![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Can I get a source for this? Especially on Federalists being deeply religious? (This particular writing only futhered the enmity many Federalist party members already have against him since most of the Federalists were deeply religious.) - 12.135.134.146 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what Jefferson died of? I don't think the article says. — Vivacissamamente 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure either but if you are interested in the medical history of Jefferson or any other president, check out this website. Regarding you deeceevoice, what a pity you and other individuals who share this disdain for Jefferson must unfairly view him through a prism erected by those who wish to discredit him. -- Sparkhurst 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's funny deeceevoice, I was always under the impression Jefferson treated his slaves well (better than Washington at the very least). As far as Sally Hemmings, only circumstantial evidence can be produced that he was the father of at least one of her many children, yet you insist he raped her! Why would he do that? That a man that was averse to having his slaves whipped could rape a woman who was purported to be his dead wife's half-sister, a woman who was nearly white (3/4 if I recall), is stretching the limits of reality. Perhaps he did father some or all of her children, but suggesting he raped her without any evidence to support this accusation is ludicrous. Since this is turning into a debate that has nothing to do with Vivacissamamente's request, I will leave it at that. While balance in the article is of the highest import, right now you are blinded by emotion and hopefully others will see as I do that you are out of control. 'Tis well. -- Sparkhurst 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why, thank you, Welsh. I'm touched that my health seems to concern you. Warm fuzzies to you, too, dear. :p And read my language about "rape." Hemings was in no position to refuse him, as she was a slave. Today, he would be considered a rapist. Did I write anywhere that Jefferon beat or tortured his slaves? No. But he denied them their freedom -- even those who were his own flesh and blood. Even the woman who bore them. And with regard to Jefferson's sensibilities, yes, Hemings was 3/4 white. What? That was supposed to make him less capable of taking advantage of her? It seems to be what you suggest. Well, not to my way of thinking. Her fair skin certainly didn't make her immune from servitude -- did it? (It didn't make her (even whiter) children by her slavemaster immune.) And read the information I inserted from www.monticello.org. Even their commission concluded that TJ was likely a slave f***er and the father of Hemings' six, fair-skinned children. And my reading of the nation's "founding fathers" tells me that they would have preferred death to enslavement, finding even being colonized an intolerable tyranny. What? Being deprived of the ownership of one's body is not cruelty? Being denied authority and control over one's children/offspring is not cruelty? Being denied the fruits of one's labors and having them usurped by another man so that he may read, travel, entertain and tend to his hobbies is not cruelty? Well, I suppose that's a matter of debate -- isn't it? I wonder how Jefferson himself would have characterized it were he on the receiving end of his own treatment. :p And, no. I'm not "blinded" by anything, nor am I "emotional" about Jefferson. In fact, IMO, my contributions to the article have made it more balanced, more thorough. The article has been improved by my contributions. deeceevoice 08:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not in the least. My comments are calculated. Intense. Not emotional. It seems to me that those of you who can actually bring yourselves to write that a "suspicion" that blacks are inherently inferior to whites is not by its very nature a white supremacist notion are functioning more on emotion than reason. I, on the other hand, am simply calling it what it is. If you were writing about, say, Hitler, or David Duke, or George Wallace, or even Strom Thurmond, would you have the same reaction? Hell, the man owned slaves. deeceevoice 09:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Rather than examining what I am, you'd do better to spend your time addressing the issue of white supremacy in a more forthright, straightforward, focused -- and, yes, "strong or acute" (my meaning with "intense") manner. deeceevoice 10:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least you admit to your puerile conduct. But you're wrong. No one is forcing you; yours is merely a ridiculous excuse for failing to address a matter you'd rather not: the fact that Jefferson expressed white supremacist "suspicions." (I included a wiki link in case you need to look up the phrase.) I am at least trying to discuss the matter at hand up front, while you (and others) continue to sidestep it, while repeatedly reverting my inclusion of it. It's called tag-team edit warring. Ever heard of it? Further if you will check the edit record, as well as the accompanying edit summaries, I have accommodated the comments of others and made changes where appropriate. The tack others have taken, obvious what you're doing. You can't act like a "smartass" and then credibly blame me for your conduct. deeceevoice 11:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"Further discussion"? That's a joke -- right? Don't try to make my comments something they are not. The example is clear. If someone wrote, "Hitler advanced the white supremacist suspicion that Jews and blacks were inherently inferior to Aryans," you likely wouldn't bat an eyelash. The characterization of "white supremacist" speaks to the very nature of the suspicion of inherent inferiority, the corollary of which is Aryan (or, in the case of Jefferson, white) superiority. The logic is clear and unassailable. Failure to rationally discuss the matter as is required by Wiki policy will simply prolong the issue on the article page. I intend to reinsert it and reinsert it and reinsert it and reinsert it unless and until someone can/does explain why it does not apply. deeceevoice 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are simply incorrect. White supremacy clearly speaks to the belief that whites are, if you will, "supreme"/superior -- and Jefferson fits the bill. I would direct the reader (again) to white supremacy. Read the definition. Read its definition elsewhere in any credible, authoritative text. And your comment/argument that one can hold one group superior without, ipso facto holding that another group is inferior is absurdly specious; it defies any semblance of logic. Further, there is ample evidence that Jefferson regarded blacks as inferior to whites. Read the paragraph in the article where the debated text appears. Then read the earlier quote by Annette Gordon-Reed. Jefferson was a white supremacist. And even so, the disputed text merely characterizes Jefferson's "suspicion" -- not Jefferson himself -- and leaves the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. :p deeceevoice 14:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, the disputed passage read: "In this same work, Jefferson advanced the white supremacist suspicion that blacks were inherently inferior to whites "in the endowments both of body and mind" [34]."
Now, tell me, what about that passage is incorrect? Are you saying that the proposition/suspicion that blacks are physically and mentally inferior to whites is not a white supremacist notion? Because that's what it says. deeceevoice 15:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "presentism." In fact, in Jefferson's times, white supremacist attitudes were pervasive; they were the norm. Lincoln was one himself. deeceevoice 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The entry quoting from the above-mentioned report was excised with the edit note that the Foundation "has since revised that statement" (or something similar). The information I submitted was a direct quote and appears currently on the foundation website. No sourced information was presented with the repeated revert, despite my repeated requests for evidence to the contrary. Unless authoritative information is provided, that information, too, will be reinserted and reinserted and reinserted and reinserted ad nauseam. The passage, in fact, refers to precisely the same document that was sourced before by another editor; it is simply more detailed. So, it would appear the assertion that the foundation recanted its findings is false. deeceevoice 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So, now we have an "anonymous" editor who has deleted the section, stating that it repeats the previous information -- when clearly that is not the case. They are two, separate reports by two, separate entities -- with, certainly, the one commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation far more significant, as one would expect them to be skeptical of Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children. And, no. The passages are not "taken out of context" as the edit note claims. These are block quotes, rather than one or two sentences, precisely so as to avoid such a problem and place them in the appropriate context. The objections are without merit. And the report cited is the same report another editor referred to earlier, but who did take a sentence fragment or two out of context. You can't delete the information because you don't like what it says. If the Thomas Jefferson Foundation can stomach the truth, what's the problem? Deal with it. deeceevoice 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you, User: Dpbsmith. Finally, someone capable of, and willing to, listen to reason. deeceevoice 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Along with some general clean-up, I reinserted the appositional phrase describing the Thomas Jefferson whatever-it-is, because it is relevant in that their stated purpose is to "further the honor and integrity" of Jefferson -- and end certainly at odds with a positive finding of paternity in the Hemings case. And, no surprise, they were the lone entity that did make such a finding. deeceevoice 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's hardly a moot point. The Society, after all, did choose the members of the Scholars Commission. Its purposes was reactionary from the git-go, formed in 2000, after the DNA findings were reported, specifically to address the matter of Sally Hemings. The Society itself said at the time that it fully expected to go out of existence after the report was concluded. Vindicating Jefferson was its raison d'etre. And, as User:Vivacissamamente points out, if you check the website, that's virtually all it deals with. deeceevoice 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A response
The central point is this: The Foundation existed well before the controversy came to a head and, as such, consisted of individuals, scholars well-equipped to conduct the study. The voluminous information the committee studied is an indication of its thoroughness in the matter. They are caretakers of the Jefferson legacy and of Monticello, but came to a far different conclusion. Further, their website does not evidence a fixation on the Jefferson-Hemings issue, as the Heritage Society's clearly does. It seems, in fact, virtually all its website discusses. They were established to clear Jefferson's reputation, and that's what they proceeded to attempt to do.
I've skimmed the article you've presented, and parts of it are, indeed, interesting. And a lot of it is utterly hilarious. David Mayer points to a letter in which Jefferson merely refers in nonspecific terms to another letter in which he defended himself against his detractors. Mayer goes on to state that the second letter not only did not survive; it was "destroyed." Still, he then asserts the preposterous conclusion that it is "reasonably clear" that Jefferson denied the paternity rumors regarding Hemings' children, with apparently no real evidence before him -- and then proceeds to criticize the TJHF for not counting the destroyed "evidence" as exculpatory. Mayer also argues that Jefferson remained celibate from the time his wife died until his death at 83, something pretty remarkable on its face. He further states, "Another sense in which a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings would have been 'morally impossible' for Jefferson focuses on his own personal moral code—his self-described 'Epicurean' philosophy...."
Since when is it "morally impossible" for otherwise upstanding, morally upright, principled men (in particular) to lie about their sex lives? I mean how naive, how fawningly firmly glued to TJ's ass do one's lips have to be for a person to not only believe such nonsense, but to present Jefferson's purported celibacy at age 39 as a factual certainty? The next thing you know Mayer will be clapping and barking like a seal in hopes his faith and sincerity alone will save Tinkerbell.
Keep in mind that when Jefferson's wife died, he promised her never to remarry. Hemings had already given birth to at least one of her Jefferson-looking children by that time. What self-respecting white woman of the time would take up with Jefferson, given the rumors and mockery surrounding Jefferson and Hemings and their offspring and -- if that weren't off-putting enough -- knowing that the relationship could never lead to matrimony? His sexual appetites, however, didn't have to go unsatiated. Hemings was there in the wings, always close at hand as his chambermaid, as a caretaker of his children, accompanying him and the kids to Paris -- always around for a Jeffersonian massuh booty call. Seems pretty convenient.
Of the exceedingly naive, faith-based approach of some to Jefferson's sexual proclivities (or, more accurately, the purported lack thereof), Aaron Garrett writes on "Of Racism and Remembrance" (on a website maintained by the American Antiquarian Society): "Instead of weighing the evidence reasonably, historians offered defenses for Jefferson of the circular He - couldn't - have - done - that! - Why? - Because - his - character - was - such - that - he - didn't - do - such - things! - Why? - Because - he - didn't - do - such - things - so - he - couldn't - have - done - that! variety." [6]
Such "reasoning" (and I use that word charitably) is beyond circular. It's embarassingly naive and fairly stinks of blind hero worship. These same "historians" seem to have forgotten the central glaring hypocrisy of Jefferson's life: he bought and sold slaves and made his livelihood from the sweat, heartbreak and toil of enslaved human beings as a "gentleman planter." This man had over 650 slaves at one time or another working for him without pay, for free, his entire life, while he traveled, read, entertained lavishly, puttered about at his various self-described "hobbies" and wrote eloquently about the "God-given rights of man." And even with the free labor of 650 human chattel, Jefferson still ended up in financial difficulty at the end of his life. Most of his slaves were sold -- to God knows whom, into God knows what kind of circumstances -- to settle his debts after his death. These love-struck Jeffersonophiles somehow manage to ignore these critical, damning moral failings of the man, of slaveholding and then the abject hypocrisy of his championing the cause of liberty and "inalienable" human rights, and then proclaim he was somehow too pure to screw Hemings. It would be one thing if Jefferson, like many of his time, believed slavery to be justified -- the "niggers" being savages 'n' all. But Jefferson knew better, repeatedly stating that slavery was wrong. Yet, he freed only eight of the hundreds he owned, and then five only in his will (and every single one of them related to Hemings in some way), when he no longer could benefit from their labors.
Time for a reality check, people. Such reprehensible conduct as is clearly indicated (one way or another) by the Sally Hemings matter is, in fact, perfectly in keeping with Jefferson's conduct throughout his life. And after all, Jefferson wouldn't be the first man in history -- or the last -- who could be accused of "talkin' high and walkin' low," as black folks put it, when it came to satisfying to his sexual urges.
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, as the lone dissenting member of the Heritage Society's commission, wraps it all up fairly neatly in the final paragraph of his minority opinion:
What we do know, however, is damning enough. Despite the distaste that he expressed for the propensity of slaveholders to abuse their power, Jefferson either engaged in such abuse himself or tolerated it on the part of one or more members of his extended family. In his private, as in his public life, there was, for all his brilliance and sagacity, something dishonest, something self-serving and self-indulgent about the man. [7]
It is one thing to acknowledge the tremendous contributions Jefferson made, as a public citizen, to the founding of this nation and the notion of human rights, democracy and freedom. It is quite another to turn a blind eye and seek to censor those of us who would examine the contradictions of the man, as well -- because they tell us a great deal about the very nature of this nation and the thorny and difficult matters around the issues of race, enduring racism, sexuality, white privilege, guilt and fundamental intellectual (and moral) dishonesty that are still with us today. Wikipedia should not a cyber mirror of mainstream textbooks purveying mindless, dumbed-down, calculatedly expurgated pap to schoolchidren more concerned with peer pressure, the adulation of the opposite sex and text messaging notes in class than learning. It should be better than that. There are important things at issue here which impact what the citizens of this nation actually know about ourselves and our history and about, ultimately, the true character -- good and bad, noble and ignominious -- of America. It is the reason I included the reference to the work of historian Roger Wilkins on the subject -- which subsequently was excised as POV and irrelevant, when it is, in fact completely germane to this discussion of Jefferson and his life and the life of this nation.
As Garrett also states at the conclusion of the same article:
Gordon-Reed opens her pivotal chapter on "Thomas Jefferson" by describing a mock trial of Thomas Jefferson, put on by the New York Bar, with Charles Ogletree as prosecutor, Drew Days as defense attorney, and William Rehnquist as trial judge. "The issue to be decided by the trial was whether examples of hypocrisy in Jefferson's life significantly diminished his contributions to American Society." Although the judge, and the majority of the audience (including Gordon-Reed and her husband), voted to acquit and forgive, forgiveness says little about the historical record, or its meaning. The question rather is, What is the legacy of guilt and hypocrisy?
On this point, I would disagree with Garrett somewhat. "What is the legacy of guilt and hypocrisy?" is not the question, but one question. Still, it is an important one worth examining and considering for those of us both benefited and burdened, inspired and shamed, ennobled and outraged, by the legacy of Jefferson's life.
deeceevoice 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
One more note: the footnote regarding the findings of the Heritage Society seems misplaced. It would seem that the "not persuasive" language should be footnoted, as it is the information critical to the point. Also, in skimming the page to which link 42 leads, I could find no such language -- though I concede I easily could have missed it. Perhaps a link to a page containing the precise language of the findings would be more helpful, rather than to a page which pretty much seems to simply list .pdf downloads which -- in the case of the Minority Report, at least -- are so corrupted they cannot be read. deeceevoice 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And, no. My comments are not off-topic. They speak to the clear tendency of many editors to seek to censor the content of the article, either by obliterating language they find objectionable, or to downplay certain matters. And inappropriate to mention the M.D.? By that reasoning, then, should we reduce the number of Heritage Society commission members to 12 in light of Rahe's fairly damning dissenting opinion? :p Right. I didn't think so. deeceevoice 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You're evading the point. He's included in the, presumably, aptly named "13-member Scholars Committee," the name of which implies a certain level of academic achievement and expertise. Unfortunately, less flashily named "9-member in-house committee" of the Foundation might be janitors, secretaries and groundskeepers, for all we know, without the additional information. Also, please turn your attention to the matter of the footnote, if you contributed the information and know where that language comes from. Thanks. deeceevoice 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. And now you want to censor the discussion page, too? How decidedly un-Jeffersonian of you! :p deeceevoice 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The objection raised about the paragraph was that it broke up the flow; if that is the principal objection, you guys could end this revert war by moving it somewhere later in the article, where it is somewhat less obtrusive. It is an interesting point, worthy of comment somewhere in the article, if not right at the top. Considering how down on slavery he was in principle, I had imagined he would have freed a few more of his own slaves. I would have liked to have thought so, anyway….
Also, some of this page probably ought to be archived (again). Does anyone know how to do it? — Vivacissamamente 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought the paragraph was fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out up front the central and contradiction in the man's everyday life. And I said in an earlier exchange, being a slaveholder is what fed and clothed the man; it's how he made his living. Since the perfectly reasonable paragraph has been deleted, I've included "slaveholder" among his many "occupations", which is where that notation was when I started (again) on this article a few days ago. It's certainly as valid as any other. deeceevoice 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. I've deleted "slaveholder" and reinserted a revised paragraph which mentions nothing about the freed slaves. (And, actually, "chattel" is a perfectly serviceable word. It describes, or refers to, the nature of slavery as practiced in the U.S. deeceevoice 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone of the first of five pillars of Wikipedia.
-Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.
Please read and keep in mind when editing. Welsh4ever76 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd just like to add that I think the contradictions or nuances of leaders such as Jefferson or Bill Clinton, good or bad, makes them "more human" and to some or in some cases more endearing. Excluding elementary school, I don't think my history teachers or professors have made presidents sacred cows and I would hope we prefer history, and the recording of history as encyclopedias like Wikipedia do, told that way so that it is more complete and accurate. Political correctness has no place in such an equal-opportunity, good-faith based site as Wikipedia. A major reason I decided to contribute to this site was to give back to the rewards its given me of such massive free education at my fingertips from such a humanistic goal that I daresay ought not be tainted or tarnished by political correctness. Improve Wikipedia with a PC but not PC! Minutiaman 06:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Over on anarchism, an editor keeps inserting a section on Jefferson, claiming that he is the root of anarchist thought. The assertion seems a bit strange to me, and the sources are dubious. It looks like a clear example of WP:OR. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows the subject well could come on over and explain to User:Lingeron that Jefferson was most definitely not an anarchist. It's at least clear that there is no way to verify such a thing. -- AaronS 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, please remember that talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Talking about how good or evil he was is a matter for a forum, not for Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am an editor on the wikipedia anarchism article. There is an editor(s?) who wishes to include several paragraphs detailing Thomas Jefferson's (along with Jesus and Thoreau) influence on modern anarchist thought. There is also a vocal group who do not agree that such information is pertinent to an article on anarchism in general but rather belongs in the anarcho-capitalist article. I thought that there might be people here who could contribute something to the debate. Thanks, Blockader.
Thomas Jefferson died over one hundred and eighty years ago. He is buried in Charlottesville, VA. You may go visit his grave and discuss the problems you have with him there. Until then I do not believe we need a section like this under an article meant to educate people about him. It is not wrong to point out this inconsistency in his life under the slavery section. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he went through many drafts and included an anti slavery clause in many of them. He was aware it appeared hypocritical. However he was not the only member of the continental congress. Shall we have a criticism section on everyones wiki page where detractors can add their POV about a person? Welsh4ever76 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the section is well sourced, it clearly qualifies as "facts about opinions," which are perfectly acceptable. If it is felt that these facts present an unbalanced look at opinion about Jefferson, they should not be removed, but balanced with well-sourced statements of other opinions.
In the words of the neutrality policy, "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves.... When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
It seems to me that the current section meets these tests with regard to the opinions it asserts, but perhaps needs to include additional (well-sourced) statements of competing opinions. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have merged the criticism section into the slavery section, (hopefully) retaining all the content and references. Deeceevoice is correct that the criticisms may not always be about slavery- and I bet most people won't object to having a section called "criticisms" as soon as that happens. Friday (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What's going on here? I noticed some of the merged stuff was removed piece by piece (apparently there are objections) but then put back again as a "criticisms" section? I thought we agreed that things about Jefferson and slavery belonged in the "Jefferson and slavery" section? Can we all stop editing by brute force, please? Friday (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this section as this is an article about Thomas Jefferson and not a discussion board where people can post their feelings and views about him. No other founding father has an entire section dedicated to him in this manner. Contemporary views and criticism is from a modern POV and as I stated in the discussion below his contemporaries elected him President regardless of this contradiction. Why point out one person. George Washington owned slaves. James Madison owned slaves. Why no section about them? This is not a contribution to the article. It is a POV. Welsh4ever76 04:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to be careful here. In his day he was not a contradiction. We're judging someone from the past by today's standards. Perhaps re-word to something akin, to "in modern times, he's a man of contradictions..." plange 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, this really has nothing to do with modern standards. Even Jefferson's contemporaries remarked on the obvious discordance between being an advocate of innate human liberties and a slaveowner. Simply because hypocrisy was the fashion of the day, with slavery being an accepted norm in many parts of the nation, that did not render the contradiction nonexistent or any less glaring. Indeed, it was an element constantly remarked upon by abolitionists of the day, generally (as well as by Jefferson's detractors/political opponents). deeceevoice 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, the paragraph about Jefferson being a "man of contradictions" was reinserted because the lead paragraphs of an article are meant to be an introduction to, and a summary of, the information that follows. The subject matter is of sufficient importance (it is beyond question the most hotly debated issue about Jefferson and his legacy, period) and it is treated generally enough that it is appropriate there as a prelude to more detailed information presented later -- and the same can be said for other information also presented in the opening paragraphs. It is simply the way an article naturally develops. The information about Jefferson being a slaveholder is as an important fact about the man as that he is the "eponym of 'Jeffersonian democracy'," etc., etc. It seems to me that the repeated removal of such a simple, straightforward paragraph about a critical -- and historically defining -- contradtion between the man's public life and work and how he earned his living, or, more accurately, how others earned his living for ihm :p (certainly more important than his various hobbies, which are mentioned at length), is merely an attempt by others to censor the article. deeceevoice 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I took out the last paragraph mentioning his contradictions. I feel that the opening looks better without and it is not needed. He was elected President by the people of the United States at that time even though he was a known slaveholder. We may view this as a contradiction but his contemporaries did not feel this way as they voted him into the highest office of the land at that time. Welsh4ever76 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't need your counsel on remaining civil. There is absolutely nothing incivil about my remarks. They are accurate and on point. And, yes. Try reconciling his comments about miscegenation with him screwing Hemings over a period of several years and fathering a half dozen quadroon children. Or, if you prefer to take the other side, allowing one of his close relatives to do so. That'll do for starters. There are likely others rooted in the same issue if one were to dig up quotes: on say, honesty, morality, propriety and fidelity, like tippin' on his wife and regularly humping his wife's half-sister; or, on work ethic, like, say, living off the sweat of other people's labor; or, possibly, thrift and prudence, like how the hell can someone have 650 slaves over the course of one's life working for them for free and still end up in financial difficulty? deeceevoice 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you over wiki editiquette. TBQF, what you think doesn't really matter much to me. As others have indicated here, the language of the paragraph is measured and appropriate as-is. And, no. It's hardly original analysis. deeceevoice 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict: At the risk of bringing deecee down on me, I mentioned above we needed to be cautious about judging someone from a time period over 200 years ago. Certainly 200 years from now, deecee, you'll need to be okay with how you're judged, and what I mean by that, is that probably by then, they will look on us with disgust for eating meat, driving fossil fuel cars and shopping at Wal-mart for low-cost products made by what basically amounts to slave labor in China. An analogy can be drawn by let's say taking another modern politician, Al Gore, known for being smart, intelligent and pro-Environment. But 200+ years from now he would be seen as a man of contradictions because he didn't live off the grid and use biodiesel in his car. There are contemporaries you can find today that could be used in the future to say that he was scorned for not doing that, but do the majority of his contemporaries scorn him for that? (there are political things they scorn him for I know, but that's not the issue here).... Also, no one has addressed the source issue I mentioned above for that section. Also, if you do insist on using a quote from a contemporary, I'd find an American, not someone who was British and probably against our fight for independence and so had some POV-pushing to do of his own. The sad fact is, that fierce opponents to slavery (like Johnson) were in a minority. If the majority thought otherwise, Jefferson would have had no problem getting the bill passed that he introduced when Governor of Virginia to abolish slavery and would have not had the sections lambasting the institution of slavery in the Declaration of Independence struck by fellow Southern delegates. Am I advocating we whitewash things? No. I just think it needs to be better written and sourced if you're going to have it in the lead. plange 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, can I claim fatigue? It's almost 4 AM here, and I was getting this confused with the criticism passage. I think it reads fine as it, sorry deecee. plange 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Deeceevoice, This is an article meant to educate people, including children, about Thomas Jefferson. It is not a message board for your personal disappointments you may have with him. You are calling him a hypocrite for behaviour that may not be his. You are citing his lack of action on abolishing slavery and not taking into account events outside of his control. I am not saying that it should not be mentioned but it should not be in the opening of the article. In the end he was much more important than just being a slave owner even if that is what is important to you. He did many other things people know him for or should know him for. This paragraph does not fit into the opening and doesn't belong there. Welsh4ever76 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
hey griot -- please be sure not to violate the "three revert rule"
Justforasecond 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In the opening sentence of the paragraph in the section titled "Jefferson and Slavery," he is stated to have owned 650 slaves, but it closes with his owning 600. (refers to this version.) Neither gives a source. Any thoughts on clarifying this seeming contradition? -- TeaDrinker 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the current picture of a gray-haired Jefferson, similar to the one found on the two-dollar bill and many other famous portraits and depictions of Mr. Jefferson, should be left as the one for this site. This portrait is overwhelmingly the one recognized by the majority of Americans as well as foreigners, and the former portrait was one of a far less recognizable Jefferson, one with brown hair that may confuse the uninitiated with another president, a young Andrew Jackson or James Monroe being the most popular. CinnamonCinder 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And the pic that Sparkhurst pointed to is great. I love that painting of Jefferson. King Wen €ŸØãç 01:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a statement included in this article that reads, "most of his biographers agree he was a deist." This statement, however, is not referenced. If it is a true statement, though, then that means there exist some biographers who do not agree that he was a deist. Their views however are not presented. I do not think it can be argued that their views are not significant, as I have witnessed serious debates about Jefferson's deism, and I think for NPOV the other side should at least be presented, although in accordance with the policy on undue weight, I don't think there is a problem if it is presented in less detail.
My recollection from some things I read years ago was that Jefferson changed over the course of his life so that at some points he was a deist and at some points he was not. This resulted in there being quotes from him both affirming his deism and affirming him not being a deist, which is part of why people could debate so seriously, because both had quotes that they thought proved them right. But that is just my recollection from like ten years ago, and (unfortunately) I really don't remember the reference. HalfDome 15:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"Jefferson and John Adams were the only signers of the Declaration of Independence to become Presidents."
Perhaps this should clarified as being President under the present Constitution as John Hancock was a president under the preceding one.
I managed to track down the actual quote which was being falsely modified to say "That government is best which governs least." Jefferson's actual words were: "I hold the world is governed too much. I hold that when we have established justice and so legislated as to prevent the strong from preying upon the weak, then the least governed country is the best governed country." It was written from Jefferson to John W. Eppes and is quoted in The Freeman, November 3 1920, page 185. How's that for research? C-Liberal 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would copy and paste a quote that I do not think we need on the wiki TJ article page.
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, who authored the lone dissenting opinion in the 2001 report of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society commission, remarked on the inconclusive findings regarding the question of Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings' children:
What we do know, however, is damning enough. Despite the distaste that he expressed for the propensity of slaveholders to abuse their power, Jefferson either engaged in such abuse himself or tolerated it on the part of one or more members of his extended family. In his private, as in his public life, there was, for all his brilliance and sagacity, something dishonest, something self-serving and self-indulgent about the man.''
-We do not know what he thought or what he did. He may not have been the father, he may not have known what was going on and did not feel the need to control every aspect of the slaves lives. He may have become angry when he found out. While we do know a lot about him we do not know everything. Since there is no way of knowing exactley what went on concerning him, someone else or what he even knew about it, I think this quote is a point of view and in a section of the article that does not have other points of view to counter it. We could easily add the points of views of others on the panel but we decided earlier that this was pointless and to just add a link to the Sally Hemings page was sufficient. Welsh4ever76 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
He was the lone dissenter in this particular effort. Keep in mind there was another study which found the reverse. Further, Rahe's comment is a valid one, regardless of the paternity of Hemings' children; it is an informed observeration/criticism of the character of Jefferson, and that's the point. deeceevoice 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Reverting a long list of inventions added without citations. Jefferson did introduce a swivel chair to the united states after seeing them in Europe, and did create an improvement to the dumbwaiter, but he didn't invent either one. The other additions, so far as I can tell, are entirely fabricated, and Jefferson's actual inventions are omitted entirely. If I'm wrong, could someone provide a verifiable citation before re-adding the text? Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is a massive discrepency between the Jefferson article on wiki and the one of Sally Hemings. The Hemings article actually goes on to provide further proof that Jefferson was the father of her four children and the National Genealogical Society Quarterly conclusion that he did indeed father the children. However, it seems the Jefferson arcticle is highly edited to keep out as much of a blemish as possible on Jefferson's record. It seems rather seedy to me. Sally Hemings
I understand...but the issue is not the fact that it only breifly deals with the subject. By all means, it should only do so briefly. The issue is that it deals with it almost as if it concluded that the claims have been proven false. Whereas in the Sally Hemings article, quite the opposite opinion and view is held, as the article goes to greater length and uses more researchers...and in comparison the Jefferson only uses specific references and articles from the Sally Hemings' one, all being ones that decline the theory, while completing ignoring any of the articles that prove otherwise. It just seems like propoganda. Or at best...whitewashing.
No offense, but I've kept track of the DNA and Lineage testing of Sally Hemings offspring. All that was proven was that Thomas Jefferson and some of Heming's descendents have a common ancestor. There exists no exact proof that Thomas Jefferson actually fathered any of Sally Heming's children. I'd say it's extremely possible, but until some undeniable proof of this surfaces, it should remain as speculation and, therefore, not VERIFIABLE.
In a letter written by 19th century biographer, Henry Randall, it was widely known around Monticello at that time, that Jefferson's nephew Peter Carr was actually the individual who fathered Sally Heming's children. LRS
I was suprised to see that Jupiter, Thomas Jefferson's childhood friend and, as an adult, his most respected slave, didn't have his own page--not even a small one. I was even more suprised to see that Jupiter isn't even mentioned in Thomas Jefferson's page.
I don't really know much about Jupiter other than he was TJ's friend. In fact, that's why I was hoping Wiki would have something more, because I would love to know. So I just think anyone who knows anything about Jupiter should put it at least in the TJ page, just so that he's mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.25.198 ( talk • contribs)
Yeah, I'm not an editor or anything, but you should probably take out the part about Thomas Jefferson being a rapper and no good hustler.
I do not see any discussion of the matter on the current discussion page, and because there is not even an allegation that I have read anywhere to the effect that Jefferson actually married Sally Hemmings, I am changing the 'spouse' entry in the sidebar to reflect the name of the woman he actually did wed. Ari 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the quote.
During his lifetime, and in his will, Jefferson had freed only eight of his slaves (all of them members of the Hemings family) [1].
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/freed.html
He freed two men during his lifetime. Robert Hemings and James Hemings. In his will he freed five men. Joe Fosset Jr., John Hemings, Burwell Colbert, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings. I counted seven people. He allowed three slaves to run away. Jayme Hemings, Beverly Hemings and Harriet Hemings. That would be ten. Welsh4ever76 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
First, my thanks to everyone who contributed to this very thoughful article.
I would like to make a suggestion for a change in the section titled: Political Career 1774 to 1800 that would be in keeping with the spirit of NPOV. The current article reads..."Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, the Jay Treaty proved that Washington and Hamilton favored Britain, so Jefferson retired to Monticello." Stating that Washington and Hamilton favored Britian may be a misrepresentation of the President's convictions. Washington did not believe that America could win another contest against Great Britian, doubting that our county had the means and collective will to pursue such a course of action. Hamilton did not believe that the nacent union could financially sustain another major conflict. The Jay Treaty was as much an acknowlegement of our nation's persistent dependence on Britian as it was an example of the lack of any real leverage, the nation had at that time, in negotiating with the British. For the reasons listed above, and others not mentioned here, Washington and Hamilton favored neutrality in the conflict between France and Britian. It is a correct observation, however, that Jefferson strongly supported France against Britian when war broke out between those nations.
I would suggest modifying the sentence to read thus: "Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, Washington and Hamilton favored a policy of neutrality. After the Jay Treaty was narrowly approved by congress and was signed into law by Washington, Jefferson departed from Washington's cabinet and retired to Monticello." I believe that this modification would more accurately characterize the opposing points of view, between Jefferson/Madison and Washington/Hamilton, without detracting from the theme of the overall article.
Top Quark 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)David Israel 10-05-06
Bruce E Baker 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything of Thomas Jefferson ever being suicidal?
Zidel333 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
WTF?? no
Watersoftheoasis 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the last paragraph added under the Sally Hemings section. There were numerous words that were spelled wrong and the accuracy is questionable. Sally Hemings was never manumitted and I am unaware of any of her children becoming millionares. Maybe there were grandchildren that did so but that is not what was stated. This is not correct information. Welsh4ever76 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this supposed sourced information again because Annette Gordon Reed is mistaken if she thinks Thomas Jefferson ever freed Sally Hemings even at his death. She was a slave until the day she died. His daughter, Martha Randolph, inherited Sally Hemings and for a time she was a servant in her household. She did give Sally Hemings her time. This means that Sally Hemings was allowed to live in town. It was a retirement of sorts. Martha Randolph did draw up a will in which she would free two slaves upon her death. One of them was Sally Hemings. However Sally Hemings died before Martha Randolph so she was never manumitted. Welsh4ever76 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find any information that indicates any of Sally Hemings grandchildren were millionares. Could someone site Annette Gordon Reeds sources for this. Also this is different information from what was originally posted. The contributer said children. Did Ms Gordon Reed make this change or did you? Welsh4ever76 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The section didn't say Sally was manumitted, it refers to the laws in France and England. In England she was automaticlly free just by putting her feet on English soil, in France she could have pursued freedom, but she didn't.
What was the actual circumstance with the French? What was their actual position with regard to slaves who people brought into their society?
If the slave was in England, there was a statement that the air of England is "too pure for a slave to breathe." If you were on English soil, you were free. That was not the case in France. At the time of Jefferson was there, the slave would actually have to make a petition to an assembly. These petitions were granted, but it wasn't clear that they would always be granted. His slaves would have had a chance to make this petition and would have a chance to be free.Is there anything to indicate that the two Hemings servants in his household--Sally and her brother James--were ever interested in pursuing freedom in France?
Nothing besides Madison Hemings's memoir, in which he says that his mother wanted to remain in France, and then Jefferson promised her various things if she would come back.
Sally was in England for several weeks along with Jeffersons doughter Polly:
So he wrote and said that we should send his youngest daughter, Polly--her real name was Mary, she was later called Mariah, at that time she was Polly--to send her along with a mature woman who had been inoculated against smallpox. Instead, the person that they were going to send was pregnant. So they sent Sally instead. Sally, at this point, was between 14 and 15 years old. She had been the companion of Polly, the nurse companion for Polly for many years. And so they went to London, and stayed at the home of Abigail Adams and John Adams for several weeks until Jefferson sent for Polly. And that's how Sally ended up in Paris.
And about Sally's children and grandchildren, which were classified as "white" after gaining freedom [8], Reed says:
You're focusing on the bad. If you focus on his perspective--not from Madison's perspective, not from Sally's--but from his perspective, look what he's done. They're white, and they're going to be free white men. Within one generation, two of his grandchildren are millionaires. They own businesses in Madison, Wisconsin.
Grandchildren from the descendants of Sally?
From the descendants of Sally. The thing is, if you're a white man, a white person in America, and you apply yourself, that worked. That's exactly what happened.
CoYep 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Reed states that Jefferson payed wages to her and other slaves:
She was paid wages along with James, her brother, who was paid wages. But that was a practice that Jefferson followed whenever he had any of slaves in a place where the other servants were free workers. He paid them wages along with the others, so that there wouldn't be slaves there working along with servants and not getting paid.
For the sake of balance, those informations should be included into the Slavery and Hemings controversy sections. CoYep 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing, the article implies that for Jefferson, being a slave and being black was one and the same. That is not correct. In Jeffersons opinion, as well as by the laws of the time, slave status was not connected to skin color or race. And Sally's offspring indeed registered as white after emanzipation. See this source [9] CoYep 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Using a large-body of non-DNA evidence, African-American historian Annette Gordon Reed argues that not only did Hemings and Jefferson have sexual relations, but that they were in love with each other. She explains that Jefferson didn't manimate Hemings until his death because it wasn't possible for them to openly have a relationship because of miscegenation laws of the time. Hemings took trips to France and England, where by law she was free, yet she returned to live as a "slave" with Jefferson. Jefferson ensured that Sally's children received a good education - within one generation two of his grandchildren became millionaires - and that their live together resembled a family rather than a master-slave arrangment. [10]
I deleted this paragraph again. This is incorrect information even if it was said on PBS. The web site http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/sallyhemings.html has information about what happened to Sally Hemings after the death of Thomas Jefferson.
--Sally Hemings was never officially freed by Thomas Jefferson. It seems most likely that Jefferson's daughter Martha Randolph gave Sally "her time," a form of unofficial freedom that would enable her to remain in Virginia (the laws at that time required freed slaves to leave the state within a year). --
Martha Randolph did include a provision to set Sally Hemings and another slave (Wormley Hughs I believe) free in her will however Sally Hemings died before Martha Randolph so she remained a slave until she died.
Please stop posting incorrect information. Welsh4ever76 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this revised paragraph again. Madison Hemings states that Jefferson did not ensure that he or his siblings received a good education. Here is a quote from Madison Hemings concerning his education.
I learned to read by inducing the white children to teach me the letters and something more; what else I know of books I have picked up here and there till now I can read and write.
This is from the website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/cron/1873march.html
Annette Gordon Reed seems to be mistaken in much of what she writes concerning this subject. Please stop using her as a reference. Welsh4ever76 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I also deleted a qoute from Annette Gordon Reed under the slavery section. It is poorly written and does not make sense. It has many spelling errors as well. Welsh4ever76 17:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this again. The original research is on Annette Gordon Reeds part. Thomas Jefferson never said this. Welsh4ever76 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would paste the qoute that I have a problem with.
On one hand, Jefferson wrote that slavery was an abomination. On the other hand, he seldom freed slaves. On the one hand, he argued that slaves could not be freed because they were like children. On the other hand, he saw to it that many slaves on his plantation became skilled craftsmen....On one hand, Jefferson seems to have been revolted by the notion of amalgamation and social relations with blacks. On the other hand, he took products of amalgamation and made them favored members of his household. He also maintained cordial relations with some blacks and encouraged one black family to send their children to the local white school in Charlottesville. The truth is that Thomas Jefferson can be cited to support almost any position on slavery and the race question that could exist [40].
I have not been able to confirm any such story. In colonial Virginia slaves were not permitted to attend school with whites. Free black people were not permitted to live in the state. So to tell a black family that they should send their kids to the local school in Charlottesville simply does not make sense. It was illegal for them to even be there. Welsh4ever76 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to delete the qoute by Annette Gordon Reed again. In 1806 a law was passed that forbade manumitted slaves from staying in the state of Virginia for more than one year. Also, there were laws prohibiting free and enslaved African Americans to be taught to read or write. Neither free nor enslaved blacks could attend schools with whites. So even a black family with a waiver to live there, which was uncommon but not unheard of, would not have been allowed to attend schools with whites. Thomas Jefferson would not suggest to a black family to send their kids to the all white school knowing it was illegal to do so. Welsh4ever76 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Specificity - It was illegal to teach enslaved, free and orphaned blacks to read. Free blacks over the age of twenty-one had to leave the state within 12 months of being freed. If not they could be re-enslaved. It was illegal for free blacks to move to Virginia. A teacher would be fined for teaching a black student enslaved or free. I can find no record of a school in Charlottesville until around 1800 and these laws were strictly enforced at that time because of the attempted revolt of Gabriel Prosser in 1800. I am going to delete this again. Welsh4ever76 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Five Points:
1. TJ and the school question The source for the citation of TJ’s urging a black family (the Scotts, a famous family of musicians) to send their children to school is given in TJ and SH: An American Controversy at page 139 in the text, page 268 in the notes. That source, an essay in the much acclaimed Jefferson Legacies, cites to Ora Langhorne’s Southern Sketches, a book that profiles various figures in 19th century Virginia. R.T. W. Duke and W.C.N Randolph wrote in their recollections of the Scotts’ exceptional lives. Randolph remembered that the mixed race Scotts were allowed to vote. The Scotts were not the only ones who reported going to school in C’ville. The children of David and Nancy Isaacs, a Jewish C’ville merchant and free black woman, younger than the Scotts, also remembered going to school with white children. One can say that all these people were lying, but there should be some firm basis for saying that, and the purported existence of a law against it is not a firm basis. Historians in all fields of study have long noted the gap between law on the books and law “on the ground”—as they say. That is one of the many things that makes history continually fun; finding the unexpected circumstances that confound conventional wisdom, seeing human flexibility in the way people respond (or don’t respond) to authority. Individuals in communities, away from the seat of government, very often make up their own “customary” rules to take care of their local values and preferences. Sometimes governments pass laws for their salutary effect, with neither the intention, nor the power, to enforce them. To say that a thing didn’t happen because it was against the law for it to happen, does not really get at the way people actually live in the real world. History is more than the study of what appears in statute books. What made the Scotts different? In addition to being local celebrities, they were the grandchildren of Thomas Bell, a prominent C’Ville merchant and very close friend of TJ’s. Bell, a white man, lived on Main Street in C’Ville with SH’s sister, Mary Hemings, from the late 1780s until his death in 1800. Their relationship was completely open and completely against the law. But Bell was a respected member of the community who became a magistrate and Justice of the Peace while he was living with Hemings. When the town put together special commissions to study problems, he was often voted to lead or participate. He and TJ socialized together, and Bell was TJ’s agent on business matters. People did not care how he lived. See Joshua D. Rothman’s Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Families Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861. It is especially good about the gap between law and actual practice in C’ville during TJ’s time. An example from TJ’s specific case; a 1782 Virginia law made it illegal to let slaves hire themselves out. See, Thomas D. Morris, “Southern Slavery and the Law 1619-1860”, p. 339. They were also not supposed to be given general passes to go wherever they wanted. The master was supposed to maintain strict control over the process of hiring slaves out and their movement. Yet, TJ regularly allowed Martin, Robert, James, and Peter Hemings to hire themselves out and keep their money. His letters make clear that sometimes, he didn’t even know where they were and for whom they were working. According to the law, TJ was not supposed to do that. But, he did. I am prepared to believe that the vast majority of white Virginians acted with implacable hostility towards blacks, but we know that there were some people of conscience who did not think the laws in certain cases made sense, and acted in contravention of them as circumstances warranted. In the Scotts'time, Virginia had prohibitions against unlawful assemblies of blacks where learning could take place that could be, and were, finessed. An 1831 law prohibited free blacks from teaching other blacks to read and write, and any whites from teaching assemblages of blacks for pay or going to school with them. But that law was passed five years after TJ's death and, thus, had no bearing on his dealings with the Scott family. Even then, Morris, in his painstaking and exhaustive study of the laws of southern slavery cited above, says that, unlike other regulations policing blacks, those laws were only rarely enforced.
2. Free blacks in Virginia – The notion that the story mentioned just above is untrue because the laws of colonial Virginia prevented free blacks from residing in the state is incorrect. It is emphatically not the case that free blacks were not allowed to stay in colonial Virginia, as the numerous books and articles exploring the lives of free blacks in Virginia throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, attest. (See the works of Ira Berlin, Philip Morgan, Stephen Innes, and many, many others. One of the most recent books on free blacks in Virginia is Melvin Patrick Ely’s 2004 Bancroft Prize winning, Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom From the 1790s to the Civil War). Before the beginning of the 1780s there could be no private manumissions. The owner of an enslaved person had to get permission from the colonial government to emancipate him or her. But there were a number of free blacks who had not been slaves for generations, if at all:they were, mainly, the descendants of white women and black men who had married (or merely had liaisons)before the 1691 Virginia statute that outlawed intermarriage. Children followed the status of their mothers, so they, and their progeny, were free. After the 1782 liberalization of the law, which allowed for private manumissions, the number of free blacks increased. After his emancipation in the 1790s, Robert Hemings lived in Richmond and operated his own small business. The 1806 law requiring blacks freed after that date to leave Virginia, had a provision that allowed masters to seek permission for the freed slave to remain in the state. Ely discusses how local officials largely ignored the provision requiring removal to another state. Most importantly, the laws of colonial Virginia have nothing to do with the Scott children and their relations with TJ, because they were not alive when Virginia was still a colony. They were born during the early American Republic.
3. The Prosperity of SH’s grandchildren—John Wayles Jefferson (born John Wayles Hemings) was a Memphis cotton merchant, president of J.W. Jefferson & Company, and land speculator. His younger brother, Beverly Jefferson was his heir- at -law and was the owner, in is own right, of a hotel and cab company in Madison, Wisconsin. Their stories can be found in “Thomas Jefferson’s Unknown Grandchildren”, an American Heritage article, also cited in TJ and SH: An American Controversy. Near the end of his life, Wayles Jefferson’s estimated net worth was between fifty and one hundred thousand dollars. “Millionaire” is a term of art used to convey to modern day readers what it meant to be worth between $50,000 and $100,000 in 1890. A person who had that amount of money in today’s terms would not be considered “rich”. It is necessary, and more accurate, to try to give readers some sense of what that amount of money really meant in the times in which the subject had it--or didn’t have it. For example, saying TJ was about $107,000 dollars in debt when he died in 1826, does not really convey the magnitude of his financial ruin. By some estimates, a dollar in 1890 had the spending power of almost 20 dollars today. By that measure, Wayles Jefferson was a rich man and, at least, a “millionaire”.
4. The “habit” of using one endnote for paragraphs—This is not a personal eccentricity. It is a convention in academic press books to use one endnote for a paragraph that contains numerous assertions for which there must be a citation. The citations in the endnotes are given in the order in which the assertions appear. Law review articles cite each sentence. That scares ordinary readers, which is why book publishers don’t let their authors do that. Popular history books are starting to give citations by referencing the beginnings of sentences in the text. They are meant to be minimal, and do not usually contain additional discussions of material. For that reason, academic presses probably will no go that route.
5. The Future --All of this-- and much, much more-- will be discussed and further expanded upon in the forthcoming two book set, The Hemings Family of Monticello: A Story of American Slavery, from W. W. Norton: first book in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not misleading in the context of his life story as presented in the American Heritage article. Okay, the term "millionaire" as as a synonym for "very wealthy", "rich" or "prosperous" does not work for all, and it is best to be literal. In any event, it is not a material mistake given the context of the overall point being made, certainly not as compared to saying that free blacks were not able to reside in colonial Virginia. We can say in the end that Wayles Jefferson was a very rich man, who would be a millionaire by today's terms, just one generation out of slavery. That was no mean feat; a testament to the tenacity and creativity of the Hemings/Wayles line. UserVertvox
As to impressions: the presentation of the state of the law of Virginia in colonial times (again, nothing at all to do with the Scotts who knew TJ) as an argument against the notion that they could have gone to school with white children is just wrong. By all means, research the Scott family. Theirs was a fascinating story. As to the term millionaire, you are right: it's best to be precise for those people who don't deal in metaphor: “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?--minus Uncle Sam's, and your individual state's tax rate?” Because I don't sense much humor coming from this page, I'll say in advance that this was only a joke. In that we're operating at the moment in the online world, it is okay to turn to Dictionary.com, which defines "millionaire", not just as a person who actually has a million or more dollars, but, in definition two, as "any very rich person". We just disagree about the materiality of this, when the overall point was that Eston Hemings' early emancipation, and decision to go into the white world, allowed his children to make the most of the American Dream. Wayles Jefferson was, in fact, a big deal in his time. He was a respected officer in the Union Army, he was heavily involved in the Memphis Cotton Exchange--and his net worth would make him more than a millionaire in today's terms. Nowhere in TJ and SH: An American Controversy is it stated that TJ formally freed SH. Nowhere. One enslaved person from Monticello recalled that TJ freed "seven" people. We know his will mentioned only five. Later, TJ's daughter gave SH and Wormley Hughes, their "time". It is not at all irresponsible, given the totality of this information (TJ's will, the recollection about 7 people freed, and TJ's daughter's action), to at least raise the question whether there was a verbal understanding that TJ wanted SH, and W. Hughes, to be freed. Raising it does not answer the question. Historians do this kind of thing all the time. One finds similar modes of analysis, thinking, and questioning all throughout Jefferson scholarship, and it is all the richer and more complex for that. It's just that the subject of SH and TJ is, for some people, so volatile (painful even) that there is no tolerance for even thinking about the question in the same free-ranging way that other issues are thought about. But that's simply a matter of individual personalities, emotions, and sensibilities. Not everyone is equally hyped up about this. We don't know that SH lived in a "soot filled servants quarter". Those are the reported words of TJ Randolph, who also said that all of her children were fathered by Peter Carr,--all of them, not just the first three, all of them-- a notion totally discredited by analysis and DNA. By any fair standard at all, he is not a source to be trusted on the details of SH's life. That much is clear. Anyway, new archaeological work being done at Monticello is turning up previously unknown (and very intriguing) housing sites, making it clear that we really don't know very much about where people were housed at the plantation. Also, the existence of rooms in the basement of Monticello, with no indication of who lived there, makes it even clearer that we don't know exactly where everyone was. There are simply no definitive statements to be made about this. Nowhere in TJ and SH: An American Controversy is it stated that TJ ensured that "Sally Hemings (sic) children received a good education", meaning a "liberal arts" type education. We have letters from Madison Hemings as a young man, and signed documents as an elderly man. So, he could read and write. We have legal documents with Eston Hemings' signature. But because they went into the white world as young adults and disappeared, we don’t know about Beverley and Harriet Hemings except that they lived as white people, married people who were well off (not millionaires) and that Beverley was apparently a hot air balloon enthusiast. It is not true that they were treated just like other enslaved people. The Hemings children did not work from an early age, unless one counts running errands for one's parents work. Beverley, Madison and Eston began to learn carpentry with their uncle when they were teenagers. Their sister, Harriet, learned to spin. But TJ's overseer said she never really did much work. On the emancipation question, as TJ and SH: An American Controversy makes clear, Jamey Hemings' flight (informal emancipation) from Monticello was very different from SH's children, in that there was a serious precipitating event that put it in motion and TJ's response to his flight was different. Jamey Hemings ran away after he was almost murdered by an overseer. There is no indication that if this event hadn't occurred, TJ would have freed Jamey Hemings. When he ran away, TJ's correspondence shows that, at first, he tried to have him brought back to Monticello. For whatever reason, after more than a year had passed, he just let him go. That's not the same as giving someone money, putting them on a stage coach, and not sending anybody after them or freeing a person in a will and petitioning the state to allow them to remain in Virginia. As your determined point about "millionaire" suggests, (let’s stick with your literalism for the moment) details matter; and the details of Jamey Hemings' freedom and those of his first cousins' freedom are very, very different in material ways. So, it is misleading to lump them all together as if those differences do not matter. No, TJ did not give SH and her children a house upon his death. Right after he died, they moved into a house that they rented (with money from where?) in C'ville. They soon bought homes. Burwell Colbert, John Hemings and Joseph Fossett were left life tenancies in houses. We don't know about Hemings and Fossett, but Colbert was reportedly living at TJ Randolph’s plantation. So, he got a life interest in a house, but he got a house on a plantation—essentially living under the cover of his former masters. Under those circumstances, I’d rather rent than own. Inoculation was going out of vogue by the time the Hemings children were born and old enough to undergo a procedure to protect them against small pox. Jenner had developed vaccination, a much safer procedure, and TJ personally vaccinated the Hemings children and the entire enslaved community when the vaccine became widely available. TJ had their mother, SH, inoculated in 1787. user:(vertvox
"This is what [you are] talking about". What on earth are you talking about?! Wrong again! And I knew this was coming, tipped off by your reference to inoculation (becoming passé by the Hemings children's day) rather than the procedure of their time, which was vaccination. I know what Eston Hemings died of. This is akin to your mistake about the laws of "colonial Virginia" and the Scott family. Anyway, unlike inoculation, vaccination DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT provide lifelong immunity against the disease. People can, and did, get small pox after being vaccinated. Inoculation, which involves inserting live small pox virus into the patient, renders the patient forever immune from small pox, barring some problem with the procedure. Vaccination, using vaccinia (cow pox “vaca” from cow”), provides immunity in people for varying degrees of time. Many contemporary critics of Jenner disparaged his work when people who had been vaccinated came down with the disease many years after they had undergone vaccination. He and his supporters insisted that these people had contracted the disease due to mistakes made by the vaccinators. It was not until a couple of the patients that he had personally vaccinated came down with small pox, that he realized that small pox vaccination does not provide lifelong immunity from the disease to everyone who is vaccinated. Evidence suggests that immunity declines after 20 to 30 years. Eston Hemings was vaccinated as a young boy. Way more than 20 or 30 years had passed when he contracted the disease. This is the stuff of deep tragedy and irony, of course. But it has nothing to do with the fact of his vaccination. I have no reason to believe that TJ was lying when he said he’d vaccinated everyone on the plantation. You were the one who brought this up as some proposed item of evidence that TJ didn’t care about, or had no special connection, to the Hemings children. I’ve never seen this offered as evidence of anything. You brought this up. About vaccination at Monticello, one can imagine that the primitive procedures of those early days- TJ got the material for vaccination just a decade or so after it was developed-- may have made it more likely that people would contract the disease than they would in modern times. In other words, the vaccine could be weak due to problems with storage, which TJ tried to get everyone to focus on, or a host of other issues that arose in those more primitive times. But, even today with modern procedures, vaccination, though much safer initially, provides less immunity than inoculation. It’s just the nature of the virus and the way it works in the human body. In sum, with all this, it is not at all a surprise that Eston Hemings contracted small pox decades after Jefferson's vaccination-- not a surprise at all. Again, small pox vaccination does not provide lifelong immunity from the disease. You may recall after the events of 9/11, there was serious talk about reviving the small pox vaccination that all Americans used to receive out of fear that terrorists would launch a biological attack using the virus. If you go back and look at the papers, you will find that health officials were concerned because protecting the country would really require vaccinating everyone. With that, there would be some certain number of people who would die as a result of complications from the vaccination. Mandatory small pox vaccination ended at the beginning of the 1970s, so the majority of Americans were well past the 20 to 30 year immunity range, and anyone born after that would never have been vaccinated at all. Actually, elderly Americans, who had come of age before mandatory vaccination, would have had to be vaccinated, too. Given the numbers, and certain probabilities of death due to the vaccination itself, they decided that the potential harm outweighed the likelihood that there would be an attack. If you doubt me about vaccination versus inoculation, and the lack of lifelong immunity provided by the former, please look this up. A good biography of Edward Jenner would explain all of this. Beverley Hemings and Harriet Hemings did not run away from Monticello and get brought back. One time, Edmund Bacon sent a note to TJ saying that Beverley was missing from the carpenter's shop. That’s it. There is not one document, circumstance, or passing statement that suggests that Beverley Hemings (or Harriet Hemings) ran away from Monticello and TJ sent someone to bring him (her) back. Nothing. Not showing up to work, even for several days, is not the same thing as running away from the plantation. He could have been sick for all we know, or visiting a girlfriend. Bacon didn’t say, “Beverley is not at Monticello anymore.” As the overseer, he could easily have found that out. He just said he hadn’t been coming to the carpenter’s shop. Beverley and Harriet can be tracked in the Farm Book until 1822, when they left Monticello. Just look at it. There is no reason to doubt that SH, MH, and EH moved into Charlottesville after TJ’s death. A regular census report, and a special census, support that. “Most likely” a servant of MJR is pretty lame in comparison to those things. Ellen Coolidge left her servant, Sally Marks, with MJR when she got married. To the extent that there are references to “Sally’ in the late 1820s, they are to her. Mistaking Sally Marks for SH is a thing that happens in some published accounts. We know what happened to Sally Marks. She was not the “Sally” given her time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Jefferson did not stop all vaccinations at Monticello in 1801. He had enslaved people coming from his other farms, other workers who could have infected newly born enslaved people. As a matter of economic investment alone that would have made no sense.In any event, you were the one who brought this up as if it meant something. You are right, it could mean absolutely nothing at all. And I should say that the tone I adopted at the beginning of my last message was not necessary. I should be able to answer without invective or sarcasm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you thought that was okay. You and I just have different views about what constitutes a material mistake, and we're just not going to meet on that. Not all mistakes are equally problematic. Saying that your dead cousin, a married man, was notoriously carrying on an affair with another woman, and fathered all her children--when that didn't happen-- is worse than saying that someone suggested to your mother when you were born, that she give you a certain name. Peter Carr had a wife and family. Why shouldn't we be careful and protective of their relationship, and mistrustful of someone who would so flagrantly disregard the importance of the Carr family-- because Peter Carr wasn't famous and we don't care about him as much as TJ? TJ Randolph did damage, not just to Peter Carr, but to his wife and children who existed within a bond made by matrimony. I'm sorry, adultery is worse to me than fornication (what an archaic term that is!) and I have a higher standard when someone is accused of that. The Carr marriage has gone down in history, until recently, as a sham under TJ Randolph's formulation, and there is no evidence that it ever was. Randolph also said that he knew there was no special treatment of SH because he was in charge of giving out all the clothes and supplies to slaves when SH was having her kids. Well, he wasn't. He was about 12 when she conceived her last child. I just think Randolph should receive demerits for all this, and other things he said on this subject that were not true. I can listen to him about some things, but not this subject. As for MH, as it turns out, Dolly Madison was at Monticello when SH was in the latter stages of her pregnancy with MH. I can easily see how, with no bad faith at all, "Dolley was there when I was born" could come out of a casual statement made when Dolley Madison was visiting at Monticello when SH was visibly pregnant. One should ask, "How could this person be mistaken? Could this be true in substance, but not happen exactly the way the person said it happened?" With Randolph, I don't see how he could have mistakenly thought that when he was age 4 to 12 he was in charge of giving out clothes to slaves. I also don't think he could have mistakenly believed that Peter Carr was notorious for having fathered all of SH's children. He knew everything about that place. He was his grandfather's rock. I can easily see how MH could have mixed up Dolley Madison's saying something to his mother while his mother was pregnant with her saying something to her just after he was born. It would be of greater concern, though still not fatal, if Dolley had not been at Monticello at all when SH was pregnant in 1804-- but she was. I guess I'm just suspicious of requirements of absolute precision, about dates and times, precise words-- seizing on small things as destroying the essence of a story. There's a danger of missing the forest for the trees. Doing that is not always the same as trying to get at the truth. In fact I think it's almost always not an effective way of getting at the truth. You know how this works in our day to day life, someone who has something against you grasps any slip of the tongue, any small memory lapse to discredit you overall. AHA! [we've both been doing a little bit of that ourselves here] Well, very often it isn't fair, and it's not really the best way to find out what is going on in a given situation. That's why I pulled back from the nasty tone of my prior message. I don't always know what is in someone's heart about a thing. I can only try to figure out whether what they are saying makes sense in the context of other things I know about the circumstances surrounding it. That's why TJ Randolph's statements are fatally problematic, but MH's statement about Dolley Madison is not. But for the issue of SH and TJ, the idea that a white slave owner like Dolly Madison would have suggested a name for an enslaved person's child would be seen as a completely inocuous thing. That happened in the South. MH does not specifically tie this to TJ in any way. He seems to have told it criticize Dolley Madison for not keeping a promise to his mother. But in the context of this story, it becomes a big deal because some people go to MH's recollections just looking for ways to say he was lying rather than trying to look objectively at what he was saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Can I get a source for this? Especially on Federalists being deeply religious? (This particular writing only futhered the enmity many Federalist party members already have against him since most of the Federalists were deeply religious.) - 12.135.134.146 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what Jefferson died of? I don't think the article says. — Vivacissamamente 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure either but if you are interested in the medical history of Jefferson or any other president, check out this website. Regarding you deeceevoice, what a pity you and other individuals who share this disdain for Jefferson must unfairly view him through a prism erected by those who wish to discredit him. -- Sparkhurst 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's funny deeceevoice, I was always under the impression Jefferson treated his slaves well (better than Washington at the very least). As far as Sally Hemmings, only circumstantial evidence can be produced that he was the father of at least one of her many children, yet you insist he raped her! Why would he do that? That a man that was averse to having his slaves whipped could rape a woman who was purported to be his dead wife's half-sister, a woman who was nearly white (3/4 if I recall), is stretching the limits of reality. Perhaps he did father some or all of her children, but suggesting he raped her without any evidence to support this accusation is ludicrous. Since this is turning into a debate that has nothing to do with Vivacissamamente's request, I will leave it at that. While balance in the article is of the highest import, right now you are blinded by emotion and hopefully others will see as I do that you are out of control. 'Tis well. -- Sparkhurst 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why, thank you, Welsh. I'm touched that my health seems to concern you. Warm fuzzies to you, too, dear. :p And read my language about "rape." Hemings was in no position to refuse him, as she was a slave. Today, he would be considered a rapist. Did I write anywhere that Jefferon beat or tortured his slaves? No. But he denied them their freedom -- even those who were his own flesh and blood. Even the woman who bore them. And with regard to Jefferson's sensibilities, yes, Hemings was 3/4 white. What? That was supposed to make him less capable of taking advantage of her? It seems to be what you suggest. Well, not to my way of thinking. Her fair skin certainly didn't make her immune from servitude -- did it? (It didn't make her (even whiter) children by her slavemaster immune.) And read the information I inserted from www.monticello.org. Even their commission concluded that TJ was likely a slave f***er and the father of Hemings' six, fair-skinned children. And my reading of the nation's "founding fathers" tells me that they would have preferred death to enslavement, finding even being colonized an intolerable tyranny. What? Being deprived of the ownership of one's body is not cruelty? Being denied authority and control over one's children/offspring is not cruelty? Being denied the fruits of one's labors and having them usurped by another man so that he may read, travel, entertain and tend to his hobbies is not cruelty? Well, I suppose that's a matter of debate -- isn't it? I wonder how Jefferson himself would have characterized it were he on the receiving end of his own treatment. :p And, no. I'm not "blinded" by anything, nor am I "emotional" about Jefferson. In fact, IMO, my contributions to the article have made it more balanced, more thorough. The article has been improved by my contributions. deeceevoice 08:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not in the least. My comments are calculated. Intense. Not emotional. It seems to me that those of you who can actually bring yourselves to write that a "suspicion" that blacks are inherently inferior to whites is not by its very nature a white supremacist notion are functioning more on emotion than reason. I, on the other hand, am simply calling it what it is. If you were writing about, say, Hitler, or David Duke, or George Wallace, or even Strom Thurmond, would you have the same reaction? Hell, the man owned slaves. deeceevoice 09:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Rather than examining what I am, you'd do better to spend your time addressing the issue of white supremacy in a more forthright, straightforward, focused -- and, yes, "strong or acute" (my meaning with "intense") manner. deeceevoice 10:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least you admit to your puerile conduct. But you're wrong. No one is forcing you; yours is merely a ridiculous excuse for failing to address a matter you'd rather not: the fact that Jefferson expressed white supremacist "suspicions." (I included a wiki link in case you need to look up the phrase.) I am at least trying to discuss the matter at hand up front, while you (and others) continue to sidestep it, while repeatedly reverting my inclusion of it. It's called tag-team edit warring. Ever heard of it? Further if you will check the edit record, as well as the accompanying edit summaries, I have accommodated the comments of others and made changes where appropriate. The tack others have taken, obvious what you're doing. You can't act like a "smartass" and then credibly blame me for your conduct. deeceevoice 11:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"Further discussion"? That's a joke -- right? Don't try to make my comments something they are not. The example is clear. If someone wrote, "Hitler advanced the white supremacist suspicion that Jews and blacks were inherently inferior to Aryans," you likely wouldn't bat an eyelash. The characterization of "white supremacist" speaks to the very nature of the suspicion of inherent inferiority, the corollary of which is Aryan (or, in the case of Jefferson, white) superiority. The logic is clear and unassailable. Failure to rationally discuss the matter as is required by Wiki policy will simply prolong the issue on the article page. I intend to reinsert it and reinsert it and reinsert it and reinsert it unless and until someone can/does explain why it does not apply. deeceevoice 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are simply incorrect. White supremacy clearly speaks to the belief that whites are, if you will, "supreme"/superior -- and Jefferson fits the bill. I would direct the reader (again) to white supremacy. Read the definition. Read its definition elsewhere in any credible, authoritative text. And your comment/argument that one can hold one group superior without, ipso facto holding that another group is inferior is absurdly specious; it defies any semblance of logic. Further, there is ample evidence that Jefferson regarded blacks as inferior to whites. Read the paragraph in the article where the debated text appears. Then read the earlier quote by Annette Gordon-Reed. Jefferson was a white supremacist. And even so, the disputed text merely characterizes Jefferson's "suspicion" -- not Jefferson himself -- and leaves the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. :p deeceevoice 14:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, the disputed passage read: "In this same work, Jefferson advanced the white supremacist suspicion that blacks were inherently inferior to whites "in the endowments both of body and mind" [34]."
Now, tell me, what about that passage is incorrect? Are you saying that the proposition/suspicion that blacks are physically and mentally inferior to whites is not a white supremacist notion? Because that's what it says. deeceevoice 15:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "presentism." In fact, in Jefferson's times, white supremacist attitudes were pervasive; they were the norm. Lincoln was one himself. deeceevoice 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The entry quoting from the above-mentioned report was excised with the edit note that the Foundation "has since revised that statement" (or something similar). The information I submitted was a direct quote and appears currently on the foundation website. No sourced information was presented with the repeated revert, despite my repeated requests for evidence to the contrary. Unless authoritative information is provided, that information, too, will be reinserted and reinserted and reinserted and reinserted ad nauseam. The passage, in fact, refers to precisely the same document that was sourced before by another editor; it is simply more detailed. So, it would appear the assertion that the foundation recanted its findings is false. deeceevoice 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So, now we have an "anonymous" editor who has deleted the section, stating that it repeats the previous information -- when clearly that is not the case. They are two, separate reports by two, separate entities -- with, certainly, the one commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation far more significant, as one would expect them to be skeptical of Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children. And, no. The passages are not "taken out of context" as the edit note claims. These are block quotes, rather than one or two sentences, precisely so as to avoid such a problem and place them in the appropriate context. The objections are without merit. And the report cited is the same report another editor referred to earlier, but who did take a sentence fragment or two out of context. You can't delete the information because you don't like what it says. If the Thomas Jefferson Foundation can stomach the truth, what's the problem? Deal with it. deeceevoice 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you, User: Dpbsmith. Finally, someone capable of, and willing to, listen to reason. deeceevoice 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Along with some general clean-up, I reinserted the appositional phrase describing the Thomas Jefferson whatever-it-is, because it is relevant in that their stated purpose is to "further the honor and integrity" of Jefferson -- and end certainly at odds with a positive finding of paternity in the Hemings case. And, no surprise, they were the lone entity that did make such a finding. deeceevoice 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's hardly a moot point. The Society, after all, did choose the members of the Scholars Commission. Its purposes was reactionary from the git-go, formed in 2000, after the DNA findings were reported, specifically to address the matter of Sally Hemings. The Society itself said at the time that it fully expected to go out of existence after the report was concluded. Vindicating Jefferson was its raison d'etre. And, as User:Vivacissamamente points out, if you check the website, that's virtually all it deals with. deeceevoice 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A response
The central point is this: The Foundation existed well before the controversy came to a head and, as such, consisted of individuals, scholars well-equipped to conduct the study. The voluminous information the committee studied is an indication of its thoroughness in the matter. They are caretakers of the Jefferson legacy and of Monticello, but came to a far different conclusion. Further, their website does not evidence a fixation on the Jefferson-Hemings issue, as the Heritage Society's clearly does. It seems, in fact, virtually all its website discusses. They were established to clear Jefferson's reputation, and that's what they proceeded to attempt to do.
I've skimmed the article you've presented, and parts of it are, indeed, interesting. And a lot of it is utterly hilarious. David Mayer points to a letter in which Jefferson merely refers in nonspecific terms to another letter in which he defended himself against his detractors. Mayer goes on to state that the second letter not only did not survive; it was "destroyed." Still, he then asserts the preposterous conclusion that it is "reasonably clear" that Jefferson denied the paternity rumors regarding Hemings' children, with apparently no real evidence before him -- and then proceeds to criticize the TJHF for not counting the destroyed "evidence" as exculpatory. Mayer also argues that Jefferson remained celibate from the time his wife died until his death at 83, something pretty remarkable on its face. He further states, "Another sense in which a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings would have been 'morally impossible' for Jefferson focuses on his own personal moral code—his self-described 'Epicurean' philosophy...."
Since when is it "morally impossible" for otherwise upstanding, morally upright, principled men (in particular) to lie about their sex lives? I mean how naive, how fawningly firmly glued to TJ's ass do one's lips have to be for a person to not only believe such nonsense, but to present Jefferson's purported celibacy at age 39 as a factual certainty? The next thing you know Mayer will be clapping and barking like a seal in hopes his faith and sincerity alone will save Tinkerbell.
Keep in mind that when Jefferson's wife died, he promised her never to remarry. Hemings had already given birth to at least one of her Jefferson-looking children by that time. What self-respecting white woman of the time would take up with Jefferson, given the rumors and mockery surrounding Jefferson and Hemings and their offspring and -- if that weren't off-putting enough -- knowing that the relationship could never lead to matrimony? His sexual appetites, however, didn't have to go unsatiated. Hemings was there in the wings, always close at hand as his chambermaid, as a caretaker of his children, accompanying him and the kids to Paris -- always around for a Jeffersonian massuh booty call. Seems pretty convenient.
Of the exceedingly naive, faith-based approach of some to Jefferson's sexual proclivities (or, more accurately, the purported lack thereof), Aaron Garrett writes on "Of Racism and Remembrance" (on a website maintained by the American Antiquarian Society): "Instead of weighing the evidence reasonably, historians offered defenses for Jefferson of the circular He - couldn't - have - done - that! - Why? - Because - his - character - was - such - that - he - didn't - do - such - things! - Why? - Because - he - didn't - do - such - things - so - he - couldn't - have - done - that! variety." [6]
Such "reasoning" (and I use that word charitably) is beyond circular. It's embarassingly naive and fairly stinks of blind hero worship. These same "historians" seem to have forgotten the central glaring hypocrisy of Jefferson's life: he bought and sold slaves and made his livelihood from the sweat, heartbreak and toil of enslaved human beings as a "gentleman planter." This man had over 650 slaves at one time or another working for him without pay, for free, his entire life, while he traveled, read, entertained lavishly, puttered about at his various self-described "hobbies" and wrote eloquently about the "God-given rights of man." And even with the free labor of 650 human chattel, Jefferson still ended up in financial difficulty at the end of his life. Most of his slaves were sold -- to God knows whom, into God knows what kind of circumstances -- to settle his debts after his death. These love-struck Jeffersonophiles somehow manage to ignore these critical, damning moral failings of the man, of slaveholding and then the abject hypocrisy of his championing the cause of liberty and "inalienable" human rights, and then proclaim he was somehow too pure to screw Hemings. It would be one thing if Jefferson, like many of his time, believed slavery to be justified -- the "niggers" being savages 'n' all. But Jefferson knew better, repeatedly stating that slavery was wrong. Yet, he freed only eight of the hundreds he owned, and then five only in his will (and every single one of them related to Hemings in some way), when he no longer could benefit from their labors.
Time for a reality check, people. Such reprehensible conduct as is clearly indicated (one way or another) by the Sally Hemings matter is, in fact, perfectly in keeping with Jefferson's conduct throughout his life. And after all, Jefferson wouldn't be the first man in history -- or the last -- who could be accused of "talkin' high and walkin' low," as black folks put it, when it came to satisfying to his sexual urges.
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, as the lone dissenting member of the Heritage Society's commission, wraps it all up fairly neatly in the final paragraph of his minority opinion:
What we do know, however, is damning enough. Despite the distaste that he expressed for the propensity of slaveholders to abuse their power, Jefferson either engaged in such abuse himself or tolerated it on the part of one or more members of his extended family. In his private, as in his public life, there was, for all his brilliance and sagacity, something dishonest, something self-serving and self-indulgent about the man. [7]
It is one thing to acknowledge the tremendous contributions Jefferson made, as a public citizen, to the founding of this nation and the notion of human rights, democracy and freedom. It is quite another to turn a blind eye and seek to censor those of us who would examine the contradictions of the man, as well -- because they tell us a great deal about the very nature of this nation and the thorny and difficult matters around the issues of race, enduring racism, sexuality, white privilege, guilt and fundamental intellectual (and moral) dishonesty that are still with us today. Wikipedia should not a cyber mirror of mainstream textbooks purveying mindless, dumbed-down, calculatedly expurgated pap to schoolchidren more concerned with peer pressure, the adulation of the opposite sex and text messaging notes in class than learning. It should be better than that. There are important things at issue here which impact what the citizens of this nation actually know about ourselves and our history and about, ultimately, the true character -- good and bad, noble and ignominious -- of America. It is the reason I included the reference to the work of historian Roger Wilkins on the subject -- which subsequently was excised as POV and irrelevant, when it is, in fact completely germane to this discussion of Jefferson and his life and the life of this nation.
As Garrett also states at the conclusion of the same article:
Gordon-Reed opens her pivotal chapter on "Thomas Jefferson" by describing a mock trial of Thomas Jefferson, put on by the New York Bar, with Charles Ogletree as prosecutor, Drew Days as defense attorney, and William Rehnquist as trial judge. "The issue to be decided by the trial was whether examples of hypocrisy in Jefferson's life significantly diminished his contributions to American Society." Although the judge, and the majority of the audience (including Gordon-Reed and her husband), voted to acquit and forgive, forgiveness says little about the historical record, or its meaning. The question rather is, What is the legacy of guilt and hypocrisy?
On this point, I would disagree with Garrett somewhat. "What is the legacy of guilt and hypocrisy?" is not the question, but one question. Still, it is an important one worth examining and considering for those of us both benefited and burdened, inspired and shamed, ennobled and outraged, by the legacy of Jefferson's life.
deeceevoice 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
One more note: the footnote regarding the findings of the Heritage Society seems misplaced. It would seem that the "not persuasive" language should be footnoted, as it is the information critical to the point. Also, in skimming the page to which link 42 leads, I could find no such language -- though I concede I easily could have missed it. Perhaps a link to a page containing the precise language of the findings would be more helpful, rather than to a page which pretty much seems to simply list .pdf downloads which -- in the case of the Minority Report, at least -- are so corrupted they cannot be read. deeceevoice 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And, no. My comments are not off-topic. They speak to the clear tendency of many editors to seek to censor the content of the article, either by obliterating language they find objectionable, or to downplay certain matters. And inappropriate to mention the M.D.? By that reasoning, then, should we reduce the number of Heritage Society commission members to 12 in light of Rahe's fairly damning dissenting opinion? :p Right. I didn't think so. deeceevoice 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You're evading the point. He's included in the, presumably, aptly named "13-member Scholars Committee," the name of which implies a certain level of academic achievement and expertise. Unfortunately, less flashily named "9-member in-house committee" of the Foundation might be janitors, secretaries and groundskeepers, for all we know, without the additional information. Also, please turn your attention to the matter of the footnote, if you contributed the information and know where that language comes from. Thanks. deeceevoice 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. And now you want to censor the discussion page, too? How decidedly un-Jeffersonian of you! :p deeceevoice 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The objection raised about the paragraph was that it broke up the flow; if that is the principal objection, you guys could end this revert war by moving it somewhere later in the article, where it is somewhat less obtrusive. It is an interesting point, worthy of comment somewhere in the article, if not right at the top. Considering how down on slavery he was in principle, I had imagined he would have freed a few more of his own slaves. I would have liked to have thought so, anyway….
Also, some of this page probably ought to be archived (again). Does anyone know how to do it? — Vivacissamamente 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought the paragraph was fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out up front the central and contradiction in the man's everyday life. And I said in an earlier exchange, being a slaveholder is what fed and clothed the man; it's how he made his living. Since the perfectly reasonable paragraph has been deleted, I've included "slaveholder" among his many "occupations", which is where that notation was when I started (again) on this article a few days ago. It's certainly as valid as any other. deeceevoice 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. I've deleted "slaveholder" and reinserted a revised paragraph which mentions nothing about the freed slaves. (And, actually, "chattel" is a perfectly serviceable word. It describes, or refers to, the nature of slavery as practiced in the U.S. deeceevoice 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone of the first of five pillars of Wikipedia.
-Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.
Please read and keep in mind when editing. Welsh4ever76 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd just like to add that I think the contradictions or nuances of leaders such as Jefferson or Bill Clinton, good or bad, makes them "more human" and to some or in some cases more endearing. Excluding elementary school, I don't think my history teachers or professors have made presidents sacred cows and I would hope we prefer history, and the recording of history as encyclopedias like Wikipedia do, told that way so that it is more complete and accurate. Political correctness has no place in such an equal-opportunity, good-faith based site as Wikipedia. A major reason I decided to contribute to this site was to give back to the rewards its given me of such massive free education at my fingertips from such a humanistic goal that I daresay ought not be tainted or tarnished by political correctness. Improve Wikipedia with a PC but not PC! Minutiaman 06:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Over on anarchism, an editor keeps inserting a section on Jefferson, claiming that he is the root of anarchist thought. The assertion seems a bit strange to me, and the sources are dubious. It looks like a clear example of WP:OR. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows the subject well could come on over and explain to User:Lingeron that Jefferson was most definitely not an anarchist. It's at least clear that there is no way to verify such a thing. -- AaronS 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, please remember that talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Talking about how good or evil he was is a matter for a forum, not for Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am an editor on the wikipedia anarchism article. There is an editor(s?) who wishes to include several paragraphs detailing Thomas Jefferson's (along with Jesus and Thoreau) influence on modern anarchist thought. There is also a vocal group who do not agree that such information is pertinent to an article on anarchism in general but rather belongs in the anarcho-capitalist article. I thought that there might be people here who could contribute something to the debate. Thanks, Blockader.
Thomas Jefferson died over one hundred and eighty years ago. He is buried in Charlottesville, VA. You may go visit his grave and discuss the problems you have with him there. Until then I do not believe we need a section like this under an article meant to educate people about him. It is not wrong to point out this inconsistency in his life under the slavery section. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he went through many drafts and included an anti slavery clause in many of them. He was aware it appeared hypocritical. However he was not the only member of the continental congress. Shall we have a criticism section on everyones wiki page where detractors can add their POV about a person? Welsh4ever76 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the section is well sourced, it clearly qualifies as "facts about opinions," which are perfectly acceptable. If it is felt that these facts present an unbalanced look at opinion about Jefferson, they should not be removed, but balanced with well-sourced statements of other opinions.
In the words of the neutrality policy, "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves.... When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
It seems to me that the current section meets these tests with regard to the opinions it asserts, but perhaps needs to include additional (well-sourced) statements of competing opinions. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have merged the criticism section into the slavery section, (hopefully) retaining all the content and references. Deeceevoice is correct that the criticisms may not always be about slavery- and I bet most people won't object to having a section called "criticisms" as soon as that happens. Friday (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What's going on here? I noticed some of the merged stuff was removed piece by piece (apparently there are objections) but then put back again as a "criticisms" section? I thought we agreed that things about Jefferson and slavery belonged in the "Jefferson and slavery" section? Can we all stop editing by brute force, please? Friday (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this section as this is an article about Thomas Jefferson and not a discussion board where people can post their feelings and views about him. No other founding father has an entire section dedicated to him in this manner. Contemporary views and criticism is from a modern POV and as I stated in the discussion below his contemporaries elected him President regardless of this contradiction. Why point out one person. George Washington owned slaves. James Madison owned slaves. Why no section about them? This is not a contribution to the article. It is a POV. Welsh4ever76 04:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to be careful here. In his day he was not a contradiction. We're judging someone from the past by today's standards. Perhaps re-word to something akin, to "in modern times, he's a man of contradictions..." plange 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, this really has nothing to do with modern standards. Even Jefferson's contemporaries remarked on the obvious discordance between being an advocate of innate human liberties and a slaveowner. Simply because hypocrisy was the fashion of the day, with slavery being an accepted norm in many parts of the nation, that did not render the contradiction nonexistent or any less glaring. Indeed, it was an element constantly remarked upon by abolitionists of the day, generally (as well as by Jefferson's detractors/political opponents). deeceevoice 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, the paragraph about Jefferson being a "man of contradictions" was reinserted because the lead paragraphs of an article are meant to be an introduction to, and a summary of, the information that follows. The subject matter is of sufficient importance (it is beyond question the most hotly debated issue about Jefferson and his legacy, period) and it is treated generally enough that it is appropriate there as a prelude to more detailed information presented later -- and the same can be said for other information also presented in the opening paragraphs. It is simply the way an article naturally develops. The information about Jefferson being a slaveholder is as an important fact about the man as that he is the "eponym of 'Jeffersonian democracy'," etc., etc. It seems to me that the repeated removal of such a simple, straightforward paragraph about a critical -- and historically defining -- contradtion between the man's public life and work and how he earned his living, or, more accurately, how others earned his living for ihm :p (certainly more important than his various hobbies, which are mentioned at length), is merely an attempt by others to censor the article. deeceevoice 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I took out the last paragraph mentioning his contradictions. I feel that the opening looks better without and it is not needed. He was elected President by the people of the United States at that time even though he was a known slaveholder. We may view this as a contradiction but his contemporaries did not feel this way as they voted him into the highest office of the land at that time. Welsh4ever76 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't need your counsel on remaining civil. There is absolutely nothing incivil about my remarks. They are accurate and on point. And, yes. Try reconciling his comments about miscegenation with him screwing Hemings over a period of several years and fathering a half dozen quadroon children. Or, if you prefer to take the other side, allowing one of his close relatives to do so. That'll do for starters. There are likely others rooted in the same issue if one were to dig up quotes: on say, honesty, morality, propriety and fidelity, like tippin' on his wife and regularly humping his wife's half-sister; or, on work ethic, like, say, living off the sweat of other people's labor; or, possibly, thrift and prudence, like how the hell can someone have 650 slaves over the course of one's life working for them for free and still end up in financial difficulty? deeceevoice 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you over wiki editiquette. TBQF, what you think doesn't really matter much to me. As others have indicated here, the language of the paragraph is measured and appropriate as-is. And, no. It's hardly original analysis. deeceevoice 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict: At the risk of bringing deecee down on me, I mentioned above we needed to be cautious about judging someone from a time period over 200 years ago. Certainly 200 years from now, deecee, you'll need to be okay with how you're judged, and what I mean by that, is that probably by then, they will look on us with disgust for eating meat, driving fossil fuel cars and shopping at Wal-mart for low-cost products made by what basically amounts to slave labor in China. An analogy can be drawn by let's say taking another modern politician, Al Gore, known for being smart, intelligent and pro-Environment. But 200+ years from now he would be seen as a man of contradictions because he didn't live off the grid and use biodiesel in his car. There are contemporaries you can find today that could be used in the future to say that he was scorned for not doing that, but do the majority of his contemporaries scorn him for that? (there are political things they scorn him for I know, but that's not the issue here).... Also, no one has addressed the source issue I mentioned above for that section. Also, if you do insist on using a quote from a contemporary, I'd find an American, not someone who was British and probably against our fight for independence and so had some POV-pushing to do of his own. The sad fact is, that fierce opponents to slavery (like Johnson) were in a minority. If the majority thought otherwise, Jefferson would have had no problem getting the bill passed that he introduced when Governor of Virginia to abolish slavery and would have not had the sections lambasting the institution of slavery in the Declaration of Independence struck by fellow Southern delegates. Am I advocating we whitewash things? No. I just think it needs to be better written and sourced if you're going to have it in the lead. plange 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, can I claim fatigue? It's almost 4 AM here, and I was getting this confused with the criticism passage. I think it reads fine as it, sorry deecee. plange 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Deeceevoice, This is an article meant to educate people, including children, about Thomas Jefferson. It is not a message board for your personal disappointments you may have with him. You are calling him a hypocrite for behaviour that may not be his. You are citing his lack of action on abolishing slavery and not taking into account events outside of his control. I am not saying that it should not be mentioned but it should not be in the opening of the article. In the end he was much more important than just being a slave owner even if that is what is important to you. He did many other things people know him for or should know him for. This paragraph does not fit into the opening and doesn't belong there. Welsh4ever76 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
hey griot -- please be sure not to violate the "three revert rule"
Justforasecond 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In the opening sentence of the paragraph in the section titled "Jefferson and Slavery," he is stated to have owned 650 slaves, but it closes with his owning 600. (refers to this version.) Neither gives a source. Any thoughts on clarifying this seeming contradition? -- TeaDrinker 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the current picture of a gray-haired Jefferson, similar to the one found on the two-dollar bill and many other famous portraits and depictions of Mr. Jefferson, should be left as the one for this site. This portrait is overwhelmingly the one recognized by the majority of Americans as well as foreigners, and the former portrait was one of a far less recognizable Jefferson, one with brown hair that may confuse the uninitiated with another president, a young Andrew Jackson or James Monroe being the most popular. CinnamonCinder 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And the pic that Sparkhurst pointed to is great. I love that painting of Jefferson. King Wen €ŸØãç 01:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a statement included in this article that reads, "most of his biographers agree he was a deist." This statement, however, is not referenced. If it is a true statement, though, then that means there exist some biographers who do not agree that he was a deist. Their views however are not presented. I do not think it can be argued that their views are not significant, as I have witnessed serious debates about Jefferson's deism, and I think for NPOV the other side should at least be presented, although in accordance with the policy on undue weight, I don't think there is a problem if it is presented in less detail.
My recollection from some things I read years ago was that Jefferson changed over the course of his life so that at some points he was a deist and at some points he was not. This resulted in there being quotes from him both affirming his deism and affirming him not being a deist, which is part of why people could debate so seriously, because both had quotes that they thought proved them right. But that is just my recollection from like ten years ago, and (unfortunately) I really don't remember the reference. HalfDome 15:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"Jefferson and John Adams were the only signers of the Declaration of Independence to become Presidents."
Perhaps this should clarified as being President under the present Constitution as John Hancock was a president under the preceding one.
I managed to track down the actual quote which was being falsely modified to say "That government is best which governs least." Jefferson's actual words were: "I hold the world is governed too much. I hold that when we have established justice and so legislated as to prevent the strong from preying upon the weak, then the least governed country is the best governed country." It was written from Jefferson to John W. Eppes and is quoted in The Freeman, November 3 1920, page 185. How's that for research? C-Liberal 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would copy and paste a quote that I do not think we need on the wiki TJ article page.
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, who authored the lone dissenting opinion in the 2001 report of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society commission, remarked on the inconclusive findings regarding the question of Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings' children:
What we do know, however, is damning enough. Despite the distaste that he expressed for the propensity of slaveholders to abuse their power, Jefferson either engaged in such abuse himself or tolerated it on the part of one or more members of his extended family. In his private, as in his public life, there was, for all his brilliance and sagacity, something dishonest, something self-serving and self-indulgent about the man.''
-We do not know what he thought or what he did. He may not have been the father, he may not have known what was going on and did not feel the need to control every aspect of the slaves lives. He may have become angry when he found out. While we do know a lot about him we do not know everything. Since there is no way of knowing exactley what went on concerning him, someone else or what he even knew about it, I think this quote is a point of view and in a section of the article that does not have other points of view to counter it. We could easily add the points of views of others on the panel but we decided earlier that this was pointless and to just add a link to the Sally Hemings page was sufficient. Welsh4ever76 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
He was the lone dissenter in this particular effort. Keep in mind there was another study which found the reverse. Further, Rahe's comment is a valid one, regardless of the paternity of Hemings' children; it is an informed observeration/criticism of the character of Jefferson, and that's the point. deeceevoice 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Reverting a long list of inventions added without citations. Jefferson did introduce a swivel chair to the united states after seeing them in Europe, and did create an improvement to the dumbwaiter, but he didn't invent either one. The other additions, so far as I can tell, are entirely fabricated, and Jefferson's actual inventions are omitted entirely. If I'm wrong, could someone provide a verifiable citation before re-adding the text? Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is a massive discrepency between the Jefferson article on wiki and the one of Sally Hemings. The Hemings article actually goes on to provide further proof that Jefferson was the father of her four children and the National Genealogical Society Quarterly conclusion that he did indeed father the children. However, it seems the Jefferson arcticle is highly edited to keep out as much of a blemish as possible on Jefferson's record. It seems rather seedy to me. Sally Hemings
I understand...but the issue is not the fact that it only breifly deals with the subject. By all means, it should only do so briefly. The issue is that it deals with it almost as if it concluded that the claims have been proven false. Whereas in the Sally Hemings article, quite the opposite opinion and view is held, as the article goes to greater length and uses more researchers...and in comparison the Jefferson only uses specific references and articles from the Sally Hemings' one, all being ones that decline the theory, while completing ignoring any of the articles that prove otherwise. It just seems like propoganda. Or at best...whitewashing.
No offense, but I've kept track of the DNA and Lineage testing of Sally Hemings offspring. All that was proven was that Thomas Jefferson and some of Heming's descendents have a common ancestor. There exists no exact proof that Thomas Jefferson actually fathered any of Sally Heming's children. I'd say it's extremely possible, but until some undeniable proof of this surfaces, it should remain as speculation and, therefore, not VERIFIABLE.
In a letter written by 19th century biographer, Henry Randall, it was widely known around Monticello at that time, that Jefferson's nephew Peter Carr was actually the individual who fathered Sally Heming's children. LRS
I was suprised to see that Jupiter, Thomas Jefferson's childhood friend and, as an adult, his most respected slave, didn't have his own page--not even a small one. I was even more suprised to see that Jupiter isn't even mentioned in Thomas Jefferson's page.
I don't really know much about Jupiter other than he was TJ's friend. In fact, that's why I was hoping Wiki would have something more, because I would love to know. So I just think anyone who knows anything about Jupiter should put it at least in the TJ page, just so that he's mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.25.198 ( talk • contribs)
Yeah, I'm not an editor or anything, but you should probably take out the part about Thomas Jefferson being a rapper and no good hustler.
I do not see any discussion of the matter on the current discussion page, and because there is not even an allegation that I have read anywhere to the effect that Jefferson actually married Sally Hemmings, I am changing the 'spouse' entry in the sidebar to reflect the name of the woman he actually did wed. Ari 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the quote.
During his lifetime, and in his will, Jefferson had freed only eight of his slaves (all of them members of the Hemings family) [1].
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/freed.html
He freed two men during his lifetime. Robert Hemings and James Hemings. In his will he freed five men. Joe Fosset Jr., John Hemings, Burwell Colbert, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings. I counted seven people. He allowed three slaves to run away. Jayme Hemings, Beverly Hemings and Harriet Hemings. That would be ten. Welsh4ever76 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
First, my thanks to everyone who contributed to this very thoughful article.
I would like to make a suggestion for a change in the section titled: Political Career 1774 to 1800 that would be in keeping with the spirit of NPOV. The current article reads..."Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, the Jay Treaty proved that Washington and Hamilton favored Britain, so Jefferson retired to Monticello." Stating that Washington and Hamilton favored Britian may be a misrepresentation of the President's convictions. Washington did not believe that America could win another contest against Great Britian, doubting that our county had the means and collective will to pursue such a course of action. Hamilton did not believe that the nacent union could financially sustain another major conflict. The Jay Treaty was as much an acknowlegement of our nation's persistent dependence on Britian as it was an example of the lack of any real leverage, the nation had at that time, in negotiating with the British. For the reasons listed above, and others not mentioned here, Washington and Hamilton favored neutrality in the conflict between France and Britian. It is a correct observation, however, that Jefferson strongly supported France against Britian when war broke out between those nations.
I would suggest modifying the sentence to read thus: "Jefferson strongly supported France against Britain when war broke out between those nations in 1793. However, Washington and Hamilton favored a policy of neutrality. After the Jay Treaty was narrowly approved by congress and was signed into law by Washington, Jefferson departed from Washington's cabinet and retired to Monticello." I believe that this modification would more accurately characterize the opposing points of view, between Jefferson/Madison and Washington/Hamilton, without detracting from the theme of the overall article.
Top Quark 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)David Israel 10-05-06
Bruce E Baker 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything of Thomas Jefferson ever being suicidal?
Zidel333 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
WTF?? no
Watersoftheoasis 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the last paragraph added under the Sally Hemings section. There were numerous words that were spelled wrong and the accuracy is questionable. Sally Hemings was never manumitted and I am unaware of any of her children becoming millionares. Maybe there were grandchildren that did so but that is not what was stated. This is not correct information. Welsh4ever76 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this supposed sourced information again because Annette Gordon Reed is mistaken if she thinks Thomas Jefferson ever freed Sally Hemings even at his death. She was a slave until the day she died. His daughter, Martha Randolph, inherited Sally Hemings and for a time she was a servant in her household. She did give Sally Hemings her time. This means that Sally Hemings was allowed to live in town. It was a retirement of sorts. Martha Randolph did draw up a will in which she would free two slaves upon her death. One of them was Sally Hemings. However Sally Hemings died before Martha Randolph so she was never manumitted. Welsh4ever76 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find any information that indicates any of Sally Hemings grandchildren were millionares. Could someone site Annette Gordon Reeds sources for this. Also this is different information from what was originally posted. The contributer said children. Did Ms Gordon Reed make this change or did you? Welsh4ever76 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The section didn't say Sally was manumitted, it refers to the laws in France and England. In England she was automaticlly free just by putting her feet on English soil, in France she could have pursued freedom, but she didn't.
What was the actual circumstance with the French? What was their actual position with regard to slaves who people brought into their society?
If the slave was in England, there was a statement that the air of England is "too pure for a slave to breathe." If you were on English soil, you were free. That was not the case in France. At the time of Jefferson was there, the slave would actually have to make a petition to an assembly. These petitions were granted, but it wasn't clear that they would always be granted. His slaves would have had a chance to make this petition and would have a chance to be free.Is there anything to indicate that the two Hemings servants in his household--Sally and her brother James--were ever interested in pursuing freedom in France?
Nothing besides Madison Hemings's memoir, in which he says that his mother wanted to remain in France, and then Jefferson promised her various things if she would come back.
Sally was in England for several weeks along with Jeffersons doughter Polly:
So he wrote and said that we should send his youngest daughter, Polly--her real name was Mary, she was later called Mariah, at that time she was Polly--to send her along with a mature woman who had been inoculated against smallpox. Instead, the person that they were going to send was pregnant. So they sent Sally instead. Sally, at this point, was between 14 and 15 years old. She had been the companion of Polly, the nurse companion for Polly for many years. And so they went to London, and stayed at the home of Abigail Adams and John Adams for several weeks until Jefferson sent for Polly. And that's how Sally ended up in Paris.
And about Sally's children and grandchildren, which were classified as "white" after gaining freedom [8], Reed says:
You're focusing on the bad. If you focus on his perspective--not from Madison's perspective, not from Sally's--but from his perspective, look what he's done. They're white, and they're going to be free white men. Within one generation, two of his grandchildren are millionaires. They own businesses in Madison, Wisconsin.
Grandchildren from the descendants of Sally?
From the descendants of Sally. The thing is, if you're a white man, a white person in America, and you apply yourself, that worked. That's exactly what happened.
CoYep 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Reed states that Jefferson payed wages to her and other slaves:
She was paid wages along with James, her brother, who was paid wages. But that was a practice that Jefferson followed whenever he had any of slaves in a place where the other servants were free workers. He paid them wages along with the others, so that there wouldn't be slaves there working along with servants and not getting paid.
For the sake of balance, those informations should be included into the Slavery and Hemings controversy sections. CoYep 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing, the article implies that for Jefferson, being a slave and being black was one and the same. That is not correct. In Jeffersons opinion, as well as by the laws of the time, slave status was not connected to skin color or race. And Sally's offspring indeed registered as white after emanzipation. See this source [9] CoYep 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Using a large-body of non-DNA evidence, African-American historian Annette Gordon Reed argues that not only did Hemings and Jefferson have sexual relations, but that they were in love with each other. She explains that Jefferson didn't manimate Hemings until his death because it wasn't possible for them to openly have a relationship because of miscegenation laws of the time. Hemings took trips to France and England, where by law she was free, yet she returned to live as a "slave" with Jefferson. Jefferson ensured that Sally's children received a good education - within one generation two of his grandchildren became millionaires - and that their live together resembled a family rather than a master-slave arrangment. [10]
I deleted this paragraph again. This is incorrect information even if it was said on PBS. The web site http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/sallyhemings.html has information about what happened to Sally Hemings after the death of Thomas Jefferson.
--Sally Hemings was never officially freed by Thomas Jefferson. It seems most likely that Jefferson's daughter Martha Randolph gave Sally "her time," a form of unofficial freedom that would enable her to remain in Virginia (the laws at that time required freed slaves to leave the state within a year). --
Martha Randolph did include a provision to set Sally Hemings and another slave (Wormley Hughs I believe) free in her will however Sally Hemings died before Martha Randolph so she remained a slave until she died.
Please stop posting incorrect information. Welsh4ever76 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this revised paragraph again. Madison Hemings states that Jefferson did not ensure that he or his siblings received a good education. Here is a quote from Madison Hemings concerning his education.
I learned to read by inducing the white children to teach me the letters and something more; what else I know of books I have picked up here and there till now I can read and write.
This is from the website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/cron/1873march.html
Annette Gordon Reed seems to be mistaken in much of what she writes concerning this subject. Please stop using her as a reference. Welsh4ever76 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I also deleted a qoute from Annette Gordon Reed under the slavery section. It is poorly written and does not make sense. It has many spelling errors as well. Welsh4ever76 17:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this again. The original research is on Annette Gordon Reeds part. Thomas Jefferson never said this. Welsh4ever76 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would paste the qoute that I have a problem with.
On one hand, Jefferson wrote that slavery was an abomination. On the other hand, he seldom freed slaves. On the one hand, he argued that slaves could not be freed because they were like children. On the other hand, he saw to it that many slaves on his plantation became skilled craftsmen....On one hand, Jefferson seems to have been revolted by the notion of amalgamation and social relations with blacks. On the other hand, he took products of amalgamation and made them favored members of his household. He also maintained cordial relations with some blacks and encouraged one black family to send their children to the local white school in Charlottesville. The truth is that Thomas Jefferson can be cited to support almost any position on slavery and the race question that could exist [40].
I have not been able to confirm any such story. In colonial Virginia slaves were not permitted to attend school with whites. Free black people were not permitted to live in the state. So to tell a black family that they should send their kids to the local school in Charlottesville simply does not make sense. It was illegal for them to even be there. Welsh4ever76 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to delete the qoute by Annette Gordon Reed again. In 1806 a law was passed that forbade manumitted slaves from staying in the state of Virginia for more than one year. Also, there were laws prohibiting free and enslaved African Americans to be taught to read or write. Neither free nor enslaved blacks could attend schools with whites. So even a black family with a waiver to live there, which was uncommon but not unheard of, would not have been allowed to attend schools with whites. Thomas Jefferson would not suggest to a black family to send their kids to the all white school knowing it was illegal to do so. Welsh4ever76 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Specificity - It was illegal to teach enslaved, free and orphaned blacks to read. Free blacks over the age of twenty-one had to leave the state within 12 months of being freed. If not they could be re-enslaved. It was illegal for free blacks to move to Virginia. A teacher would be fined for teaching a black student enslaved or free. I can find no record of a school in Charlottesville until around 1800 and these laws were strictly enforced at that time because of the attempted revolt of Gabriel Prosser in 1800. I am going to delete this again. Welsh4ever76 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Five Points:
1. TJ and the school question The source for the citation of TJ’s urging a black family (the Scotts, a famous family of musicians) to send their children to school is given in TJ and SH: An American Controversy at page 139 in the text, page 268 in the notes. That source, an essay in the much acclaimed Jefferson Legacies, cites to Ora Langhorne’s Southern Sketches, a book that profiles various figures in 19th century Virginia. R.T. W. Duke and W.C.N Randolph wrote in their recollections of the Scotts’ exceptional lives. Randolph remembered that the mixed race Scotts were allowed to vote. The Scotts were not the only ones who reported going to school in C’ville. The children of David and Nancy Isaacs, a Jewish C’ville merchant and free black woman, younger than the Scotts, also remembered going to school with white children. One can say that all these people were lying, but there should be some firm basis for saying that, and the purported existence of a law against it is not a firm basis. Historians in all fields of study have long noted the gap between law on the books and law “on the ground”—as they say. That is one of the many things that makes history continually fun; finding the unexpected circumstances that confound conventional wisdom, seeing human flexibility in the way people respond (or don’t respond) to authority. Individuals in communities, away from the seat of government, very often make up their own “customary” rules to take care of their local values and preferences. Sometimes governments pass laws for their salutary effect, with neither the intention, nor the power, to enforce them. To say that a thing didn’t happen because it was against the law for it to happen, does not really get at the way people actually live in the real world. History is more than the study of what appears in statute books. What made the Scotts different? In addition to being local celebrities, they were the grandchildren of Thomas Bell, a prominent C’Ville merchant and very close friend of TJ’s. Bell, a white man, lived on Main Street in C’Ville with SH’s sister, Mary Hemings, from the late 1780s until his death in 1800. Their relationship was completely open and completely against the law. But Bell was a respected member of the community who became a magistrate and Justice of the Peace while he was living with Hemings. When the town put together special commissions to study problems, he was often voted to lead or participate. He and TJ socialized together, and Bell was TJ’s agent on business matters. People did not care how he lived. See Joshua D. Rothman’s Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Families Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861. It is especially good about the gap between law and actual practice in C’ville during TJ’s time. An example from TJ’s specific case; a 1782 Virginia law made it illegal to let slaves hire themselves out. See, Thomas D. Morris, “Southern Slavery and the Law 1619-1860”, p. 339. They were also not supposed to be given general passes to go wherever they wanted. The master was supposed to maintain strict control over the process of hiring slaves out and their movement. Yet, TJ regularly allowed Martin, Robert, James, and Peter Hemings to hire themselves out and keep their money. His letters make clear that sometimes, he didn’t even know where they were and for whom they were working. According to the law, TJ was not supposed to do that. But, he did. I am prepared to believe that the vast majority of white Virginians acted with implacable hostility towards blacks, but we know that there were some people of conscience who did not think the laws in certain cases made sense, and acted in contravention of them as circumstances warranted. In the Scotts'time, Virginia had prohibitions against unlawful assemblies of blacks where learning could take place that could be, and were, finessed. An 1831 law prohibited free blacks from teaching other blacks to read and write, and any whites from teaching assemblages of blacks for pay or going to school with them. But that law was passed five years after TJ's death and, thus, had no bearing on his dealings with the Scott family. Even then, Morris, in his painstaking and exhaustive study of the laws of southern slavery cited above, says that, unlike other regulations policing blacks, those laws were only rarely enforced.
2. Free blacks in Virginia – The notion that the story mentioned just above is untrue because the laws of colonial Virginia prevented free blacks from residing in the state is incorrect. It is emphatically not the case that free blacks were not allowed to stay in colonial Virginia, as the numerous books and articles exploring the lives of free blacks in Virginia throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, attest. (See the works of Ira Berlin, Philip Morgan, Stephen Innes, and many, many others. One of the most recent books on free blacks in Virginia is Melvin Patrick Ely’s 2004 Bancroft Prize winning, Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom From the 1790s to the Civil War). Before the beginning of the 1780s there could be no private manumissions. The owner of an enslaved person had to get permission from the colonial government to emancipate him or her. But there were a number of free blacks who had not been slaves for generations, if at all:they were, mainly, the descendants of white women and black men who had married (or merely had liaisons)before the 1691 Virginia statute that outlawed intermarriage. Children followed the status of their mothers, so they, and their progeny, were free. After the 1782 liberalization of the law, which allowed for private manumissions, the number of free blacks increased. After his emancipation in the 1790s, Robert Hemings lived in Richmond and operated his own small business. The 1806 law requiring blacks freed after that date to leave Virginia, had a provision that allowed masters to seek permission for the freed slave to remain in the state. Ely discusses how local officials largely ignored the provision requiring removal to another state. Most importantly, the laws of colonial Virginia have nothing to do with the Scott children and their relations with TJ, because they were not alive when Virginia was still a colony. They were born during the early American Republic.
3. The Prosperity of SH’s grandchildren—John Wayles Jefferson (born John Wayles Hemings) was a Memphis cotton merchant, president of J.W. Jefferson & Company, and land speculator. His younger brother, Beverly Jefferson was his heir- at -law and was the owner, in is own right, of a hotel and cab company in Madison, Wisconsin. Their stories can be found in “Thomas Jefferson’s Unknown Grandchildren”, an American Heritage article, also cited in TJ and SH: An American Controversy. Near the end of his life, Wayles Jefferson’s estimated net worth was between fifty and one hundred thousand dollars. “Millionaire” is a term of art used to convey to modern day readers what it meant to be worth between $50,000 and $100,000 in 1890. A person who had that amount of money in today’s terms would not be considered “rich”. It is necessary, and more accurate, to try to give readers some sense of what that amount of money really meant in the times in which the subject had it--or didn’t have it. For example, saying TJ was about $107,000 dollars in debt when he died in 1826, does not really convey the magnitude of his financial ruin. By some estimates, a dollar in 1890 had the spending power of almost 20 dollars today. By that measure, Wayles Jefferson was a rich man and, at least, a “millionaire”.
4. The “habit” of using one endnote for paragraphs—This is not a personal eccentricity. It is a convention in academic press books to use one endnote for a paragraph that contains numerous assertions for which there must be a citation. The citations in the endnotes are given in the order in which the assertions appear. Law review articles cite each sentence. That scares ordinary readers, which is why book publishers don’t let their authors do that. Popular history books are starting to give citations by referencing the beginnings of sentences in the text. They are meant to be minimal, and do not usually contain additional discussions of material. For that reason, academic presses probably will no go that route.
5. The Future --All of this-- and much, much more-- will be discussed and further expanded upon in the forthcoming two book set, The Hemings Family of Monticello: A Story of American Slavery, from W. W. Norton: first book in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not misleading in the context of his life story as presented in the American Heritage article. Okay, the term "millionaire" as as a synonym for "very wealthy", "rich" or "prosperous" does not work for all, and it is best to be literal. In any event, it is not a material mistake given the context of the overall point being made, certainly not as compared to saying that free blacks were not able to reside in colonial Virginia. We can say in the end that Wayles Jefferson was a very rich man, who would be a millionaire by today's terms, just one generation out of slavery. That was no mean feat; a testament to the tenacity and creativity of the Hemings/Wayles line. UserVertvox
As to impressions: the presentation of the state of the law of Virginia in colonial times (again, nothing at all to do with the Scotts who knew TJ) as an argument against the notion that they could have gone to school with white children is just wrong. By all means, research the Scott family. Theirs was a fascinating story. As to the term millionaire, you are right: it's best to be precise for those people who don't deal in metaphor: “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?--minus Uncle Sam's, and your individual state's tax rate?” Because I don't sense much humor coming from this page, I'll say in advance that this was only a joke. In that we're operating at the moment in the online world, it is okay to turn to Dictionary.com, which defines "millionaire", not just as a person who actually has a million or more dollars, but, in definition two, as "any very rich person". We just disagree about the materiality of this, when the overall point was that Eston Hemings' early emancipation, and decision to go into the white world, allowed his children to make the most of the American Dream. Wayles Jefferson was, in fact, a big deal in his time. He was a respected officer in the Union Army, he was heavily involved in the Memphis Cotton Exchange--and his net worth would make him more than a millionaire in today's terms. Nowhere in TJ and SH: An American Controversy is it stated that TJ formally freed SH. Nowhere. One enslaved person from Monticello recalled that TJ freed "seven" people. We know his will mentioned only five. Later, TJ's daughter gave SH and Wormley Hughes, their "time". It is not at all irresponsible, given the totality of this information (TJ's will, the recollection about 7 people freed, and TJ's daughter's action), to at least raise the question whether there was a verbal understanding that TJ wanted SH, and W. Hughes, to be freed. Raising it does not answer the question. Historians do this kind of thing all the time. One finds similar modes of analysis, thinking, and questioning all throughout Jefferson scholarship, and it is all the richer and more complex for that. It's just that the subject of SH and TJ is, for some people, so volatile (painful even) that there is no tolerance for even thinking about the question in the same free-ranging way that other issues are thought about. But that's simply a matter of individual personalities, emotions, and sensibilities. Not everyone is equally hyped up about this. We don't know that SH lived in a "soot filled servants quarter". Those are the reported words of TJ Randolph, who also said that all of her children were fathered by Peter Carr,--all of them, not just the first three, all of them-- a notion totally discredited by analysis and DNA. By any fair standard at all, he is not a source to be trusted on the details of SH's life. That much is clear. Anyway, new archaeological work being done at Monticello is turning up previously unknown (and very intriguing) housing sites, making it clear that we really don't know very much about where people were housed at the plantation. Also, the existence of rooms in the basement of Monticello, with no indication of who lived there, makes it even clearer that we don't know exactly where everyone was. There are simply no definitive statements to be made about this. Nowhere in TJ and SH: An American Controversy is it stated that TJ ensured that "Sally Hemings (sic) children received a good education", meaning a "liberal arts" type education. We have letters from Madison Hemings as a young man, and signed documents as an elderly man. So, he could read and write. We have legal documents with Eston Hemings' signature. But because they went into the white world as young adults and disappeared, we don’t know about Beverley and Harriet Hemings except that they lived as white people, married people who were well off (not millionaires) and that Beverley was apparently a hot air balloon enthusiast. It is not true that they were treated just like other enslaved people. The Hemings children did not work from an early age, unless one counts running errands for one's parents work. Beverley, Madison and Eston began to learn carpentry with their uncle when they were teenagers. Their sister, Harriet, learned to spin. But TJ's overseer said she never really did much work. On the emancipation question, as TJ and SH: An American Controversy makes clear, Jamey Hemings' flight (informal emancipation) from Monticello was very different from SH's children, in that there was a serious precipitating event that put it in motion and TJ's response to his flight was different. Jamey Hemings ran away after he was almost murdered by an overseer. There is no indication that if this event hadn't occurred, TJ would have freed Jamey Hemings. When he ran away, TJ's correspondence shows that, at first, he tried to have him brought back to Monticello. For whatever reason, after more than a year had passed, he just let him go. That's not the same as giving someone money, putting them on a stage coach, and not sending anybody after them or freeing a person in a will and petitioning the state to allow them to remain in Virginia. As your determined point about "millionaire" suggests, (let’s stick with your literalism for the moment) details matter; and the details of Jamey Hemings' freedom and those of his first cousins' freedom are very, very different in material ways. So, it is misleading to lump them all together as if those differences do not matter. No, TJ did not give SH and her children a house upon his death. Right after he died, they moved into a house that they rented (with money from where?) in C'ville. They soon bought homes. Burwell Colbert, John Hemings and Joseph Fossett were left life tenancies in houses. We don't know about Hemings and Fossett, but Colbert was reportedly living at TJ Randolph’s plantation. So, he got a life interest in a house, but he got a house on a plantation—essentially living under the cover of his former masters. Under those circumstances, I’d rather rent than own. Inoculation was going out of vogue by the time the Hemings children were born and old enough to undergo a procedure to protect them against small pox. Jenner had developed vaccination, a much safer procedure, and TJ personally vaccinated the Hemings children and the entire enslaved community when the vaccine became widely available. TJ had their mother, SH, inoculated in 1787. user:(vertvox
"This is what [you are] talking about". What on earth are you talking about?! Wrong again! And I knew this was coming, tipped off by your reference to inoculation (becoming passé by the Hemings children's day) rather than the procedure of their time, which was vaccination. I know what Eston Hemings died of. This is akin to your mistake about the laws of "colonial Virginia" and the Scott family. Anyway, unlike inoculation, vaccination DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT provide lifelong immunity against the disease. People can, and did, get small pox after being vaccinated. Inoculation, which involves inserting live small pox virus into the patient, renders the patient forever immune from small pox, barring some problem with the procedure. Vaccination, using vaccinia (cow pox “vaca” from cow”), provides immunity in people for varying degrees of time. Many contemporary critics of Jenner disparaged his work when people who had been vaccinated came down with the disease many years after they had undergone vaccination. He and his supporters insisted that these people had contracted the disease due to mistakes made by the vaccinators. It was not until a couple of the patients that he had personally vaccinated came down with small pox, that he realized that small pox vaccination does not provide lifelong immunity from the disease to everyone who is vaccinated. Evidence suggests that immunity declines after 20 to 30 years. Eston Hemings was vaccinated as a young boy. Way more than 20 or 30 years had passed when he contracted the disease. This is the stuff of deep tragedy and irony, of course. But it has nothing to do with the fact of his vaccination. I have no reason to believe that TJ was lying when he said he’d vaccinated everyone on the plantation. You were the one who brought this up as some proposed item of evidence that TJ didn’t care about, or had no special connection, to the Hemings children. I’ve never seen this offered as evidence of anything. You brought this up. About vaccination at Monticello, one can imagine that the primitive procedures of those early days- TJ got the material for vaccination just a decade or so after it was developed-- may have made it more likely that people would contract the disease than they would in modern times. In other words, the vaccine could be weak due to problems with storage, which TJ tried to get everyone to focus on, or a host of other issues that arose in those more primitive times. But, even today with modern procedures, vaccination, though much safer initially, provides less immunity than inoculation. It’s just the nature of the virus and the way it works in the human body. In sum, with all this, it is not at all a surprise that Eston Hemings contracted small pox decades after Jefferson's vaccination-- not a surprise at all. Again, small pox vaccination does not provide lifelong immunity from the disease. You may recall after the events of 9/11, there was serious talk about reviving the small pox vaccination that all Americans used to receive out of fear that terrorists would launch a biological attack using the virus. If you go back and look at the papers, you will find that health officials were concerned because protecting the country would really require vaccinating everyone. With that, there would be some certain number of people who would die as a result of complications from the vaccination. Mandatory small pox vaccination ended at the beginning of the 1970s, so the majority of Americans were well past the 20 to 30 year immunity range, and anyone born after that would never have been vaccinated at all. Actually, elderly Americans, who had come of age before mandatory vaccination, would have had to be vaccinated, too. Given the numbers, and certain probabilities of death due to the vaccination itself, they decided that the potential harm outweighed the likelihood that there would be an attack. If you doubt me about vaccination versus inoculation, and the lack of lifelong immunity provided by the former, please look this up. A good biography of Edward Jenner would explain all of this. Beverley Hemings and Harriet Hemings did not run away from Monticello and get brought back. One time, Edmund Bacon sent a note to TJ saying that Beverley was missing from the carpenter's shop. That’s it. There is not one document, circumstance, or passing statement that suggests that Beverley Hemings (or Harriet Hemings) ran away from Monticello and TJ sent someone to bring him (her) back. Nothing. Not showing up to work, even for several days, is not the same thing as running away from the plantation. He could have been sick for all we know, or visiting a girlfriend. Bacon didn’t say, “Beverley is not at Monticello anymore.” As the overseer, he could easily have found that out. He just said he hadn’t been coming to the carpenter’s shop. Beverley and Harriet can be tracked in the Farm Book until 1822, when they left Monticello. Just look at it. There is no reason to doubt that SH, MH, and EH moved into Charlottesville after TJ’s death. A regular census report, and a special census, support that. “Most likely” a servant of MJR is pretty lame in comparison to those things. Ellen Coolidge left her servant, Sally Marks, with MJR when she got married. To the extent that there are references to “Sally’ in the late 1820s, they are to her. Mistaking Sally Marks for SH is a thing that happens in some published accounts. We know what happened to Sally Marks. She was not the “Sally” given her time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Jefferson did not stop all vaccinations at Monticello in 1801. He had enslaved people coming from his other farms, other workers who could have infected newly born enslaved people. As a matter of economic investment alone that would have made no sense.In any event, you were the one who brought this up as if it meant something. You are right, it could mean absolutely nothing at all. And I should say that the tone I adopted at the beginning of my last message was not necessary. I should be able to answer without invective or sarcasm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you thought that was okay. You and I just have different views about what constitutes a material mistake, and we're just not going to meet on that. Not all mistakes are equally problematic. Saying that your dead cousin, a married man, was notoriously carrying on an affair with another woman, and fathered all her children--when that didn't happen-- is worse than saying that someone suggested to your mother when you were born, that she give you a certain name. Peter Carr had a wife and family. Why shouldn't we be careful and protective of their relationship, and mistrustful of someone who would so flagrantly disregard the importance of the Carr family-- because Peter Carr wasn't famous and we don't care about him as much as TJ? TJ Randolph did damage, not just to Peter Carr, but to his wife and children who existed within a bond made by matrimony. I'm sorry, adultery is worse to me than fornication (what an archaic term that is!) and I have a higher standard when someone is accused of that. The Carr marriage has gone down in history, until recently, as a sham under TJ Randolph's formulation, and there is no evidence that it ever was. Randolph also said that he knew there was no special treatment of SH because he was in charge of giving out all the clothes and supplies to slaves when SH was having her kids. Well, he wasn't. He was about 12 when she conceived her last child. I just think Randolph should receive demerits for all this, and other things he said on this subject that were not true. I can listen to him about some things, but not this subject. As for MH, as it turns out, Dolly Madison was at Monticello when SH was in the latter stages of her pregnancy with MH. I can easily see how, with no bad faith at all, "Dolley was there when I was born" could come out of a casual statement made when Dolley Madison was visiting at Monticello when SH was visibly pregnant. One should ask, "How could this person be mistaken? Could this be true in substance, but not happen exactly the way the person said it happened?" With Randolph, I don't see how he could have mistakenly thought that when he was age 4 to 12 he was in charge of giving out clothes to slaves. I also don't think he could have mistakenly believed that Peter Carr was notorious for having fathered all of SH's children. He knew everything about that place. He was his grandfather's rock. I can easily see how MH could have mixed up Dolley Madison's saying something to his mother while his mother was pregnant with her saying something to her just after he was born. It would be of greater concern, though still not fatal, if Dolley had not been at Monticello at all when SH was pregnant in 1804-- but she was. I guess I'm just suspicious of requirements of absolute precision, about dates and times, precise words-- seizing on small things as destroying the essence of a story. There's a danger of missing the forest for the trees. Doing that is not always the same as trying to get at the truth. In fact I think it's almost always not an effective way of getting at the truth. You know how this works in our day to day life, someone who has something against you grasps any slip of the tongue, any small memory lapse to discredit you overall. AHA! [we've both been doing a little bit of that ourselves here] Well, very often it isn't fair, and it's not really the best way to find out what is going on in a given situation. That's why I pulled back from the nasty tone of my prior message. I don't always know what is in someone's heart about a thing. I can only try to figure out whether what they are saying makes sense in the context of other things I know about the circumstances surrounding it. That's why TJ Randolph's statements are fatally problematic, but MH's statement about Dolley Madison is not. But for the issue of SH and TJ, the idea that a white slave owner like Dolly Madison would have suggested a name for an enslaved person's child would be seen as a completely inocuous thing. That happened in the South. MH does not specifically tie this to TJ in any way. He seems to have told it criticize Dolley Madison for not keeping a promise to his mother. But in the context of this story, it becomes a big deal because some people go to MH's recollections just looking for ways to say he was lying rather than trying to look objectively at what he was saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertvox ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)