Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Template:V0.5

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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 Wikipedia: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)}

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)

Religious views

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)