Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 6

Protect
Does anybody thinks as i there should be a full lock on the article? NO!!! --Mus640 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this article is lacking. MissMeticulous (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well -- the article reminds me of a book my parents got me at a souvenir shop in Washington, D.C. about the Presidents of the U.S. ... it needs a more neutral, honest point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrtayloriv (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well, but state that an "honest, neutral point of view" in Wikipedia typically means stripping it of all material that's worth anything and adding a bunch of poorly sourced material to present it as neutral. Not ALL things in the world are neutral, and in fact very few are. (71.215.201.143 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Jefferson's Children?
The names of Jefferson's legitimate children are clearly listed, perhaps his assumed illegitimate children should at least be mentioned by name in the section about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.196.246 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson's Children? II
It seemed that the author was more interested in denying or throwing doubt on the validity that Jefferson did father children with his slave -

This is the story of so many people of African descent from all over the Western world - it's a story which has been largely ignored - and left out. Usually put down to rape - or other molestations - ignore the fact that these were relationships - perhaps not of the kind we see today - in that one was slave and the other slave master - but more likely loving and respectful - if six children were born out of it - a most obvious sign that a relationship was indeed taking place.

Given that these things are not politically correct to talk about - on either side - the reality that these relationships did take place as is in evidence - by the variety of skin colors within Black communities (and even within individual families) - versus the more homogeneous skin color found from region to region in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that there was a relationship of more depth than people sometimes act as if there were, and others like it. Before the Civil War, the 200 students at Wilberforce University in Ohio were mostly mixed-race children of wealthy planters, who sent them there for education so they could get ahead in life. In the Deep South, such fathers often passed on social capital to their children of loveing relationships through education, skills training and sometimes property settlements.  Robert Purvis and his brother, who became abolitionists in Philadelphia, went to school in the North, were children of a British man and a free woman of color, and they inherited all their father's money - he ensured that.--Parkwells (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

--Ivail (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the bank quote is a modern forgery. Jefferson never said it, so we can't use it. (the word "deflation" for example was coined after he died)Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears this letter is legit, however the above quote is not.

"I sincerely believe … that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

ATTRIBUTION: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), U.S. president. Letter, May 28, 1816, to political philosopher and senator John Taylor, whose book An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States (1814) had argued against the harmful effects of finance capitalism. --172.129.166.2 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

separate article(s)
I would suggest making the religious views, Jefferson slavery, and/or political positions(or philosophy) of Jefferson into seperate articles to alleviate space.--Levineps (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

spelling of Frank Shuffelton
The last name of Frank Shuffelton (editor of the Penguin edition of Notes on the State of Virginia, in the bibliography) is misspelled. It should be Shuffelton, not Shuffleton. I know. I'm his daughter, and it's my name too! I'd appreciate it if someone would fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.146.120.175 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2008
 * Done. Thanks for pointing that out. - auburn pilot   talk  19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Worst Presidents?
"Jefferson has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the worst U.S. Presidents." and yet if you go to the link to the page of the ranking Jefferson is consistently in the top ten and never in the bottom ten. Why is this obviously false statement here? If it is going to be here, how about supporting references? The only link on this page concerning this shows contrary information.
 * it was vandalism and I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

not only was he the worst president he didn't deserve to be president as governor of virginia virginia got raided twice as secretary of state hamilton overshadowed him as vice president he did crap and he didn't even want to become pres  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.128.186 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson, it is true, would much rather enjoy the peace of his books and family, but after the abuse of the sedition act knew he had to step forward and do something about the cruelties of the federal government. He did start running for president of the united states. And he did want to win to help abolish such horrible acts instigated by the federalist party. (The real THomas Jefferson, pg 202.)

Support of James Callender and scandal involving Betsey Walker
Two things missing here, both involving stories published by James Callender, other than the Sally Hemmings controversy. First, previous to that report, but after Jefferson's election to president, Callender published that Jefferson had supported him during his prior publications against Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. This included some letters. Second, report after the Sally Hemmings controversy, was the publication of Jefferson's attempts to commit adulter with Betsey Walker. Jefferson actually admitted to some truth as to this last, at least to some extent. IMHO (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Embargo Act?
Where was the infamous embargo act in this article? It's pretty important, considering that Jefferson's views on the Presidency were soured by the criticism from the "Ograbme" MissMeticulous (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Thomas Jefferson shoot a man on the White House lawn for treason?
In the motion picture "Swordfish", John Travolta says:

"Thomas Jefferson shot a man on the White House lawn for treason".

Is this true, and if so, who did he shoot?

Maybe this article should reference to this anecdote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.221.187 (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's made up. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Section "Life as a Lawyer"
This section appears to have become jumbled. The first paragraph has nothing to do with Jefferson's life as a lawyer and the second paragraph seems to jump into the middle of his "Life as a lawyer' without introduction. SnPanAle (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I changed the sub-head to "After college" unless anyone has a better idea. Station1 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo: "Jefferson was fon of the violin"
Missing "d". Should be: "Jefferson was fond of the violin"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.226.10 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

TJ and the french revolution - influence
TJs influence on the french revolution (and later european democraties) is understated in this article about TJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.242.42 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra:

The Louisiana Purchase was bought from Napoleon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.41.189 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Shorten religion section
There is now an article Thomas Jefferson and religion which contains just about everything in this article's religion section -- and more. I think the lede of this newer article (along with a see: could replace this entire section and make the main article more compact. --JimWae (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No comments after about 6 days - if there are no objections, I will proceed after 10 days have elapsed --JimWae (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion about slavery
This is from the article Thomas Jefferson, it pertains to a major error in the first sentence, much like if someone neo-nazi edited the section on Nazis in wikipedia, saying the Nazis were kind when they exterminated 6 million Jews-that they didn't exterminate 10 million. The fact that they exterminated 6 million Jews renders the rest of the sentence mute, because how can one be kind if he kills, because a kind person would not do that. So it is with statement here "Jefferson was an outspoken abolitionist":

On slavery

Jefferson was an outspoken abolitionist, but he owned many slaves over his lifetime. Although these facts seem baffling, biographers point out that Jefferson was deeply in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he could not free them until he was free of debt, which never happened.[86] As a result, Jefferson seems to have suffered pangs and trials of conscience. His ambivalence was also reflected in his treatment of those slaves who worked most closely with him and his family at Monticello and in other locations. He invested in having them trained and schooled in high quality skills.[87] He wrote about slavery, "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."[88]

During his long career in public office, Jefferson tried many times to abolish or limit the advance of slavery. He sponsored and encouraged Free-State advocates like James Lemen.[89] According to a biographer, Jefferson "believed that it was the responsibility of the state and society to free all slaves."[90] In 1769, as a member of the House of Burgesses, Jefferson proposed for that body to emancipate slaves in Virginia, but he was unsuccessful.[91] In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson 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." However, this language was dropped from the Declaration at the request of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia.

In 1778, the legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further importation of slaves into Virginia; although this did not bring complete emancipation, in his words, it "stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication." In 1784, his draft of what became the Northwest Ordinance stipulated that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" in any of the new states admitted to the Union from the Northwest Territory.[92] In 1807, as President, he signed a bill abolishing the slave trade.

Jefferson attacked the institution of slavery in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1784): “ 	There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.[93] 	”

In this same work, Jefferson advanced his suspicion that black people were inferior to white people "in the endowments both of body and mind."[94] However, he also wrote in the same work that black people could have the right to live free in any country where people judge them by their nature, and not as just being good for labor.[95] He also wrote, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. [But] the two races...cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."[35] According to historian Stephen Ambrose: "Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African Americans to live in society as free people." At the same time, he trusted them with his children, with preparation of his food and entertainment of high-ranking guests. So clearly he believed that some were trustworthy.[96] For a long-term solution, Jefferson believed that slaves should be freed then deported peacefully to African colonies. Otherwise, he feared war and that, in his words, "human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case."[97]

But on February 25, 1809, Jefferson repudiated his earlier view, writing in a letter to Abbé Grégoire: “ 	Sir,—I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind to send me on the "Literature of Negroes." Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.[98] 	”

In August 1814 Edward Coles and Jefferson corresponded about Coles' ideas on emancipation: “ 	Your solitary but welcome voice is the first which has brought this to my ear, and I have considered the general silence which prevails on this subject as indicating an apathy unfavorable to every hope[99] 	”

The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves (two his mixed-race sons) and petitioned the legislature to allow them to stay in Virginia. After his death, his family sold the remainder of the slaves to settle his high debts.[100]

MY CRITICISM

is that in one of the links, Notes On the State of Virginia, a researcher google the book and slavery, and obtain passages like this one that contradicts wikipedia's own section, "To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed." I would request that his section on "On Slavery" be revised to muted wording, as to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflahet (talk • contribs) 05:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Thomas Jefferson's proposal for the United States seal
In this article it is said of Thomas Jefferson,

"In 1776 Jefferson also proposed a motto for the United States Seal. His proposal was, "Rebellion to tyrants is Obedience to God." He suggested that the seal should feature an image of the Biblical Hebrews being rescued by God via the Red Sea."

However, this is not the case. This was actually Benjamin Franklin's proposition as is evidenced by this site:

http://www.greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/index.html

In accordance to this reference, please change the original text to:

"In 1776 Jefferson also proposed a motto for the United States Seal, suggesting allegorical scenes. For the front of the seal: children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For the reverse: Hengist and Horsa, the two brothers who were the legendary leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain."
 * ✅ fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sally Hemings section
I moved Malone's opinion closer to the top where biographers are mentioned, and removed the final comments regarding Samuel Francis for the following reasons:

Note what the articles does, neatly enough; it starts by introducing the allegations regarding Jefferson's possible fatherhood, and discusses some positions historically (intro), then talks about the children in question (biographical info) and finally mentions the DNA-related findings (scientific investigation) which seems to say it's plausible the Jefferson family is involved but that it doesn't prove Thomas himself was the father.

At the end, though, someone added the "contending" stance of a biographer that died just before the first DNA tests were made available as well as the opinion of a paleoconservative journalist that accuses some of being biased, as he believes there is some sort of conspiracy from the federal government which uses the race issue politically. Placing Francis' opinion, especially there, at the end, after the DNA topic, is not NPOV because it's using the journalist's political ideology as a closing statement. If placed anywhere at all, it should be in a section pointing out various groups accusing each other of bias one way or the other, which might be better off in articles dealing with American perspectives on the race issue. Who is like God? (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gravestone
I think that there should be something under the Death section regarding the location of his original gravestone. It was given to the University of Missouri in 1883 by Jefferson's heirs, and now stands on the east side of the David R. Francis Quadrangle. It has a plaque on it that reads "This original marker, placed at the grave of Thomas Jefferson at Monticello, Virginiain 1826, constructed from his own design, was presented July 4, 1883, by the Jefferson heirs to the University of Missouri. First state university to be founded in the Louisiana Territory purchased from France during President Jefferson's administration.The obelisk, dedicated on this campus at commencement June 4, 1885, commemorates Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, whose faith in the future of western America and whose confidence in the people has shaped our national ideals; commemorates the author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Virginia statute for religious freedom, founder of the University of Virginia, fosterer of public education in the United States." And under these words it 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"

Edwlarkey (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote: The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814. --Yancy Fry (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The article about President Jeffersons Religiuos believes mentions him 'cutting up pages of New Testament verses and pasting them to paper. His 'Jefferson Bible' was in fact his version of the New Testament. The U.S. Congress published the 'Jefferson Bible' in the 1920s (see U.S. Congress Library). His views were no more outrageous than most Intellectuals of his day about Religion. We can only speculate at his mistrust of Churches, but it is a fact that almost all Nations with Religious Groups originating in Nations they broke away from disstrusted such Churches (see Elizabeth's actions in removing pro Catholic Clergy in Reformation England). In a Biography of Ms Uma Thurman (Aurum Press 2004) the Authors state how Ms Thurman had to share a Hotel Room with a Photographer due to lack of rooms; 'Uma slept with one eye open all night' they wrote, ((Byron Sutherland, Lucy Ellis). The same good be said figuratively of Mr Jefferson and Established Churches, 'he always slept with one eye open when it came to Churches that could become involved with England again'.Johnwrd (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American genocide?
I believe that Jefferson's deep involvement of the genocide of Native Americans should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, as a "significant event" which took place during his presidency. He directly ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of people, had a fervent hatred for "red people", and if this article was about anyone other than a "national icon" I'm sure that such a large scale mass murder would be mentioned in their article ... so it's only fair that we be honest about Thomas Jefferson here, and put the bad stuff in along with all the nationalistic hogwash ... Sure he wrote a few things about how much he admired them -- like saying that they "died with more deliberation" than any other people he had encountered. And to his credit he did try to give them a chance to abandon their way of life and live like the European invaders. He only ordered his military commanders to kill them and force them west of the Mississipi river if they didn't start wearing suits and working like good white men. So I guess you could say it was the Natives' fault since they didn't do what Thomas Jefferson told them to. He tried, and they just didn't listen ... poor savages.

It should also be pointed out that Jefferson, who is lauded for the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence ("all men created equal ....", continued to own 5,000 slaves on which his own personal wealth was based. Yeoman farmer - he was definitely not!

Anyhow, Jefferson was definitely more compassionate and fair than, say, Andrew Jackson ... but he was still a cold blooded murderer ... I mean, Ted Bundy only killed a few dozen innocent people and the whole article about him talks about him being a killer. How come Jefferson, who killed thousands of people doesn't even have a sentence talking about it?

EDIT: So somebody wants sources.... a great starting point is Drinnon's "Facing West" (ISBN: 978-0806129280), Miller's "Native America, Discovered and Conquered" (ISBN: 978-0803215986), or just about any book on the history of the American "Indian Removal" campaigns for that matter.

Also the google query "Thomas Jefferson native american policy" will turn up thousands of results with extensive bibliographical resources. This is a well-known historical fact and it's silly to try to avoid discussing my questions above by claiming that they are "unsourced" ...

Cloaked in his rheotoric about how much he "commiserated" with their plight, is a policy of forcing them to choosing between assimilation or extermination.

"The Indians can be kept in order only by commerce or war. The former is the cheapest. Unless we can induce individuals to employ their capital in that trade, it will require an enormous sum of capital from the public treasury, and it will be badly managed. A drawback for four or five years is the cheapest way of getting that business off our hands." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808.

"If they wish to remain on the land which covers the bones of their fathers, [we adjure them] to keep the peace with a people who ask their friendship without needing it, who wish to avoid war without fearing it. In war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1807.

"We must make ever memorable examples of the tribe or tribes which shall have taken up the hatchet." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1807.

"In truth, the ultimate point of rest and happiness for [the Indians] is to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix and become one people, incorporating themselves with us as citizens of the U.S. This is what the natural progress of things will of course bring on, and it will be better to promote than retard it. Surely it will be better for them to be identified with us and preserved in the occupation of their lands, than be exposed to the many casualties which may endanger them while a separate people." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Hawkins, 1803.

"[To] incorporate with us as citizens of the United States... is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves; but in the whole course of this it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only." --Thomas Jefferson William Henry Harrison, 1803. (*)

"The interested and unprincipled policy of England [in the War of 1812] has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

(NOTE: These people who "took up the hatchet" were doing so, by the way, in retaliation for having their homes razed, being pushed hundreds of miles from their lands to make room for settlers, and being raped enslaved and murdered ...)

"We have cut off all possibility of intercourse and of mutual aid, and may pursue at our leisure whatever plan we find necessary to secure ourselves against the future effects of their savage and ruthless warfare. The confirmed brutalization, if not the extermination of this race in our America, is therefore to form an additional chapter in the English history of the same colored man in Asia, and of the brethren of their own color in Ireland, and wherever else Anglo-mercantile cupidity can find a two-penny interest in deluging the earth with human blood." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

(Quotes are from "Writings of Thomas Jefferson")

How's that for sources? Need more? --- he wrote thousands of "caring" "respectful" comments such as those ...

Let's be realistic here. The man envisioned and implemented a systematic genocide program and was so PROUD of it that he wrote about it hundreds of times in his journals and letters ...kind of like how the Nazis were proud of exterminating Jews and wrote about it openly and proudly ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrtayloriv (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of these questions completely contradict what you claim. One wonders whether you have actually read his words at all. Paul B (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like original research to me. Chronodm (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is one thing to put up a magnificent statue. It is quite another to keep the pigeons off it. The way to get past our past and to avoid eternal war is to admit that we have the opportunity to do better. Twang (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly Jefferson attitude and policies towards native American peoples created a legacy that lasted until well after the West was closed. His rejection of their cultures, rights and histories created the foundations for the racist rallying call of manifest destiny. Native people who had lived in areas since 'time immemorial' were forced, often at gunpoint, on to lands designated as uninhabitable for Whites. Where native Americans remain today.


 * Yet I can understand why the Jefferson apologists say that claims he was responsible for genocide are laudable. It's only if you appreciate his legacy and not his direct action (he is regularly ranked as one of the all-time great Presidents) that makes you realise that he had power, and people listened. Jefferson left future politicians with a clear picture of what to do with the 'indian problem'. Sic Reinhard Heydrich planned the Final Solution but was killed before it was barely started. Yet history has decided to name him as one of its masterminds. So although Jefferson had died long before much of the major butchery, isn't he arguably complicit by tacitly endorsing the plan? It's quite clear from some of his surviving letters:


 * [In a letter to] General Henry Dearborn, he states "if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated." Later in the letter to Dearborn, Jefferson adds that "[I]n war, they will kill some of us; we will destroy all of them." Anthropology, Native Americans and Jefferson: A Troubling Analysis


 * Likewise, just compare the number of conflicts that occurred between indigenous people and Whites in United States and Canada up until the 1900s. The difference is staggering, about 20:1; USA:Canada.


 * The United States took a very hard line towards the 'indians'. The European who settled on their lands and the future generations that they raised live a lie that goes right back to Jefferson.


 * Much has been said about Obama becoming the first black president. The real moment in history will be when the United States gets it first native American president who's lineage goes back before the first Europeans arrived. Only then will you truly have 'the land of the free'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.26 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So I've got dozens of bibliographical sources -- can I write up a (completely sourced and unbiased) section on his "Indian Removal" policies, or will I just be wasting my time? His policies of extermination and removal affected millions of people's lives in a very serious way ... I think it's quite biased and disrespectful to all of the people whose lives he destroyed to pretend like it didn't happen. And after all, this is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia, not a nationalistic historical monument ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

well I went ahead and wrote it up in a new section titled "Native American policy", and am currently working on gathering more references to further support the ones that I've already got in the new section. comments? suggestions? Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In the text it says that he believed or encouraged the forceful removal of Indians. These things are a complete view point of the writer and not that of Thomas Jefferson. The following statement is from Jefferson's lips and as such it would be wise to quit interpreting things as we see them but just take as is how he stated them himself.

"I am of opinion that the Indians have a right to the occupation of their lands, independent of the states within whose chartered lines they happen to be; that until they cede them by treaty or other transaction equivalent to a treaty, no act of a state can give a right to such lands; that neither under the present Constitution, nor the ancient confederation, had any state or person a right to treat with the Indians without the consent of the general governmnet; that the government is determined to exert all its energy for the patronage and protection of the rights of the Indians, and the preservation of peace between the United States and them; and that if any settlements are made on lands not ceded by them, without previous consent of the United States, the government will think itself bound, not only to declare to the Indians that such settlements are without the authority or protection of the United States, but to remove them also by public force. " (TJ to General Henry Knox (10 Aug. 1791), Bergh 8:226-27)

"Our system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians [and] to cultivate an affectionate attachment from them by everything just and liberal which we can do for them within the bounds of reason, and by giving them effectual protection against wrongs from our own people." (TJ to General Andrew Jackson (16 Feb. 1803), Bergh 10:359.)

"Nothing ought more to be avoided than the embarking ourselves in a system of military coercion on the Indians. If we do this, we shall have general and perpetual war." (TJ to Governor Meriwether Lewis (21 Aug. 1808), Bergh 12:142.)

He agreed only on the 'peaceful removal of the indians through negotiation of treaties. If they chose not to go, they were not forced. (The Real Thomas Jefferson, pg.253)

As for the desire to take away their culture, agriculture, etc. He wanted to help them so he took steps to provide them with instruction in "agriculture and the domestic arts," We aren't upset when the Indians taught us things, why can't we try to help them with certain things? He never forced our culture or England's culture on them. (The Real Thomas Jefferson, pg 253)

His sentiments towards the native Americans was described in his second Inaugural Address. " The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires. Endowed with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from other regions directed itself on these shores. Without power to divert or habits to contend against, they have been overwhelmed by the current or driven before it. Now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts, to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence and to prepare them, in time, for that state of society which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. We have, therefore, liberally furnished them with the implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them instructors in the arts of first necessity; and they are covered with the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves. " (second inaugural address (4 Mar. 1805), 3:378-79)

Important for the reader to understand that these are the Indians that wanted it. Thomas Jefferson never forced this on them. They wanted to learn from us as we had learned from them so many times. There is nothing wrong with two cultures helping each other out. We should not interpret that as one is undermining the other or trying to destroy the other.

This view should be stated because it is shared by the majority of the general Jefferson historians. Please add to these comments so as to cover all 'opinions' of history. It is said that God cannot change history but historians can. I feel this topic has fallen more to the opinions of historians than the words or facts of Thomas Jefferson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.205.96 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1300.htm ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This whole wikipedia article's section is based on the hack work of some historian that should be ashamed of themselves. Thomas Jefferson was the only President to have real peace during his presidency. There where no Indian wars or massacres. Timeline of United States military operations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

principle author of the Consitution?
Both articles for Thomas Jefferson AND James Madison say that they were each the "principle author of the Constituion". Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.104.133 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Madison. Jefferson had nothing to do with it, but he was the main author of the Declaration of Independence, so somebody probably got them mixed up. I will fix this. Richard75 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson was in Paris during the convention, but he was involved with his correspondence with Madison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WIkiref
Wikiref is used in several places in this article, but it serves no purpose. The link it creates leads nowhere. It should be removed. You could either (1) just use plain text, with no link, or (2) use a common citation template (such as cite book and create the link with a Harvnb. The offending footnotes are 38, 41, 43, 66, 97, 113 and maybe others CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Relationship" with Hemings
Re: this passage: "...Jefferson had a long-term relationship and children with his slave Sally Hemings." This article uses the word "relationship," as though it were consensual. There is by definition no such thing as "consensual" sex between a slave owner and a slave. I would argue that Hemings was raped. Really, "rape" is the only possible word that one can use in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.41 (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to have at least a discussion about this in the main article. I agree with you about using the term relationship. How can a slave owner have a relationship with a slave that does not have any rights or protection under the Virginia Laws? I would propose using that relationship should be changed to either "rape", "adultery", and or "inappropriate sexual conduct with a female slave." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'd like a 'discussion' on this one, I'd look for some solid citations. I accept the emotional context, and can't speak to personal positions, but historical literature and texts frequently and consistently detail fully consensual relationships in this context.  A blanket application of the word "rape" simply because of one's interpretation of the context is inappropriate.  Not saying it can't be addressed, but need to refrain from emotional interpretation and not insert personal opinion nor "original research". - Thaimoss (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citation needed for the reference to DNA proof linking Hemmings children to Jefferson. There is no conclusive evidence to support this claim. The DNA has only proved that "A Jefferson" fathered Easton Hemmings. This Jefferson could very possibly have been Randolph. It is false to declare any DNA conclusion as fact as it is a widely contested issue among historians. http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.20.94 (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have modified the wording to reflect the fact cited by the last discussion point here. I have also brought in a citation from the Sally Hemings article. - Thaimoss (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery
Is there a way to have a seperate page about Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. It seems that everything about Thomas Jefferson is on one page. How can you start a new page just devoted to Thomas Jefferson And Slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Starting an article for general guidelines. The title should be Thomas Jefferson and slavery with a lower case "s" per WP:CAPS. Good luck! Station1 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson really is the last link between the Founding Fathers and the Civil War period. I believe it is vitally important to have a separate page just devoted to slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to harmonize Thomas Jefferson and slavery article with the main Thomas Jefferson article. I put in a paragraph telling what the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article is about. I also put a link with the main article Thomas Jefferson. How else can the slavery section be harmonized? The Thomas Jefferson and slavery article goes into depth about slavery and there is an updated section about Sally Hemings. Any ideas? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)}
 * Cmguy777, unfortunately I removed the paragraph you added. The idea is not for this article to simply talk about the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. The idea, among other things, is to make sure that the content from the slavery section in this article doesn't contradict or conflict with the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. See this guideline for more info.  -shirulashem (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am in total agreement. I am currently going through both sections. I put Thomas Jefferson and slavery as the main article because the other article is more detailed in account. I do not want anything to conflict. If you can find any conflicting areas please let me know. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)}

I have incorporated the On Slavery section with Thomas Jefferson and slavery. I believe that the two subject areas are harmonized and the Harmony cite should be removed. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)}

I have removed the Harmonize cite because the Thomas Jefferson and slavery has been harmonized with the On Slavery section. All of the main points in the On Slavery section have been incorporated into Thomas Jefferson and slavery. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)}

Jefferson represented Virginia in the Confederation Congress from 1783 to 1785. There, in 1784, he drafted the first of the Northwest Ordinances. His draft would have outlawed slavery in the new northwestern states. Congress passed the Ordinance but rejected that clause by a 7-6 vote. However, the later Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was based on the 1784 ordinance, did approve Jefferson's suggestion and outlawed slavery north of the Ohio River. (And that provision became a key factor in the controversy between "free" and "slave" states over the next 73 years.)

Propose separate article on the "Jefferson’s children by his slave Sally Hemings" section
The content of this section is relevant, and detailed. While much of it is covered in the related articles, the aggregation is unique and useful, and certainly applicable in the perspective of being 'about Jefferson'. However, the length and degree of detail of this section is inconsistent with the remainder of the Jefferson article. It is nearly the longest standing section in this article.
 * * I recommend creating a separate article to contain these details.
 * * I suggest naming it "Jefferson’s children by Sally Hemings"
 * * I suggest keeping the introductory paragraph, and then summarizing the three study periods (1998, 2000, 2001) into a sentence each. The issue would the approximate the first paragraph in this same section on Jefferson's children with his wife Martha. - Thaimoss (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation. "Jefferson's children by Sally Hemmings" could be a separate page or shown in the Sally Hemings article, if not already done so. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)}

Monticello
I added a section on Monticello that could be expanded. It is important to know how important Monticello was to Jefferson and how Monticello was a slave plantation all the time that Jefferson owned the property. I believe it is important to show that Jefferson was both a slave owner and an abolitionist in the article. Those facts seem contradictive, but it is important in understanding who Thomas Jefferson was. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)}

Post-GA cleanup
Here's the worklist. Let's mark as we go.


 * The images could use WP:ALT text according to the alt text checker. Partly fixed in 311724155 and 311826987, as well as in multiple enclosed templates. Cannot fix in gallery or expand-section template.
 * Three dablinks need to be fixed. Fixed in 311829047, 311829467, 311829541, 311829707, and 311829813.
 * The article has a deadlink Not really a deadlink--the link checker flags it but it's just a redirect. Fixed in 311830706.
 * There are several entire paragraphs without any inline citations. In some cases, groups of paragraphs composing entire subsections have no citations. This will not pass the current standards at WP:WIAGA. Please make sure each paragraph has at least one citation assuming that the article is organized enough that separate paragraphs constitute separate ideas and need individual citations.
 * It seems to me that the following images are sculptural and may need FURs: File:Jefferson Memorial with Declaration preamble.jpg, File:Thomas Jefferson's Paris house memorial.jpg, File:MtRushmore Tom close.jpg.
 * The article has contained a Expand-section tag since March.
 * There is a bulletpointed list that should probably be converted to prose. Fixed in 311834654.

-Tjarrett (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've addressed the easy cleanup. Remaining are the paragraphs without citations; FURs for sculptural images; and the problematic Native American Policy section. -Tjarrett (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikiref creates links that don't lead anywhere. These should probably be removed, and replaced with just plain text. (If the article used citation templates, you could use Harv or sfn  to achieve the desired effect.)  CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First Patent Examiner
Thomas Jefferson had an important role in shaping U.S. patent policy. Although he initially opposed patents on moral grounds, (and possibly Constitutional grounds) he later came to embrace them, impressed by the power of patents to spur innovation. Some mention of Jefferon's role in the history of the U.S. Patent system warrants mention, I think. Here is an interesting page covering the topic. Lenehey (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Role in Drafting the Declaration
I think it would be appropriate, in the discussion of his work on the Declaration of Independence, to note the influence of Virginia Declaration of Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights drafted by George Mason. The most influential language was stylistically changed by Jefferson, but clearly paraphrased the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and restated Locke. 72.35.126.61 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is already noted. Did you read the article? faithless   (speak)  01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Death?
I noticed under the section on his death, there is no comments on how he actually died... Livingston 07:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes
There are several "its" and "it's" spelling mistakes, especially in the "corporations" section. All the "it's" should be "its".

201.208.3.112 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only "it's" errors I could find were in a direct quote from Jefferson, and they appear in the reference cited, too. We can't edit direct quotes, even to correct grammar.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Succeeded by William Fleming as Virginia Governor (official, not acting) bottom of page.
Jefferson's successor as Virginia Governor was William Fleming, who according to the Virginia Governor's website, put up by the state of Virginia counts him as an official governor, #3 out of 70, not an acting governor as it states at the bottom of this Thomas Jefferson wikipedia page. This needs to be corrected/edited, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief772005 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: William Fleming post above
I did not sign the prevoius post, here it is Chief772005 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

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

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

¿Did he raised it with his own hands?

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

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

--80.39.165.245 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he certainly was the architect, engineer and construction manage. So "built" seems ok. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious views

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

and add the following to footnote 91: Letter to Charles Thomson, Jan. 9, 1816, "I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”

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

The quotation about "being obliged to believe..." is attributed to Galileo all over the Internet, not Jefferson. Is there any reliable citation that it was, in fact, written by Jefferson? 13 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.20.135 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was unsourced so I removed it. Station1 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No evidence Jefferson was racist
Numerous people have set out to prove that Thomas Jefferson was a racist. They search through his letters for racist quotes. Of course, they use these based on contemporary language, even though they where written 200 years ago and are an example of extreme decontextualization. None of this mentions that Jefferson had easily the least racist views of anybody at the time.

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

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

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

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

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

This article needs serious review. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to back up all of your claims, otherwise, they constitute original research. Almost everything in this article is backed by reliable sources. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

Welsh descent
As far as Jefferson's Welsh descent, I have amended the sentence to say 'of probable Welsh descent.' As I understand it, there is no firm proof yet. . Jefferson himself was able to only take his paternal ancestry as far back as his grandfather. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote re Carrying of Arms
Jefferson did't author the quote attributed to him in the article, as is evident from each of the three references that follow the quote. This is something Jefferson copied into a notebook while in law school.A more extended discussion is here: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Laws_that_forbid_the_carrying_of_arms...(Quotation) Many scholars have urged caution in interpreting these notebooks. See, e.g. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1919028

In light of the above, quote should clearly be deleted, in my view, but since anything having to do with guns is controversial, I'm raising the issue here first. --Sjsilverman (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't attribute the quote to Jefferson; it says that Jefferson copied a passage from Cesare into his "commonplace book." This is roughly consistent with your monticello.org source. Since your assertion is incorrect and the quote is properly attributed, it isn't clear to me that the section should be deleted. I don't think the current text is misleading, although it probably would be better to have an RS which makes the claim that his views are reflected by his choice of quotations to capture. Are you aware of a reliable source which claims his views are inconsistent with this? Celestra (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jefferson copied the Italian text and noted in his own handwriting it was a false idea. Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to slow down and read the source more carefully. He copied the passage into his books. That, and his notation, would obviously be "in his own handwriting." His notation, in Italian, echoed a portion of the passage which he chose to copy. "False idee di utilità" (false ideas of utility) is not a assertion that the passage is false; it is the central theme of the passage. Do you really think that someone would take the time to copy a passage from a book just to make a note that they disagree with the passage? I restored that section. Please leave it alone until a consensus is reached here. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Introducing the text with the statement Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. leads to conclusion that Jefferson endorsed the quote. That is not unambiguous. The most that can conclusively be said is that the topic was of interest to TJ. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the introductory sentence has a POV lean to it; we should get rid of that. If one stopped reading at that point, one might imagine that the rest of the words were a Jefferson quote, but the very next words clear up any such mistaken conclusion the reader may have reached. The remainder is not only unambiguous about the fact that it is not his quote, it has an equally POV disclaimer "...although in context it is unclear what Jefferson's position on the topic is." It is possible that Jefferson chose to copy this passage because he valued the general concept of a false idea of utility, but not the example Cesare used; but it's more likely he copied it because he thought it was a good example and wanted to be able to refer back to the exact words at some point. Either way, the current text, less the introductory sentence, seems reasonable to keep. Celestra (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that was your disclaimer when I wrote my reply. Adding a disclaimer of he form "but that might not be the case" in the middle of presenting objective facts suggests an editorial viewpoint. It would be more neutral to make that point separately and it would be better to finish the discussion before making further changes to the section we are discussing. I'd recommend something like this:

Jefferson copied into his "Legal Commonplace Book" a passage from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments which touches on gun control. The passage, which is written in Italian, discusses the "false idea of utility" which underly some laws. It can be translated, in part, as: "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. ... It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." Jefferson's only notation was, "False idee di utilità." It isn't known whether Jefferson agreed with the example Beccaria used, or with the general idea, or if he had some other reason for copying the passage.
 * Celestra (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

 * As we consider facts, as we should, and attempt to follow guidelines and rules(if you will)then POV's, leaning a little or a lot, should have no place in Wikipedia. As we consider relevance, as we should, then if certain things should be included, deleted, or moved would be taken into account. This however is a talk page. This is where discussions can be made to clarify writings to be improved, neutral, and certainly correct any POV's.

The genius of Thomas Jefferson can not be doubted.

"Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom", is proven in history to be true but only to a degree, and maybe with relevance to the article. He advocated the end of slavery but owned slaves. Oh! He had debts so couldn't free his slaves. Can any believe this was a problem he could not solve? Records indicate he had a way but used age as a reason he could not. Lacking his signature behind the words, "I am against the carrying of arms ", or " I believe in the right to bear arms", anyone can speculate or hypothesize. A person can, absent direct statements, view records and history for evidence. Jefferson wrote a lot about many things and stated many opinions.

Did he have an opinion or position on carrying arms?

Jefferson wrote: "I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself."

Jefferson wrote: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Jefferson wrote: "The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Jefferson wrote: "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Among other things Thomas Jefferson was against big government, industrialization, checks and balances (Judicial Review), a government that would seek to impinge on another's rights, and even a perpetual constitution. Some of his ideas were great. Some of his ideas were not so great. He lost a battle against judicial review which has become the backbone of checks and balances. It can be argued he was a Utilitarian. The rule of utility: The good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. This was a belief of Jeremy Bentham. If one should want to debate or discuss the meaning of the Latin words he wrote it should contain all the words and the person writing should be familiar with those words. The debated quote he wrote in his commonplace book is from the writings of an economist that had Utilitarian views. The note he wrote in Latin reflects a meaning that may have been clear to him but less to others and certainly could be construed as not clear these many years later. Can anyone really use only the first two words of what he wrote to make definitive arguments on his meaning, state of mind, or ideas? Can his position be known, especially without using the last word and knowing the meaning? It has been done. Selective reading and writing to a personal end is common place. The checks and balance would be other editors.

The question should be what is the relevance under ‘‘Carrying of arms’’? Is, without a relevant point, the section needed at all especially without references and expansion? Conjecture should be deleted without hesitation. The above lengthy discussions include, ""False idee di utilità", for what reasons? It was not included in the article. Statements of facts, including these, can be printed, sources verified, and then all that can be discussed is relevance.

The part, "Jefferson's interest in liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom.", as written, needs to be moved, deleted, or expanded to have meaning to the subject. The part, "although in context it is unclear what Jefferson's position on the topic is..", is conjecture. 1)- Added information in the talk section, and probably a lot more information, is not included in the article. 2)- The entire section of the article is not in context as written. 3)- Trying to discuss and interpret the writings of one person to fit or make sense of the writings of another does not even have understanding nor relevance to a Wikipedia article. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is amazing that you could write so much and then refer to the previous discussion as the "above lengthy discussions." If you have read the previous discussion, you should understand that "False idee di utilità" is from the source provided by the original poster and is used once to refute a mistaken comment by Rjensen and again in a suggested alternative to the current section. Skipping over the extraneous stuff, you appear to be saying toward the end that you agree that the "interest in liberty" part and the "although in context" part need to be removed (or something). Ok. Then you add three numbered points which are difficult to translate into anything meaningful. Your 1) seems to say that lots of stuff is not in the article. So? Your 2) says the section is not in context as written. What exactly does that mean and what would you suggest we do to correct it? Your 3) could be saying that the previous discussion is not useful, but it would be hard to imagine anyone going on and on about various unrelated things Jefferson said and then holding others to task for discussing the subject at hand. I'll assume that is not the case. It would help, though, if you would also limit yourself to discussing this section and its sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the quotation by an Italian has been inserted to fool people into thinking that's what Jefferson believed. He wrote "false doctrine" in the margin. This is a gross violation of a reliable NPOV encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "False idee di utilità" does not mean false idea or false doctrine and no reasonable person would believe that Jefferson took the time to copy that passage only to disagree with it. The only POV I'm seeing here is the repeated absurd assertion that the whole cited section must be removed. Please either participate in the discussion and consensus building or leave the article alone; this drive-by editing where you make a quick (false) assertion and delete the section is disruptive. Celestra (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it we do not have a consensus on including the section--no one supports Celestra and he has been unable to find RS that support his personal views. Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What we don't have is a consensus for removing this cited content. If you have anything to add to creating that consensus, please do so, or comment on how to improve the section. I have made several suggestions; you have yet to do anything beyond repeating some bizarre claim about Jefferson calling this a false idea. Where did you get that idea? Celestra (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All material must be based on reliable secondary sources--which is absent here. It fails the basic Wiki policy test for inclusion. Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The first two sites seem reliable for the content provided. (I don't have a wsj.com account, so I can't comment on that one.) The madisonbrigade.org site is useful for supporting the text, with the liberty-tree.ca site just providing a translation of the passage. We can also use the monticello.org reference at the beginning of this talk section if we choose, so sourcing is not an issue. The current text has issues and needs to be improved, but I can't see a policy based reason to remove it. If you have one, please elaborate. Or better yet, stop looking for different ways to remove it and just help clean it up. Celestra (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the problem is that people think Jefferson wrote it or agreed with it. He copied thousands of passages and no scholar has ever said he wrote those words as if he believed them. There is no scholarly secondary source for the claim, which violated Wiki policy. Rjensen (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think any reasonable person would understand that copying a passage from Cesare's book into his commonplace books is a meaningful act and I see no basis for your claim that he copied "thousands of passages" or that he was in the habit of randomly copying material without reason or purpose. We do not need a source for the obvious. I am also not proposing that we claim what purpose he had; just that we present the well-documented fact that he copied this passage and made note of the central theme. In my suggestion above, I make it clear that he may not have agreed with Cesare's example. That is an NPOV presentation of the cited facts. Deleting the section because you disagree with one possible interpretation of the facts would be the POV violation. Celestra (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "reasonable people" are those who have studied Jefferson and know about his copying thousands of passages from hundreds of books--he had one of the biggest book collections in the colonies and liked to copy text, especially as a way of keeping up his foreign language skills. Many of these annotations have been published in The Commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson edited by Gilbert Chinard in 1926. The citations in the article are to blogs --they do not say where they found the material, and blogs are not RS in Wikiland.  The Chinard book has over 900 excerpts Jefferson made from different famous authors, mostly on legal topics.  He made 26 excerpts from Beccaria (#805 to #831 in the Chinard edition). One strongly suspects that the reason THIS excerpt was chosen from the 900 others is that is represents the POV of people in 2010, rather than Jefferson's main ideas.  One of the "sources" cited our article is a NRA website, for example, which is not usually the place people go for Jeffeson scholarship.Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a odd definition of reasonable people. The current sources are not "blogs", and though the names suggest a possible bias, they are reliable for the facts that are presented. (None of the three sources for this section are the NRA website, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.) The monticello.org site is also a reliable and generally unbiased site, so we can switch to that if the current sources are distracting from improving this section. The fact that "pro-gun" websites quote (or misquote) this is neither surprising nor any sort of argument for or against including it here. Can you set aside the baggage and discuss how to improve the section based on the available sources? Celestra (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasonable Wiki users use reliable sources. none of the source is a reliable source by Wiki standards. I did try to improve the article but Celestra immediately erased that. That is not very cooperative.  As to the source: note 63 never mentions Jefferson in any way. Note 64 is the "James Madison Research Library" -- click on HOME and you see it is run by Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association. No scholars are mentioned just LaPierre. note 65 is an op-ed on the Virginia Tech shootings. In all, mere POV -- and indeed, Celestra has not yet explained why this quote was chosen--Jefferson copied it in Italian and never makes any reference to it in his millions of words written in English (according to the inde of the Jefferson papers). Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, for the content referenced, the madisonbrigade.org is acceptable, regardless of whether they have some connection back to the NRA. But like I said, let's use the monticello.org reference and avoid the distraction. As to your previous attempted improvement, no reasonable person would find adding "Some 21st century writers have incorrectly attributed sentiments that Jefferson labeled as "false doctrine", specifically they claim..." on top of the existing POV to be an improvement. "Some ... writers" are weasle words, "incorrectly attributed" is blatant POV and "false doctrine" is an recurring, unsupported misinterpretation on your part. We need to tone down the existing POV, not escalate it. Each of your responses, following your attempt on the third to misrepresent this as personal, has been uncooperative and you have yet to answer a single direct question I have asked, yet you hold me to task for not answering your implied question. Amazing! Since you feel an answer is required, here you go: the original editor chose this excerpt because it had something to do with the subject. What are Jefferson's thoughts about the carrying of arms? Ah, here is a passage he chose to copy from Cesare. Now, please return the favor and reply to some of the direct questions I have asked while trying to get this conversation back on track. Celestra (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * reliance on the opinions of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA for an understanding of Jefferson is what started this mess in the first place. For someone highly sensitive to other people's POV, this is pretty serious, since it is the reason the text is here in the first place--NRA wants it, NRA gets it, Wiki rules notwithstanding. No scholars or RS agree. Jefferson had several million opportunities to express his own opinions, after all. Rjensen (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but you seem to be saying that if the NRA agrees, we have to remove it, regardless of other sources which support it. Read my suggested text above. What in that text is not supported by the monticello.org reference? I simply state the fact that he copied the passage and his notation and point out that one can't tell if he agreed with the example or the general theme. He obviously had some reason to copy it, one would have to be intentionally obtuse to claim otherwise. Simply presenting that, with a reminder that he might not have agreed with the specific example seeems more than fair. Celestra (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And please don't make thing worse while the discussion is going on. "The NRA claims ..." is a non-starter and you should know that already. Are you really so partisan that you can't present content on this subject in a neutral manner? If so, you ought to step back and let other editors fix the section. Celestra (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is based entirely on the NRA website, and not on any scholar. Celestra has not found a single RS to support his use of beccaria. Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times does one need to point to the more reliable source to get you to drop this non-sequitur? Are you having trouble comprehending what I am saying or are you being intentionally obtuse? Ignore the current sources if they distract you. Use the moticello.org source instead. That source is both reliable and contains all the facts I've suggested we present. Comment on the change I've suggested or suggest an alternative, but please quit going on about the NRA. Celestra (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented a slightly different version of my suggestion so that we can more easily set aside the previous sources. I've added an introductory sentence to make it clear that this wasn't the only passage copied into his commonplace books. We can discuss this version, or revert and continue to discuss how to improve the older one. Celestra (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Cow, This Page was Messed Up by an Erroneous NPOV Tag
Someone inserted an NPOV tag in this article right after "Carrying of arms". Unfortunately, they used the one between double curly brackets which inserts an entire, gigantic article on NPOV wherever it is typed. So this article had an entire other article in the middle of it. When I looked at the code to fix it, I was surprised at how little the tag was which made such a mess of things.

Anyhow, I have removed the tag. I'm pretty sure there is a simpler tag that just says "this may not be NPOV, see the Talk Page", or whatever. I'm also pretty sure that's the tag whoever inserted this meant to use.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.141.105.228, 8 May 2010
Under the "Monuments and Memorials" section, please change the quote: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal ..." to "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal ...".

Reason is that the capitalized version is not apparent in the original. You can see an image of the original here, or on the Wikiquote article discussing this particularly.

24.141.105.228 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, done.  Chzz  ►  23:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

✅

Nickel
I've put back the nickel pictures. It's not clear to me that they were more "useless" than any of the other illustrations. Discuss? Chronodm (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * "Basically considered a sex slave" according to whom, besides Ericg33?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Jefferson Painting
User:Gwillhickers replaced the Charles Peale painting with a new painting that he claims is more accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&action=historysubmit&diff=348984504&oldid=348955944

However, the new painting is by Gwillhickers. Since the Peale painting is from 1791 and the Gwillhickers painting is probably modern and appears to be a copy of, I think the Charles Peale painting is more likely to be accurate. 140.180.175.90 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(Drawjk613 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC))––There's an error in the Peale painting's placement; the picture of the bust of Jefferson is overlapping it. I would fix it, but the page is locked, so someone else (with access) should probably edit it.

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of this page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

This article is protected because of vandalism and the tendency of people to present people like Jefferson in a more positive light (slavery & Native Americans being issues here) or the opposite. There entire article needs to be redone by 1) historians or 2) those who really know the topics and are more neutral writers. On the pending changes, perhaps it should be. What do others think?Ebanony (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.109.169.39, 18 June 2010
Change

Jefferson repealed many federal taxes

to

Under Jefferson, many federal taxes were repealed

because

Technically speaking, the federal taxes and federal laws can be enacted and/or repealed only by Congress, not by the President. (To verify this, read Articles I and II of the Constitution of the United States.) Jefferson did not repeal the taxes; Congress did.

71.109.169.39 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Favonian (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson supported the separation of church and state
This should be clarified. Jefferson opposed an establishment of religion, meaning a national religion like the Church of England in Great Britain. If Jefferson actually supported a separation of church and state he would not of authorized church services in Congress during his administration. My source is the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your private interpretation. I'd say "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" and "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State", speaks of a different sentiment. It is, of course, not up to the president to decide what happens in congress - see separation of power. And TJ, despite all his talent and ability to set great ideals into great words, was never the most consistent - just ask Sally Hemings about her inalienable right to liberty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment on Hemmings is the most outrageous thing you've ever said Stephan. You should be ashamed of yourself.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow that is the most uneducated post I have read on this site. And it is deist, not diest, unless diest really is some code word in your own secret language. So glad you know the inner workings of the mind of Jefferson, knowing when he was pretending and all. Next time try quoting from historical documents instead of your crystal balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite amazing that no matter where you go, there are those among us who's sole mission it is to make sure that everyone believes that the founders of the United States of America were in fact atheists (secret or not), and to take a single letter by a single man and place it on a pedestal as the crowning and infallible proof of that fact. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)