords, not a chance. We also will not refer to anyone as a "de facto sex slave". That is so far beyond NPOV, I can hardly reply with a straight face. - auburnpilot talk 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would make more sense just to say he had sex with one of his slaves, as it was not an offense back then. Red4tribe (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We also will not refer to anyone as a "de... No. No need to bring up Jefferson practicing sexual slavery. Just put the phrase sex offender. in the opening paragraphs somewhere. Two words. Very easy.

Your correct Red4tribe in that it was not a offense then: It was not a felony or even a misdemeanor. However this perspective is a historical antiquity as it is pro-slavery and pro-rape and hasn't been a neutral point of view for... I don't know how long.

We can have a neutral point of view on Thomas Jefferson being a rapist and once more it being legal at the time. However it's not very neutral to... sort of sweep it under the rug considering Jefferson's status as a public figure, moral icon for secular history, and opponent of miscegenation. Neutralaccounting (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the light of Neutralaccounting's views, should we then put "sex offender" on the pages of all homosexuals during the time homosexuality was illegal in various nations? Should we add "sex offender" to anyone who has practiced sodomy (as it is still a crime on many state books)? Should we add "sex offender" to anyone who has had extramarital sex, as this is prohibited under Jewish law?70.151.53.66 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not put he was a womaniser. (Butters x (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

On religion.

On matters of historic persons religion it is better to let them speak than let others centuries later speculate. --Hihkite (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, secondary sources are essential to writing an encyclopedia. Also, TJ himself spoke favorably of Deism. You STILL have not provided a reliable historian who classifies him as a Unitarian. --JimWae (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• The section is well written, well researched, straight forward, well documented, and historically accurate. Sourced, researched, information is what Wikipedia is all about. The information should not be deleted due to current-day bias or wants. We must be true to history, not what we want history to be. -DevinCook (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources pale when compared to primary sources and in Jefferson's Letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse he calls himself a Unitarian. --Hihkite (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please check out WP:RS --JimWae (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For the most part that might be a good idea but on topics like religion there is no way to know what's going on in a person's head other than what they tell us. --Hihkite (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the edits of 5 Sept: The Univ of Virginia archives are indeed a reliable source and nothing attributed to them was removed. Unattributed statements were removed, e.g., "Jefferson's motives for writing this work remain a matter of debate." A debate among whom, and regarding what options? There is no citation. Also, e.g., "This view is in conflict with..." is a matter of opinion. If it's obvious the reader will easily see it without being told. Some might think, however, Jefferson's views in the 1760s are not automatically in conflict with those of 1825, or that Unitarianism is not obviously in conflict with deism. Station1 (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They are the source of the letter and you removed the quote and the link to the University. Some atheists think one thing about what he wrote some theists think otherwise please assume good faith. Jefferson said he's shared Joseph Priestley's God and Priestley was a Unitarian/Christian not a deist. --Hihkite (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the quote and the link. Please look again more carefully. I merely rearranged the section so the chronological flow was more logical, as noted in the edit summary. Station1 (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• The TJ article is now 27 pages long (37 counting refs at bottom) - 5 pages (almost 25% of them) on his religion. There should be a separate article on his religion & a brief summary (one or 2 paragraphs) with a link in the main article --JimWae (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Unitarians at that time WERE Deists who managed to get organized into a group. Both were opposed to Trinitarianism. TJ was NOT a Unitarian in the modern sense of the word. Currently one does NOT have to believe in a God to be a Unitarian. TJ pretty consistently believed in a God. "Deist" more clearly characterizes his religious belief to a modern audience than "Unitarian" does.
  • Not a single reliable source has been presented stating he was a Unitarian, despite repeated requests.
  • He was sympathetic to Unitarianism. He asked that a Unitarian Church be set up near his home & he MOST LIKELY "would have" attended because they were the group that he most closely agreed with - though he expressed reservations about them too. He never joined a Unitarian church & listing "unitarian" as an affiliation can be misleading people to think he did
  • Deism was unorganized & not a denomination at that time. TJ was a denomination of one.
  • numerous reliable sources call him a Deist
  • Btw, What the heck is "A/O" an abbreviation for? Only "Deist" should appear there, anyway. --JimWae (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • removing sourced support for deism as you did here and inserting your own opinion is NOT the way to resolve this issue --JimWae (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Though a Christian, I support Hihkite's argument. There are occasions when some historical facts are de-facto or clearly established by primary sources such that it precludes revisionary writings. Not all historians have the intent of simply capturing history for what it is. JimWae typically turns the tables on contributors, labeling clear historic facts as, supposedly, a "POV", and he works toward a short list of preferred historians to support his own POV, gliding under a cloak as NPOV. Meanwhile, back on the history of this, I am extremely hard pressed to see this argument about someone being a "deist". A person historically goes places, writes things, attends things. Being a unitarian was a literal and real thing. Supposedly being a "deist" is merely philosphical debate on what TJ's views were like. I think Hihkite's point is well made, and should be the point in the article, given good format and form. This minor point is not making this article dozens of pages long, and that is an example of a topic-changing distraction, that JimWae often uses as a tactic, when pure logic, facts and reason don't stand to support his argument. Amazing. Yet another Virginian, and another Virginia topic and article. This user simply won't let up.Grayghost01 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Grayghost> Please review WP:NPA and WP:AGF --JimWae (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Macaroni

I've just read that Jefferson is credited with bringing the first macaroni machine to the U.S. Is this true? Details? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See wiki.monticello.org. Station1 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is fun to know.

83.254.150.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Shay's rebellion quote

Will someone please correct Jefferson's quote "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." It has a word or two missing. thanks

ace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.17.62 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1825 letter to Waterhouse

This letter is already quoted later in the article. It is TJ expressing a wish for a Unitarian church in his neighborhood. It is not inconsistent with disbelief in the trinity & saying it "may be inconsistent" is unsupported. --JimWae (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• This I can accept as an explanation for removal. It just seemed wholly unjustified to remove it simply because the previous editor who did so doesn't believe Christianity is monotheistic. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)