Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Thanks to an anon

I wanted to thank 199.88.16.253, who noticed when I failed to revert all the vandalism when I submitted. It's really nice to have help from an anon in the midst of all the attacks. Thank you, kind sir or madam! Wnissen 14:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on his philosophy?

This is my first visit to this article, and I am struck by the fact that there's no section discussing his political arcitecture. Instead there's a huge section on his religion. His contribution to political philosophy far outweighs any religious influence. This article is outrageous. RJII 20:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right, RJII, the article needs a good section on Jefferson's political philosophy. The section that has been added in response to your call for it is, right now, a steaming pile of wikicrap. Care to fix it? -EDM 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
His philosophy is scattered in documents, letters, and books, but I think if we do some research we can come up with something, by piecemeal, somewhat coherent and presentable. I'll see what I can dig up. RJII 17:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Certainly the best summations of Jefferson's political philosophy are presented by Rick Matthews, in The Radical Politics and other essays. We should definitely have something on his "pyramid" conception of popular government based in ward-republics and extending to the national level. Also, we need to distinguish his theory of representation: unlike the "trustee" model proposed by the likes of Hamilton, Jefferson held that government representatives should act as "delegates" with no other function than the transmission of the popular will from localities to higher levels of government. - AnarchyeL 14:36, 6 March 2006
Most historians disagree with Rick Matthews--see the reviews. Much better is Lance Banning. Rjensen 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Historians are far too concerned with events and behaviors to be adequate judges of political thinking. I can think of only a rare few philosophers whose political activities perfectly accord with their speculative thoughts, largely because--as for Jefferson--the opportunities to establish this accord are wanting. Thus, I trust the noted political theorist Rick Matthews to analyze his political thought, historians such as Lance Banning to analyze his behaviors. -- AnarchyeL 15:06, 6 March 2006
Better read Banning, he's quite good. Critics in political science also dislike Mathews saying he has his own agenda that he tries to impose on Jefferson. See especially Jack Rakove, “The Liberal Prince on the Democratic Seesaw,” Reviews in American History 23(1995), 582-87. abstract: Although Mathews gets many facts about Madison right, his conclusions “fall somewhere between wrong-headed and silly.” Rejects Mathews’s claim that Madison’s differences with TJ were more important and consequential than their shared antipathy to Hamilton. Accuses Mathews’s presentation of TJ to be “a caricature.” ... For an encyclopedia we really can't rely on caricatures. Rjensen 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we're to go by what scholars say of one another, they almost all call each other's readings "caricatures" at one point or another. It would be disingenuous to reject one scholar's work based merely on others criticisms. Meanwhile, political theorists have not been nearly so critical of Matthews as you pretend. Certainly the eminent C.B. MacPherson was a fan; Asher Horowitz, Sheldon Wolin, and the late Carey McWilliams read him most approvingly; and Drucilla Cornell is impressed with his comparison of Jefferson to Rousseau--just to name a few. For a political science review, you might also see the one by Alkis Kontos in The Journal of Politics (Nov 85). As for historians, a simple EBSCO search reveals at least one very positive review from Harry Fritz of the University of Montana, who calls it a "strong, well-argued, and persuasive case." Even your own Lance Banning writes of Matthews' book, "I do not mean to write a uniformly negative review--far from it. This is a bold, provocative, and often quite insightful work. The product of a penetrating mind and a forceful pen, it challenges both liberal and classical republican interpretations of the democratic statesman. It offers us a Jefferson whose 'humanism', 'communitarian anarchism', and 'radical democracy' do 'make his views stand as an alternative to the market liberalism of the past and present.' It can be read with profit by everyone who has a good acquaintance with the subject. ... General readers, however, deserve some words of caution. Although it is possible to extract this sort of Jefferson from some of his more speculative writings, the thinker who emerges is only distantly related to the historical architect of American traditions."
Ironically, it appears that your hero admits essentially what I claimed to begin with: that if one is interested in Jefferson as a purely historical figure, one will find little help in Matthews' work--but he is, after all, a political theorist, not a historian. If, on the other hand, one wants to understand Jefferson's speculative philosophy--which, I thought, was the purpose of the Wiki section on his philosophy--then one would appropriately turn to the discipline of political theory. -- AnarchyeL 16:00 6 March 2006
Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and has to search for the consensus of scholars. Anarchists may indeed admire Mathews -- and indeed he writes in lively strong style. But we are NOT allowed to use our own POV to select readings from left-wing or right-wings polemics and pretend they are a consensus reading. Rjensen 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly I should have chosen a different name. I am not, as you presume, an anarchist; the name having been taken for, as it were, "historical" reasons. At any rate, none of the theorists I named in support of Matthews' thesis are anarchists by any stretch; moreover, the only political theorists I can think of who really oppose Matthews' reading are themselves right-wing libertarians. Can you point to any mainstream critiques within political theory? -- AnarchyeL
It's Matthews who's the anarchist. The historians who have studied Jefferson most say Matthews is lively and wrong. That's a pretty heavy load to carry, as you saw by reading the reviews in history journals. Let's find a political theorist who is an expert on late 18th century American thought. Rjensen 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Matthews may or may not be an anarchist. At least, I doubt he would volunteer the term to describe himself, although he sympathizes with anarchism in much the same way Jefferson did. As for what historians think, I have already established that I think the real experts on Jefferson's political thought must be students of political thought, not history. Moreover, in my EBSCO search I turned up a thoroughly divided opinion in historians' reviews -- literally, 50/50. Matthews is, of course, one of the best experts in political theory on 18th century American thought. The best would have been Carey McWilliams, whom we unfortunately lost to a heart-attack last year: and as I have already mentioned, McWilliams was a good friend and supporter of Matthews. I will not reiterate the list, although I should add Dan Tichenor--who is not a political theorist per se, but rather a scholar in the American Political Development school of political science; he is also, from what I understand, extraordinarily well respected among historians. Now, I will await your evidence that mainstream political theory has rejected Matthews in any way. In the meantime, historians should stick to history. AnarchyeL 16:41, 6 March 2006
The problem with political theorists studying historical characters is they assume a lot of false history. The best example is Louis Hartz who had enormous influence but totally missed the entire history of republicanism in Jefferson and everyone else. Dahl is another example (I like Dahl--he was on my dissertation committee--but he does not quite get the history of democracy.) Rjensen 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your (by now accepted) criticism of Hartz. Dahl, too... Likeable though he may be, he has a habit of making unwarranted assumptions that support his conclusions (often, I think, without realizing it... esp. in his analysis of Supreme Court efficacy). However, the fact that some people do political theory badly should not damn the field. Of course, I will even agree to a large extent with a criticism against Matthews (above) regarding his evaluation of the relationship between Madison and Jefferson. However, the question here is neither other political theorists, nor Matthews' work on Madison... but his work on Jefferson, which I personally consider very compelling--this being an evaluation with which my more eminent colleagues agree. -- AnarchyeL 22:06, 6 March 2006

Rjensen: As a meaningless aside, it seems we are intellectual cousins, of a sort. One of my mentors was also a student of Robert Dahl. ;) -AnarchyeL

Small world indeed! Rjensen 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

I'm not sure about this sentence, saying that the opening section of the Declaration of Independence "... laid the foundation for the American Revolution and American democracy". It's a nice sentiment, but considering that the Revolution had already started in 1775 (and was the consequence of events spanning decades), and America had democratic instutions going back to the House of Burgesses in 1619, I don't think it's really accurate. --JW1805 22:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The house of burgesses was origionally a concept of the english, and it's hardly a democratic institution, a burgess is a middle class person, and the house was open to the interests of those people, so that the elite might hear their concerns. Well good for the burgesses, but the lower classes were left out. The revolution actually started prematurely, the continental congress hadn't actually declared war, but an instance happened in lexington in 1775, the actual declaration of war was made with the declaration of independence, as well stating the principle ideas of why they were doing so and what a government's purpose should be.

Bibliography & some text problems

I cleaned up the bibliography and added numerous important items, such as the Boyd and Bergh editions. I deleted the esoteric material on 16th Polish influences, which might fit in a 6-volume biography but not in an encyclopedia entry that is already thin on too many topics. The religion section is unsatisfactory--it's mostly a collection of annotated TJ quotations that do not help readers with the basic questions. Rjensen 09:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson's political philosophy was called republicanism

So that's what he named his political party. Take a look at the textbooks, for example [1] the chapter entitled: Republicanism: Jefferson and Madison or look at monographs [2] = Jefferson's Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism by Susan Dunn or Sellers: [3] or Onuf: [4] Rjensen 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Just putting "He... is the person most responsible for defining Republicanism and making it the basis of American political values." isn't going to work. It makes him sound like the founder of the Republican Party, which he was not. The word "Republicanism" needs to be clarified if this sentence is left in. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So if someone favors Democracy then he's from the Democratic Party? Jefferson favored a republic over a democracy --that's republicanism. RJII 16:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • We need to be clear on possibly confusing terms. We don't want people to be confused. It probably would be better to use a lowercase "r" (republicanism). In modern American usage, "Republican" means "Republican Party". That's just how it is. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
        • True. But, right now the lead says he favored democracy. That's very misleading. Here's a quote from him: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." RJII 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I replaced "meritocratic democracy" (whatever that means) with "republicanism". But maybe "representative democracy" would be better? I don't know. A lot of these terms are used interchangeably. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I did some minor tweaking on this issue. I referred to the original Republican Party instead of making it look like a continuance of the current political party, and also referenced the Federalists under John Adams. Chadlupkes 19:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I worked on the philosophy section a bit, but there is a more to be done.Rjensen 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The long quotation in the philosophy section does come from a letter addressing primogeniture, but by the end of the quotation Jefferson has included several additional points of his political philosophy. For instance:

      • "If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be permitted to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.... It is too soon in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent, but it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land."

This describes his belief that every (adult male) citizen who has never owned land should be entitled to claim some, a provision that he included in one of his draft constitutions for the State of Virginia (but which obviously never made it into a finished version). We should either separate this doctrine and comment on its reasons and implications (it is basically an inversion of the traditional republican logic that only landholders should vote)... or, we should delete it from this passage, because it is misleading to include ALL of this as a critique of "primogeniture." (In fact, taken as a whole, the quotation is a strong critique of property as a natural rather than a positive right.) AnarchyeL 16:19, 13 March, 2006

It's better to add than substract. Add a new subsection on promoting yeoman farm ideal. Rjensen 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried to clean up this article at bit with this edit. It still needs work, though. I tried to trim down the opening section, which was too long, and arranged the biographical info more logically, and also added a "personal life" section with subsections. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How about fixing the intro? It is way too busy as it stands now. I don't think that a blanket list of things Jefferson was or was interested in is necessary in the first paragraph of the article. Such things can go under "interests" or "personal life" sections. For example, Jefferson's importance does not stem from the fact that he was a revolutionary landowner interested in horticulture, archaeology, etc. As I see it, stating he was (1) President, (2) Vice President, (3) Secretary of State, (4) author of the Declaration of Independence, and (5) founder of the University of Virginia should suffice for the opening paragraph. The second and third paragraphs of the intro are fine as they are. Any thoughts? -Parallel or Together ? 08:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Suggested changes, with additions in bold and substractions:
Thomas Jefferson (13 April (2 April Old Style), 1743 – 4 July 1826) was the third (1801–1809) US President of the United States , one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. He was the second (1797–1801) Vice President, first (1789–1795) United States Secretary of State, and an American statesman, ambassador to France, political philosopher, revolutionary, agriculturalist, horticulturist, land owner, architect, etymologist, archaeologist, mathematician, surveyor, paleontologist, author, inventor, lawyer and founder of the University of Virginia.
Obviously the part about the Declaration of Independence would have to be taken out of the second paragraph. -Parallel or Together ? 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest he is even more important as a theorist for democracy and for republicanism. That has made him one of the most important world leaders of last 1000 years and should get top billing. Rjensen 09:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, maybe it is a bit busy, but it is important to show how much of a Renaissance Man he really was. He wasn't just a politician, so we can't just mention his political accomplishments and offices. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with JW1805. I think it is important that we portray Jefferson as the "Renaissance Man" that he was. It is important for people to know this and also important for people to understand his various contributions and interests.Oktemplar 00:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying we take out the things about him being a Renaissance man or theorist for democracy and republicanism. However, as it stands now, the first paragraph is one sentence long and takes up 5 lines. It is just a list of Jefferson's interests. My contention is that it would be better to spend the first paragraph mentioning those things for which he was most well-known. I realize that he had many interests and was a political philosopher, but people don't really go around saying "Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson." The information about his political philosophy is better left to the second paragrah and his Rennaisance man nature to the third. This is, in fact, more or less how the article already mentions it, just minus that laundry list to start. How about this suggestions (minus links):
Thomas Jefferson (13 April (2 April Old Style), 1743 – 4 July 1826) was the third (1801–1809) President and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was the second (1797–1801) Vice President, first (1789–1795) United States Secretary of State, an American statesman, ambassador to France, author of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the University of Virginia.
A believer in republicanism, liberalism, and liberty, Jefferson was one of the most influential political thinkers in world history. In addition to the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), which later served as the basis for the Religion Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson was also the founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated American politics for over a quarter-century.
Many people consider Jefferson to be among the most brilliant men ever to occupy the Presidency. President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962, saying, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Jefferson was a Rennaissance man whose various activities included political philosopher, revolutionary, agriculturalist, horticulturist, architect, etymologist, archaeologist, mathematician, surveyor, paleontologist, author, inventor, and lawyer.
Jefferson's portrait appears on the U.S. $2 bill and the U.S. five cent piece, or nickel. Jefferson also appears on the $100 Series EE Savings Bond.
How about it? Did I miss anything or take away something important? -Parallel or Together ? 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is fine.....although the current opening section is total crap, and contains some broad generalizations, and badly written sentences. I think I will rvt it to be closer to the version above. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum.... Putting Governor of VA & a bunch of other mind-numbing stuff before DoI? LA purchase is the bigger deal than Lewis & Clark - which is less TJ's accomplishment than theirs. For "see talk" am I supposed to repond to your sparse "total crap" statement or to your broad statment about "broad statments and badly written sentences"? Before I got there, they were not even sentences --JimWae 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Many people think the $2 bill is phony - that, the nickel, and some bond are not the stuff that makes good lead sections - nor are mind-numbing lists of accomplishments without context--JimWae 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting in the lead that he turned to Federalism, that his presidency was something of a bust - perhaps even mentioning his resignation from cabinet - might catch people's interest enough to get them to read on.

A few of the problems I was trying to correct:

  • There were two mentions of the First Amendment, which Jefferson didn't have anything to do with. It's enough to say that he believed in separation of church and state.
  • "completing the Louisiana Purchase" - "completing" is unnecessary word, and confusing. Makes it sound like somebody else started it.
  • "A man of the Enlightenment" - I thought that was sort of ill-defined....but don't have a major problem with it really. I replaced with "a political philosopher".
  • "was one of the two or three most influential..." - "two or three" unnecessary. "One of the...most" imples that he was up there at the top.
  • I didn't like the "Additionally...." last paragraph where political offices were tacked on to personal hobbies.
  • "the last being one of three things he had put on his tombstone, none of which were being president." is a badly worded sentence.

The way I tried to organize the three paragraphs are:

  1. Broad statement about his influence, and major political offices held.
  2. Political philosophy and writings.
  3. General brilliance, and other interest.

To address your points:

  • I don't have a big problem with moving the currency referernces. But it should be included.
  • Lewis and Clark was a major event of his Presidency, and it was his idea.
  • I don't think putting details about quitting the cabinet, etc. is necessary for the opening.
  • I don't think the lists are mind-numbing. Jefferson is famous for his wide-range of interests. Not just for being a politician, or author of the DoI.

But, I would agree that it still needs work. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree mentioning 1st amendment twice was a problem & would have edited it myself. But why would I bother when you had already "announced" you were going to revert me? Now it's not mentioned at all. He was not just FOR separation of church & state, he DID something about it in 2 ways - he held out for a Bill of Rights - and his writings influenced including non-establishment clause in there
      • The current version says he "promoted" separation of church and state. I think thats fine for the opening section, without added details about the first amendment, the wall of separation, etc. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • ok, he "carried out" the LA Purchase - I still do not think having Lewis & Clark explore it is one of HIS big accomplishments, though this is less a problem than others
      • Well, it was an accomplishment "of his presidency". The LA Purchase and L&C are the two things people most remember about his term in office. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "man of enlightenment" was a leftover - not mine
    • same for "one of 2 or 3"
    • the list is VERY mind-numbing - and should be moved to body or at least further down in lead. There are too many links in lead - it would help to eliminate links to solitary years, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting
      • As long as there is some mention of his wide range of interests. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • there needs to be some mention that not everything about his terms in office was "peachy"
      • That's probably OK, but I don't think a lot of details in the opening are necessary. Best left to the Presidency section. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Presidency & DoI need top billing. (I think every other president article has HIGHEST office listed first, not buried inside a bunch of links.) After that, Founding Father, separation of church & state, LA Purchase.
      • Unlike most other Presidents, Jefferson is not most well-known for being President. That being said, I could live with something like "TJ was the third President, author of the DOI, and one of the most influential FF of the US" as an opening sentence. Although I do like having the DoI and the Virginia Statue in the same sentence, since these go together as the two most influential documents he was responsible for. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • --JimWae 19:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I say Be Bold! Feel free to change everything I've done! --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Jefferson Important?

Jefferson is not important because he was president #3. (He is vastly more important than president #2). Instead it's his political principles that reshaped the USA and indeed most of the world. We should lead off with that. Rjensen 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It was his sources that did any reshaping in the rest of the world. In which other countries is he supposed to have great influence, and how? --JimWae 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Shootermcgavin7 Do you mind sharing why he was "vastly more important" than Adams? Personally I think you're vastly overlooking Adams' contributions to our society. Thanks in advance -- 1:20 13 April 2006


The idea that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was a stunning statement. It was immediately important in the French Revolution, in most countries of Europe, and was the inspiration for independence in Latin America c. 1820. Those folks did not read Locke, they read Jefferson. More important, they saw in real life that a colony COULD declare independence and set up a real republican government based on the sovereignty of the people. Previous writers (Locke, Montesque, Hobbes etc) had never even speculated this might be possible but TJ (and Washington) proved it could be done. To this day republicanism in places like Canada and Australia represent a revolt against George III's descendant. How influential do you want? It's hard to name, say, two Frenchmen of equal importance, or two Russians, or Chinese or Indian, etc... Rjensen 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Somebody's removed the sources section from the article, so I'll have to dig that up. The French Revolution was based on much more than the US DoI - people in Europe actually read Locke too - even the French guys. I'll find the name of the French author TJ got some of his ideas from too. I cannot find any section in the article that states TJ wrote books that were widely read in Europe. The notion that the DoI electrified Europe is a pleasant fiction, though it - and the success of the entire American revolt (for which TJ never took full credit) - did have some influence. --JimWae 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson indeed read voraciously. But the key point is that he is the first in history to show in real life actuality (not just in a book) that: 1) a colony can revolt and 2) it can form a government based on the will of the people. THAT was entirely new and is the basis of most democratic movements ever since. That is pitting the ideas into practice, something not done by any of the other great thinkers. (Locke set up a very strange government for North Carolina that was never adopted.) So that makes Jefferson one of the greatest political figures in world history, and more important in 2005 than ever before. The article should point this out. Rjensen 06:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • TJ was not solely responsible for the revolt, which had already begun when he wrote DoI. He was not part of the Articles of Confederation convention, nor the Constitutional one (which did not "show" that the US could work until perhaps after the Civil War). TJ himself seems uncomfortable in gov't. There's far more support for statements showing the US was an example to the world than that TJ was. The article is becoming a puff piece - its first statement "tells us" that he was influential instead of showing us, and then presents a laundry list with 1> details with little context, and 2> ill-defined isms he is supposedly responsible for. --JimWae 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson was more important than anyone else (save Washington and Franklin)in creating and defining the new nation. He was already one of the 2 or 3 most important proponents of independence before the Declaration (which oc ourse is why they had him write it). Do historians give TJ the lion's share of the credit for creating America? yes they certainly do--there really is no debate on the issue. But it did not stop in 1776, he was just getting started. Rjensen 07:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson's Place in History

Interview with George Will

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Will.htm George Will is a syndicated columnist, best-selling author, and ABC News analyst. His recent political books include The Leveling Wind, Restoration, and Statecraft As Soulcraft.

 Q How important is Thomas Jefferson?

He’s important to the United States because he defined our creed and we are a credal nation. He’s important to the world because he cast the American truths as universal truths. When the Soviet empire collapsed and Eastern Europe rose, you had, in effect, a second European Reformation—but no charismatic leader. No Martin Luther. Instead, you had the rhetoric supplied by the third and the sixteenth presidents of the United States. And the sixteenth, Abraham Lincoln, was always candid about his intellectual pedigree, which ran straight back to Jefferson. “The story of this millennium is the gradual expansion of freedom and the expanding inclusion of variously excluded groups.”

 Q What do you think about Jefferson’s place in the world?

Jefferson was, I think, the man of this millennium. The story of this millennium is the gradual expansion of freedom and the expanding inclusion of variously excluded groups. He exemplified in his life what a free person ought to look like—that is, someone restless and questing through a long life under the rigorous discipline of freedom. Freedom’s not the absence of rigor; it’s the absence of restraints imposed by others. But it also, if it’s going to be successful, it is going to be lived the way Jefferson lived it, this life of freedom—under severe restraints imposed on yourself. The severe restraints of scholarship and learning and the quest to get better and better—which Jefferson kept up right to the end. He also had a great sense of the perilous equipoise of a free society. You could put it in Shakespeare’s language: Shakespeare said, “Take but degree away, untune that string and hark what discord follows.“ Jefferson understood that you had to have an educated population living in certain kinds of circumstances, under certain kinds of institutions, with certain assumptions and beliefs. Take any of them away and hark what discord follows." Rjensen 07:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Decisive impact on Latin America

Historians of Latin America attribute decisive impact to the American example. See a standard scholarly source Rjensen 09:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy quote

The quote in question: "Many people consider him to be among the most brilliant men ever to occupy the Presidency. President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962, saying, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."" has been in the opening section for a while now. I think it's a good quote to include, it's well known, and is a nice concluding sentence to the paragraph describing Jefferson's general brilliance and wide-ranging interests. It it being deleted by Rjensen (talk · contribs), but I think it should stay. Anybody agree or disagree? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote is accurate but is misleading. It was an offhand comment Kennedy used to flatter his guests -- that is THEY were like Jefferson. Kennedy himself did not know much about TJ. The quote simply does not say anything about TJ and therefore should be considered trivia. Was Jefferson "smart" like a Nobel prize winning scientist? No; I suggest Kennedy's characterization was incorrect. It's obvious TJ was "smart" but he was a dilettante who dabbled in a hundred different scientific projects, none of which amounted to much. Franklin was MUCH more like a Nobel prize winner. He spent years systematically studying electricity and really did make major discoveries. Gallatin spent years studying Indian languages and founded the field--he was much more likely to get a Nobel Proze than TJ. Give TJ a peace prize! So why do we have this quote? Dining alone, by the way, is the opposite of scientific conversation. That's what philosophers do and TJ's greatest contributions were in political philosophy--though again, it came in snippets 500 words here and 500 words there, rather than in any sustained effort. Rjensen 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with JW1805 that the quote should remain in the article. It is a well-known quote and adds some color to the article. It is also a nice conclusion to the discussion of Jefferson's brilliance and wide-ranging interest, and also shows that he is well-known and revered for this intelligence. The quote reinterates that TJ was the United States' most brilliant President -- Franklin was never President, in fact he died long before the White House was built. I don't see Rjensen's point. -Parallel or Together? 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Rjensen's changes (here), as there is (1) no consensus for them, (2) seems to disparage Jefferson, and (3) adds an unneeded comparison to Benjamin Franklin in the intro. -Parallel or Together? 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


The quote misrepresents TJ into someone who resembles a Nobel Pize winning scientist. That was not Kennedy's meaning (he was fglattering his guests) but it gives readers the wrong message. I think TJ was one of the 3 or 4 most important leaders in last 500 years because of the contents of his political ideas...not because he was a dilettante. Rjensen 00:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote only mentions talent and human knowledge. It doesn't mention anything about scientific achievement (on Jefferson's part) and instead just demonstrates that Jefferson is considered to be one of the most brilliant Presidents. I think the average reader is intelligent enough to see the quote as one President praising another - you don't need to qualify that JFK "had no idea what he was talking about" - in other words, inserting your own opinion. -Parallel or Together? 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The quote should stay.....and I agree with reverting Rjensen's statements, which are a bit POV and/or unnecessary. The explanation that "Kennedy knew little about Jefferson" is an odd thing to say.....what are you implying? That Kennedy didn't know basic facts about Thomas Jefferson, and wasn't aware that he is known as one of the most brilliant Presidents? The quote is about "talent and knowledge", not about TJ making Nobel-prize worthy discoveries. And of course, this isn't an article about Benjamin Franklin, so that was a bit off the wall too. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Newsflash: Benjamin Franklin was never president. Newsflash #2: Very few presidents were brilliant men, so the bar is set quite low. Newsflash #3: It is obvious that the quote was an attempt to flatter Kennedy's guests, but it is a charming and memorable quote. - JP

Part of article which needs to be cleared up.

In religious views it says Jefferson "refused" to support a national prayer day yet he openly participated in one. Can someone please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJstroker (talk • contribs)

TJ & Religion is important

Jefferson's views on religion are quite important. Instead of splitting them up I think the discussion will have more impact if pulled together in one place. (Otherwise a reader will miss key point buried elsewhere) Rjensen 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Prayer for a Nation

That prayer has shown up in the article AGAIN - some people need to check things more before posting their "proofs" - maybe at leasst check the archives? 1805 March 4 was the date of his 2nd Inauguration. The quoted prayer from that date does NOT appear in his address. The prayer is from the Book of Common Prayer - except for one word being changed [5][6] Most likely it was read at his inauguration by someone else. I am deleting it AGAIN --JimWae 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

anarchism

I've read that Jefferson was called an anarchist by some of his detractors. But, I haven't been able to find any sources that contain the actual claims. Anyone have any info? RJII 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

from Schachner biography of Jefferson p 603: (1798)
"The French, too, were quitting Philadelphia by the shipload, he wrote to his son-in-law. Volney, whom Jefferson believed to be the chief object of the Alien Bill, was preparing to depart. "It suffices for a man to be a philosopher," he [TJ] exclaimed bitterly, "and to believe that human affairs are susceptible of improvement, & to look forward, rather than back to the Gothic ages, for perfection, to mark him as an anarchist, disorganizer, atheist & enemy of the government." Jefferson was thinking of himself as well as of the soon to be proscribed Volney. For all of these epithets had been applied to him in the past, and were to increase in volume in the future. Rjensen 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Who is speaking there? Jefferson or Volney? RJII 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
that is Jefferson writing to his son in law.Rjensen 22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)##

Democratic-Republican or Republican party?

The consensus among historians in 2006 is strong for using "Republican Party" That's what Jefferson, Madison and everyone else called it at the time. "Democratic-Republican Party" was in occasional use but not very often. It gets mixed up with the "Democratic Republican" clubs of 1793, which were not part of the party. Jefferson never used "D-R" to describe his party; the term was popular among historians in 1930s - 1980s but has faded away since the new studies of Republicanism have made Republicanism the central theme of the era. Will some readers think he founded the GOP? Not if they read Wiki. See the discussion by many hhistorians on H-SHEAR in January 2006 at January 2006 Logs Rjensen 07:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on H-SHEAR and the issue didn't seem at all settled to me. I read arguments from both sides and didn't really see a consensus. I also read your comment, and followed your advice there to check out the D-R page and the D-R talk page, where I see you have put in that in 2006 the preferred name is Republican Party, although you didn't cite there. I promise to investigate the matter myself a little further, but I don't agree with the unilateral move on your part to change it to "Republican Party" (which indeed will confuse some readers - this wikipedia is meant for all speakers of English, not just college/high school graduates, Americans, etc.). I'm changing it back for now so that we can have some more discussion of the matter. -Parallel or Together? 07:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The main reason to use "Republican party" is that's what the people of the time usually called it; the D-R usage was rare. As for confusing people, all we have to do is add a phrase "not to be confused with the modern Republican party or GOP, which was founded in 1854." Doesn't that solve all problems? THE D-R designation does not really help anyone understand the 1790s+ period, and so as a service to readers we should say "sometimes called the D-R party in older books". A search through google.books show only a few uses by historians since 2000. Rjensen 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
After doing a little more reading, it seems that the term "Republican", usually with some kind of qualifier like "Jeffersonian", is most prevalant now. So, in essense, I agree with you; however, I think the use in wikipedia should reflect the following concerns:
  1. Many other resources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, still use "Democratic-Republicans". The use on this page should help wean readers away from that usage, not completely abandon it.
  2. Jeffersonian Republicans (or just "Republicans" prior to the so-called Second Party System) are claimed as the political "ancestors" of the modern day Democratic Party, much like modern day Republican Party claims Lincoln's Republicans as political "ancestors". However, there is contention about both of these claims, as the "genealogy" for both parties claims is hardly a straight line.
  3. People without extensive background in Early American History or American Political History will get confused by 1800 Republican equally 2000 Republican.
Calling them "Jeffersonian Republicans" doesn't seem to me to be any better since once again that is not what they would have been called back in Jefferson's day. What do you think is a good change? -Parallel or Together? 08:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Jeffersonian Republicans" has the same problem. I suggest 1) call them Republicans. 2) add sentence that they are often called "D-R" in history books, but did not call themselves that. 3) add sentence that they should be distinguished from Republican Party of 1854-present. That will add information and REMOVE confusions people may have. do you agree? Rjensen 09:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about changing the following sentence:
He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated American politics for over a quarter-century.
to:
He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the founder and leader of the Republicans, (sometimes referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans to avoid confusion with the modern day Republican Party), the dominant American political party for over a quarter-century.
I don't know if really flows all that well, but I think it kills all three birds with one stone. I hesitate to put "Republican Party" because this more clearly draws a false line of descent to the modern Republican Party and creates the concept of a modern day "political party" in the 1800s. Do you agree? Also, do you mind if I change the wording on the D-R page to reflect this? Namely, remove the "as of 2006" part and instead simply say that there is a current trend to use "Republican" to reflect the terminology of the day. What do you think? -Parallel or Together? 11:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent solution! will you make the changes or should I?Rjensen 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Just did it, and will go to the Democratic-Republican Party page and make the change there and point users of that talk page to this discussion. -Parallel or Together? 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
nice job!Rjensen 12:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, I reverted your changes to the opening before realizing that it was being discussed here. Anyway, I disagree with your version. I think it is just too verbose. The opening is too long as it is without adding extra sentences explaining the different names of political parties. I don't see the problem with using "Democratic-Republican". If people want to know what that is, they can just click the link, or read the rest of the article.--JW1805 (Talk) 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
the problem with "Democratic-Republican" is that the name is obsolete and misleading. Wiki can do better. Good point about verbosity...I'll try my hand at it. Rjensen 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is neither obsolete or misleading. I can think of nothing more misleading than saying that Thomas Jefferson was the first Republican President! Democratic-Republican Party (United States) is the name of the Wikipedia article about the party in question. That is the term that should be used in other articles. Disamb about the name of the modern-day Republican party should be located there, not in every article where that party is mentioned. That is just a recipe for confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Jefferson said he was the first Republican president. He almost always used the term "Republican" to describe his party. The article clearly says it's different from modern GOP. So who will be confused? What will the confusion be? And why should Wiki be locked into an obsolescent term? Over 90% of the historians writing on the subject in last 5 or 10 years have used "Republican" -- most recently Wilentz (2005) and Gary Wills on Henry Adams (2005). Rjensen 05:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just part of the ongoing war right now between historical revisionists and those who want to go for historical accuracy. Both political parties would love to point to Jefferson in their own history, because it scores points for their side. And the truth is that both parties can. That's why I added 'original' to Republican instead of changing it. Maybe we should just be up front and put in a disclaimer in the text about the academic debate and establish a policy about how we're going to make the reference to the D-R party, then defend it. I wouldn't mind seeing the Republican name used if he used it, I just want it clear that it was in the late 1700's, not 2006. Chadlupkes 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There, how's that? I put both in there, and made it clear which article the link jumps to, as well as how he referred to it. Does that work? Chadlupkes 06:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I don't see "both" in there. I disagree that there is a debate between "historical revisionists and those who want to go for historical accuracy." Maybe you should name some people in each camp. Rjensen 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
"Jefferson and James Madison founded and led the original Democratic-Republican Party, although he referred to it as the "Republican Party" at the time." And the war is between the parties themselves. Depending on who you talk to, the other side is the side trying to change history. Chadlupkes 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Republican Party was formed in 1854. That cannot be refuted. Even the Republican Party itself says so. Kingturtle 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed. of course it thought of itself as the heir of Jefferson. The question is why Wiki should change the name TJ gave his own party? Rjensen 07:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Not change, just clarify the difference between the Republican Party of the 1790's and the Republican Party of 1854. Chadlupkes 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see this article from Encyclopedia Britannica which says that the party officially adopted the title "Democratic-Republican" in 1798. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The EN indeed says that...I think they got it from Lalor's encyclopedia of 1880 that makes the same point. No history book or biography mentions the event. Rjensen 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read every history book and biography? Wow! Anyway, I consider Britannica to be a reputable source of information. And every other encyclopedic source I can find also uses "Democratic-Republican". We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for original research. We have to go with reputable sources. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson as architect

I've just noticed this passage, which, I must say is utter baloney:

Jefferson was an accomplished architect who was extremely influential in bringing the Neo-Classical style he encountered in France to the United States. He felt that it reflected the ideas of republic and democracy where the prevalent British styles represented the monarchy. Jefferson designed his famous home, Monticello, near Charlottesville, Virginia..."

As any book on architecture will tell you, Jefferson's style is essentially a variant of Palladianism, which is an almost entirely British style, and is in no way related to French neo-Classicism (French classical style has distinctive features that are not to be found in Jefferson's work). There have been debates about the extent to which Palladianism was an expression of Whig political values, one of the principal sources of Jeffersonian liberalism, but it is generally accepted that the style was at least strongly associated with Whig grandees in England. So a political meaning may reasonably be ascribed to it, though, of course, the "colonial Georgian" manner was already well established and was not seen as unusual or politically loaded. Paul B 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that this passage completely contradicts what is said in the article on Monticello, and in any case it is an historical absurdity, since France was an absolutist monarchy when Jefferson developed his architectural style, and the most prominent example of French Classicism was the Palace of Versailles - a monument to Absolutism. Paul B 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

added info to Jefferson religious beliefs.

"...[I]t [the Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw." (in a letter to Charles Thomson 9 January 1816)

This quote reinforces the view that Jefferson was heavily against organized religion. It is matter of controversy because it can be interpreted to mean what he says; that he is a "real" Christian. The quote may indicate that he like many others of his time felt that many Christians where hypocrites and corrupted by the institution of the church, and ironically didn't actually follow the principles of the bible. Past experience with the government instituted Church of England can give insight on this viewpoint. This quote may be perceived to mean that Jefferson was a Christian, but it may also substantiate deist philosophies but it is a matter of personal interpretation.


I wrote this to give insight to the quote. This quote is very important so I feel that its good to show all viewpoints. I tried to be as balanced as possible. What do you all think?

JJstroker 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It is NOT the job of editors to tell readers how to interpret facts. Your addition is clearly editorial comment - it is your voice. NPOV means we report POV, we do not present our own POV or our own interpretations - nor do we present material and then say "it is a matter of personal interpretaion" - - personal views do not belong in the encyclopedia. Please review NPOV. We do not present POV, though we may report on it.
  • "heavily against" & "didn't" are too informal - but that does not matter - the sentences are also filled with weasel words "can be interpreted" "may indicate" "ironically didn't actually" "can give insight" "may be perceived to mean" "may also substantiate" see: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
  • I think you will find the style you are using more welcome at wikiChristian - but even there they must have some limitations on editorial comment --JimWae 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
And I can find your writing at wikideist.org. First of all I dont want to state Jefferson being a Christian as a fact, because it is open to personal interpretation. (Just like him being a deist) That needs to be explained in the article. That is why I put "weasel words" because it is open to personal interpretation as I have stated. I was sure not to state it as a fact because I am explaining the viewpoint that he is also seen as a Christian which is very legitimate. I feel that it establishes equilibrium and shows both viewpoints. I dont see the problem then other trying to eliminate the alternative view. At the end it says this can also reinforce deist philosophies but him being a Christian is open to personal interpretation. The article is already biased as it is and if we left my edits in the article would still slant towards deism. Many people think that Jefferson was a Christian and refer to this quote so I feel that it is important to show the popular viewpoints from both sides.

PS- I cant help but get the impression that you are contradicting your own argument. The article states that Jefferson was "widely regarded" to be a diest. This is not a statement of fact but opinion. Yet I try to show the alternate opinion and it is not allowed. Do you see the irony?JJstroker 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I note again your words above "I am explaining the viewpoint.." Please read NPOV We do not put in what WE need to explain --JimWae 05:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you say "please finish discussion" when I was the last one to comment here? - and then simply put in the same rubbish again. --JimWae 05:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Like explaining the viewpoint of Jefferson being a deist is not in the article? I am trying to establish equilibruim and show the alternative viewpoint which many people have. If Jefferson was 100 percent a deist without a doubt I wouldnt say anything but it is a matter of personal opinion as the article even states. "It is widely regarded that Jefferson was a deist" Widely regarded is not a fact but a viewpoint. The article goes on to explain why he is regarded to be a diest. He is also "regarded" to be a Christian. The article is doing exactly what you are telling me not to do. Do you see the contradiction? The fact of the matter is that it can not be substantiated that Jefferson was a deist or a Christian therefore both views need to be explained. Explaining viewpoints is not against wiki policy if it is relevant, and in this case it is.

PS- Yes I am explaining the viewpoint, that is speaking on behalf of others just like every single other wiki editor. JJstroker 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • No, you are presenting your own POV, not reporting on POV. You could not have ever read and understood NPOV. That TJ was opposed to clergy is obvious from the rest of the section - and is not in contention. Also not in contention is that, though he revered Jesus, he did not hold Jesus to be God. Even suggesting that he was a Xian (as commonly understood by that term) is misleading -- especially without a single source. --JimWae 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am representing the POV of many people. I really felt that I conformed to the NPOV policy. That is I didn’t state that TJ was a Christian nor did I say the quote indicated that he was not a deist. The edit I made was in context with the article by explaining both viewpoints fairly. If I didn’t conform to the NPOV policy I would have said “This indicates TJ was a Christian” and left the deist part out, also I wouldn’t have said it is open to personal interpretation. I didn’t state anything as a fact or lead people to think one way. I merely showed both viewpoints.

The Jefferson bible does indicate that Jefferson was a deist, although it can not be 100 percent substantiated. At the end of the day it comes down to speculation and people are still in debate; this will not change. Therefore both sides need to be explained because Jefferson being a deist is not 100 percent certain. The article does explain the viewpoint of Jefferson being a deist but leaves the alternative viewpoint out. I am not trying to unfairly push views in the article; I am really just trying to make it as fair as possible. Who wants to have a viewpoint shoved down their throat? I know I don’t. I feel that I was very fair in the way I wrote it and conformed to the NPOV policy. It wont hurt to show the alternate view that many people have. People can decide for themselves to whether or not he was a deist, which should be the goal of the editors. Although I feel some people are trying to lead the reader down a certain path. But at the end of the day facts will speak for themselves. Even Jefferson himself said that "Americans will always make the right choices if they are given -all- the facts" If my edits where left in and Jefferson was really a deist the truth will come out. In other words you have nothing to worry about.

JJstroker 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


  • NPOV - since you apparently have never read it, does not say only that POVs need to be balanced. It also says that POVs are not to be presented as editorial comment. You also need to read WP:NOR. I seem to be wasting my time with you. --JimWae 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Jim, I respect your opinion because you do good work. I am impressed with how you get information. But in this case I have to stress that I am not putting editorial comment. If I am putting editorial comment, the line in the article "Jefferson was widely regarded to be a deist" should be removed. How is that not a POV?

If the line where to say "Jefferson was a deist" and it was 100 percent factual, I wouldn’t add anything else. It would be the end of discussion. But this is a viewpoint and in order to conform to the NPOV policy we have to show the alternative view. Yes it is a viewpoint in a sense but it is appropriate to explain both viewpoints in this article because there isn’t 100 percent factual evidence to see if Jefferson was deist. Yes, information does indicate that he was but it was not 100 percent certain therefore it is a viewpoint. If we are going to have viewpoints on wikipedia it needs to show the alternative view. I hope you understand what I am saying. I really am just trying to make the article more accurate and I feel that I did a pretty good job at showing both views.

I actually agree now after looking over the quote for the paragraph commentary. The part I dont agree with is the first sentence where you added the citation. I hope we can work this out.

JJstroker 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


PS- Woah im sorry that paragraph really was pretty bad. It reaked with commentary. I just realized sry you where right. Sry for the mixup.

JJstroker 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well - glad we finally worked that out - and thanks for having the courage to admit an error --JimWae 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

July 4th

The article stated, "Jefferson died on the Fourth of July, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence...". The 50th anniversary of the SIGNING would have been August 2, 1826, the 50th anniversary of its ADOPTION would have been July 4, 1826, so I changed it. I don't think it's necessary to get into the whole thing on the TJ page. MusicMaker5376 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

don't blank correct information

Jefferson was famous for creating a party so that has to be in the article. He was famous for attacking the judiciary so that belongs as well. GRIOT has actually added nothing new to the article he only erases correct information that displeases him. That is not a good way to build Wiki. Rjensen 06:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hofstadter is an extremely controversial historian. Why you do present his views as fact in this article. This is POV. GriotGriot
  • I think it's fine to include information about Jefferson's "purge" of Federalists from the government. It just needs to be written in a NPOV way, and it should specifically focus on Jefferson and his actions. The article is so long as it is, we don't need long essays on all the political maneuverings of the time. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


No real mention of the Kentucky Resolution

I'm a little disappointed I didn't see this discussed in detail (it got a little blurb), as I feel the Kentucky resolution is one of his most important works. M00 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and it mentioned and points to a whole article on the subject. Rjensen 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the "whole article" on the Kentucky Resolution is two paragraphs. What I would want to see on the Jefferson page is a little more about the significance to the politics of that time. M00 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I added some more discussion in the K-V article. Rjensen 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Your changes looks great! M00 08:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Rjensen 08:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

trivia is fun

Trivia is fun. As long as it is in good taste, trivia can help humanize grand figures and make history more lively for all (especially us kids of all ages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 February 2006 UTC

Some trivia is better than others. A good trivia section would focus on stuff that actually interests the reader or clears up common misconceptions. I agree with Rjensen that most of the trivia in that section is useless. I do like the Jefferson, Adams, and Declaration of Independence bullet. I have added a bullet about one of the most famous of Jefferson's quotes that really isn't from Jefferson. - JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.16.98 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 February 2006 UTC
Also, I suggest moving the THOMAS trivia to the Library of Congress mention in the Interests and Activities section. So, that paragraph of the Interests and Activities section would read, "After the British burned Washington and the Library of Congress in August 1814, Jefferson offered his own collection to the nation. In January 1815, Congress accepted his offer, appropriating $23,950 for his 6,487 books, and the foundation was laid for a great national library. Today, the Library of Congress' website for federal legislative information is named THOMAS, in honor of Jefferson." - JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.16.98 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 February 2006 UTC
You know what? I just went ahead and did it. I commented out some trivia rather than outright remove it, so it's easy to undo if people don't like my change. Hopefully this will be a happy compromise between Rjensen and others. It's better to remove part than have a fight over the whole thing. The THOMAS sentence has been moved to the LOC mention in Interests and Activities. - JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.105.208 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2006 UTC
well it looks a lot better now. (The trivia I cut out mentioned that a certain student project was named "Tommy" after TJ, and that one state included TJ on President's day. :) Rjensen 11:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
What's with this DARPA Challege Team trivia? I really don't see why naming something after Jefferson deserves to be in the encyclopedia article. Many, many things have been named after Jefferson over the last 200+ years. - JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.14 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2006 UTC
The DARPA thing did get national news coverage. It doesn't do any harm to include a reference here. It is "trivia" after all. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
But it really doesn't have anything to do with Thomas Jefferson, except the name. The trivia should be about Thomas Jefferson, the man, not stuff named after him that has nothing to do with him. - JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.17 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2006 UTC
Sorry, JW, I know you're going to hate me for this but I removed the "tommy" trivia, again. I just don't think it has anything to do with Thomas Jefferson, the man. I like his portrait on the nickel that you posted. Got any $2 bill portraits you can post? - JP 71.252.53.167 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree with JP. Anyone have details about the many portraits of TJ?? Rjensen 10:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Slave Ownership

To whoever keeps inserting that Jefferson inherited slaves "from his wife at her death" -- that is incorrect. Please see his Farm Book, p. 7, where Jefferson wrote in his own hand "A Roll of the slaves of John Wayles which were allotted to T.J. in right of his wife on a division of the estate Jan. 14 1774." TJ inherited slaves from the estate of his father-in-law; his wife was very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.91.212 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 February 2006 UTC

Please note that the correct # of slaves TJ owned in his lifetime is a little over 600, NOT 650. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.50.115 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 March 2006 UTC

Smallpox and introduction of vaccination to USA

Jefferson corresponded with Edward Jenner[7], congratulating him on formalising vaccination, and in concert with Dr Benjamin Waterhouse - one of the founders of the Harvard medical school, took an interest in the problems of transport of vaccine material in th eheat of the southern states. I don't know whether this is sufficiently significant to add here, but I suppose of the religion section was a line or so shorter, this might be a line that could be added. Midgley 16:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Bible

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Jefferson Bible that could benefit from the input of other editors who are familar with the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. BlankVerse 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

TJ and religious views

It really sways across POV. He is generally regarded to be a diest? By who? What gives one group more credibility then the other? It is a matter of opinion and both sides should be explained and let the reader decide for themselves. It really can't be proven if he was a Christian or Deist because he was private in these matters. You have many sides which show both viewpoints. It really comes down to a viewpoint and this is against wikipolicy. Jerry Jones 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

difference of opinion? maybe not. The one reference cited in the article that TJ was a Christian in fact says he was NOT a Christian. I think all his biographers call him a deist--is there one who disagrees? Peterson sums up his beliefs: [pp 50-51] : "It was the stage that established two main propositions for enlightened men. First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground. " Rjensen 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference I posted implies that he was a Christian through historical information just like the diest cititation does. At the end of the day it comes down to personal interpretation for both sides. Many biographers and historians say he was a Christian while others say he was a deist. In fact he is officially listed as an Escopalian by most historical sources but it wasn't until recentley where the debate about his faith started to be challenged. It is debatable and will not change therefore we can't label him a Christian or Deist considering he was very private in these matters. My goal is not to say that he was a Christian but present both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Even that is being generous. Also Peterson doesn't really have the authority to by the sole person to decide whether or not Jefferson was a Christian or not. Please talk to me if you want to make a change so we can both come to an agreement.

Thanks, Jerry Jones 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is right. Jefferson was very clearly a deist, not a Christian. He took scissors to the Bible, cutting out the parts he couldn't take seriously!
We can't give undue weight to those who would posthumously convert him. I'm restoring the text. If you disagree, come back here and get some consensus in support of your change BEFORE making it, not after. Alienus 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
He was clearly a Deist to whom? You? He is clearly a Christian to others. This is a viewpoint and not accurate. Even the main page says he was considered by "most" historians to be a Deist. I hate to break it to you but you can't always go with the view of historians considering anyone can be one. Historians are not immune to political agendas. Secondly he condensed the Jefferson Bible for the Indians and this is actually being heavily discussed in the jefferson bible page. My goal is not to say that he was a Christian or a deist, but to merely show both viewpoints and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Both sides have presented information which suggests he was a Deist/Christian and they both need to be displayed. He is officially listed as a Escopalian in many sources and it wasnt until recently where deism has been taking a hold on this topic. The article is clearly POV and needs to be change to show both viewpoints equally. Jerry Jones 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Jerry Joines wants to add a link to [8] in which minister James Kennedy clearly states: "Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian".

Is there anyone who says Jefferson was a genuine Christian?? Can anybody be a historian? Yes in the sense that anyone can be a heavyweight boxer--it's a matter of whether you can punch--and take the punches. :) Rjensen 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Like positive atheist is a more legitimate source? I put that link because I felt that it summarized the viewpoint very well but I can put others if you would like that match up more with the deist provided link. My changes will establish equilibruim and it will not say that Jefferson was a Christian. This article is a POV violation and should add a banner that the factual accuracy of the religious views is debated. You are putting your opinion into the article and this is against wikipolicy. Jerry Jones 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Jones seems to be saying that Jefferson was really and truly a Christian. He needs to show some serious sources that make that claim--the one he did provide says the opposite. Rjensen 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Rjensen. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to say he was a Christian. I am merely trying to show the legitimate alternative viewpoint that many people have and needs to be explained. TJ can't be labeled a deist or a Christian. It is simply a viewpoint and there is not enouch evidence for it to be 100 percent documented for both sides. Please do not remove my edits. I am just trying to make the article balanced. If you feel that there is info that may suggest TJ was a deist add it but just dont say he was a deist because that is a personal POV. Jerry Jones 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
TJ wrote many thousands of words on religion and historians classify him, without much disagreement, as a deist. If TJ wanted to keep his views secret he did a very poor job of it. If there is a consensus among scholars--and there is--then Wiki goes with that. Rjensen 05:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of you please show me 100 percent accurate verifiable information of Thomas Jefferson saying that "Yes, I am a deist" and I will shut up. But it simply doesnt exist therefore you cant say that he was. How would you know that he was a deist? It is personal interpretation from events which can not be presented as a fact as the wiki article does. You can not say that he was 100 percent a deist as a fact. This is clearly in violation of wiki policy and false information. There are many other events and writings which clearly suggest he was a Christian.

Rjenson - Many historians believe also believe that he was a Christian. Secondly writing on religion doesnt automatically classify your point. Nearly all of his writings can be refuted to show Christian influence. Bottom line we cant post it as a fact because it is debatable and unknown. TJ talked a lot about religion but he was private when it came to showing his own religious beliefs. Jerry Jones 05:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that "many historians" believe he was a Christian. I do not know a single historian who says that--reference please! TJ talked edlessly about religion--even putting deist terminology in state documents like the Declaration of Independence. Rjensen 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree TJ did talk endlessly about religion but he still did not disclose his own religion once and for all. If anything the closest thing he came to it is saying that he was a true Christian by following the principles of the bible as stated in the article. There are some legitimate Deist concerns such as what you mentioned which should be added to the article. I dont have a problem with that. But there are many concerns which would suggest he was a Christian which should also be added. As for the historian question even the article states that "Most" or the "Majority" of historians agree (Not All). Can you please provide -facts- for me proving the Thomas Jefferson was a Deist that is irrefutable and lacking personal interpretation? If not I believe my edits should stand. My point is it can not be proven that he was a Deist therefore it cant be stated that he was one -Because afterall it comes down to personal interpretation. Wikipolicy clearly states information must be factual accurate verifiable information and NO personal interpretation. Jerry Jones 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You're asking for original research. (not allowed in Wiki) Wiki reports the consensus of scholars which is that he was a deist and not a Christian. that is a verifiable fact and is reported. Maybe he was a really secret Buddhist--how could anyone disprove that? Should Wiki mention that possibility? Try this: name a few prominent Christian leaders who say he was a genuine Christian. TJ wrote that he rejected Jesus as God or saviour; he rejected miracles; he rejected the gospels as authentic. he thought Jesus had some good ethical ideas. Rjensen 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide a citation for consensus of scholars. Even the article states that it is not 100 percent agreed upon and a substantial number of scholars still say that he was a Christian. Majority rule is not always correct. Many Christian leaders say he was a Christian that is why I feel the viewpoint should be explained. As for the gospels it was a condensed version for the Indians and he did not exclude all miracles. I added that in and it was removed. Can you please provide facts that he rejected Jesus as God and saviour?

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

on historians and TJ religion see Peterson, "The Jeffersonian Image" who notes that the Unitarians claimed him as one of their own. also: Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson by Edwin S. Gaustad pp 25-26,91-92,95,105,115,128, 141-43,215-17; Kerry Walters The American Deists (1992); and probably best of all: Charles Sanford The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson (1987) pp 7-9 and 84-91 Rjensen 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, Just because Peterson is a biographer it doesnt give him the sole authority to decide whether or not TJ was Christian or not. Sure Unitarians claim TJ as their own, as do Christians, as do atheists, and as do diests. That doesn't mean anything. I hardly find a few scholars claiming that Jefferson was a deist accurate information. A few scholars does not make it accurate. They have agendas and have to interpret information themselves. The fact is TJ never said that he was a Deist therefore it cant be proven. There is plenty of information that suggests he was a Christian. I do not want to say he was a Christian because it cant be proven. I am not going to say that he was not a deist only show both viewpoints. I dont see what the hang up is. I hardly find positiveatheist and interpretive information from deists credible also.71.131.180.37 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • so, provide a source that says he was Xian that others can assess --JimWae 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What does Xian mean? What do you want me to provide? I only want to say that he is ocnsidered a Christian and a Deist because this is factually accurate. TJ cant be proven to be a deist so it can't be listed as so. I just want to make the article to be fair without a force fed agenda to the reader. The bottom line is TJ being a deist is just a consensus (Which should stay in the article) but it cant be proven 100 percent and other people raise legitimate points that he may have been a Christian. (This is a big view that most people have so it should be explained. Again I will not say he was a Christian just add a sentence saying that others consider him a Christian. My main concern is in the article states that TJ is a deist as a 100 percent undeniable fact which is clearly just not true. It cant be proven and comes down to consensus. 71.131.180.37 05:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Who says TJ was Xian? --JimWae 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hardly anything in any encylopedia can be "proven" to a highly rigid standard - but here we at least need sources - preferably scholarly --JimWae 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please sign in, Jerry - and please connect your signature to your words - do not make it appear as a heading for the next person's --JimWae 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is not a scholarly product it is an enyclopedia that tells people what is the scholarly consensus. If you want definitive proof of something, switch to math and forget history. Rjensen 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok Jim. Thanks for being reasonable, I appreciate it. But I only want to remove that Jefferson was a deist because it is stated as a fact which can not be verified. Wikipolicy clearly states the information has to be verifiable factual information for it to be stated as such.

NPOV says :"Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias."

TJ article is clearly baised in favor towards Deism.

NPOV says:"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

This is exactly what I am advocating. Rjensen is clearly force feeding his views on the article and it is clearly against NPOV. Bottomw line again Rjensen prove to me that TJ was a deist. Show me a fact which proves he was and not interpretive information from scholars. Otherwise you cant state that he was a deist as a fact. You must state that the "viewpoint of scholars believes he was a deist" you cant say "Thomas Jefferson is a diest". If you cant prove it I am changing it. Since you keep strongarming it I am going to call editors, wikipedians against censorship, put a baised disclaimer and enter discussion if you cant prove it. You cant just state a consensus from scholars as a fact.

Btw I am not trying to say he was a Christian I am just trying to establish NPOV because this is clearly innaccurate, biased, misleading information. Also who is Peterson? He didnt even know TJ and his viewpoint shouldn't be stated as authority in the main article of religious views. He is just one biographer who never even met Jefferson! Other biographers have different views his doesn't mean anything.

Jerry Jones 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

the article is not biased toward Deism--that belief has pretty well died out. There is no POV controversy-- Jones has found zero people who say Jefferson was a genuine Christian. All the biographers say he was a deist--see the books listed. (Some people call him a Unitarian Deist in terms of TJ's agreement with Priestly. TJ Said God exists and created the world --and Jesus was not the son of God; the Gospels are not true; there are no miracles; there is no personal God. Maybe Jones will tell us what verifiable sources Jones is using???? Let's name two and start there. Rjensen 07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost everybody says Jefferson is a Christian. Pat Robertson and most Christian groups talk about it all the time and most American people believe it. There are plenty of websites saying Jefferson was a Christian. I will give you a few if you want but its not necessary. I already posted two. Yes, the scholars that you specifically chose say that TJ was a deist while others do not. Scholars can not dictate information they are only people who gather information and make a consensus. All information was not granted to them either. For all we know Jefferson could have wrote letters and said how much he loved Jesus to his friends but they were lost and history doesn't know about it. Even if 100 percent of scholars said that "we believe that Thomas Jefferson was a diest" You still cant say "Thomas Jefferson was a diest" Because it is not proven regardless on how many scholars and biographers feel that way. It is still an opinion. Thomas Jefferson never said "Yes, I am a deist" It is only speculation. As for the Jefferson bible:

http://christianparty.net/tjchristian.htm

Read the monticello letter and he says himself that his writing was a abridgement of Jesus moral philosophy. I tried to add that to the article and it was removed. This is a clear lie by deists to say that his dileberate abridgement of the bible by only including Jesus moral philosophy proves that he was a deist because he cut out miracles. He was only including Jesus moral philosophy! Miracles had nothing to do with Jesus moral philosophy. Does this prove that he was a Christian? No. It does however reinforce the fact that he approved of Jesus's moral philosophy but it still doesnt disapprove that he was not a deist. Whats the big deal? You cant continue to powerblock this.

If I receive my edits, I will not say that he was a Christian or a deist. The reader will be allowed to draw their own conclusions. What do you have to worry about? If he was a deist as you say the truth will come out. The information would just be too big for the reader to ignore. Also please show me verifiable information for your claims. Also can you please show me why that this was written "TJ did not believe in the divinity of Jesus" What info brought this viewpoint? Please provide it so I can review it.

71.131.180.37 08:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Pat Robertson agree with Jefferson about Jesus? -- no heaven or hell for Robertson any more? no Savior, no Redemption, no Resurrection??? Good heavens!! So far we have not been given one credible citation that calls TJ a Christian. So how can there be a controversy when there are zero on the other side? The article clearly states he approved of Jesus's moral philosophy. He also agreed with the Koran, which I suppose should be mentioned. Rjensen 08:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not been given one credible source proving that Jefferson was a deist.

Here is one: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006

"D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., is senior minister of the nearly 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and president of Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian broadcasting organization which reaches more than 3 million people weekly by radio and television. He also is the author of more than 60 books, founder and president of Evangelism Explosion – a lay evangelism training program used in every nation on earth – and founder and chancellor of Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla."

This guy represents a organization that reaches 3 million Christians weekly. For gosh sakes my own high school textbook and all my teachers said TJ was a Christian! If i am not mistaken he is listed as an escopalian by most official sources. Go to any Christian forum and they will think the same thing.

I do not want to say that TJ was a Christian. I just want to present both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If he was a deist I assure you no matter what I put they will believe that he was one. This is a legitimate viewpoint that many people have and it needs to be addressed. As NPOV policy states the accepted opinion is not always the right one and all legitimate views should be presented with accuracy and non bais. The bottom line is again it is not proven that TJ was a deist so it cant be stated as a fact. We can write the article together and come to an agreement I just want to make it better by showing both viewpoints. I hate just having views shoved down my throat and that is what this article is doing. I dont have a problem with letting the reader drawing their own conclusions even if it will bring them to the conclusion that Jefferson was a deist.

71.131.180.37 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Minister Kennedy clearly states: " Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian." So let's put that in and keep you happy. Rjensen 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont believe he was your conventional Christian either. I just want to write the article that doesnt state that Jefferson was a deist because it can not be proven and is in fact false information. I want to present both viewpoints and let the reader draw their own conclusions. We will still leave the sentence stating that "Most scholars agree that Jefferson was a Deist" but that is as far as we can go. We cant state that he was a deist. If he really was a deist you have nothing to worry about. The Christian point of view will be destroyed and it will only reinforce the view that he was a deist by the reader. Plus when the reader has this viewpoint they will be prepared to address people who say he was a Christian. So can we come to an agreement?

71.131.180.37 03:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. How is the claim that he was a Deist "false information"? It's almost universally believed to be the case. It does not mean that Jefferson, as a folloower of Christ's "philosophy" could not consider himself to be a "Christian" in the same sense that follower of Plato is a Platonist. We can say that Jefferson presented himself as a Christian in this sense. It does not contradict the assertion that he was a Deist. Paul B 09:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the "claim" false information? That is exactly what it is, a claim. The article states that TJ was a deist when it can not be proven. That is only the consensus of scholars. That consensus of scholars definitely needs to be left in the article but we just cant state it as a fact. We have to let the reader draw their own conclusions. Personally even if we removed the lines that state TJ as a deist the information would still lead people to believe he was a deist and would be accurate that all people can agree on. It is merely a "belief" as you pointed out and beliefs can be wrong. I will wait for your response but I want to remove some statements in the article that are inaccurate. I hope we can all agree on it. I do not want to impose my beliefs but just make the article more accurate and fair for everyone while complying with wiki policy.

71.131.180.37 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"inaccurate statements"??? which statement is inaccurate? Rjensen 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute among historians that TJ was a deist and not a Christian. To suggest that he was a Christian because he supported Christian ethics (the same ethics common to Judaism and Islam) ignores the fact that he refused to join any Christian church. Christian ministers are not credible historical interpreters because their purpose is evangelism, not historical understanding. Ahlstrom's Religious History of the American People (National Book Award), says TJ was a "critic of 'sectarianism' in religon and an eloquent defender of deism" (p.364), "Jefferson was more doctrinaire in his materialism than his confreres", and "Because of ferocious attacks against him by Federalist clergymen, he became more bluntly anticlerical." (p. 368) The task of creating this encyclopedia is to document the scholarly record, not original research to "prove" anyone's beliefs. --Blainster 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can the D. James Kennedy quote be removed? Not only does it come from an unreliable source, but it is also quoted out of context and used in the middle of something unrelated (it is a modern quote, yet the article makes it seem as if it is a quote from a baptist of jefferson's time). It is also used in support of Jefferson's Deism when the article in question clearly opposes it. There are many better sources showing that Jefferson is a Deist and no need to show it by quoting an unreliable source out of context. Shadowoftime 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Draftsman

I really wish I could remember where I got it, but the phrase "should more properly be called its draftsman" is not mine. I believe it is important to show that all of the wording in the finished Declaration is not his, in particular the very important "self-evident truths" bit. Also reference the Wikipedia entry, which states: "On 11 June 1776, a committee consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, was formed to draft a suitable declaration to frame this resolution. Jefferson did most of the writing, with input from the committee. His draft was presented to the Continental Congress on 1 July 1776."

Jefferson was not the author of the Declaration. Congress was. He wrote the majority of the draft. I, in particular, don't want people thinking that Jefferson believed in "self-evident truths," as the current wording strongly implies. -- Calion | Talk 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    • He wrote every word. Congress did NOT dictate it or tell him what to say (they did make some changes after he wrote it.) It is not true that Congress spent time saying "we should make points 1, 2, 3, 4, ...12 and now will someone please write those up." Did NOT happen that way. The committee gave him the whole job because he was the best writer and the strongest advocate for independence. He of course was synthesizing and articulating ideas that everyone already held. --- Did TJ believe in inalienable rights? yes--who denies that? Rjensen 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Draftsman" does not, to me at least, imply that anyone told him what to write. It merely states that what he wrote was subject to change and final approval by somebody else. It was changed, in important ways, from his original draft. For reference, see this EB article, which frankly has a better entire introductory paragraph than ours. As for the "inalienable rights" bit, my brain cramped. I immediately changed it to the correct "self-evident truths," but obviously not quickly enough. -- Calion | Talk 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost every author discovers there are editors who will change some words. Look what Ezra Pound did to TS Eliot! A "draftsman" is one of many anonymous people who work over a draft. TJ insisted that his tombstone be inscribed "Author of the Declaration..." Rjensen 03:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
True enough on the epitaph. Alright; although I believe my "draftsman" language is legit (and borne out by several sources), what do you think about my compromise? Heck, it's even used later in the article. -- Calion | Talk 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Jefferson was the author. Some other people made some changes (see Jefferon's autobiography for a comparison of his version with the final version). Also, I reverted the "reconstructed rough draft" that was inserted. We should go with the final version. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! You've changed the truth to a lie. The article says "In the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:" This is simply untrue. Jefferson never wrote those words. He wrote some of them, of course, but the paragraph in the article is not his writing. This is patently unacceptable. I thought "primary" was a fair compromise. He did NOT truly author the work; Congress did. He presented a draft to the committee, which modified it and presented a draft to Congress, which modified it and presented it to the states on July 4, 1776. All in all, eighty-six changes to his original document were made. Jefferson was critical of changes to the document. Richard Henry Lee said "I wish sincerely, as well for the honor of Congress, as for that of the States, that the Manuscript had not been mangled as it is. It is wonderful, and passing pitiful, that the rage of change should be so unhappily applied[9]. It is dishonest, disingenuous, and unacceptable that the text of the Declaration, as it stands, should be ascribed solely to Jefferson, particularly in the "Political Philosophy" section. I won't re-revert anything. Yet. But this must be fixed. -- Calion | Talk 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of rewriting of history around here, and it seems to be by the same people. We don't have to wonder how much of the Declaration Jefferson authored. He tells exactly how much he wrote and how much the rest of Congress wrote in his autobiography: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Jefferson/Autobiography.html#declaration --Carla Pehlke 02:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm changing both things back. What is needed is a "Declaration of Independence" section where this issue is explained a bit more in depth, but I'm at a loss on how to work it in. Does anyone want to give it a stab? -- Calion | Talk 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have a major problem with adding "principal" or "primary". But, I don't know about this rough draft quote. The link says it is some sort of "reconstruction". I would like to investigate this further. I do agree with expanding this discussion a bit more, but I think a section at United States Declaration of Independence would be more logical. Actually there is already a short "Differences between draft and final versions" section, which can be expanded. I will try to work on that. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added a little on this at United States Declaration of Independence. Also, Committee of Five. What do you think? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice. If you are uncertain of the authenticity of the draft I put in, by all means check it out. Your changes to the "Declaration" article make it clear that Jefferson wrote the "fair copy" draft submitted to Congress; I'd be fine with using text from that (even if it contains the hated "self-evident truths" language) if you can find it (I'll be a little embarrased if that turns out to be identical to what Congress approved). I understand why you wanted to make changes to Declaration (nice "Committee of Five" article, BTW; I'd never heard that phrase), but I really think it's more important here. The process of the writing of the Declaration is important there, of course (I'd mention the number of changes made there, for instance), but some reference to the content of the original draft, important differences, and Jefferson's discontent with the finished product should be here. It helps to illustrate the man and his ideas. In particular, in reference to his philosophy, the difference between "self-evident" and "sacred and undeniable" is important here ("self-evident truths" are a philosophical peeve of mine; I don't think that they are, in general, possible, and it's nice to see that Jefferson may have agreed with me), whereas in the context of the Declaration itself, it's a fairly minor issue. Also, his anti-slavery tirade that was taken out of the finished document is already referenced here, and ideally should be pulled out into the hypothetical "Declaration" section. -- Calion | Talk 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)