Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 1

Miscellaneous
Where is the discussion about Jefferson's position on slavery, and the differences between races? His talk about 'real distinctions nature has made' in the section on 'Laws - The administration of justice and description of the laws?' in Notes on the State of Virginia? 

I added the obvious influence of Common Sense into his thought as I have observed in a recent Jefferson book.

I added the War of 1812 to presidential events. I think that was a little more noticable than Marbury vs. Madison, guys.

I wish to note that I do not think this article satisfactorily represents an encyclopedic source on Thomas Jefferson. The personality and appearance section is little more than a panegyric for this man. I recognize that my intense loathing for Jefferson ill prepares me to edit the article myself, and I have therefore declined to do so, but I reiterate my observation that this article is excessively pro-Jeffersonian in slant, and represents a great deal of sweet words, low-crook'd curtsies, and base spaniel fawning.

Now that Hemings has been added, "A modern look at this relationship is by Shannon Fair in his book Jefferson's Children" doesn't seem to contribute much more than an amazon-esque referal link. Remove?

Added Sally Hemings. Let's keep it NPOV.

Stephen Goode wrote in Insight Magazine :


 * Ellis was coauthor of the 1998 story "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child" in which he, making full use of his prestige as a Jefferson biographer, affirmed that Jefferson indeed was the father of a child by his slave Sally Hemings.


 * "That time Ellis lied by saying DNA tests showed "beyond any reasonable doubt that Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with his mulatto slave." The tests showed nothing of the kind. What they did indicate was that the last child Hemings bore had Jefferson genes, likely from Jefferson's brother or his nephews.

The proof of Jefferson's dalliance was much less convincing than Ellis made it appear at the time. His co-author, pathologist Eugene Foster, told the British science journal Nature that the DNA evident hadn't proved Thomas Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings's children. It merely showed that he was one of twenty-five males in the Jeffersonclan who might have been the father. 


 * Wow. I guess I fell behind on these events. Thanks. Presumably the logical place to discuss this in depth would be Sally Hemings.

Removed from article:
 * Recent DNA testing of the known descendents of Jefferson and Hemings have established conclusively that at least one of her children was fathered by Jefferson.

As Joseph Ellis lied about a lot of things in his personal life (like serving in Vietnam -- which he didn't do), we should double-check his claims on Jefferson.

I think the above quotes make clear that there is at best a 4% chance of the Hemings child fatherhood being true -- not the usual 99.9999% chance we associate with "conclusive DNA proof". --Ed Poor

Ellis' wildly popular Pulitzer prizewinning Founding Brothers, now in its 15th printing, has made him one of the most widely read historians not named Stephen Ambrose. Having cultivated a thriving general readership, he must now reckon with legitimate questions about whether his truth bending extended to his scholarship. 

"Knowingly being dishonest in class is just as great an act of moral turpitude as being knowingly dishonest or inaccurate in your written work" - David Garrow, Pulitzer prizewinning historian, Emory University in 'A History Of His Own Making'. 

--- This article is nowhere near complete. Jefferson's own list of his four great accomplishments includes writing the religious freedom statue of VA, founding the university of VA, the Declaration. All of this needs ot be said here.

Also, Jefferson certainly sanctioned the relationship if one of his relatives had an affair with Hemings, he could have put a stop to it relatively easily.

Where's the mention of Jefferson's hemp growing (both he and Washington grew it, it was the only way to make rope at the time), his sending troops to wipe out villages of Cherokees, the lawsuits against him in office which he tried to ban, etc? This article doesn't mention any of the very interesting controversy.
 * There's nothing stopping you from adding to the article. Let's be careful in dealing with the Hemmings issue, though. -- Zoe

I added some information regarding the slavery controversy. While my addition is pro-Jefferson, I think objectivity is important, and there should be more addressing how he could believe slavery immoral and yet condone it in his home. I didn't include this in my edit because I haven't seen a discussion about this in his writings or elsewhere ... yet. -- Bodhianderson

other images
why are the other images only links? Why not imbed the images into the article? Kingturtle 05:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for expansion of this article
This article does hardly discusses Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s political beliefs or his actions as president at all. The placement of links under "Events during his Presidency" instead of a summary of his presidency on this page is inappropriate. Would someone please finish this article? Update: I'll try to expand the article this weekend, if I have time. --NoPetrol 00:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well whadaya know... I didn't! Next week, maybe. --NoPetrol 06:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. An article on a U.S. president should address his political impact first and then get to the wine-tasting and other fluff.  It needs to be said that Jefferson's election was viewed as a kind of political revolution at the time. Jefferson, unlike the two presidents before him, favored a very strict interpretation of the Constitution - so strict, in fact, that he felt some qualms about accepting the Louisiana Purchase because the Constitution did not provide for the acquisition of territory.  Funnyhat 19:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sayings
I think the "Sayings" section of this article is entirely redundant. Jefferson's sayings should all be placed in Wikiquote, with a link from here, unless the quote is pertinant to some part of the article. Wikiquote was created precisely to hold this type of sayings list. I'm moving them there now. CO GDEN  22:30, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

First Lady?
The presidential box presents Jefferson's wife as First Lady, but she died before he became president.. --Palnatoke 18:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson Memorial Picture
Is the Jefferson Memorial picture black and white or dark? Patricknoddy 18:39 May 18, 2005 (EDT)

Sally Hemings and slavery
I've made separate subheads for these two topics, which merit expansion. See Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. for information on the Hemings controversy. deeceevoice 01:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know all about it. Please expand as much as possible. I happen to know its true, so I doubt we'll even have much trouble w POV. Sam Spade 01:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sally Hemings needs alot of work too. Right now it reads like a debate between the pro and con camps. Sam Spade 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To me it reads more like a rebuttal of an assumed argument that is not mentioned at all. We need to explain more about how people first thought that this might have occured, then the DNA test and what it showed, and only then should we have the part that is now in it explaining how other jeffersons could have contributed the y-chromosone besides TJ. Bonus Onus July 6, 2005 21:59 (UTC)


 * This section as it stands is extremely biased and I've just flagged it as such. The section quotes the Jefferson-Hemings Foundation report, but only quotes the minority report - the majority position of the report was that the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings relationship was the most likely explanation of Jefferson genes in the Hemings bloodline. In any even, the article needs to present both arguments. I would prefer to see someone who is more familiar with Jefferson scholarship do the rewrite, but I will do so if nobody else comes forward. --Peter G Werner 7 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Liberty and slavery: a paradox
Jefferson's personal records show he owned 187 slaves. It is perplexing how he could both own slaves and yet be publicly outspoken in his belief that slavery was immoral. For example, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson wrote, he condemned the British crown for sponsoring the importation of slavery to the colonies, charging that the crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere..." This language was dropped from the Declaration at the request of delegates from South Carolina & Georgia. In 1769, as a member of the state legislature, Jefferson proposed for that body to emancipate slaves in Virginia, but he was unsuccessful. In 1778, the legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further importation of slaves into Virginia; although this did not bring complete emancipation, it was a step in the right direction as, in his words, it "stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication".


 * Thats a polemic. Unacceptably POV. The facts can be cast before the reader, but not in that light. Sam Spade 02:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned it up a bit, and put it back on in. Sam Spade 02:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the added information about the origin of his slaveholdings improves the article. But I disagree with you about POV.  "Unacceptably POV?"  Hardly.  My original paragraph is almost entirely statement of fact.  What did you think was POV?  You hardly changed anything.


 * Also, your sentence "His ambivalence..." needs a grammatical tweak. One possible tweak would be to add "where" before "he condemned".  Also consider comma before "for example" ... although that's getting to be one monster of a sentence.  Putting "which Jefferson wrote" in parantheses might alleviate length.  As I said, more information is needed I'm not against putting more info to explain the conflict in thought and action.  You're welcome to add all you like.  But I don't see a POV problem with the original paragraph.


 * In fact, the added information about holding slaves as collateral for debt appears too favorable if you ask me, implying that he reluctantly held slaves as collateral even though he was against the institution (I'm assuming your POV objection meant the original paragraph was too pro-Jefferson.) And his "ambivalence" can't be seen in the first draft of the declaration.  His passion can be seen there.  His ambivalence can be seen in the fact that he owned slaves despite his speeches and writings.  --bodhi 19:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson and patents
I read somewhere on the net that, even though he had invented quite a few things, Jefferson never had anything patented becuase he considered it a monopolization of sorts. After testing these inventions, he said that he would publish the annonymously in the newpapers so as to prevent any others from patenting the idea. Has anyone else heard of this? Is so, can you back it up? I think it would be quite relevant for this article.

Lineage, Lousiana Purchase

Featured article?
Am I the only one who thinks this should be nominated for featured article?--Kross June 30, 2005 00:31 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good candidate --DuKot 30 June 2005 01:17 (UTC)

Reference to Michael Moore is tendentious and unnecessary
>>The myth of Thomas Jefferson fathering Sally Hemming's baby was probably created as a political move to attack Jefferson in his run for the White House, much the same way as Michael Moore has done with Presdient Bush.<<

Since the point of view of the entry on Jefferson is that his enemies lied about his sexual liaisons w/ Hemming to hurt him politically, the clear implication in the analogy is that Michael Moore lied about Bush for similar reasons.

"The myth…was probably created" is the language of the passage. Any way you cut this phrasing, the implication is "they lied" and "much the same way" indicates Moore lied too. But that is an unproven claim and transparently tendentious. Who cares what the author thinks about Moore or Bush?


 * I agree. This doesn't belong in the article. I would even question the entire "probably" sentence because it seems like just an assumption and not any real evidence.Bonus Onus July 6, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

What happened to the page history?
Where is the history from before 00:14, 10 June 2005? and what did User:Georgia guy do? What did he mean by "New article coming soon"? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)


 * When I hit "earliest" in the history, I see an edit thus:  23:29, October 18, 2001 200.255.83.xxx m which is clearly the first instance.  Try again, maybe you hit a database glitch. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk July 7, 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Did you do this on the article page? Because the talk page history is fine. I've tried several times, and always get the same result. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Aha! I guess you were right, never mind. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)


 * As the software is new, and has issues, don't necessarily write this off to user error. I'd at least recommend you bear this error in mind, so that if you (or someone else) reports the same, you'll know it was software weirdness rather than just you having a brainspasm. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 7, 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Major revisions July 2005
First time user User:Seedsoflight has made extensive changes to the religious section without comment here or in edit summaries. Much of the additions contain editorial comment & arguments against "revisionist history". Many deletions have been made of material that conflicts with this user's POV. I have reverted once & was re-reverted almost immediately - and with no response to edit summary. This section is now full of editorial commentary & one-sided presentation.--JimWae 18:33, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

The section has also grown so large that it is time to consider making a branch article. It is time for User:Seedsoflight to defend deletions & to remove editorial comment --JimWae 18:33, 2005 July 15 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am, as you stated a new user. Please be patient as I learn all that is entailed with contributions to the Wikipedia. The purpose for the corrections I added were due to gross inaccuracies that contradict actual history, regardless of your POV. The comments associated with any alterations that I made were included within the text, usually within the immediate proximity of said changes.
 * There was already editorial commenting in the section before I fixed it, so I simply removed that.--Seedsoflight 02:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV would require balanced comment, not replacement. Comments on the age of witnesses is not editorial comment but relevant fact. Comments on revisionist history are completely editorial & cannot be fairly balanced without putting those words in someone's mouth - but this article is not the place for that argument. Let the reader decide what Jefferson believed based on facts, not editorial comment. I noticed you simply re-inserted everything, despite specific objections I raised. Do you know about NPOV & about a ban on revert wars? Have you read the links on your user page? --JimWae 20:01, 2005 July 15 (UTC)


 * You are being a little hypocritical, don't you think? Perhaps your POV is biased towards Deism? I've looked at your contributions so far and that appears to be the case. Jefferson wrote in the front page of his Bible, "I am a True Christian". That is not POV, editorial, or even remotely ambiguous, those are his own words and they are quite clear.--Seedsoflight 02:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature." - Thomas Jefferson

I see several sites that claim those lines for the front of his Jefferson Bible - but not a word of it clearly shows him not to be a deist. Many people (some Unitarians especially) call themselves Christians but do not believe Jesus was God. You may notice, I have now added the part about his calling himself a Christian. Some of what you wrote could be incorporated - but not all the stuff about revisionist history & activist judges - and do not delete material that has been there for months, just because it does not fit your viewpoint. --JimWae 03:09, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Regarding your quotes - they would show better scholarship & will survive longer if they are sourced. March 4, 1805 was the date of his 2nd Inauguration. The quoted prayer from that date does not appear in his address, so it is important that it be sourced. The only sites I found for it gave rather ambiguous sources - and several sites mentioned the quote was not authentic. Even if you were to find a single authentic quote in which Jefferson says Jesus is God and performed miracles, there are many other of his quotes that would show such to be quite inconsistent.--JimWae 03:36, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Further research on March 4 1895 prayer shows it to be from the Book of Common Prayer - except for one word being changed --JimWae 03:56, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Question: When Did Jefferson Change His View on Domestic Manufactures?
In the 1780s and 1790s, Jefferson was greatly disturbed by the mechanization occurring in England, and associated automated manufactures with industrial slavery, reckless urbanization, environmental degradation, and moral decay. In other words, he saw the invention of spinning jennies, power looms, and cotton gins not only as a source of destructive social & economic tensions but also constituting a cultural threat to young United States. Jefferson (1782) went so far as to advise “...let our workshops remain in Europe...The loss by transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of Government”

However, by 1816 he had completely changed his views, writing: “...to be independent for the comforts of life we must fabricate them ourselves. We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturist...Shall we make our own comforts or go without them, at the will of a forigen nations? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture, must be for reducing us either to dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clthed in skins, and to live like wild beasts....experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort.”

Can you tell me more precisely *when* this change in opinion took place? Is there a particular year or two? Is there a first letter, writing, or speech we can point to that first signals this shift in opinion?

Did he really kill someone
In the movie Swordfish it is mentioned that Thomas Jefferson once shot a criminal on the White House grounds - is there any truth to this?

huh?
The article says...

"Jefferson passed away on July 4, 1826, the same day as John Adams. He is buried on his Monticello estate. His epitaph, written by him with an insistence that only his words and "not a word more" be inscribed, reads:

Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Died of auto-erotic asphyxiation"

obviously, this is a joke someone put in somewhere along the line... the actual epitaph reads...

"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia."