Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 3

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

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Trivia

According to the lisp article, Thomas Jefferson spoke with a lisp. Should this be added to the trivia section? Rmpfu89 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add it, but not to the trivia section; add it where it talks about Jefferson being a poor speaker. -- Calion | Talk 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim in the lisp article is unsourced. We should not spread unsourced information from one article to another. john k 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

True friend of the church

Moved from my talk page:

==Thomas Jefferson== Hey, I saw that you reverted my removal of the following text to the Thomas Jefferson article without explanation:

At the time the Baptists supported his efforts to disestablish the state church; thus D. James Kennedy, a prominent evangelical theologian, says that Jefferson was "a true friend of the Christian faith." But Kennedy concludes, "Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian." (followed by a reference to www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006).

This wikipedia text claims that D. James Kenedy calls Jefferson "a true friend of the Christian faith" because baptists supported his efforts to disestablish the church(something not mentioned at all in the sited article). A look at the source sited shows that D. James Kennedy (a presbyterian) called Jefferson "a true friend of the Christian church" because he thinks believe Jefferson DIDN'T support seperation of church and state. Thus, a claim is made in the wikipedia article which is contradicted by the very article it sites. Shadowoftime 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted without explanation because you deleted without explanation. Now that you've explained, I will undo my revert, if you haven't beaten me to it already. Simple. Alienus 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are his Rules of Conduct?

see topic. (Stevenwagner 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).

Notes on the State of Virginia

Not only do we not have an article on this, it isn't even mentioned in the text of the article! This is pretty shameful. john k 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. If you know about it, write the article and add it here! Peyna 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know of it, but not very much about it. I do a lot of stuff on wikipedia, but I surely can't be expected to correct every one of the incredibly huge number of omissions that I notice and know some limited amount about on wikipedia. Noting the absence of any discussion on the talk page might alert an editor of this page who does have sufficient knowledge of the subject to give it a decent write-up. john k 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just commenting on your calling it "shameful." Perhaps the right editor just hasn't come along yet. Peyna 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of wikipedia is still pretty shameful, sadly. I'm much more surprised when an article is good than when it's bad (well, certain types of articles I expect to be good, others not so much). Not that I don't love it all the same. john k 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I just started Notes on the State of Virginia. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good start! john k 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Slave controversy in intro

I really don't think that the slave/paternity controversy merits a mention in the intro. The paragraph is about Jefferson's important political philosophies and government positions. It seems very out of place there, and the subject has due coverage in the slavery section of the article, and in the Sally Hemings article. --Jon Stockton 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does Jefferson's death come before his life?

It seems very odd to be reading about his death before his life? Does anyone object to moving his death nearer to the ending? Skywriter 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

mistake on the part about TJ and Religion

in the part about religion it is stated:

"Jefferson used deist terminology in repeatedly stating his belief in a creator, and in the United States Declaration of Independence used the terms "Creator", "Nature's God", and "Divine Providence"."

however the term "Divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independence is not from the version written by Jefferson, but was added later by the convention, in other words, obviously Franklin or Adams.

-Juha Uski

Thomas Jefferson: The Black President.

No-one is going to add into this little document that the only reason Thomas Jefferson was elected was because of the 3/5ths compromise? No one is going to mention that he was elected because slaves were 3/5ths of a vote, and he was the southern candidate? NO-ONE will mention the fact that without the 3/5ths compromise theres no way he would've been president?

What kind of ridiculous crap is this? 69.181.56.152Sajun777

Jefferson and Slavery section dispute

Notice of Intention to Place POV Flag on Page

User JW1805 and others have summarily removed comment by former American Historical Association President John Hope Franklin from this page several times, without discussion on this page, so far. In the last revert, User JW1805 claimed the historian's comments were "speculative." In reply, I would ask, what are the other comments in that section?

The quote basically said "I don't know if Jefferson fathered Sally's children, but he could have. Other slaverowners had children by their slaves." It added absolutely nothing to the section, and was very speculative. This guy seems to base his opinion on "everybody else was doing it". The Jefferson-Hemmings argument is based on DNA, historical evidence, and oral tradition of Hemming's children. That is what should be mentioned. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is factual, not speculative, and it adds a perspective different from the commission. Mayer's opinion has been removed as his opinion is represented in the report of the scholar's commission, which I have linked to directly. The following is new and is not elsewhere represented.

Franklin said it does not matter "whether he slept with her or not. He could have. After all, he owned her. She was subject to his exploitation in every conceivable way. ... But, you see, it's not the important subject, it seems to me...."

Why would you want to suppress that viewpoint?Skywriter 23:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article fails utterly to integrate the contradictions of Jefferson's lifestyle of being a major slave owner with his commendable philosophy for which we are eternally grateful. Nuance and contradiction ought not be thrown out the window. They must be addressed.

Further, there is an apparent difference of opinion on the placement of the discussion of slavery near the end of the article rather than placing it higher up and certainly before Jefferson's death. I have previously questioned the placement of the section on his death above discussion of his life and no one has replied to that comment, either defending its placement or otherwise. That constitutes the other unresolved controversy. I will leave this note here this weekend to await comment before placing the POV flag on this article. I of course welcome comment. Skywriter 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't is fairly obvious WHY he kept his slaves? Having no slaves would have meant he'd have to pay workers & charge more for his goods. He would not be able to compete, would go bankrupt, and lose his influence with others. There must be some historian who can cite cases of what happened to any planataion owners who freed their slaves. Making himself an noble example would likely have had only a small effect upon the institution itself. Advocating independent action on this would be advocating financial suicide - something for which he'd be mocked. Only by changing/abolishing the institution could freeing slaves be economically feasible. Does anyone know what he proposed be done with the slaves once they were freed? --JimWae 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probed, using primary sources, in the discussion by the legal scholar Paul Finkelman, cited at the bottom of the article. Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson (2001) Ben Franklin, e.g. had owned slaves but eventually morphed into an abolitionist. The short story, as Finkelman documents, it is that Washington freed his slaves upon his wife's death, but Jefferson did not free his slaves upon his own death because he loved the good life and spent more than his plantation slaves earned in profits during Jefferson's lifetime. His debts were such that the bondage of all but three or four of his several hundred slaves continued after his death to pay off his debts. He freed several in Sally's family but not Sally. Finkelman compares Jefferson's practices as a slave owner with his contemporaries in Virginia, and that is worth the price of the book. He also details how Jefferson made a special deal with Sally Hemming's brother. Bringing slaves into France was prohibited, particularly during the Enlightenment. Jefferson did not want to risk breaking French law. He loved France and the Enlightenment and wanted to be thought well of there. The contradiction is he also loved luxury and being waited upon. The substance of the signed contract with Sally's brother was-- come with me to France, wait on me, and cook for me. When we return in five years, you will be free. The man was freed in Philadelphia upon their return to the states. Skywriter 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So, an author has pointed to some selfish reasons too. But there is surely more to it than that. Freeing all his slaves while others kept them would also have meant financial ruin --JimWae 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, we do feel his pain. And that's saying nothing of how you'd feel as one of Jefferson's slaves. House or yard? What's your preference? Skywriter 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was, at least in part, a judgement call. Which was more valuable to the future of humanity - freeing 700 slaves or having people continue to listen to you about freeing 2 million? While he was by no means an exemplary human in every way, there's no reason to single Jefferson out on this - numerous slaveholders opposed it in principle -- better than upholding it completely --JimWae 03:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Single out? This is a biographical article of Thomas Jefferson. It should accurately reflect who he was in all major aspects, the complexity of his being, not cherry-pick those parts of his biography that are appealing, or make him look good. Most astounding is that this article does not reflect the duality of who he was. Many scholars have discussed that his words "All men are created equal" did not apply to people of African heritage, yet this is nowhere on the radar here. As Finkelman, the constitutional scholar and expert on slavery, and others have shown, the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution ensured the continuation of slavery. Jefferson was the major writer. The contradiction, the elephant in the living room of American history, is ignored in this article in favor of hagiography on a subject of racism that continues to trouble the United States to this day. Skywriter 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson was not a writer of the Constitution. He was in France at the time. He originally wrote a passage against the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, but it was edited out by the Congress.--JW1805 (Talk) 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tags now affixed to Slavery section and Hemmings subsection

...due to previously discussed aggressive suppresion of a viewpoint. The section on slavery is hagiography and does not come close to examining the subject in a non-adoring fashion. I welcome discussion but will not support suppression of differing viewpoints. Skywriter 01:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not really care if the template appears or not, though it does uglify the page - I'd like to see it on more articles. Just what do want to change that is not there, other than move it up? --JimWae 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please propose a specific change. (Other than adding back those ridiculous quotes). I do not support moving the section up, either. It is in the proper place. The structure of the article is biography, then sections on his views on various issues (including slavery). --JW1805 (Talk) 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

JW1805, thank you for responding on the Talk page. The tags were affixed to reflect the latest of the several unexplained reversions. Would you explain in more detail your objections to the historian's observations introducing a valid viewpoint. "Ridiculous" does not apply. Skywriter 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on. "...we know that someone is busy sleeping with the slaves, and I see no reason why Thomas Jefferson should be excused from that." IMHO, that is a ridiculous quote. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is your sole objection, delete that phrase and reinstate the remainder. Thanks. Skywriter 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we please extend this to a conversation - rather than a dialogue? --JimWae 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can contribute, JimWae.Skywriter 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try to contribute to the page, or suggest specific changes. A "Totally Disputed" tag is really uncalled for, I think. What you want is an expansion of the "Jefferson and slavery" section, right? I agree, and I've added some more info, and plan on expanding it even further. What about an {{expand}} tag? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence was not a personal document. Jefferson was not bargaining with SC & GA. Only the Congress could adopt it in its final form. --JimWae 05:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE JW1805 quikcly replied a tad over-enthusiastically in interlinear fashion that tends to mute the intent and substance of my earlier post, and destroying the separate arguments of what I said vs what JW1805 said. My earlier post is therefore reposted here for the purpose of remaining intact for future readers of this archive.

In response to the comment by JW1805 (above), last night's revision, and in support of why this article is totally disputed is the following.

I have contributed to the page, beginning months ago, with the addition of Finkelman (Slavery and the Founders in the Age of Jefferson) a spot-on resource, and I added a primary source: Edwin Morris Betts (editor), Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book (1953) (upon which Finkelman bases part of his salient analyses, together with the other key primary resource on slavery and TJ's faux-scientific racism, Notes on the State of Virginia.)

As editor of the 20-volume encyclopedia on slavery and numerous books on the subject, Finkelman, a legal scholar is not to be ignored. What he has to say about TJ should be summarized in this article.

I added the section with John Hope Franklin's views on why the paternity in the matter of Sally Heming's children does not matter. His is a viewpoint distinctly different from what is presented, a relevant, incisive perspective, yet it was, and continues to be rejected outright in several reversions, prompting the dispute tags. I offered a compromise, as requested (above, in this thread), and it was not accepted.

The material on what did not go into the Declaration is not nearly as important as say, Ira Berlin writing of 1778 in Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Belnap Press: 1998) pp 231-232 -- "The wartime erosion of slavery encouraged direct assaults against the institution itself. The heady notions of universal human equality that justified American independence gave black people a powerful weapon with which to attack chattel bondage, and they understood that this was no time to be quiet... Black people throughout the North made themselves heard...denounced the double standard that allowed white Americans to fight for freedom while denying that right to blacks.... Success bred success. Black people who gained their freedom by legislative enactment, individual manumission, and successful flight pressed all the harder for universal emancipation, demanding first the release of their families and friends, and than all black people still in bondage.... Such actions could not be ignored easily by those who marched under the banner of Jefferson's declaration."

The material in the book with the title that mocks both black people and Thomas Jefferson ( Negro President) is hardly as cogent as Berlin (above) or Finkelman in getting to the point.

The addition of one sentence by Abrose, who did not study Jefferson on racism and slavery in depth, is palliative in that it fails to explore the contradiction between the noble phrase "all men are created equal" and the reality that as he wrote it, one fifth were not, and even not free on his own plantation, an economic situation from which he personally profited.

Here are some resources that could be incorporated into this article to make it less hagiography. The central problem with this Wikipedia article (and not just on the stepchild section on slavery) is that it does not give the subject credit for complexity, and it ignores historians who point to the contradictions between the powerful words "all men are created equal" and the wink and the nod that implied "except black men and women."

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/frame.htm Particularly the views of the two historians who have done the most work in the area of Jefferson and slavery: John Hope Franklin | Historian Paul Finkelman | Historian

Why is what Finkelman says about Jefferson and slavery important? http://www.law.utulsa.edu/faculty_staff/pfinkelman/vita2006

Why is Jefferson's words and deeds on slavery and black people the second to the last item on this Wikipedia page, with only monuments and trivia following? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/slavery/ "Slavery has often been treated as a marginal aspect of history, confined to courses on southern or African American history. In fact, slavery played a crucial role in the making of the modern world. Slavery provided the labor force for the Slavery played an indispensable role in the settlement and development of the New World." Jefferson's opinions on blacks (laid out in copious detail in Notes on the State of Virginia) should be summarized within the main body of this article and not thrown in at the end of this article as an afterthought.

Why? Because his views about black people and segregation were influential in affecting the course of U.S. history. On that point, both the left and the right agree: http://www.vahistorical.org/publications/abstract_parkinson.htm

Why are the words of John Hope Franklin on the Heming's controversy excluded from this Wikipedia article? Likely for the same reason another historian points out here:

"I'm not saying that all these people are racist and that they hate blacks," she added. "No. I think that the response to this story is the legacy of slavery. This is absolutely the way people have been taught to think whether they consciously know it or not, of devaluing black people's words when they are inconvenient." [Looking Beyond Jefferson the Icon to a Man and His Slave Mistress NYT, June 28, 1997 By Daryl Royster Alexander]

What is another viewpoint other than the claim (incorporated into this Wikipedia article last night) that Jefferson meant well with an early draft of the Declaration? In a review of three books published in the Washington Post, Kahlenberg says the following of Africans In America: America's Journey Through Slavery by Charles Johnson, Patricia Smith and the WGBH Series Research Team Harcourt Brace. 494 pp.

Captives of History By Richard D. Kahlenberg Sunday, November 8, 1998; Page X01, WP
"One inescapable theme is the great contradiction in the nation's founding, which was grounded in liberty but coupled with the enslavement of a fifth of the population. At the time of the Revolution, the Americans fought for freedom, but it was the British who promised to liberate any slaves who joined their side. The nation's patriarch, George Washington, began owning slaves at age 11. Thomas Jefferson appropriately denounced the British for their role in the slave trade in an initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, but was forced to delete the clause under the weight of the obvious contradiction."

If you require more discussion or disagree with the foregoing, I will be happy to reply. Skywriter 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC) End of Repost for Purpose of Clarity in Argument

<beginning of JW1805 interlinear reply to the notes above In response to the comment by JW1805 (above), last night's revision, and in support of why this article is totally disputed is the following.

I have contributed to the page, beginning months ago, with the addition of Finkelman (Slavery and the Founders in the Age of Jefferson) a spot-on resource, and I added a primary source: Edwin Morris Betts (editor), Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book (1953) (upon which Finkelman bases part of his salient analyses, together with the other key primary resource on slavery and TJ's faux-scientific racism, Notes on the State of Virginia.)

As editor of the 20-volume encyclopedia on slavery and numerous books on the subject, Finkelman, a legal scholar is not to be ignored. What he has to say about TJ should be summarized in this article.

I added the section with John Hope Franklin's views on why the paternity in the matter of Sally Heming's children does not matter. His is a viewpoint distinctly different from what is presented, a relevant, incisive perspective, yet it was, and continues to be rejected outright in several reversions, prompting the dispute tags. I offered a compromise, as requested (above, in this thread), and it was not accepted.

The quote was in no way relevant and certanly not "incisive" in any way. Franklin was saying that he didn't know if Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children, but he could have been. What on earth does that add to the article? --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The material on what did not go into the Declaration is not nearly as important as say, Ira Berlin writing of 1778 in Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Belnap Press: 1998) pp 231-232 -- "The wartime erosion of slavery encouraged direct assaults against the institution itself. The heady notions of universal human equality that justified American independence gave black people a powerful weapon with which to attack chattel bondage, and they understood that this was no time to be quiet... Black people throughout the North made themselves heard...denounced the double standard that allowed white Americans to fight for freedom while denying that right to blacks.... Success bred success. Black people who gained their freedom by legislative enactment, individual manumission, and successful flight pressed all the harder for universal emancipation, demanding first the release of their families and friends, and than all black people still in bondage.... Such actions could not be ignored easily by those who marched under the banner of Jefferson's declaration."

How is that relevant to a biography of Jefferson? Just because his name is mentioned in the quote doesn't mean it should go in the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The material in the book with the title that mocks both black people and Thomas Jefferson ( Negro President) is hardly as cogent as Berlin (above) or Finkelman in getting to the point.

I'm confused, where the Berlin or Finkelman references removed? By all means, add them to the Further Reading section. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The addition of one sentence by Abrose, who did not study Jefferson on racism and slavery in depth, is palliative in that it fails to explore the contradiction between the noble phrase "all men are created equal" and the reality that as he wrote it, one fifth were not, and even not free on his own plantation, an economic situation from which he personally profited.

The article mentions the contradiction, and says that some people consider him a hypocrite. What would you add? Again, I'm confused. What material was removed from the article? Some of what you are saying would more properly go is the Slavery in the United States article, since it is more about society in general, and not really about Jefferson (Jefferson didn't invent slavery after all). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some resources that could be incorporated into this article to make it less hagiography. The central problem with this Wikipedia article (and not just on the stepchild section on slavery) is that it does not give the subject credit for complexity, and it ignores historians who point to the contradictions between the powerful words "all men are created equal" and the wink and the nod that implied "except black men and women."

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/frame.htm Particularly the views of the two historians who have done the most work in the area of Jefferson and slavery: John Hope Franklin | Historian Paul Finkelman | Historian

By all means, expand the article! --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is what Finkelman says about Jefferson and slavery important? http://www.law.utulsa.edu/faculty_staff/pfinkelman/vita2006

I don't know what this guy's vita has to do with anything. What does he say about Jefferson that should go in the article? --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Jefferson's words and deeds on slavery and black people the second to the last item on this Wikipedia page, with only monuments and trivia following? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/slavery/ "Slavery has often been treated as a marginal aspect of history, confined to courses on southern or African American history. In fact, slavery played a crucial role in the making of the modern world. Slavery provided the labor force for the Slavery played an indispensable role in the settlement and development of the New World." Jefferson's opinions on blacks (laid out in copious detail in Notes on the State of Virginia) should be summarized within the main body of this article and not thrown in at the end of this article as an afterthought.

The main body of the article is a biography. There are separate sections about Jefferson's views on certain important issues (Such as philosophy, government, slavery, etc.) This is completely logical. The slavery section can easily be expanded. I agree, the Notes passages should be mentioned (and I am planning on adding them to the section). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because his views about black people and segregation were influential in affecting the course of U.S. history. On that point, both the left and the right agree: http://www.vahistorical.org/publications/abstract_parkinson.htm

Why are the words of John Hope Franklin on the Heming's controversy excluded from this Wikipedia article? Likely for the same reason another historian points out here:

"I'm not saying that all these people are racist and that they hate blacks," she added. "No. I think that the response to this story is the legacy of slavery. This is absolutely the way people have been taught to think whether they consciously know it or not, of devaluing black people's words when they are inconvenient." [Looking Beyond Jefferson the Icon to a Man and His Slave Mistress NYT, June 28, 1997 By Daryl Royster Alexander]

What does that have to do with Jefferson? I removed the Franklin quotes because I thought they were dumb. As far as I know, that's the only thing you added that I removed. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, you can't take it personally when somebody edits your stuff. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What is another viewpoint other than the claim (incorporated into this Wikipedia article last night) that Jefferson meant well with an early draft of the Declaration? In a review of three books published in the Washington Post, Kahlenberg says the following of Africans In America: America's Journey Through Slavery by Charles Johnson, Patricia Smith and the WGBH Series Research Team Harcourt Brace. 494 pp.

Captives of History By Richard D. Kahlenberg Sunday, November 8, 1998; Page X01, WP
"One inescapable theme is the great contradiction in the nation's founding, which was grounded in liberty but coupled with the enslavement of a fifth of the population. At the time of the Revolution, the Americans fought for freedom, but it was the British who promised to liberate any slaves who joined their side. The nation's patriarch, George Washington, began owning slaves at age 11. Thomas Jefferson appropriately denounced the British for their role in the slave trade in an initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, but was forced to delete the clause under the weight of the obvious contradiction."

That is incorrect (or at least, misleading). Jefferson did not delete the slave trade clause. Congress did, during debate. They made numerious other edits. Jefferson was not happy about it. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you require more discussion or disagree with the foregoing, I will be happy to reply. Skywriter 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hemings discussion is extremely biased.

1) Callendar's claims have been conclusively disproved by DNA evidence. Jefferson is demonstrated not to have fathered any of H's kids at or before the time of Callendar's slanders.

2) The Thomas Jefferson Foundation's current position is far more ambiguous.

3) Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's conclusion was not that the claim was "not persuasive" but tended much more to contradiction of it.

Very typical of the far-left slant of wikipedia. BulldogPete

How is concluding that someone fathered children "far left"? Right wing history denies such things does it? I can see them all now, leaping to the defence of Karl Marx against the calumny that he had a baby with his servant. Someone fathered those kids. It's no more left wing than it is right wing to conclude that it was Thomas rather than someone else. Paul B 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The desire of notably leftist institutions, such as the TJ Foundation, to tar Jefferson as having had a baby by a slave, was evident. It is a beloved pastime of the left to take jabs at the Founding Fathers and, indeed, any American institution.

Again, this portion of the article is hideously biased. If you -- for whatever bizarre reason -- want to ignore the obvious left/right imbalance, then focus on the imbalance in the telling of the tale. The strong inference to be drawn is that Jefferson fathered the kids. This is by no means the concensus in the scholarly community.BulldogPete

I thought the conclusion of the DNA research was that the father was LIKELY either TJ or his cousin/brother? - Further comment on this being that the brother/cousin was only occassionally a visitor to the plantation -- all suggestive & noetworthy but still inconclusive. --JimWae 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, historical evidence is neither left wing or right wing. The truth sits on neither side, and evidence speaks for itself if it's allowed to do so. Founding fathers are not plaster saints. And of course Jefferson himself was on the left in terms of the politics of his day, so it was the right that made political capital out of the allegation. Paul B 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical evidence may be neither right nor left, but it was not the John Birch Society who gleefully exploited the junk science that proclaimed Jefferson literally a founding father. His political stance in those days is irrelevant, as I suspect Paul knows. Attacks on American icons perpetrated by, say, Zinn, make no distinctions as to the contemporary political leanings of their targets.

This article is colored by a deliberate ideological slant.BulldogPete 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Which of Zinn's books are you referring to in which you found him to be critical of Jefferson? That would be genuinely newsworthy, if true. Skywriter 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading comprehension much? BulldogPete 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

BulldogPete, did you intend for the 3-word comment above to be meaningful or simply a random placement of words that bear no relation to one another? Skywriter 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sally Hemings controversy is such an emotional one for many people. I do not think that it should be a major part of a biography of Thomas Jefferson however. In 1998 when the DNA testing was performed there were five men that participated from the Woodson family. No one in this family had a match with the Jefferson Y chromosome. I think it is important to point this family out as an example of how this myth can go terribly wrong and hurt people. At the time the article came out the big news was a match between descendents of Eston Hemings and descendants of Field Jefferson. It was very compelling evidence indeed. Much overlooked at the time was that the test excluded all of Woodson's descendants and even showed a Y chromosome that neither matched a Woodson or a Jefferson and one man's DNA clearly indicated someone commited adultery somewhere in the past. In the seventies the magazine Ebony published stories about this African American family being the illegitimate descendants of a President and his slave concubine. Told as an uplifting story of overcoming hardship all while keeping an amazing secret. The story spawned books and a movie all portraying it as gospel. Years later we find out Woodson was the liar and at least one of his descendants was an adulterer. There is no proof. Contrary to what the Nature article claimed. Any DNA service will tell you that there is no way to prove paternity by this method. It is irresponsible to tell people they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson when they may not be. As a media form Wikipedia should use caution in this story. Welsh4ever76 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of the paternity & DNA issues seem to lack any useful discussion of the limits and meanings of the technology used nor are the results that were obtained described in any manner that could allow a reader to make sense of it. I agree that the discussion appears to be POV but it should be capable of remedy by including additional information. One place to start might be to describe the political circumstances of Callendar's many hateful diatribes against Jefferson. In many ways, Callendar was worse than any of the modern tabloid trash publishers simply because there were far fewer publications to which people could turn in that era. Ande B 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The section only mentions Callendar because of his mention of Hemings. The DNA info here is not POV at all. It says "A 1998 DNA study concluded that there was a DNA link between some of Hemings descendants and the Jefferson family, but did not conclusively prove that Jefferson himself was their ancestor." That is 100% true. That's all the DNA data says. The link to Jefferson specifically is based on the DNA + historical evidence. It is the historical evidence (for example, who was at Montacello at what time, or how reliable the oral history is) that can be disputed. I don't think the Woodson story is really necessary here. Maybe at Sally Hemmings. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, JW1805. I don't know that we are really talking about the same issue. The discussion seems to my ear to attempt to be persuasive rather than simply informative. Some of this may be subtle differences in how we read these things or a misreading on my part. But when I read something that says: "A 1998 DNA study ... but did not conclusively prove that Jefferson himself was their ancestor" it sounds to me that what is being said is not that these types of tests can never prove paternity but instead that this test does indeed "prove" paternity unless you can come up with even stronger contrary proof. That's the effect of using the word "conclusively" in this sentence. This paternity stuff has been argued for a long time and I was very interested in it when I first learned about it. But every reference that I read seemed to be misused or misquoted in the articles and books that I read in support of the hypothesis. Same thing when I first heard about the DNA results, I thought, gee, this should be interesting. But it really didn't show much of anything. It just left us in the same condition that we were in prior to the DNA tests: some people asserted that Jefferson fathered Hemings' child while others claimed that one of his nephews did. So there is nothing substantive that was gained by the tests. This article makes it sound as if there was, indeed, something new here. The only real news was that the one person believed most likely to have been fathered by Jefferson was not. When I checked the two articles linked to this one, I was disappointed in their quality, although that may be remedied in time. Now this article certainly has a lot of links to other sites that may well have some great information. But at this point, the information as to this part of Jefferson's life still needs work. Considering the amount of disagreement on this topic, that is not surprising. Ande B 05:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What was gained by the tests was proof that paternity came from within the Jefferson family itself, and thus supported that oral tradition rather than the alternative claims re the Carrs. As has already been mentioned the other evidence is essentially historical rather than scientific. But the result is that the different types of evidence work together to suggests that TJ's paternity is the most likely explantion. Most scholars now seem to accept that the evidence points that way. Of course it's not proof. Unless some unanwserable piece of historical evidence is found it's never likely to be proven. What we should provide, though, is an account that fairly describes the evidence, and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it. Hysterical claims from the left that this proves TJ was a "rapist" or "abuser" are certainly no help. The equally ridiculous claims from the right that this is part of "postmodernist" denigration of DWMs hardly help sensible discussion either [1] (nothing could be less "postmodernist" that combining science with conventional historical sifting of evidence). Paul B 12:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous to claim that "[m]ost scholars now seem to accept that the evidence points" towards TJ's having been the father of the children. Adding junk history to calumny to junk science does not amount to "evidence." Why is Callendar still held up as part of your vaunted equation when he has been proved wrong? BulldogPete 20:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right, Paul B. I'm about as far from "right" as one can get and still be in the US, but I do tend to sometimes over-react to language used in WP articles because, for large parts of my life, I have worked with professional and educational materials with the express purpose of removing trigger words that can bring down heat on professional organizations, governmental entities, and educational establishments. Of course, I am not immune to the same failings. Things that don't bother me on a personal basis still bring out the editing pen because I've learned that some are hyper sensitive. Beyond that, I also have some graduate school background on forensic DNA recovery and analysis and find coverage of these techniques in the media is often misleading or incomplete. Probably inevitable given that it's impossible to cover everything in detail and still make it readable. When I re-read the Hemmings article, I had a much more positive opinion than on my first read through. Peace. Ande B 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nature article has been manipulated to inundate the public as proof when in fact it is not. I bring up the Woodson family because they did the same thing. By continually saying they were his illegitimate descendants they convinced many in the public they were. Yet evidence obtained through the DNA testing later excluded them as being Jefferson descendants. If it happened once it can happen again. Dr. Foster acted very unprofessional and frankly reckless in his statement that he had proven paternity. He could not do that with this test. To continue on tagging this story to Thomas Jefferson in any serious article of him is irresponsible on our part. A simple reference to the other wiki page is appropriate. In the future something may come along that proves Eston Hemings was not his son. Much like Woodson we may look back and realize there was not much proof to begin with. What Ande B said about media manipulation and trigger words used in papers is very important and a good discussion concerning Thomas Jefferson and this story but I think we should just leave it out altogether because as stated above some people get funny about this story. Welsh4ever76 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Welsh4ever76-- The source for your claims about Foster? Skywriter 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Foster proved that one descendant of Eston Hemings and five descendants of Field Jefferson shared a common male ancestor at some point. That is all the test could do. Any testing of ancestral DNA as was performed here cannot prove paternity. It is unethical to to tell someone they are a descendant of a particular person based on it. An example from OA...

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/faqs.htm#15 Can the Y-Clan™ or the Y-Line™ analysis prove paternity? No. Neither our Y-Clan™ nor our Y-Line™ services can prove paternity. If you want a test of this nature, then you should contact a company which specialises in paternity tests. However, both our Y-chromosome analysis services will show if two males are paternally unrelated. For example, if two brothers have totally different Y-Clan™ or Y-Line™ results, then they cannot have the same biological father. Please be aware of this possibility before requesting our Y-Clan™ or Y-Line™ service. A similar question to Family Tree DNA http://www.familytreedna.com/faq.html#q1.4 How is your test different from a paternity test? Family Tree DNA's primary test attempts to determine if 2 people thought to be unrelated actually had a common ancestor. Our specific purpose is to help recreate lost family links. Our test is for genealogy NOT for paternity, alimony or other legal purposes.

Thomas Jefferson was neither married to their mother nor said they were his children. Therefore the only way to prove paternity in modern times would be to have a sample from Thomas Jefferson and a sample from Eston Hemings. A descendant or relative will not do. After a sample is attained from both corpses then a test would be performed. A test can tell the difference between two brothers and then we could have PROOF. Eight weeks after releasing this story, Nature realized they made a mistake and issued a retraction, admitting, "The title assigned to our study was misleading." Because after proving that Jefferson had not fathered Woodson, it was revealed that their paternity conclusions about Jefferson fathering Eston were based on inaccurate and incomplete information, both scientifically and historically. Welsh4ever76 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion, welsh4ever76. Of course it is disqualified because it is personal opinion. It is unverifiable and it is not sourced. I am sure it is a good theory in your view. However, the basis in agreement for the writing of Wikipedia articles is to avoid personal opinion and original research. So, I will ask the question again, will you cite proper sources for your allegations? If you can not, we can safely discard your claims in so far as reaching agreeemtn as to what should go in or stay out of this article. Skywriter 23:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That was rude and meaningless. Nature retracted the article and apoligized. Even they admit they were wrong and it was irresponsible to print it. Not many know about the retraction. Nature, January 7, 1999 edition has the retraction and states they were wrong to entitle the article. Even Foster has said this. It is a questionable study and proves nothing so it should stay out. I think we should discard your contribution as you have not given a good reason as to why it should stay in. Welsh4ever76 23:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC) welsh4ever76

welsh4ever76, you have failed to source your claims, and have made a provably false claim. Nature did not retract the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/may99/critics010699.htm Skywriter 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read it. It looks fine to me, and it is well sourced. It warns that it is "a subject of considerable controversy," it presents a reasonably mainstream view, and it links to two articles that present Sally Hemings and Jefferson DNA Data that go into great detail and present more references that the reader can follow up. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the article again. The link that you gave is a perfect of example how the study was flawed and has the journal and the Foster backtracking on their original statement and stating that it was misleading. It is not the job of ancestral DNA analysis to determine paternity. This is not a POV. This is excepted methodology. In the original article Foster does say this. However the title leads one to believe he proved it. He did not. It is irresponsible to tell someone they are a descendant of Thomas Jefferson based on this DNA analysis. They could be incorrect and as we see in the link that you provided Foster had to admit that later. I will stand by that and insist it is not a POV. I am ok with the current article and link to the more in depth article under Sally Hemings and Jefferson DNA. I think it should remain seperate and nothing should be added on to it on the Thomas Jefferson Page. Welsh4ever76 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

Here is some evidence that what the article presents is indeed "the mainstream view." Emphasis mine:

The 1998 DNA study that linked Thomas Jefferson to the final child of his lover Sally Hemings has settled one argument and fired up another. 'Most historians who had argued that Jefferson was too pure of heart to bed a slave have re-evaluated 200 years of evidence and embraced the emerging consensus: that Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings and probably fathered most, if not all of her children. Having acknowledged the relationship, these historians are now trying to explain it.

Staples, Brent (2005): "Lust Across the Color Line and the Rise of the Black Elite," The New York Times, April 10, 2005, Editorials, p. 11.

That is, the New York Times ~~says~~ published an editorial saying most historians, even those skeptical in the past, have embraced the "consensus" that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source, to the effect there are important historians who disagree, and if you can get consensus about it here, it would be reasonable to add a short note about this, perhaps following the sentence that says the subject is "of considerable controversy." I see no reason at all to remove anything that's there. This article should not be Jefferson hagiography. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This part isn't quite accurate: That is, the New York Times says most historians, even those skeptical in the past, have embraced the "consensus" that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. The New York Times did not say anything, an editorial writer said something and that's quite different. Just as the statement made by many that Nature magazine retracted its article does not accurately report that the magazine, coming under fire by its professional readership, issued a statement regretting that a misleading headline was used. They stood by the data; there was little or no reason to believe the data itself was erroneously collected. (My guess, at the time, was that Nature was just trying to grab some media attention.) This is why I am concerned about the use of words or language that can be interpretted to mean much more or much less than the content it attempts to represent. When we have a highly contentious issue, it becomes more important than ever to use neutral descriptions and terminology. This is not always easy to do since even reasonable people can disagree about what, exactly, constitutes neutral phrasing. Ande B 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've adjusted my comment accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

More evidence for this being "the mainstream view." The Encyclopedia Britannica includes a long paragraph about Hemings in their main article on Jefferson. They mention a disreputable journalist in 1802, corroboration by one of Heming's children in 1873, a 1968 book by WInthrop Jordan, and then "Finally, in 1998, DNA samples were gathered from living descendants of Jefferson and Hemings. Tests revealed that Jefferson was almost certainly the father of some of Hemings's children." As far a Britannica is concerned, the issue is essentially settled. "What remained unclear was the character of the relationship—consensual or coercive, a matter of love or rape, or a mutually satisfactory arrangement."

The balance in our article seems to be about the same as that taken by the New York Times editorial writer and by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Britannica feels that the phrase "almost certainly the father" captures everything that needs to be said about the reliability or unreliability of the DNA evidence. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia[2] puts it this way: "In the 1990s long-repeated rumors that he had fathered a child or children by the slave Sally Hemings, his wife’s half-sister, appeared to be supported by DNA research. Although the subject remained controversial, in 2000 the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation concluded after an exhaustive study that Jefferson was almost certainly the father of one and quite probably of all six of Hemings’s children. Some admirers of Jefferson hold that his younger brother, Randolph, is the more likely father of Hemings’s descendants."

Our article is not "extremely biased." It's a reasonably neutral summary of a controversial topic and reflects the mainstream view as of 2006. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've found a good cite there in Britannica etc.. It might be helpful to defuse POV objections to say something along the lines of Although this type of Y chromosome DNA analysis can never be used to prove actual paternity and many continue to reject the conclusion of paternity, a wide consensus has developed, as noted by the the Encyclopedia Britannica which states... Then encourage the reader to click to the full discussion in the other article. Clearly, you'd want to tweak the wording to make sure it flows smoothly, but I think this is where a neutral presentation of sources is helpful to everyone without seeming to be argumentative or denigrating those who continue to disagree. Ande B 02:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a change at all. I was just doing a reality check. This discussion was started by someone claiming that our article is "extremely biased." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you do not find the article biased. What matters is that some of it's language can legitimately be read as being either misleading or POV. The current language implies Y chromosome DNA tests can be used to determine paternity but, for some reason, the results were just not quite as strong as the reviewers might prefer. This is a factually inaccurate description of this type of DNA test. Seems easy enough to remedy but then you've just indicated you have no interest in remedying such language or understanding why it is misleading. In this instance, a semantics check might be more useful than a "reality" check. Ande B 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the text that says anything about what kinds of DNA tests prove what; I see a series of source statements saying report A concluded thus-and-such, report B concluded thus-and-such, and so forth. The overall impression I get is that Jefferson's paternity is thought likely, but not proven, and is still disputed... which is exactly the sort of summary others give. But if you think the text needs to be changed, go ahead and change it. Your changes probably will not stick unless you post them here first and get consensus before you make them. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has been changed many times. Someone kept referencing back to a quote that had nothing to with Thomas Jefferson and making some disparaging comments. On the other hand there have been additions that look like it came from the TJHeritage site's own work. This YDNA analysis can not prove these are Jefferson's kids. It is true that the results were not as strong as reviewers would prefer. For instance if all of Field Jefferson's descendants and all of Thomas Woodson's descendants and all of Eston Hemings descendants had the same DNA it would almost be impossible that anyone other than Thomas Jefferson fathered them as he was the only Jefferson male in Paris. However it would still be irresponsible to tell any of them they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson specifically. The actual test had many more results and in the Woodson family there were no matches to the FJ DNA. The way the article on TJ page is set up is neutral now and should stay. I think Ande B has a point but even putting it simple terms that are made in the most neutral sense so people can come to their own conclusions does not work with this particular subject. People are forever going back and forth. I myself have deleted things that were added that made no sense but someone thought they were pertinent. People have their opinions. Some of them based on pure nonsense because of the wrongly titled Nature article. It is wrong for wiki to perpetuate the story when in fact it may be false and gives people the wrong idea about the study. It is not always about Thomas Jefferson either. There are people in the here and now this influences. Welsh4ever76 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)welsh4ever76

The following links to the story as reported by the NYT's respected science writers (not Staples, the opinion columnist) but Nicholas Wade and Dinitia Smith.

November 1, 1998 DNA Tests Offer Evidence That Jefferson Fathered a Child With His Slave By Dinitia Smith and Nicholas Wade The New York Times "Science" November 1, 1998 http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/thomas_jefferson/dna_tests_offer_evidence/index.html

For your further consideration, before it disappears into the paid archive. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/magazine/21uva.html

The central concerns with the recommendations of Welsh4ever76 is that he offers conjecture but nothing verifiable. This violates Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

As the NYT story makes clear, the value of the research --that Welsh4ever76 disparages without benefit of citing sources to support his personal opinion,-- is that the chromosone study specifically, and for the first time ruled out the Woodson claims to TJ lineage, and specifically ruled in the probability that Eston Hemings is TJ's direct descendant. Discarding one part of this research while clinging to another part is not properly the purview of those who add items to this or any Wikipedia article. Our job is to cite or link to sources who support our POV, not spell out our POV without supporting research by knowledgable researchers who specialize in the area. This is not my personal opinion. It is Wikipedia policy. Skywriter 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That NYT article says DNA tests rule out Woodson. The DNA tests do not rule out Hemmings - they are consistent with TJ being his father, but do not establish paternity. The findings mean that looking for other links between TJ & Hemmings is not wasting one's time, but would be for Woodson. Interpretation of our wikiarticle presently trades on the ambiguity of the word "valid" --JimWae 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I bring up the Woodson family only to show that things can change with this story as technology becomes available. There is a seperate wiki article on the Jefferson DNA itself and that is where one should look for more information. From a scientific viewpoint the Nature article was most likely right in that they had TJ's main sequence through his uncle's line and that was a match to the Hemings descendant. Most likely is all Dr. Foster can put forward. It actually did not prove Woodson as not his son. It only excluded him as being a descendant of Field Jefferson. I am not clinging to one part. Dr. Foster was wrong all the way around to make such claims. That is why I say this influences people even now. Once the researchers had a mixed bag of DNA results they should have used caution. Telling thousands of people that they have believed a lie for the last two hundred years was wrong just as telling the Hemings descendents they were also Thomas Jefferson's descendents was wrong. He made his best guess but that is all. It should be studied but we should use caution in attaching it to Jefferson when it may be incorrect. Welsh4ever76 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we put to rest the idea that the current article is "extremely biassed?" What I see at the moment is

Whatever it is, the current article is not "extremely biassed"
it is hard to capture the essence of an ongoing complex controversy in any short statement
Our short section is no worse than anyone else's
However you slice it, as of 2006 the bottom line is still "a) very probable but b) not proven;"
This article should not have a long, detailed treatment; we have two other articles where such a treatment might be appropriate;
This article limits itself to objectively verifiable statements of the form "X said Y about Z". Any additions should be of the same general form.

A case can certainly be made that the present text needs some small additions or changes. People who think these changes are needed should propose the specific changes they'd like to make here. For example, if someone has a good source citation from a source meeting the WP:RS guidelines that says "Dr. Foster overstated his claims" that should be presented here, and we should discuss whether it is appropriate to include it in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The alleged overstatement was the headline of the article, which, as anyone who has had any experience of journalism will know, is not usually created by the author. In this case it's not clear from the debate whether it was Foster or editors at Nature who chose the headline "Jefferson fathered slave's last child." Paul B 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Placement of, and Viewpoint of Section on Slavery is in Dispute

I have reverted changes by JW1805 for failure to discuss disputed changes on this Talk page while discussion is in progress.

I specifically dispute the truncating of and sidelining of the references to summary by Finkelman, a noted scholar on this subject, and replacement of his views with the expanded views of Ambrose, who has been in the news in recent years for plagiarism.

The fact and POV tag has been on this page for several weeks because the discussion of Jefferson and slavery is not fairly represented. It is hagiography with critical views excluded.

The placement of the section on slavery as an afterthought --at the end of the article-- is not warranted and this is also a point-of-view decision that is in dispute. Skywriter 14:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, you are incorrect. This is the series of edits you are refering to. Here are my reasons:
- Replaced "very high in debt" with "deep in dept", which is the more commonly used phrase
- Added a quote by Annette Gordon-Reed (Not Ambrose, as you say.) To give a specific commentary about Jefferson's contradictions. You had previously complained that Ambrose had not studied Jefferson in detail, well Gordon-Reed has. She wrote a book on Jefferson and Hemings. You should read it, it's quite good. I can't possibly see how you can say that this quote is "hagiography".
- Once again, you added a quote (Finkelman) that didn't significantly contribute to the article. His quote basically said that Jefferson only freed 8 slaves who were related to him. This is a statement of fact, and unnecessary to have this information given as a quotation, it can just be summarized, which is what I did. It was also redundant, he says that Jefferson only freed 8 slaves, and then says that he didn't free any others (which is implied by the only in the previous statement.) I kept Finkelman as a cited reference for the "only freed 8 slaves" information. By all means, if you have a quote where Finkelman does some deep analysis or commentary on Jefferson, include it in the article! But there has to be a reason to include a quote. The other quotes give commentary on the issues being discussed. Bare facts should be included as declarative statements.
- Added the Bacon quote, because it is related to the fact that he only freed 8 slaves. It is the counterargument to why he may have done that. That's what NPOV is all about.

Once again, I say that you shouldn't be so sensitive when someone else edits your material, that is the nature of Wikipedia. Also, I would like to get the opinions of other editors besides Skywriter. Does anybody else think the article or this section is wildly POV? --JW1805 (Talk) 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

JW1805 did not edit me. He edited Paul Finkelman, a subject matter expert, who presented a tight summary of facts. The effect of editing this legal scholar is to water down and remove pertinent facts. JW1805 previously edited John Hope Fanklin by deleting Franklin's view, based on JW1805's claim that his own personal point of view trumps comments by the historian, also a subject matter expert. JW1805 defended his deletions with the ill-considered (unpersuasive) argument that Franklin's view on the Hemings affair is "dumb." JW1805's unilateral actions precipitated the placement of tags on this page, and most recent activity suggests they are properly placed. The substance of the dispute has been ignored, and pertinent facts and informed viewpoints suppressed. JW1805 has an axe to grind. At the moment, his personal viewpoint dominates, to the detriment of the fairness in this article. Skywriter 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you think the section should go? Do you think it should be the first section in the article? Does that make any sense at all? Do you disagree with the underlying structure of the article, to have the biography, and then specific sections on Jefferson views on various issues (Religion, Politics, Slavery, etc.) You didn't respond to my point-by-point responses to your comments in the previous section. If you are going to put a "Wildly Disputed" tag on an article, you have an obligation to work with the other editors and discuss the issue. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I got here from the RFC page. Can one of you post the full Finkelman quotation and the truncated version here so we can evaluate the decision to truncate it?

--Richard 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Full quotes: "Most of Jefferson's slaves were sold after his death to pay his many debts. (Finkelman is cited as reference)" And then later, a direct quote: "During his life, and in his will Jefferson freed a total of eight slaves, all of them members of the Hemings family. These slaves were the children and grandchildren of Jefferson's father-in-law, John Wayles, and thus related to Jefferson through marriage. Jefferson made no effort to change the status of the three to four hundred other slaves he owned during the fifty years between the signing of Declaration and his death, on July 4, 1826."

My summary: "Most of Jefferson's slaves were sold after his death to pay his many debts. During his lifetime, and in his will, Jefferson had freed only eight of his slaves (all of them members of the Hemings family) (cite Finkelman)" --JW1805 (Talk) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I got here from the RfC page. I'll comment on placement. A reader of a biography usually expects the basic flow to be the life of the subject. So section 1 Early life and education, 2 Political career from 1774 to 1800, 3 Presidency 1801-1809, 4 Father of a university, and 5 Jefferson's death are clearly in the proper order. As sections 6 Appearance and temperament and 7 Interests and activities are about his life, they should probably be moved above his death. Sections 8 Political philosophy, 9 Religious views, and 10 Jefferson and slavery all could have a main article, but don't at this time. Unless main articles are generated, these are too long to intrude into the temporal flow. If main articles are generated and these are boiled down to 1-2 paragraph summaries, they could be moved into the temporal flow based on the timing of things mentioned in the summary paragraphs. But that isn't the state right now. Ultimately, Jefferson's political philosophy clearly has the most effect on 21^st century America, so it should lead these sections. His views on church and state are also still relevant to current American political discourse, so they should take precedence over Slavery, which is primarily a matter of historical interest rather than current importance. Thus, I endorse the current section headings so long as these three sections are not split into separate articles. GRBerry 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with the comments of GRBerry for the following reasons. If Jefferson's views on religion are relevant to contemporary political discourse, then his views on racism and slavery are relevant by a mulitple of ten. Jefferson's views on religion did not eventually lead to civil war with residuals that exist to this day, but his views on racism did. Jefferson's views on racism are not yet accurately developed on this page, in any depth, compared to his views on religion and other subjects. He is most famous for the statement in the declaration of independence: "All men are created equal" but he did not intend for that statement to extend to black people. Segregating the subject of slavery and racism from the life of the founders who owned slaves and set the stage for what was to follow. Jefferson's exclusion of black people from the intent of the Declaration of Independence is relevant to any discussion of his authoring those beautiful words. Skywriter 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are making vague and grandiose statements. Jefferson's "views on racism" caused the Civil War? Huh? How do you know what he intended "All men are created equal" to mean? Are you familer with Jefferson's defense of a black slave suing for his freedom in the case Howell v. Netherland, where he argued that "all men are born free"? This is an encyclopedia artice, not a PhD dissertation. It is not appropriate to blame Jefferson for everything that has gone wrong in North America. Why do you single him out and not the others signers of the DoI? Are you blaming him for the instituion of slavery, which existed in America 100 years before he was born? Let's stick to the facts, please.--JW1805 (Talk) 03:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood me. I said that his views on church and state are still "relevant to political discourse" - what I meant was that people still argue about how church and state should interact and quote his words in so doing. Nobody today quotes his words today about whether there should still be slavery in America, because American society has answered that question definitively. If the argument for prominence were that people quoted Jefferson about how to handle those residuals, that would carry some weight with me, as opposed to the one made, which does not. You also argue that it deserves prominence because it is relevant to understanding him as author of the Declaration of Independence. As this biographical article stands at this time, excluding the slavery section (which the Declaration was not primarily about), the Declaration gets one clause in the intro, two sentences in the career section, and one quote in the political philosophy section. Appropriate balance for that much reference to the Declaration is less than a full sentence. GRBerry 13:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The following deletion of facts from the legal scholar and subject matter expert Finkelman's summary is objectionable. "Jefferson made no effort to change the status of the three to four hundred other slaves he owned during the fifty years between the signing of Declaration and his death, on July 4, 1826." Skywriter 06:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue where to place this among this mess of an argument, so I'll place it here. This historian who goes by the name of Ambrose is clearly a moron. "Thomas Jefferson did not achieve greatness in his personal life. He had a slave as mistress. He lied about it." He didn't lie about it. How could he when he said nothing about it? As the section says, "Jefferson never responded publicly about this issue." I removed that particular Ambrose quote for obvious reasons. --S. Parkhurst 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Originally there was only one Ambrose quote (the one about "of all the contradictions...") which I put in. Skywriter added in all the others. They are from the same website, I think it was an interview or a speech that he gave. I'm not sure about adding all these additional quotes from that site, since as Skywriter pointed out, Ambrose is not specifically a Jefferson scholar. I only included the first quote because it is the sort of thing that others have said before, and was a good way to end the section. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clean things up a bit. See [3]. I removed the one where he says "He never freed his slaves", which isn't quite true, he did free a few. I kept the others though, and also restored the Bacon quote, he was a first-hand witness and I think his view is valid. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is instructive that JW1805 picks and chooses quotes from Ambrose, whom I objected to earlier. As everyone reading this must know, Ambrose was famously in the news, in the years before his death-- for plagiarism. JW1805 earlier chose to ignore that objection, and even after I removed Ambrose, he insisted on re-instating Abrose in this article. JW1805 replaced subject matter experts (Paul Finkelman and John Hope Franklin, both of whom have written extensively on this subject) with non-subject matter expert Ambrose who has had ethical issues. JW1805 chose the least revealing comments by Ambrose to replace factual summary by Finkelman. As long as JW1805 insists on including this non-subject matter expert in this article, it is fair to use the material from the same article that JW1805 quoted from, despite his claim above to the contrary, to fully reflect what Ambrose said, and not just the part of it that JW1805 likes. If JW1805 now rejects what his own source said, why did he bring that source and that web page into this article to begin with? If Ambrose is wrong about some facts, why is he in this article at all, and why are we referencing to that article? This is an example of selectively using a source to press personal viewpoint. Skywriter 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The central fact is that Thomas Jefferson had a tremendous impact on the lives of hundreds of people who served his family and whom he held in bondage their entire lives, and even after his own death. His influence impacted millions of black people who were held as slaves throughout the United States. This is not trivial. Those facts should be integrated into this article and not treated as an afterthought as they are now. The history of Jefferson's views on African Americans and on slavery are played down, and even ignored for the most part in this article, and left to the end of the article. For example, one "most important" fact of the Jefferson presidency was the Louisiana Purchase. The article as it now stands calls it "most important." Jefferson had the choice of permitting or prohibiting slavery in the vast new territory, and chose to promote slavery in the then new western region of the United States. This article is flawed because it specifically excludes that discussion. It is omission that contributes to the St. Thomas factor in this article, instead of an honest assessment of an important man's life. Skywriter 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Bacon is pure speculation, is based on nothing factual, and should be removed. It was in fact removed, and then reverted, thus giving further cause for this article being tagged as reflective of the St. Thomas Jefferson viewpoint to the exclusion of factual analyses by scholars who have studied his life and contributions, the good with the bad. Skywriter 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following user at the time shown removed the disputed tag, without discussion: 05:16, 30 May 2006 71.139.182.34. This anonymous user, with a history of jacking in only to remove evidence that there is a dispute about how Jefferson's views on slavery and black people are portrayed in this article, is reversed for cause. Skywriter 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Under Interests and activities, would someone explain why there is no discussion of how Jefferson lived as the bon vivant only because he exploited hundreds of black people whom he kept in slavery? Why is there no connection between the fact that black people were sold after his death to pay off his debts and the following, which is stated so cheerily, as if there were no cause and effect, and no consequence to his actions?

"Jefferson was an avid wine lover and noted gourmet. During his years in France (1784-1789) he took extensive trips through French and other European wine regions and sent the best back home."

And, as Finkleman points out in Slavery and the Founders, Jefferson did in fact bring slaves into France where it was prohibited. Finkelman describes the secret contract Jefferson used to get around French law. Further, there is wide discussion in history articles and books about the contradiction in the praiseworthy notion that "All men are created equal" and the fact that the man who penned those noble words explicitly excluded black people from the concept. Jefferson is justly remembered for these words more than any others, and he is known throughout the world for writing them. Why is it that the central contradiction of his life is not discussed here? (I notice, with concern, that in the history of the Wikipedia article on those very words http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_men_are_created_equal&oldid=48586755 that JW1805 removed discussion of this contradiction from that article. This appears as axe grinding-- the intentional removal of a valid viewpoint that needs to be addressed for the common good. This idea should not be suppressed either from this article or from All men are created equal. It is a mark of the maturity of this enclyclopedia when this common history can be discussed frankly. At the moment, this subject is treated badly. Skywriter 09:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter 09:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a rant. Here are some comments:

"Jefferson did in fact bring slaves into France where it was prohibited. Finkelman describes the secret contract Jefferson used to get around French law. " Huh? What exactly are you saying here? My understanding was that Jefferson actually paid Sally and John Hemings wages while they were in France, because as you say, technically they were free. Also, the oral history of the Hemings family claims that Sally actually was going to stay in France, but Jefferson made a deal with her that if she came back to the US, he would free all of her children when they were 21 (which he did).
"The quote from Bacon is pure speculation, is based on nothing factual, and should be removed. " I don't see why, the guy worked on the plantation for 20 years, seems like his opinions have some merit. I have also read historians who make this same comment.
"Jefferson had the choice of permitting or prohibiting slavery in the vast new territory, and chose to promote slavery in the then new western region of the United States." Again, huh? What specifically are you saying? The President didn't have any power to prohibit slavery anywhere! Please read the discussion on the Northwest Ordinance, when he was a legislator, he did try to prohibit slavery in the new territories, but he was not sucessful.
On the Ambrose quote(s). Like I said above, the only reason I put the one in was that it is sort of a general comment that a lot of historians say in one way or the other.

--JW1805 (Talk) 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This amazes me. Please remember Thomas Jefferson lived in the late 1700's and early 1800's and life was different then. It is correct to point out that what is wrong is wrong and Jefferson should have known that. I am sure he did as a matter of fact but to criticize his liking of wine and good food because he was able to live the good life off the bondage of others is not fair. Everyone in Virginia did that. Many Europeans did this. Why is it only Jefferson you criticize. His mother was wealthy and raised her kids a certain way. What may seem strange to you or me did not seem all that out of the ordinary to Jefferson. He was very intelligent but still a product of his time and his upbringing. In my POV he was more fair and understanding than most men of that time. The above argument makes no sense and is just an attempt to elevate the minor issue of his tastes to becoming an argument of his contradictions. It is a waste of space. Welsh4ever76 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we have to be careful about Presentism when talking about issues like this. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

re: JW1805's "everybody did it defense"

Everyone in Virginia did that. Many Europeans did this.

1. Everyone did not keep hundreds of slaves. Only a very small percentage of the populaton did.

Yes, and the article mentions that Jefferson was one of those people. What is your point? Essays about the evils of slavery do not belong here, put them at Slavery in the United States. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Slavery was specifically banned in France, and Jefferson illegally brought slaves into France. Finkelman documents this. Read the book. Skywriter 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familer with this Finkelman person. Since French law did not allow slavery, when Sally set foot on French soil, she became a free person. Your interpretion (or Finkelman's) that it was "illegal" for Sally to come to France is a bit odd, I think. Was there a specific French law that said people who were slaves in American could not come to France? I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. What are you proposing be put in the article about this?--JW1805 (Talk) 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

re: JW1805 wrote: I am not familer with this Finkelman person.

Finkelman wrote the key book on the subject. His c.v. is linked on this page (for which someone cracked on me for linking to. It was to establish credential.) Skywriter 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And I do not wish to be familiar with this Finkelman. France abolished slavery in 1791, sfter Jefferson left, never to return. Septentrionalis 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that. Many people had their lifestyles elevated due to slavery. Jefferson was not the only President that had a good life because he owned slaves. Washington did so as well. Washington and Jefferson both grew up with it as a part of society. Specifically Washington didn't think twice about it until he retired and then he realized it was an odd institution and became against it by the end of his life. Jefferson was a wealthy person. This was part of their world. They knew it was out of sync with what they believed. Why he did not do more is a good question. I do not think he considered it an important part of his life like we do now. It is attached to everything he does but it is useless to point that out with every little thing. Other people liked wine and good food. Why is it that only Jefferson is criticized because of its connection to slavery. Do you like strawberries? It is tied to illegal immigration. You are abusing illegals then? You are benefiting from their cheap labor after all. It is a waste of time to connect everything to slavery. This is not a book. It is an article. Welsh4ever76 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson and the Post Office

Another quote added from John Hope Franklin: In 1803, President Jefferson signed into law a bill that specifically excluded blacks from carrying the United States mail. Historian John Hope Franklin called the signing "a gratuitous expression of distrust of free Negroes who had done nothing to merit it." Can sombody provide some context for this? Does this really belong in the Jefferson article? The implication seems to be that Jefferson personally conceived and executed a plan to exclude blacks from the post office. Is that true? Or was this just a bill that had a lot of items in it, and that just happened to be one of then? At that time, President's didn't use the veto very often. So, I'm not sure blaming Jefferson for this is really accurate. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

United States presidents are responsible for the bills they sign. Do you want to argue he did not know what he was signing? If so, please provide evidence of that. The evidence that we have is that he was brilliant, and not prone to signing documents that did not reveal his intent.

Do you want to argue that if Jefferson or any U.S. president had signed a bill excluding all members of any other ethnic or racial group from working in the United States Post Office, that this would not be a subject to include in his bio, please make that argument, and support it with sources. Skywriter 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would argue that if the bill was passed in 1803, and that provision was one out of 1500, and if Jefferson had nothing to do with the conception of that particular part of the bill. I don't know if any of that is the case here, but I need more information to make a judgement about it. If you are familar with modern US politics, Presidents often sign bills that contain items that they don't agree with if they support the balance of the bill. This is an obvious statement. It is especially true for past Presidents, who rarely vetoed bills. So, I do not know if it is fair to "blame" Jefferson for this without any context given. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any reference to this bill. Could someone provide more information, or a link to somewhere it is discussed? --JW1805 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Two books are referenced. It's old-fashioned but works fine.Skywriter 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

While - with further info - this fact seems appropriate for the article, I doubt we can put it in the POLICY section unless it was his idea, Btw, John Hope Franklin is a winner of the Jefferson medal --JimWae 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandalism

The amount of vandalism from anons that this pages sees is amazing. It seems like every other edit is anon vandalism. I've added this article to Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. Should we try to get this page protected from anon edits? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

Although Jefferson is known for purchasing Louisiana Territory, couldn't any president have bought it? considering Napoleon only wanted to sell it to America, not specifically Jefferson. Jefferson just happened to be there at the right time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.78.183 (talk • contribs) .

Anyone president at that time could have. But would they have? Some would have, some wouldn't have. (Consider, as a parallel, the acquisition of Alaska, which if I recall correctly was pilloried as Sewell's Folly) Regardless, he did, and that is noteworthy. GRBerry 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seward's folly after William Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln and Johnson.

BTW, I agree that people are noteworthy because they did something, even if anybody else in the same position could have done it also. Could we not say that anybody could have proposed the New Deal, fought to keep the Union together, landed a man on the moon, gone to China, started the first Gulf War?

It took vision to commit millions of dollars to buying undeveloped, unexplored wilderness. It's not like somebody walked up and said "Here's a Lexus for $100, wanna buy it?".

--Richard 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party

There seems to be an issue with deleting "and was the precursor to today's Democratic Party" in the second paragraph in reference to the Democratic-Republican Party. This statement is not in the correct context to make in this article. The correct context is presented in the Democratic-Republican Party article. What it says is the first national political party convention was held in 1832, and Jackson and Van Buren still styled their party "The Republican Party"; the name "Democratic Party" was adopted in the mid 1830s. This was the beginning of the modern-day Democratic Party. Note that it did not say "today's" democratic party - it was the "beginning" of the modern-day party. The article continues to state the Democratic Party was often called "the party of Jefferson"; whereas the Republican Party, was called "the party of Lincoln," by its members which was true until 1932 when the roles began to reverse into the modern party formation that exists today. So if we wanted to actually say "today's" party, it would be the Republican party as the roles reversed after 1932.

Why is it important to include this information in the second paragraph of the Jefferson article? If people want to read the development of the party they can read the party article which puts it in the correct political context. Personally, I don't believe either party represents the philosophy of Jefferson. I would say that he would probably be a libertarian if we looked at today's parties. To say that the Jefferson Party was the precursor to today's Democratic party gives the wrong perception. The political philosophy of Jefferson is very different. Morphh 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the view that which modern U.S. party is more Jeffersonian does not belong in the intro to this article. For at least each of the two major parties, there are some of his views that they represent better than their opponent, and some that they represent a major difference of perspective on. This is all too complicated to address in the intro. I'm not even convinced that it belongs in this article at all. Let the article on Jefferson be about him, not about the politics of centuries later. GRBerry 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a testimony to Jefferson's greatness that a political party he founded 200 years ago still lives on in the modern-day Democratic Party. Saying he helped found the Democratic-Republican Party isn't saying much, as most people will assume the party he founded is long gone unless they understand that Jefferson's party was a precursor of a modern-day party. The American Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world. People discuss whether it was founded by Jefferson (the official Democratic Party line) or whether the Democratic Party dates to Andrew Jackson in the 1820s, but either way, it's important for readers to know that Jefferson still has a hand in modern American party politics. Griot 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

His party is long gone. His greatness still lives on in each party in different areas. It would be much more applicable to say that the party was the basis for several parties today. What is a party but the ideas of political philosophy? Yes, there is a direct link by name to the Democratic party but this is far from Jefferson's classical liberal philosophy. I see the historical roots and put in the correct context it makes sense. This article is not the correct context and gives the wrong impression. It gives the idea that his party (his philosophy) lives in the modern-day Democratic party. This is very deceiving. Morphh 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He does have a hand in modern American politics, but it is not by there being a modern party that is based on his political philosophy. It is by both parties citing him as a reason for what they believe in. Well, more specifically, both parties selectively citing him where they happen to agree with what he said. There is no party today that bases its policies primarily on either Jefferson's philosophy or on the views of the party he founded. Discussion of how his philosophy influences modern politics today is encyclopedic, and belongs somewhere. It may well merit an article of its own. My belief is that a NPOV version of that article could in its intro have to reference the official Democratic Party line but if it did must also in the intro say that this is contrary to the general consensus of historians. Not being a professional historian I could be wrong about the general consensus. However, my general knoweldge, plus articles like United States presidential election, 1828 that have been edited by other parties, show the Democratic Party as either a new organization or at most a splinter organization at the time of Andrew Jackson's election to the presidency. Including the official democratic party claim in intros is to my eyes unacceptable political advocacy, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. GRBerry 14:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear your points about wanting to avoid POVs. However, the modern-day Democratic Party literally is an offshoot of Jefferson's party. It was formed by Andrew Jackson and other prominent Democratic-Republicans (along with some Whigs) in the 1820s. Whatever link the modern Republican Party or the Libertarians have with Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans -- and certainly those parties share many of Jefferson's philosophies -- those links can be a subject of debate. The Democratic Party's ties to Jefferson's party are incontrovertible because the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Repubican Party. This is why the official Democratic Party Web site claims that the party was formed in 1792 by Jefferson and why the Democratic Party is sometimes called (rightfully or wrongfully) the "party of Jefferson." Griot 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points here. You've explained it well and in context - I agree. What I have a problem with is putting it in the intro without the proper context. Morphh 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why not put in the context? Septentrionalis 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about Jefferson and not the party. It is put into context in the party article in the history section. We could add a section here that puts it into context but I don't think it should go in the intro. Make the intro about Jefferson and not the transformation of his party. It is an issue of placement and context. The context should be provided for the statement and the placement of the context should not be in the intro. Morphh 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a substantial part of Jefferson's importance; I have extended it to a form which you agree with here. It is at least as important as the unfortunate Governorship of Virginia; or would you reduce the intro to the "triple boast"? Septentrionalis 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with placement, I could compromise on this point if the context was provided. Your edit looked ok but you reverted it.? While I think the creation of the party is of substantial importance, I think it's modification to something completely different throughout history is of little importance to who he was and what he accomplished. Morphh 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have been content with tweaking the original phrase; if you want to go back to a single sentence, fine by me. Thank you for noting the self-reversion. 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vetos

Were any laws made under the presidenticy(sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of John Adams ruled unconstitutional? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.32.202 (talk • contribs) .

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia! First, a bit of terminology: The supreme court can rule laws unconstitutional, the president can not. The president can however veto a law he disagrees with. this site (pdf) indicates that Jefferson made no vetos during his two terms. Incidentally, the best shot for asking questions is Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)