Slashdot Mirror


Thomas Jefferson: Scientist, Inventor, Gadgeteer

Hugh Pickens writes "Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, whose signing we celebrate today, was considered an expert in architecture, civil engineering, geography, mathematics, ethnology, anthropology, mechanics, and the sciences. Although Jefferson never failed to acknowledge that in science he was 'an amateur,' Jefferson's home at Monticello was filled with examples of his scientific philosophy. An inventor and gadgeteer of great ingenuity, Jefferson's practical innovations or improvements on others inventions included: the swivel chair, the polygraph, letter press, hemp break. pedometer, mouldboard plow, sulky, folding chair, dumb-waiter, double acting doors, and a seven day clock. Throughout his life Jefferson experimented in agriculture with studies in crop rotation, soil cultivation, animal breeding, pest control, agricultural implements and improvement of seeds. Jefferson promoted science as President by recommending to Congress a coast survey to accurately chart the coast of America that later evolved into the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. Jefferson's expert testimony before Congress led to the establishment of the Naval Observatory and the Hydrographic Office and Jefferson's report to Congress on a plan of coinage and weights and measures based on the decimal system was expanded into the National Bureau of Standards. Jefferson never applied for a patent, which was consistent in his belief in the natural right of all mankind to share useful improvements without restraint."

220 comments

  1. Swivel Chairs by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I know who to blame for my dizziness. Damn you and your fun contraptions!

    1. Re:Swivel Chairs by piripiri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fortunately he also invented the hemp break, so relax!

    2. Re:Swivel Chairs by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      oh, if I only had a mod point for you.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    3. Re:Swivel Chairs by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      And the, uh... "sulky", and today, I sulk with patriotic fervor.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Swivel Chairs by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      A sulky appears to be a kind of lightweight carriage. Jefferson probably used it to go driving with the single ladies (put a ring on it). Just kidding. ;-) Thom was a very shy person who barely spoke.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Sulky_racing_Vincennes_DSC03735_cropped.JPG
      Dog version: http://www.ikonsuspension.com/images/customer_projects/customer-projects-dog-sulky-4-lg.jpg

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  2. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He also raped a slave (at least per current definitions). Let's not get too stupid in our idol worship here.

    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      How dare you? The founding fathers were perfect. Please report to the nearest american patriot association for your burning at the stake.

    2. Re:Yeah by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I knew this would show sooner or later. Yeah, according to our standards, he was an ass for owning other humans even though he should have known it was wrong to do so.
      Guess what? Three hundred years from now you might be remembered as an ass who actually drove around in a big thing which continuously generated carbon dioxide even though you should have known it was wrong to do so.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    3. Re:Yeah by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      He fathered children from a slavewoman. There is no evidence that he treated her any different than family.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings

      He was also opposed to slavery, but did not think the south could handle integration and continued to own slaves.

    4. Re:Yeah by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Jefferson DID know slavery was wrong and made many public statements to that effect and attempted on several occasions to end it in America or in Virginia. But his reputation is forever tarnished because he did not free his own slaves whom he knew to be wrongly held in bondage.

    5. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He also raped a slave (at least per current definitions).

      Good thing you were there and can now inform us it was not love. Congrats on the time machine.

      > Let's not get too stupid in our idol worship here.

      The current definition of rape is what is stupid (see Assange case), not the worshipping of Jefferson. Besides, have you seen the recent Presidents? One wonders if idolizing TJ isn't the proper approach...

      DISCLAIMER: Personal opinion; not a US citizen; big admirer of Thomas Jefferson.

    6. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's rather hilarious to declare Jefferson opposed to slavery apart from the technical difficulties of integration in the south, when those arguments apply not at all to his personal conduct.

    7. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He put his penis in a woman who did not have the legal right to consent or not. He abused his position of power as a slaveowner (which is another issue altogether) to have sex with a slave. In no case did this woman have any legal protection to object. You can argue whether she loved him or not. That is unknown. Would she still have had sex with him if he didn't own her and she had full citizenship rights?

      In any case, he is clearly a rapist. These morals should have been evident even centuries ago.

    8. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's notable that Jefferson's attempts to 'end slavery' came hand in hand with his proposals of mass expulsions of blacks from the US.

    9. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a 50 year old gets it on with a 16 year old girl he is in a position of absolute power over, you don't think there's something rather odd about that?

    10. Re:Yeah by flyneye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no evidence Jefferson ever raped a slave.
      There is much more evidence that in an age of slave maltreatment and subhuman living conditions, Thom treated those in his care with the kindness that he would hirelings. More so, in fact. The slaves quarters, nicely designed along with Monticello, were engineered as nicely as a working mans house could be expected to be. His Mistress/slave had her own "apartment" and bore him a child that he cared to send to college. His "slaves" were taught skills not often relegated to slaves or indentured servants . From fine furniture making to advanced agriculture from mechanics to various sundry other crafts, Thoms knowledge poured into them. Remember, this was a man so impressed with Jesus Christ's character, that he edited down the bible to only include Christ's input so that his life could be seen as a whole for philosophical reasons. Google " Jefferson Bible". We can conclude only that Jefferson liked the Negro ladies and cared enough about Negroes to treat them as well as everyman. The kindness in this, you will note , is that his "slaves" didn't have to put up with the inhuman bullshit their fellow slaves did at other owners hands. Turning a slave loose back then was no panacea. The slave had to be ready to operate in a white world and have almost independent means. I commend Jefferson as a humanitarian activist and refute the general disinformation spread by opportunists victimizing the gullible. Liars have to cover up and hide, the truth can walk around naked all day.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    11. Re:Yeah by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Uhm, yeah, the realization that slaves weren't in for a better time of it, being free and on their own must've set in at some point, just like it is for you, right now. Then all his other activities regarding slavery, make more sense now. uhm hmm.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:Yeah by loufoque · · Score: 0

      You're implying that rape and slavery are wrong. What a naive view of the history of humanity.

    13. Re:Yeah by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. However, evidence suggests that this was not the case with Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings went with him to France where slavery was illegal and if she desired she could have left him and remained in France. She chose to stay by his side. That their relationship had to be secret during their lifetimes is tragic, and we can never know the full story. Evidence suggests Thomas Jefferson was a good man living in bad times.

    14. Re:Yeah by paiute · · Score: 1

      He put his penis in a woman who did not have the legal right to consent or not.

      She was a slave. Legal property. She did not have at the time any rights. Today she would have full protection under the Constitution, and today Jefferson would be a rapist. But today is not yesterday.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    15. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no evidence that he treated her any different than family.

      Aside from the part where she was still a slave, of course. Unlike a few others, she was not even freed in his will.

      But I'm sure she loved him so much she didn't want to be free. Yeah.

    16. Re:Yeah by buybuydandavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He put his penis in a woman who did not have the legal right to consent or not. He abused his position of power as a slaveowner (which is another issue altogether) to have sex with a slave. In no case did this woman have any legal protection to object. You can argue whether she loved him or not. That is unknown. Would she still have had sex with him if he didn't own her and she had full citizenship rights?

      In any case, he is clearly a rapist. These morals should have been evident even centuries ago.

      Until very recently in human history, the vast majority of women were first the property of their fathers, and then the property of the man their father gave them to, called her husband, who could put his penis in her without her having any legal right to consent or not. That is, if she wasn't just taken from her father or husband by someone with the power to do so.

      Many women are still in this position today. Your outrage would be better targeted on their predicament, instead of on a man with few competitors for liberating mankind from oppression.

    17. Re:Yeah by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Maybe in some western and some Asian civilizations this would be true. But in some civilizations in the Americas, particularly the Haudenosaunee, women were not only not property of anyone, they held equal rights, were the only ones able to own property, and Clan Mothers decided which men would go off and do their bidding.

    18. Re:Yeah by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      That may very well be the cause, but unless the Haudenosaunee made up a sizeable fraction of the worlds population, "the majority" still stands.

      And your characterization of Haudenosaunee women as holding "equal rights" isn't correct on the face of it, except in the Orwellian sense: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". You describe them as having rights their men folk did not.

    19. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in some western and some Asian civilizations this would be true. But in some civilizations in the Americas, particularly the Haudenosaunee, women were not only not property of anyone, they held equal rights, were the only ones able to own property, and Clan Mothers decided which men would go off and do their bidding.

      And look what that got them!

      Chauvinism and misogyny for the win!

    20. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I knew this would show sooner or later. Yeah, according to our standards, he was an ass for owning other humans even though he should have known it was wrong to do so.

      There were plenty of people who were opposed to slavery in the Eighteenth century (Samuel Johnson springs to mind), so you can't use cultural relativism as an excuse for him.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Jefferson DID know slavery was wrong and made many public statements to that effect and attempted on several occasions to end it in America or in Virginia. But his reputation is forever tarnished because he did not free his own slaves whom he knew to be wrongly held in bondage.

      If there's one thing worse than believing in slavery and holding slaves, it's not believing in slavery and still holding slaves.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He put his penis in a woman who did not have the legal right to consent or not.

      She was a slave. Legal property. She did not have at the time any rights. Today she would have full protection under the Constitution, and today Jefferson would be a rapist. But today is not yesterday.

      So much for your Constitution then.

      Seriously, why do you Americans go on as if the Constitution was the word of God and a statement of Eternal Truth, when it allowed for things like slavery?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Your outrage would be better targeted on their predicament, instead of on a man with few competitors for liberating mankind from oppression.

      Jefferson has few competitors in human history for sheer hypocrisy. Liberty without fraternity or equality is just the freedom to make money unscrupulously

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He was also opposed to slavery, but did not think the south could handle integration and continued to own slaves.

      That is like being "opposed" to child labour, but cheerfully employing eight year olds to sweep your chimney for pennies.

      The phrase to describe this is "rank fucking hypocrisy.".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      quote>

      > He also raped a slave (at least per current definitions).

      Good thing you were there and can now inform us it was not love. Congrats on the time machine.

      Having sex with a slave is the same as having sex with a child. There can, by definition, be no informed consent.

      If he had loved her that much he should have freed her.

      At least Medieval barons exercising their droit de signeur weren't bleating hypocritically on about freedom and equality while they raped their victims.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Being a relatively humane slave owner is just being a slave owner with added hypocrisy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You're implying that rape and slavery are wrong. What a naive view of the history of humanity.

      There is a difference between describing the facts of history and making considered moral judgements upon those facts, you stupid twat.

      You're implying that rape and slavery are right. The vast majority of civilised people would disagree with you. Human beings are not mindless ants condemned to repeat the same behaviour endlessly.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:Yeah by flyneye · · Score: 1

      In a world where the only aid you can give is by buying the slave to keep them from a harsh end, I can see him still hating slavery.
      The hypocrisy is failure to acknowledge that , while clinging to the trendy bullshit that we know is political cover up that only benefits
      charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Use your head for something besides disinformation storage for the status quo.

      I'd have bought slaves, just as surely as I have a houseful of dogs that I've rescued. Same principle. Jefferson was a man of means and could afford it.
      To turn that into something bad and spread it to soil his reputation instead of shine it is just evil.
      Now you can set the next gullible, public school brainwashed schmo, straight.

      Now Lincoln on the other hand was a racist atheist prick, speaking of popular disinformation. I wonder why Jackson doesn't denounce him for his view that physical differences will keep the black man from ever being equal to the white man OR his suggestion to congress that we ship all the blacks to South America.( Rejected by both congress and South American countries)

              I'd like to thank my old History/Government teacher for being a real history detective and producing ancient books and documents that showed me back in the 80's that most of what we are taught is just convenient bullshit.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:Yeah by loufoque · · Score: 1

      you stupid twat

      Please remain civil.

      You're implying that rape and slavery are right.

      No, I am implying there is no right and wrong, just arbitrary moral values being forced on social groups through conditioning.

      The vast majority of civilised people would disagree with you.

      And the majority is always right, of course.

      Human beings are not mindless ants condemned to repeat the same behaviour endlessly.

      From a certain point of view, accepting what we are as nature has created us is a more healthy attitude than repressing our desires in the name of an artificial higher moral standing forced on us through indoctrination. Now, if you'd rather indulge in self-deception to persuade yourself you're better than animals or that men that came before you, that's your own choice, but that doesn't mean it's the only acceptable way for men to live.

    30. Re:Yeah by paiute · · Score: 1

      So much for your Constitution then. Seriously, why do you Americans go on as if the Constitution was the word of God and a statement of Eternal Truth, when it allowed for things like slavery?

      The Constitution is not supposed to be an immutable document, otherwise the authors would not have allowed for amendments. It is not the word of any god. It reflected the state of society at the time. Society changed and the Constitution was amended and reinterpreted. If it had tried to ban slavery it would never have been ratified and there would be no USA.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    31. Re:Yeah by cusco · · Score: 1

      The state of Virginia passed a law specifically so that Jefferson (and I believe one of the other founders) couldn't afford to free his slaves. They made it mandatory for any slave owner wishing to free a slave to provide sufficient money to support that slave for the rest of their life, the supposed 'justification' being that since blacks were incapable of working without continual instruction and supervision any freed slave would need to be financially supported in perpetuity.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    32. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They made it mandatory for any slave owner wishing to free a slave to provide sufficient money to support that slave for the rest of their life, the supposed 'justification' being that since blacks were incapable of working without continual instruction and supervision any freed slave would need to be financially supported in perpetuity.

      Well, they were definitely right about that. You only have to look at Detroit, DC, Atlanta, or Oakland for proof of that.

    33. Re:Yeah by bandy · · Score: 1

      Whereas in the Old Testament, having a wife and concubines was commonplace. Some men had more than one wife. The New Testament didn't change that, either, with no real mention of plural marriage either way.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    34. Re:Yeah by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Isn't it horrible when hypocrites liberate mankind?

    35. Re:Yeah by robsku · · Score: 1

      Now Lincoln on the other hand was a racist atheist prick

      Maybe he was that, I don't know - not from USA, so I would not be expected to necessarily have knowledge of Lincoln any more than you would be expected to know of Urho Kekkonen (or even that, Kekkonen was president between 1956–1982) - but what I'd like to know is why did you include being "atheist" in what clearly was meant to be a set of negative qualities? What do you have against being an atheist?

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    36. Re:Yeah by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Because I never heard of the atheist yet , who wasn't set to be a bigger pain in the ass than a busload of evangelical Christians proselytizing their short sited crap too. Absent the purpose handed to others in life who defer to a higher power, the atheist fills his empty space with smug attention whoring lacking both thought and substance. We could always take a poll of people who are neither Christian or atheist, asking who are the bigger sphincters, but, my friend , we already know.....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    37. Re:Yeah by robsku · · Score: 1

      What a load of crap - please leave my ass...
      And you can take that as my reply representing my view, as neither Christian nor atheist (although used to be), of your BS.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    38. Re:Yeah by flyneye · · Score: 1

      The reader will note, no thought or substance went into the above reply as predicted. Frankly, the rest of it , went as predicted, as well.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  3. moron editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    where the fuck is the higgs boson news, you moron editors?

    1. Re:moron editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News: Scientists spend $10,000,000,000 to find something which is everywhere.

    2. Re:moron editors by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually it doesn't exist anymore. it was only around in the first second of the universe. It decayed into the other subatomic particles like quarks and photons. That is why they had to build a 10Bn$ machine to recreate conditions just after the big bang. Didn't you read anything on the LHC in the last 5yrs?

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    3. Re:moron editors by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      There are also news articles all over the place...on other sites. If you always get your science news from /. you will always be a few seconds behind everyone else. I had the luxury of watching it live and it was great. I even put a video of the last 2min on my youtube channel :D

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    4. Re:moron editors by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      where the fuck is the higgs boson news, you moron editors?

      I got your higgs boson right here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:moron editors by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      Not sure if alluding to your penis as being the size of a sub-atomic particle is REALLY the way to go on this.

    6. Re:moron editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it doesn't exist anymore. it was only around in the first second of the universe. It decayed into the other subatomic particles like quarks and photons. That is why they had to build a 10Bn$ machine to recreate conditions just after the big bang. Didn't you read anything on the LHC in the last 5yrs?

      The Higgs bosun is an elementary particle in the standard model. It can't decay into anything, and it can't transmute into another elementary particle, like a quark or photon.

    7. Re:moron editors by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not sure if alluding to your penis as being the size of a sub-atomic particle is REALLY the way to go on this.

      It's not the size that matters. It's how massive it is.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:moron editors by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you always get your science news from /. you will always be a few seconds behind everyone else

      OMFG the unspeakable horror. For those few seconds, I am deeply unfashionable. People are probably laughing at me on my facebook page and posting amusingly misspelled tweets about me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:moron editors by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Not sure if alluding to your penis as being the size of a sub-atomic particle is REALLY the way to go on this.

      It's not the size that matters. It's how massive it is.

      In that case I've got a black hole in my pants. Oh, wait...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:moron editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the charge?

  4. Slave owner ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah... really awesome human being.

    1. Re:Slave owner ? by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      Not to detract from Jefferson's accomplishments which were many and various, but Monticello and the grounds of the University of Virginia were built with the hands of slaves.

      This wouldn't even be a problem except TFS notes Jefferson was "an expert in [. . .] ethnology, anthropology" among other disciplines. Jefferson

      shared contemporary racial views that Africans were inferior to whites and needed supervision. This became his rationale for justifying slavery, although he had condemned the institution under his Enlightenment ideals.

      Jefferson's post-Enlightenment views regarding blacks and slavery rules out any claims he was an "expert" in the human sciences, especially ethnology and anthropology. Sort of like calling Johann Joachim Becher an expert in fluid dynamics and pyrology.

      --
      blog
    2. Re:Slave owner ? by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jefferson's post-Enlightenment views regarding blacks and slavery rules out any claims he was an "expert" in the human sciences, especially ethnology and anthropology.

      Please elaborate. Why do his views rule out such claims? The past wasn't just the present with funny clothes. We have plenty of ideas, experiences, and insights now that people of that time didn't have. I think it's foolish to judge them on a modern basis (especially, when that basis will radically change with future generations).

      And there were human sciences experts a century later who had similar beliefs to Jefferson's (for example, John Dewey). Jefferson's beliefs on ethnicity wasn't an ideological aberration that was quickly discarded, but something that stayed legitimate for a long time.

    3. Re:Slave owner ? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      You live in the context of your time. As a head of household, inheriting an estate that included slave, you were not really free (even legally in some places) to manumit your slaves.

      Jefferson personally disliked the slavery, but recognized that it was an issue to hard to resolve at the time with the slave-holding states. He considered slavery an injustice, but couldn't risk dissolving the federal union to end slavery.

      "But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

    4. Re:Slave owner ? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of evidence that Jefferson had a long term relationship with a female slave - Sally Hemings, and fathered 6 children by her. Jefferson gave all 6 children their freedom when the came "of age".

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    5. Re:Slave owner ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jefferson was one of America's founders. If anyone had the power to oppose slavery it was him, but he did not. He owned slaves, he was one of the reasons "As a head of household, inheriting an estate that included slave, you were not really free (even legally in some places) to manumit your slaves."

      And yes you do live in the context of your time, and in the 1700s, 'good' people did not support slavery.

    6. Re:Slave owner ? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Moreover, Jefferson himself fought in Congress to abolish slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

      In the Virginia Assembly, in the 1780s Jefferson supported a bill to prohibit the state from importing slaves. In the 1784 Congress, Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the Northwest, but it was not passed.[4] In 1804 as president, he refused to recognize Haiti, a new republic established by a slave rebellion, and in 1805 and 1806 enacted an arms and trade embargo against them. In 1807 he signed a bill prohibiting the US from participating in the international slave trade; it had been protected from federal regulation for 20 years under compromises of the United States Constitution.[5]

      True, it was philosophically-hypocritical of him to own slaves and only free two of them. But, it also believed that Jefferson believed that if freed, his slaves would be re-captured and would be treated much-worse elsewhere (so I learned from a tour guide when I visited his Monticello home several years ago). His position, then, seems to have been one of pragmatic harm-minimization, rather than ideological purity. For his time, his anti-slave stance was quite progressive, even though by today's standards, he would be (rightly) demonized and considered a laughingstock.

    7. Re:Slave owner ? by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      *snip* The past wasn't just the present with funny clothes. We have plenty of ideas, experiences, and insights now that people of that time didn't have. I think it's foolish to judge them on a modern basis (especially, when that basis will radically change with future generations). *snip*

      Conversely, the people of the past had "plenty of ideas, experiences, and insights" that people of our time have forgotten or choose to ignore. The wirtings of many of the Founding Fathers gives context to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Many writings warned of corruptions to the Republic and government we now live with.

    8. Re:Slave owner ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Female slave, ay? Hard to father six with a male slave. TJ is on a 2 because he was a great American! Besides, if it weren't for him, there's be no Obama, who is distanntly related to TJ. So there!

    9. Re:Slave owner ? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      America's 'founders' consisted of hundreds of men who disagreed on many things. Jefferson had many issues with the Constitution but he used his influence to make sure the Bill of Rights were included. In his words:

      Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    10. Re:Slave owner ? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Actually, he did a great deal to oppose slavery for someone living in Virginia society. Many of the very specific pressures faced and exactly why he decided to act in the ways he did will never be known. At the end of the day, he was at the very forefront of the socially progressive part of Southern society.

      Usually, those bringing up the slave trade are doing so as a means to discredit parts of his ideas they do not like. Usually, this is without regard to whether slavery has any bearing on those ideas, but even where they do so, being a hypocrite does not alter whether an abstract idea is fundamentally worthwhile or not.

    11. Re:Slave owner ? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick; freed 4. Two of his children by her did not survive to adulthood.

    12. Re:Slave owner ? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Jefferson's beliefs on ethnicity wasn't an ideological aberration that was quickly discarded, but something that stayed legitimate for a long time.

      Those beliefs just don't sit very well with an alleged lover of the republican ideals of liberty, fraternity, equality, do they?

      If some reactionary racist bigot nowadays says that all X coloured people are stupid, sub-human, etc, at least we're not in any danger of mistaking him for a progressive liberal.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:Slave owner ? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Many writings warned of corruptions to the Republic and government we now live with.

      Yeah, corruptions to those Republican Ideals of the Founding Fathers, things like abolishing slavery and giving the vote to women and non-landowners. Fucking liberals have ruined everything.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Slave owner ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh just fuck right off. No one forced him to keep slaves. Not everybody at that time owned slaves. There was no law saying you had to own slaves, and if there had been, he should have fucking opposed it.

      Face it, he was an, elitist, comfortably off canting weasel of a hypocrite.

      Happy fucking 4th of July fascists.

    15. Re:Slave owner ? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      America's 'founders' consisted of hundreds of men who disagreed on many things. Jefferson had many issues with the Constitution but he used his influence to make sure the Bill of Rights were included. In his words:

      Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.

      It's not his fucking rights [*] that are the issue, it's his slaves'.

      Keeping slaves and thereby upholding the practice of slavery didn't infringe on Mr Jefferson's rights in the slightest.

      [*] pun intended

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:Slave owner ? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Jefferson gave all 6 children their freedom when the came "of age".

      * golfclap *

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Slave owner ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Those beliefs just don't sit very well with an alleged lover of the republican ideals of liberty, fraternity, equality, do they?

      Why not? He was human.

      The rationalization does make a sort of sense too. We don't expect the responsibilities of a citizen from our pets. Fifi never has to serve jury duty or vote. Jefferson's viewpoint seems to be simply that his slaves, while more intelligent than a pet, would be unable to handle the roles and duties of being a free citizen, apparently, even unable to remain free.

      History has shown that viewpoint to be deeply in error. Odds are good that this was just a hypocritical rationalization to keep slaves, who were valuable assets, around. But if there really were a species of human who was sufficiently intellectually inferior that they couldn't handle the necessary duties of a democracy, it's likely that this would be how they'd be treated even in a democracy.

  5. Didn't believe in the patent system either by shione · · Score: 1

    Being such a influential and powerful person, it is unfortunate that as president Jefferson didn't go on to dismantle the patent system since he saw for himself that 'useful improvements should be shared without restraint".

    It would have saved us all from the broken system we have today where big corps sue each other until one leaves or theres a cross licensing agreement in place to block new players from entering the market.

    1. Re:Didn't believe in the patent system either by mschaffer · · Score: 1

      I am certain he didn't believe in the copyright systems, too. Ever read John Locke's works? Jefferson sure did:
      http://www.anesi.com/q0033.htm

  6. Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Swampash · · Score: 5, Informative

    "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

    "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

    "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

    "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

    "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

    -- Thomas Jefferson

    1. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Isn't funny how a post that makes you like him makes me dislike him?

      If you find yourself disliking Thomas Jefferson you need to rethink your life.

    2. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Punko · · Score: 2

      At least Jefferson would have placed no restriction on you voicing both your (apparently) religious opinion and your open disagreement with the poster.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    3. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't dislike him, I despise him for being the biggest hypocrite that ever walked on Earth.

    4. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Punko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was there something in that post that pointed to hypocrisy, if so I cannot find it. While he was well know to have his own peculiarities, his position clearly stating that religious beliefs should be between a person and their chosen god(s) and that the religious beliefs of others were not his concern, doesn't appear to be contradicted by his behaviour.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    5. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      Well then you can't blame Jefferson for the reason so many public schools want to shove a bible up your ass nowadays.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    6. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by PRMan · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Thomas Jefferson went to church regularly inside the House of Representatives building, where he had built a non-denominational church. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

      It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

      He also granted federal money to spread the gospel to Indians http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/indian_evangelization.htm

      Notice that during his administration, Jefferson appropriated funds for Christian missionaries to evangelize the heathen, as Justice Rehnquist noted: As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church. The treaty stated in part: "And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When Jefferson was alive, his home state had an official religion that all taxpayers were required to support. In the 1800s Jefferson wrote an amendment to the Virginia Constitution to abolish it.

      And I take Jefferson's quote from your post and modify it. If he were alive today he'd probably say, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to have insurance or no insurance. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." He'd also probably re-publish his Kentucky Resolutions declaring that, per the 10th amendment, the power to mandate purchase of a private product is reserved to the People and their Legislatures..... not the Congress.

      >>>Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

      Indeed. In response to the Supreme Court decision he would declare: "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of state governments on the central government, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated â¦. â" Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

      I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. â" Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      And I take Jefferson's quote from your post and modify it. If he were alive today he'd probably say, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to have insurance or no insurance. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." He'd also probably re-publish his Kentucky Resolutions declaring that, per the 10th amendment, the power to mandate purchase of a private product is reserved to the People and their Legislatures..... not the Congress.

      Until your neighbor can't afford to give their kid a vaccine, and your kid gets a disease and dies because he was one of those that the vaccine doesn't work on. The health of the population is in the best interest of the entire population. I don't think the healthcare law is the best solution but to say that the health of your neighbor doesn't affect you is to live in a very small bubble.

    9. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      I'm a foreigner and regular critic of the American government and I think Jefferson is simply one of the best Presidents to ever exist.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    10. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      Treaty of Tripoli. Passed unanimously by the Senate. Three newspapers printed it whole. Each Senator got a printed copy. Not a single letters to the editor in protest. Not a single sermon recorded anywhere in protest. No protest from anyone in the USA. Almost all the founding fathers were still alive. No concern about it even in their private correspondence. John Adams made a special signing statement about this treaty. Against such specific and unambiguous statements, you look for symbolic meaning on their various acts.

      I am a Hindu. I am here. I have as much rights and as much American as you are. Deal with it.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    11. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The word "God" does not appear in the US Constitution, nor is there any other reference to a deity except in the date on the document "In the year of our Lord 1787".

      Jefferson and Madison (primary author of the Constitution) had the opinion that there needed to be a very strong separation between state and religion. Madison wrote a famous petition when Virginia was considering the issue of state support of religion which included the phrase "not three pence" which has been cited in several Supreme Court decisions regarding the state support of religion.

      The concept of Jefferson granting money to missionaries to spread the gospel to Indians is a MAJOR distortion of the intent. Jefferson needed to convert the Indians from hunter-gatherers to farmers to be able to use the land they owned for the growth of the United States. This required educating the Indians in a new way of life. The fact that the money was granted to missionaries is simply because they were the low bidders; that is they were willing to take less money than anyone else to undertake the job because they had an ulterior motive.

      > It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church

      Actually that is a gross exaggeration and something both Jefferson and Madison would have been horrified with if anyone had suggested it.

      One needs to understand the physical realities of Washington DC in the early days of the Republic. It was in fact generally a wilderness with a few large buildings dropped in. It wasn't a developed city with substantial infrastructure. If you wanted to hold services the only physical structures available were in fact the government buildings.

      Also - are you aware that Jefferson and Madison were Deists who denied the divinity of Christ and much of the Bible?

    12. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thomas Jefferson was a mason. They don't believe in organized religion per say. They believe in God, The Grand Architect. You are free to worship God as you will in the free masons however you can not push or talk about your religious views within the masons. But you must and I stress must believe in God.

    13. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about the separation of church and state, but I never hear anyone mention the problem with the Tripoli as evidence for this: we signed the treaty of Tripoli along with sizable ransom payments to convince the Barbary pirates to stop raiding and capturing our ships in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic. So, in essence, we were extorted into signing the treaty of Tripoli by a hostile power that disliked the Christian religion. Perhaps, then, something like the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom would be better evidence (it was only a Virginia state law, but it was written by Thomas Jefferson).

      Or, better yet, maybe we should just stop the pointless squabbling about what our founders thought about the question. The actual meaning of the Establishment Clause at the time of its ratification is entirely clear: it prevented the federal government from creating a federal church that would supplant state churches. State churches, on the other hand, were very common. (Of course, the Establishment Clause, like the rest of the bill of rights, was made applicable against the states by the 14th Amendment. It's a un brain teaser to figure out what it would mean to apply a federalism provision like the establishment clause against the states.) (Yes, I am a constitutional lawyer.) But, fortunately, in the years since then, the idea of religious freedom in its modern incarnation has become extremely well accepted in both the U.S. both in our system of constitutional law and in the popular culture. Aren't we better off defending that cultural progress on its own merits than pointlessly, fruitlessly re-litigating the founding?

    14. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I take Jefferson's quote from your post and modify it. If he were alive today he'd probably say, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to have insurance or no insurance. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

      Then we'd tell him about EMTALA, and tell him the choice was to either let people die when they could be treated, or...get payment for it.

      Tell us which he'd choose.

    15. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by pianophile · · Score: 1

      And I take Jefferson's quote from your post and modify it. If he were alive today he'd probably say, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to have insurance or no insurance. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

      Incorrect. For my neighbor to have no insurance indeed picks my pocket. Do you think ERs are free?

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    16. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      My point was not mainly about the Treaty of Tripoli. It is about the dog that did not bark. The lack of public protests. The lack of concern about it in news papers and sermons and private correspondence. There was no, "look what we are forced to agree to by the damn Barbery pirates" anywhere. If the elder statesmen felt extorted into signing it, the local reverend whose sermon will never be heard in Tripoli did not have to constrain himself. He could have blasted it. Or explained to his congregation, "it is a wink and nod to fool them mehmetans". None of this happened. Everyone just accepted that church and the state shall not be mixed up.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    17. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The word "God" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but this doesn't actually provide any contextual meaning by it's omission. The word "horse" doesn't either, but the omission of the word didn't mean travel by horse wasn't an integral part of the American way of life.

      Jefferson who was principally, but not entirely, responsible for the Declaration of the Independence, DID say "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      So, while there's plenty of ad hominem attacks to be made on the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, it still says rights come from the Creator, and that all the governments had equal station according to the Laws of Nature AND of Nature's God. Deist or not, religion had a place in humanity and in these people's lives.

      Quoted from Post: "Jefferson and Madison (primary author of the Constitution) had the opinion that there needed to be a very strong separation between state and religion."

      There is a difference between "separation of church and state," which is also no where in the Constitution, and what the First Amendment actually says, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They are called the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses respectively. I am a law student, so hate to do this, but I'm not getting paid to post on Slashdot and SHOULD be writing a paper, so I'll link to sources from Wikipedia for the sake of ease.

      The Separation of Church and State Doctrine, as some people call it, is something a much more recent Supreme Court has decided it means, and many other people would agree that the Supreme Court, especially since the 1930s, interprets the Constitution very differently from how the Founding Fathers thought of it.

      While the Supreme Court in 1879 quoted a letter from Jefferson in reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, saying that the Founders expected a separation, this was a polygamy case where the Supreme Court was splitting the difference between the Free Exercise of the same with the health and welfare laws of a state outlawing bigamy and polygamy. Quoting from the Wiki of the case, Reynolds v. United States, which is a good summary: "The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action."

      This was a rule of law and sovereignty issue, not an establishment of a religion, or even the "separation of church and state" issue.

      Then came the opinion of more "Modern" jurisprudence. It was a 5-4 decision in 1947, but the entire Court signed off on this paragraph. Again, a quote, from Everson v. Board of Education:

      "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing relig

    18. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Thakandar2 · · Score: 2

      I really thought I was logged in to post this, especially since I took so much time, but I posted as Anon. If you don't want to reply to the Anon, and would rather send a message, please send to me! Thanks!

    19. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would do your credibility well of you would research the quote you falsely attribute to Jefferson. He did not say "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.". You would have known this if you weren't so lazy in your research, but you are an atheist, so you will believe anything that supports your belief system (just as bad as the fundies). It's appalling that your comment is considered "informative".

    20. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Until your neighbor can't afford to give their kid a vaccine, and your kid gets a disease and dies because he was one of those that the vaccine doesn't work on.

      The solution is not to mandate 100% purchase of a private product. The solution is to help those who are poor and can't afford a vaccine shot..... just as we help people with food stamps, housing assistance, welfare checks, and so on. Meanwhile the rest of us will buy our shots, food, homes with cash.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    21. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>For my neighbor to have no insurance indeed picks my pocket. Do you think ERs are free?

      Don't cost us anything.
      When a poor person fails to repay the ER bill, it costs the megacorp that owns the hospital. So in effect instead of Kaiser-Permanente earning a 1 billion dollar profit this year, they earn 0.99 billion. And frankly I enjoy that thought..... about time megacorps give something back to the community, rather than just take, take, take (and also pollute, pollute, pollute).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    22. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      In which case they would be receiving a form of public insurance. My issue with your post was that it came off sounding like your neighbors health doesn't affect you and therefore government shouldn't be involved with healthcare. But it sounds like we are pretty much on the same page after all.

    23. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by pianophile · · Score: 1

      >>>For my neighbor to have no insurance indeed picks my pocket. Do you think ERs are free?

      Don't cost us anything..

      Are you serious? The Corp pays for nothing: they raise their prices to cover unpaid ER bills, and customers pay handsomely, i.e. our pockets are picked, in the Jeffersonian sense, for healthcare delivered to the uninsured in the most costly and inefficient way.

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    24. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      Thomas Jefferson

      All said or written when he was younger. When he was older ... especially after he was President... he changed his mind on a great many things. Not always completely, but his attitude on religion did a near-180. Jefferson never became a conventional Trinitarian Chirstian, but he did warm up to religion and came to understand it as healthy and necessary in America, to the point where he believed that American liberty might not survive without it. Jefferson recognized that while he wasn't a conventional Christian, the vast majority of his countrymen were, and he came to respect their faith. Contrary to the whole notion that Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists indicated he favored a complete ban on religious expression on public grounds (the letter with the now oft-misquoted "separation of church and state" line), this was a false understanding of his position. Jefferson himself approved of Protestant services being held in the US capitol building. He attended them himself every Sunday, and at times even had the Marine Band play music for the hyms... all at public expense. And don't take my word for it. See what the Library of Congress has to say about it:

      It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
      Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."

      Far from being anti-religion, Jefferson came to recognize that the American experiment depended on a melding of ideas that had to include religion and the best ideas of the enlightenment:

      "Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.

      Jefferson, after all, was the primary mover behind the notion that we had an inalienable right to freedom of religion, and was the primary influence in ensuring that this right was enshrined in the Constitution. Like a lot of people, he was a bit of a radical hothead when he was younger, and again like most people, he became older and wiser.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    25. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      If you find yourself disliking him based on the OP, then no amount of rethinking will do the trick.

    26. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by modecx · · Score: 2

      If you're going to call on "Nature's God" as used in the Declaration of Independence, you aught to realize that it's a Deistic term, representative of a creator who instigates a sort of grand universal clockwork, with a policy of non-intervention in said universe. Jefferson as well as many of the founders, subscribed the Age of Enlightenment philosophies, Deism was a big thing amongst the people behind the scene.

      Deists hold that reason and scientific inspection of the natural world allow them to determine that a creator god is behind the whole thing, while simultaneously they reject any religious text that claims it is the work of god, they reject all dogma, claims of miracles, prophecies, and they also reject organized religion on the principal that it only serves to distract man from using his own reason to find evidence of god.

      The god of the Jews and Christians and Nature's God of the Deists have about as much in common as a life raft and the aircraft carrier which bears it; they both float.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    27. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      ``If you find yourself disliking Thomas Jefferson you need to rethink your life.''

      Really? He paid hack journalists to make up lies out of whole cloth about his political opponents. His behavior was so atrocious that he managed to make an enemy of Martha Washington. He was so bad at finance that when he died his estate was bankrupt. The more I read about him, the more I come to the conclusion that he was a really nasty human being.

      That he was an asshat doesn't diminish whatever genius he may have held in the fields of political theory, architecture, and agriculture. But neither do his triumphs in other areas mean that everyone should like him and adulate him as a hero.

    28. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jefferson and Madison (primary author of the Constitution) had the opinion that there needed to be a very strong separation between state and religion.

      "We are a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation." Which is to say that there should not be any state sponsored religion, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with religion being reflected from society into our government (e.g. the Ten Commandments posted in a City Hall for instance). Jefferson's allowances for church services to be held in federal buildings buttresses this assertion.

      One needs to understand the physical realities of Washington DC in the early days of the Republic. It was in fact generally a wilderness with a few large buildings dropped in. It wasn't a developed city with substantial infrastructure. If you wanted to hold services the only physical structures available were in fact the government buildings.

      DC had a population of 8,000 at the beginning of Jefferson's term. You posit that it's only a couple of government buildings in a wilderness? Let's take a look at an engraving of Washington from Jefferson's presidency shall we? There are scores of buildings in this picture. Tell me, who's exaggerating now? Your assertion is completely unsupported by the visual evidence (and bits of Georgetown history if you want to go there).

      Also - are you aware that Jefferson and Madison were Deists who denied the divinity of Christ and much of the Bible?

      Jefferson also created an annotated version of the Bible for his own personal study -- what's your point? I do not claim that Jefferson is some Bible thumping fire brand, but it is equally dishonest as some posit in this discussion that he didn't greatly value religion and Christianity in particular. I recall that Jefferson often attended church.

    29. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Thakandar2 · · Score: 2

      I did realize it was a Deistic term, thanks. :)

      I was addressing the supposed issue of separation of church and state, not wondering on the actual views of Jefferson or Madison. They didn't conform to any "orthodox" or mainstream definition of Deism either, but believed the relationship with God to be between each man and the Creator, which was quite Protestant if anything. For some reason they still attended church regularly all their lives, participated in communion and worship services, etc. Perhaps that's just them bowing to the peer pressures of their day and age.

      But they were pragmatic visionaries as well, and knew religion had a big piece to play in both society and political science, so they decided to address the issue directly by ensuring people could worship or exercise as they wished, and be free of government endorsement/establishment of one religion over the other, rather than a complete separation of all government and religious acts or intents.

      I don't think either Madison or Jefferson would mind giving money to a religious charity if it served the same goals the government institution was trying to accomplish, but that would be unconstitutional in the modern jurisprudence because it would be granting one organization a benefit, even if it was just a lowest bidder type situation.

    30. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I have yet to see any actual historical evidence to indicate that there were no protests, but I would not be surprised in either case, since there was little in the way of mass media in 1797. More importantly, though, remember the context: when this treaty was signed, states continued to recognize and fund, with taxpayer dollars, state churches, and some would continue to do so for decades (particularly Connecticut, which disestablished its state church in 1818 and Massachusettes which had disestablished in 1780 but continued to fund a state Church until 1833. Many other states continued official endorsement of a particular Church in other ways). (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Early_history)

      Again, I could not be a stronger supporter of the separation of church and state. But I think that looking at the attitudes of early Americans does not yield the clear evidence one would want and, moreover, ought to be beside the point.

    31. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Nature's God can mean a lot of things, not just the clockwork Deistic interpretation. It can also be a reference to the Spinozan agnostic view where God is simply a metaphor for Nature. Jefferson was certainly aware and influenced by these ideas. He CERTAINLY would not feel that his choice of words meant that the reader would be obligated to adopt his personal views on the topic. Ultimately freedom of religion meant freedom of conscience to Jefferson.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/opinion/29goldstein.html?pagewanted=print

      As far as separation of church and state, this is merely vernacular shorthand for the First Amendment derived from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

      If you haven't already I suggest you take a look at "The First Liberty: America's Foundation in Religious Freedom" by Andrew Miller. You might like it - it is pretty exhaustive on both the origins of the ideas of religious freedom and the the more modern legal history that you have alluded to. It's obviously much more authoritative than any Wikipedia article.

    32. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I have yet to see any actual historical evidence to indicate that there were no protests, but I would not be surprised in either case, since there was little in the way of mass media in 1797.

      So on one hand even the casual routine activities by the founding fathers are to be analyzed for deep secondary and hidden meanings. "Oh! He said Creator in singular not creators in plural, and don't forget the capitalization!" or "He attended a prayer service on public property" or "They allowed churches to bid for public service contracts". On the other hand, explicit declaration like this article of a treaty ratified unanimously by the Senate without provoking any recorded protest should be dismissed, "meh! big deal. They were not into following news that closely!".

      More importantly, though, remember the context: when this treaty was signed, states continued to recognize and fund, with taxpayer dollars, state churches, and some would continue to do so for decades (particularly Connecticut, which disestablished its state church in 1818 and Massachusettes which had disestablished in 1780 but continued to fund a state Church until 1833. Many other states continued official endorsement of a particular Church in other ways).

      So what? Many states continued to practice slavery and indentured service. For much longer after 1833. It took a war to get that straightened out. Churches went out of government with much less effort than a full fledged war. The states denied women property rights. Denied them voting rights. The federal government passed a law saying only Caucasians can own property. When Indian (dots not feathers) Americans claimed they were Caucasians, the Supreme Court ruled "meh! you guys are Caucasians but not white. Congress meant White. So no land for you!". A few instances of a few States spending tax dollars preferentially on one religion is nothing compared to the strong language in the written record about the intent of the framers and the lack of serious protest about it at that time from the general public. All the evidence points to a general consensus that "giving churches a say in the government is a bad idea" by the framers, by the churches and by the general public at that time.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    33. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      To start, I think you're somehow missing the fact that I am a big big supporter of the separation of church and state. I just don't think that the historical argument for it is very compelling. And I think the historical argument is beside the point anyway. I don't advance any of the conflicting arguments you suggest I advance.

      And, again, there is no serious debate among constitutional scholars about what the establishment clause meant when it was written: it meant only that the federal government could not create a national church to replace state churches. Basically it was a federalism provision that ensured that states remained free to choose their own local official churches. Again: I am on your side. It would be more convenient for us if this were not true. But it is. So no, not all the evidence points to the consensus you suggest among the framers. The evidence actually is that the practice was widespread at the time the constitution was drafted and the framers did not understand the constitution to do anything to stop it. It may be that Jefferson would have preferred a more total separation, but even if we knew that to be true (I believe that it is, but the evidence is not unequivocal), it wouldn't decide anything because you also need to think about what the other authors (remember: there were very many) and, even worse, the ratifiers thought it meant.

      But, all this notwithstanding, there are plenty of arguments we can make about why, even if the founders didn't enshrine the total separation we are committed to today, they should have. Articulating those arguments will be much more productive and get us farther than bickering over how often Thomas Jefferson went to church.

    34. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the solution is for the 'product' to be regarded as a basic service that should be available to all. Honestly, the health care shambles that the US has recently created must be the worst of all possible worlds. It's not the business of any government to guarantee any company a profit, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't have universal health care.

    35. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what would he say about the founding fathers cult?

    36. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I can think of dozens of larger hypocrites, most of whom, in addition to being hypocrites, have also contributed little or nothing to the advancement of society, literature, philosophy, or science.

      I'll take him as a hypocrite and day of the week.

    37. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>The Corp pays for nothing: they raise their prices to cover unpaid ER bills, and customers pay handsomely, i.e. our pockets are picked,

      Still cheaper than FORCING us to go buy insurance we don't want. Kaiser-permanente having unpaid bills hasn't cost me anything so far (because I don't visit their hospitals). In contrast Congress's new obamacare bill will cost me ~$6000 to buy insurance, or ~$1000 in IRS fines. I prefer to old method of dumping the expense on Kaiser and other corporations. It hurts me and other people less. (Plus I love to screw the megacorps up the ass.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    38. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He wasn't all bad then. That doesn't excuse the utter hypocrisy of his slave-owning and slave-fucking , but at least he had one redeeming feature.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think GP was probably referring to the abolute, undeniable, blatant and sickening hypocrisy of his pretending to be a champion of freedom while he kept slaves.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    40. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also - are you aware that Jefferson and Madison were Deists who denied the divinity of Christ and much of the Bible?

      Deism is just a sneaky way to avoid saying you're an atheist.

      If you posit a god who creates the universe then never gets involved with it, it is totally irrelevant whether he exists or not, as you can never know anything about him beyond your blind assertion that he was the prime mover.

      At least with conventional religions there is (through circular reasoning) some purpose in believing in your god, as he will look after you in the afterlife, and therefore I suppose you should be grateful to him.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by khallow · · Score: 1

      And what would he say about the founding fathers cult?

      You mean the Tea Party? He'd probably consider that one of the true democratic movements today. The thing about understanding the intent of a disparate group of people such as the so-called founding fathers, who had the same sort of ideological divisions we have today, is that the US Constitution was intended to have a particular fairly absolute meaning not just a meaning of the moment.

      A common problem is that the Constitution gets reinterpreted for the contrivance of some people today. For example, I doubt that most "founding fathers" intended the Commerce Clause to be as all encompassing as it is today, governing all economic activity. And the bizarre legal and semantic contortions surrounding Obamacare and its adventures in the US Court system wouldn't exist with a more absolute and conservative (here, not referring to the political movement) interpretation of the Constitution.

      Jefferson, I think, would be very critical of such games.

      Now, you might say that times have changed. If so, and I don't really think they have for the purpose of interpreting the US's constitution, then we have an avenue for doing so, the amendment.

    42. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still cheaper than FORCING us to go buy insurance we don't want.

      You can keep spouting that lie all you want, it doesn't make it true.

    43. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all of Jefferson's ideals, you chose this to comment on? Religion plays such a negligible part in our government, despite all the gnashing ratings-driven tv does, and the hollow pandering politicial candidates do.

      How about, instead, looking at the monster federal government which has intruded into every aspect of our society and our lives, far beyond the bounds created by Jefferson's contemporaries.

      If you're going to comment on Jefferson's hypothetical reaction to the U.S. today, look instead to the subject of 99.99999% of his efforts (limited government). On seeing the current state of our country, I'm pretty sure religion would be so far down on his list of concerns that it wouldn't be addressed in 100 lifetimes.

    44. Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today by robsku · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I'm from Finland where this already works quite well.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  7. Don't see you putting one up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Articles are user submitted. Why don't you go a write a blurb and a good one. No one will RTFM anyway.

  8. They forgot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Defacto atheist and slave owner. Not that the two are related, of course.

  9. Pedometer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a Pedometer some sort of Pedophile detector?

    1. Re:Pedometer? by CheshireDragon · · Score: 2

      you sarcasm is lacking so I will answer accordingly.
      No, it counts how many steps you take in any given period of time. Some people use them as exercise devices and attempt to take at least 10,000 steps in a day. Not sure how many miles that translates into, but i am sure a quick google search or some math whiz from here can figure it out.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    2. Re:Pedometer? by shione · · Score: 1

      Why yes. Funny you should ask that. .It was one of his black projects for the US government to use on TOR.

  10. What the hell is by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    What the hell is a "hemp break pedometer"?

    1. Re:What the hell is by MrHanky · · Score: 2

      When you take a hemp break, it naturally influences the length of your footsteps as you chill out more. Not so much an invention as a discovery.

    2. Re:What the hell is by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Pedometer I think is self-explanatory.

      Hemp brake (for breaking hemp)
      Moldboard plow (a better plow)
      Sulky (a lighteight horse-drawn two-wheeled cart)

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  11. and terrorist. by quenda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a successful terrorist, otherwise known as a revolutionary.

    1. Re:and terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Successful terrorists aren't just revolutionaries, they're patriots.

    2. Re:and terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least, he was not a lawyer.

  12. And yet... by cardpuncher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... he was never able to satisfactorily distinguish between "principle" and 'practice".

    As in the principle of being opposed to slavery while in practice shagging the property.

    1. Re:And yet... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      And thus formed the template for all modern politics, profoundly condemning in others those things that they tacitly cherish the most.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC this has never been conclusively proven. The only thing that has been established is that the descendants of some of his slaves have a shared male lineage with the Jeffersons. The former slave family's oral tradition was one in which Thomas Jefferson's brother fathered children with Sally Hemings. Which, unfortunately, is not nearly as sensational.

    3. Re:And yet... by radtea · · Score: 1

      The Great Wiki mostly disagrees:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson-Hemings_controversy

      tl;dr: all but a small handful of scholars consider the weight of the evidence is strongly in favour of Jefferson as the father, particularly in the context of the culture of the time. Humans have a great deal of trouble with deductive closure, and there's no reason Jefferson was any better at it than the rest of us.

      On the other hand, isn't it remarkable that someone who was still so deeply embedded in the evils of his time was able to do so much good?

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  13. Jefferson and friends also were the ANONYMOUS by colordev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read somewhere that at the beginning of their revolutionary path Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were using various alias names and operated via proxies to conceal their true identity and goals. Ok, if they had been more open of their goals and identities they would have been shot and not remembered. Right to be anonymous, maybe it should have been written into constitution.

    maybe EFF could use that as a propaganda tool

    1. Re:Jefferson and friends also were the ANONYMOUS by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      ...and his enemies were the anonymous cowards...ooooo

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    2. Re:Jefferson and friends also were the ANONYMOUS by colordev · · Score: 2
      the Register said this about Jefferson's and his friends alias usage

      I've been reading Ron Chernow's exceptional "Washington: A Life" and have been struck by how venomous the press was in the days of the early republic – and how it was made more so by the common practice of prominent men taking pseudonyms to launch near-sadistic attacks on their opposition.

      This wasn't just relegated to the rabble of 18th Century America, either. Washington's own cabinet member, Thomas Jefferson, was one of his harshest anonymous critics, along with James Madison and others among the founding fathers. The attacks were often willfully false, cruel, and only possible because of their anonymous nature. Jefferson, indeed, opted to launch his attacks through intermediaries, rather than sully his own hands.

      However, the same anonymity that drove Washington to distraction (and an earnest desire to leave office after just one term, though he was persuaded to remain for two) was also critical in fostering the republic in the first place.

      Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay used pseudonyms to argue the case for a constitution and a harmonizing of interests in a grand republic, rather than a weak federation of sovereign states. They needed anonymity to be able to argue freely, allowing their arguments to be decoupled from the actual people advancing them.

      Indeed, this Janus-faced anonymity problem/opportunity is well-expressed by Madison's writings. He did profound good with anonymity in the Federalist Papers, and then put anonymity to destructive use against Washington throughout his presidency.

      As much as I hate the bile that web anonymity encourages, it's the price we have always paid to ensure free speech. Sometimes that speech is hateful and wrong. But that isn't sufficient justification to close mouths to establish a marketing bonanza for Google(+) or anyone else.

      Happy Birthday USA

  14. A Great Man's Wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -- Thomas Jefferson

    1. Re:A Great Man's Wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -- Julius Motherfucking Caesar

      FTFY.

      Well, it's equally accurate, and a bit more impressive.

  15. What life was like in 1776 by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    In the spirit of Independence Day, there's an article on WSJ about what life was like in 1776, in case you want to see just how much has changed since Jefferson's times and why we no longer have Jeffersons.

    1. Re:What life was like in 1776 by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Or you could summarize why, per the article, we no longer have Jeffersons.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  16. Re:And this is how our Republic fell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you really stating that having an accurate map of the territory that falls under it is not an interest of your federal government?

  17. The Rolling Paper Chase by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    So, like, Jefferson didn't write the Declaration of Independence, but, he like, discovered it!

    1. Re:The Rolling Paper Chase by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      You logged onto this site with a mind full of mush, and left, baked out of your skull.

  18. And his best invention of all.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The folding chair with rounded corners.

    Ba-zing!

  19. Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by drcln · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jefferson's position on the granting of patents [1]changed through the years. In his article "Godfather of American Invention," Silvio Bedini notes that in 1787 Jefferson's opposition to monopoly in any form led him to oppose patents.[2] But by 1789, Jefferson's firm opposition had weakened. Writing to James Madison, Jefferson said he approved the Bill of Rights as far as it went, but would like to see the addition of an article specifying that "Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose."[3] Also in 1789, while Jefferson was still in Paris, the first patent act was introduced during the first session of Congress and enacted into law April 10, 1790. Under the new law, the Secretaries of War and State and the Attorney General constituted a three-man review board, with the Secretary of State (Jefferson), playing the leading role. Two months after the law was passed, Jefferson remarked it had "given a spring to invention beyond his conception."[4]

    http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents

    Thomas Jefferson was the first patent examiner and granted quite a few patents.

    --
    your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
    1. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As the president, or member of his cabinet, you are supposed to Execute the laws even if you don't like them. The exception being unconstitutional laws (as required by your oath). Since the patent law was constitutional, Jefferson did his job and obeyed the constitution. (Something recent presidents ought to learn to do.) That doesn't mean he approved of patents as shown by the fact he could have granted one to himself but never did.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Thomas Jefferson was the first patent examiner and granted quite a few patents.

      He also DENIED quite a few that would have been approved by the current PTO. He had a much more stringent idea about what should be allowed since in his mind the entire thing was a compromise and all inherently dangerous.

      Patents should be treated like the toxic waste they are.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      As the president, or member of his cabinet, you are supposed to Execute the laws even if you don't like them. The exception being unconstitutional laws (as required by your oath). Since the patent law was constitutional, Jefferson did his job and obeyed the constitution. (Something recent presidents ought to learn to do.) That doesn't mean he approved of patents as shown by the fact he could have granted one to himself but never did.

      He could also have granted himself a golden palace and used the army to defend it. The fact that he didn't doesn't mean that he disapproved of gold or palaces, just as the fact that he never granted a patent to himself doesn't mean that he disapproved of patents... Rather, they show that he wasn't corrupt.

    4. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      As the president, or member of his cabinet, you are supposed to Execute the laws even if you don't like them. The exception being unconstitutional laws (as required by your oath). Since the patent law was constitutional, Jefferson did his job and obeyed the constitution. (Something recent presidents ought to learn to do.)

      So..., you're saying that..., so called "signing statements" wherein a President will attempt to put his own spin on legislation passed on brought before him for his signature (or veto) is an inexcusable perversion of the system's separation of powers? Wow. We really are fucked, because there has not been any kind of public outrage that should accompany such an egregious abuse.

    5. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>He could also have granted himself a golden palace and used the army to defend it. The fact that he didn't doesn't mean that he disapproved of gold or palaces

      Yeah sure if we lived in a vacuum. But we ALSO have Jefferson on record that he did not think copyrights/patents should exist. "There is not in nature a natural right to protection of the thinking power we call an idea." He says that nature "designed" ideas to be freely shareable around the world, for the betterment of mankind. So it's pretty clear he never granted a patent to himself, because he opposed them on principal.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      ust as the fact that he never granted a patent to himself doesn't mean that he disapproved of patents... Rather, they show that he wasn't corrupt.

      Note that he could have granted himself patents on his own inventions quite legally as a patent examiner.

      Which would not require corruption on his part.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      But we ALSO have Jefferson on record that he did not think copyrights/patents should exist. "There is not in nature a natural right to protection of the thinking power we call an idea."

      Actually, believe it or not, your post is the sole hit on Google for that phrase. Apparently the robots hit Slashdot a half hour ago.

      On the contrary, what Jefferson said was:

      It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs... If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

      The quote, from a letter to Issac McPherson, is in context of a discussion as to whether patents are a natural right, like property ownership, that may be passed on to progeny forever. And Jefferson concludes that:

      Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.

      Basically, unlike a right to privacy, or a right to speech, or a right to free exercise of religion, patents are not a natural right. Congress could decide tomorrow to abolish the Patent Act, as such is in their power, and arguments about due process would be moot.

      He says that nature "designed" ideas to be freely shareable around the world, for the betterment of mankind. So it's pretty clear he never granted a patent to himself, because he opposed them on principal.

      On the contrary, what the above quote and the rest of the letter says is that patents are a legal invention of man, that society can choose to give power to or not, and they are not a natural, inalienable right. He concludes, however, that patents are for the benefit of society and remarks upon the maturation of the granting rules involved. There is certainly no indication that Jefferson "opposed them on principal", but rather, at most, felt they should be limited monopolies, as the Constitution says.

    8. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Jefferson was a rich man, due to his inherited property including slaves, so much like any of the aristocrats in England he despised, he didn't have to worry about demeaning himself to earn money through his own work.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      what the above quote and the rest of the letter says is that patents are a legal invention of man

      Exactly like all other so-called "natural rights" then.. There is no "right to life" if you're a solitary hunter twenty thousand years ago being gored by a sabre-toothed tiger, any more than there is for a robin killed by a domestic cat today.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Patents should be treated like the toxic waste they are.

      Wuthout patents, why would any commercial company pay for R&D when they could just steal other people's ideas instead?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  20. Let's Not Forget Franklin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Benjamin Franklin, another Founding Father of the US, was quite the technologist. Read more at Tikalon Blog.

  21. Amazing man by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was not quite hyperbole when JFK jokingly addressed a group of Nobel winners at the White House: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

    Man, he accomplished so much, yet still found time to regularly impregnate the help!

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    1. Re:Amazing man by celle · · Score: 1

      "Man, he accomplished so much, yet still found time to regularly impregnate the help!"

            As with Bill Clinton, fucking the public was the job and fucking the help was for fun. Republicans are just the opposite.

  22. Um, Lewis and Clark? by portforward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you are going to mention the coastal survey, why not also mention the Lewis and Clark expedition? The "Corps of Discovery" was a huge cartographic, biological, geological, and sociological enterprise. They took the best scientific equipment they could, charted rivers and mountains, kept daily records, and brought back samples. They didn't know what was in the Rocky Mountains, and Jefferson told them to find Mastodons.

    Lewis was Jefferson's personal secretary, and Jefferson made sure that Lewis had all the scientific training possible at the time. I'd say that pushing through the funding and planning of the mapping of the the Rocky Mountains, Missouri River and Columbia River ranks up there with the dumb waiter.

    1. Re:Um, Lewis and Clark? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how Jefferson wanted them to seek out animals known only from fossils, like the woolly mammoth and giant ground sloth. He assumed there must still be living examples, for some reason; I think it was part of the intellectual mindset of the time.

    2. Re:Um, Lewis and Clark? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Those and more were in the [ahem] article.

  23. It's about his scientific endeavors! by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I love how people are bringing up his slave owning in the modern day. Of course it's not right by today's standards, but you know, back then it was actually kewl to own people.
    Besides this isn't about his slave owning. It's about his scientific endeavors. Put all the bad things and negativity about him aside for the moment and we can talk about it later, but for now, let's talk about the kewl shit he did to help make the world a better place.

    --
    "That's right...I said it."
    1. Re:It's about his scientific endeavors! by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      besides its more about how he treated his slaves and not that he owned them.

      did he treat them like people or like vermin??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:It's about his scientific endeavors! by celle · · Score: 1

      "back then it was actually kewl to own people."

          It's still kewl to own people. The masters are corporations and government. The public are the slaves.

  24. And to think that by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    At the same time a young Abraham Lincoln was just starting his vampire-hunting career

  25. Common trait of national heroes by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 2

    Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, whose signing we celebrate today, was considered an expert in architecture, civil engineering, geography, mathematics, ethnology, anthropology, mechanics, and the sciences.

    Not to take anything away from the Man, but being a polymath appears to be a necessary qualification to be a national hero, one of the Founding Fathers, or the Great Leader of a country. Why is it necessary to prove that a man is a larger-than-life expert in everything?

    1. Re:Common trait of national heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also a liberal. Never forget that, all you right wing "constructionist" people out there who worship not the founders but the made-up ideal of the founders. Jefferson and his ilk would find your inflexibility, selfishness, and general Ayn Rand inspired ideas repulsive. He wanted an actual society. Not one in which everything is given to you, but one where actual opportunities exist and the commons are respected. The man founded a free university, which thanks to conservatives is no longer free, and that is one of the accomplishments he had listed on his tombstone. Being President of the United States, BTW, was not one of those accomplishments.

    2. Re:Common trait of national heroes by leftover · · Score: 1

      Very well said, AC!

      --
      Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    3. Re:Common trait of national heroes by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      That's a very interesting amalgam of implications. It makes me wonder how you actually personally define a number of the terms you use.

      Are you ranting about conservatives and those who want society to provide them with everything, or are you implying they are one and the same? If the latter, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to make a substantive case that your typical conservative politician is any different from your typical progressive politician in the quantity of other peoples' money they would like to see freely distributed for their political priorities. Both groups have a long history of dispensing with the checks and balances of the political process to advance their agendas, then crying when their opponents do the same.

      I'm also guessing that the inclusion of Rand's name is to imply the entire rant is about libertarians, ignoring completely that libertarianism also includes non-intervention in the personal sphere regarding things like drug use and gay marriage; not exactly conservative views.

      The world of political corruption knows no "right" or "left," and that is the true enemy of a decent society. One key tool used by those who are corrupt is the promotion of partisanship, which is well-known for its effect of limiting or removing the ability to engage in rational analysis. Demonizing the people one disagrees with using misrepresentation or outright lies is a typical symptom of partisanship. It can be difficult to sort through the lies in this day and age, but help is out there if you wish to give up the addiction of partisanship.

  26. For someone so allegedly opposed to patents... by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... he sure did a great job as the author of the Patent Act and first Patent Examiner. Isn't it somewhat more reasonable to say that he never patented his own inventions because, y'know, he'd be the one examining them and granting the patent and that would be a huge ethical breach and lead to charges of corruption?

    1. Re:For someone so allegedly opposed to patents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's patently obvious.

    2. Re:For someone so allegedly opposed to patents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dumbass, it isn't. He was opposed to Madison's copyright and patent clause; he firmly opposed both copyrights and patents, and wanted them, if established at all, to have a constitutionally defined span of 19 years on the theory that, however beneficial the incentive of monopoly might be, a generation cannot morally bind its successor. (19 years being the duration in which half the presently of-age generation should have expired, using data from Jefferson's day.)

      He accepted them, despite believing them likely to do more harm than good, because he believed in democracy, not Jeffocracy. And surely a well-written patent act is preferable to a poorly-written one.

  27. Metric System by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Constitution contains a clause empowering the government to establish a system of weights and measures.

    Jefferson, in part because of his experience as a surveyor using chains divided into 100 links, and also from reading 'Disme: the art of tenths by Simon Stevin' was familiar with the benefits of doing measurement calculations in decimal units, and proposed that the US adopt a decimal system of weights and measures.

    Unfortunately Congress did not appreciate the usefulness of this idea and failed to act on the proposal setting a really bad precedent.

    As ambassadors to France he and Ben Franklin had access to French intellectuals and brought up this topic to the French. Whether the French would have developed this independently or not I don't know. Certainly they may have known about the idea from other sources.

    But if Congress had heeded his ideas the US would have had a decimal measurement system before any other nation. Jefferson may also have been the catalyst for the French adoption of their decimal measurement system.

    Because of Jefferson the US had the first decimal system of any type in its currency thanks to Jefferson, predating the metric system.

    So please add this quote to your list:

      ⦠every branch to the same decimal ratio, thus bringing the calculations of the principal affairs of
    life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply and divide plain numbers.
                          - Thomas Jefferson

    1. Re:Metric System by calidoscope · · Score: 2

      According to Andro Linklater, Jefferson actually proposed a form of the metric system where the unit of length was something that could be determined in a well equipped laboratory - the rod with a period of one second at 45 degrees latitude. The French decided on the length of the Paris meridian, which effectively required the meter standard to be an artifact (i.e. the platinum iridium bar with two scratches on it. "Science" (metrology) didn't catch up with Jefferson until 1960, when the meter was redefined in terms on a laboratory measurement..

      Too bad the speed of light was well enough defined at that time to make the unit of length the distance light travels in 1 nanosecond.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  28. Coming Soon - Thomas Jefferson: Witch Doctor by stigamet · · Score: 1

    Book it.

  29. His meat ration was just 225 grams per week! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    In my visit to Montecello, the factoid that impressed me most was the meat ration of his workers (yes, slaves). It was half a pound a week! Three quarter pounder burgers are routinely on the menu now a days. Most of us work in air conditioned offices clicking keyboards and mouse. Even the blue collar workers have so many machines assisting them it is practically a walk in the park compared to the work done by Teejay's workers. But they made do with just half a pound of meat!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:His meat ration was just 225 grams per week! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/vegetarianism says it was one pound.

      At any event, pound or half pound, your implicit assumption that one cannot sustain a life of labor on a vegetarian or low-meat diet is classic English/American bullshit; somehow places without a beef steak as a national emblem do just fine with much less meat in their diet.

    2. Re:His meat ration was just 225 grams per week! by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

      First Law of Food Science: Fat tastes good.
      Second Law of Food Science: Salt makes fat taste better.

  30. Leadership in US's first few decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel awe at the great leadership the United States had in its first few decades. These were admirable human beings. These were great strong men who had the will to do the right thing and stand up for their values. They were so very forward thinking! They placed the good of the country and the good of people ahead of expedience.

    Being an Asian Indian, I have been brought up with mythological stories that extol good values and ideal conduct. Many of these great men from the US personified these teachings, and yet were oblivious to the fact that their conduct would be held in high esteem by a certain eastern philosophy. I can especially think of George Washington, who had the all the power that one could think of and yet he had enough 'virakti' (non-attachment) to give it all up. This is among the highest teachings of Bhagwat Gita. US was especially fortunate that it serendipitously had the right kind of leadership at the time it was dearly needed. Sometime ago I saw a documentary about Andrew Jackson. Some of the things he did might be called harsh and unjustified today, but he did solve for ever the problems he dealt with.

    And then there is Abraham Lincoln. What an amazing and principled person! I believe it is simple, honest and strong men like these, both among the common men and politicians that laid the foundations for the great country the US later became.

  31. In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery. by trout007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In 300 years fertility will be like a light switch. Turn it on and off as needed. People will look back at abortion as an unbelievable horror because they won't be able to understand the concept of an unwanted pregnancy.

    It isn't like slavery was invented in the US. People were held in slavery since the beginning of time and still are in certain parts of the world. Heck even the 13th amendment allows it as a punishment.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      And since they will be able to synthesize meat in a lab, just how horrified will they be to think that we slaughtered animals and ground them in machines on an industrial scale to get meat. Will some idiot writing on the 2300 equivalent of slashdot scream "Einstein?! That animal eating piece of shit! And he himself said it was wrong and he still did it!"?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It isn't like slavery was invented in the US

      That is a totally pathetic excuse, and you must in your heart know it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. I wasn't attempting to excuse the fact he was a slaveholder. I was stating the fact that slavery is as old as humanity and that I wouldn't be too quick to judge someone that lived hundreds of years ago. You can condemn slavery as the abomination it is and still respect some the philosophical contributions to freedom that a slaveholder made. It is interesting that in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history the abolition of slavery started to gain hold in this time period because of the modern thoughts of liberty.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re:In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery. by bandy · · Score: 1

      The horror isn't in the slaughter (although it's not pretty, especially in some operations) — the horror is in the factory farming operations where the living, breathing, conscious animals are treated like machinery.

      As to Einstein:

      It is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.

      From a letter to Harmann Huth, 27 December 1930

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  32. brilliant but flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As this is also the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, we shouldn't forget that Jefferson also once exhorted "Canada will be ours, but for the marching."

    This of course contributed to a false sense of military preparedness that cost the upstart Americans dearly in their invasion attempts, and which eventually indirectly resulted in the retaliatory burning down of the White House by the British and the galvanization of Canada's population in defense of its right to liberty and eventual self determination in the form of Confederation.

    He may have been a brilliant inventor and constitutionalist, but he was blinded by self-righteous nationalism.

  33. he was a huge debtor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a slave owner. fuck him. sleazy piece of shit.

  34. Monticello by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Monticello is really worth a visit. I thought the clock at the main entrance to the building was fascinating. It uses weights that look like cannon balls to power the mechanism. However, there wasn't enough room for the weights to descend downward to allow the clock to run for a full week at a time. Jefferson's solution? Cut holes in the floor and allow the weights to travel down into the cellar / basement area. He decided to leave the weights exposed because boxing them in would have blocked some of the windows. However, by leaving them exposed he was able to make additional use of them - he marked the days of the week on the wall, so that the position of the weight showed the day of the week.

    It's also interesting that the clock has two faces - one on the interior of the house, and the other above the main entrance on the exterior. Jefferson decided that the exterior face should only have an hour hand. Now, the reasoning given by the tour guides is that the slaves and farm hands didn't need to know the minute, only the hour - precision to the minute wasn't necessary for them. However, the more I've thought about it, I think Jefferson had a more practical reason in mind. With two hands, and from a far distance, it's difficult to make out which is the hour and which is the minute. With just an hour hand it would be easier to tell the time from a very far distance. That fits in more with his sense of invention and practicality.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  35. Some will never hear of him by TVmisGuided · · Score: 1

    If the Texas School Board Association had its way, school pupils in Texas would never hear of Jefferson. Instead, they'd learn how great a contributor to America was (wait for it...) Phyllis Schlafly.

    It is truly a strange world in which we live.

    --
    All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
  36. Thomas Jefferson: Scientist, Inventor, Gadgeteer by bazorg · · Score: 1

    no vampire hunting? not even as a hobby?

  37. Re: by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    His point is that this Separation protects religion from the state as much as the state from religion. The distinction he drew was between "actions" and "opinions", one of which is open to reason, debate and consensus, and the other only to the individual's conscience. Would that we made the same distinction between "science" and "creation", but then we'd have nothing left to talk about on /.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  38. Jailed in turkey for smuggling hemp by drfrog · · Score: 1

    along w the rest of the founders he was an avid supporter of growing hemp and smoking weed

    and yes he was jailed in turkey for smuggling mandarin hemp seed

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  39. Legitimate. You keep using that word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    1. Re:Legitimate. You keep using that word. by khallow · · Score: 1

      This can easily be solved by looking at a dictionary. Please do so.

  40. One of the original geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Jefferson was alive today he'd be a geek. He'd probably be posting on /.

  41. Jefferson Bible by macraig · · Score: 1

    He was also a non-Christian Deist at best, who perhaps accepted a Creator but considered Jesus merely a great philosopher. Reflecting those beliefs, late in life he penned what is now called the Jefferson Bible, his own personal rewrite of the New Testament which excluded what he termed the "mystical" elements but retained the ethical and philosophical teachings of Jesus which he admired. Allegations of atheism apparently dogged him throughout his political career, and he was quite keen to keep his true existential beliefs to himself; after he penned his Bible, he sent a copy to a trusted friend, who proved to be not so trustworthy and shared it with others in Britain, causing Jefferson much anxiety that it would be publicized widely in America.

    It becomes quite a bit more difficult to swallow claims that the United States were founded as a Christian nation when pivotal Thomas Jefferson was anything but. Given his minority beliefs, it also becomes easier to understand why "tyranny of the majority" was such a concern. In large part we got the Representative form of democracy that we have because Jefferson himself feared what an unrestricted "democratic" majority would do to people like him. I for one am glad that Jefferson was a closeted outcast; had he been more "transparent" about his own beliefs we might very well have wound up enduring something much more like the theocracy that some Christians claim we should have had.

  42. Typo by detritus. · · Score: 1

    It's hemp BRAKE, not break.
    OP got it wrong.

    1. Re:Typo by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      I think that's a whooosh. :P

    2. Re:Typo by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, it was hemp break, as in "smoke break". I wasn't aware that you could make brakes with hemp!

  43. Not signed on the 4th... by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the declaration signed on the 3rd?

    It was first read to the people on the 4th, and thus celebrations happen on that day, but the actual signing was the 3rd...

    1. Re:Not signed on the 4th... by Toam · · Score: 1

      They agreed on the wording on the 4th. It was signed in August.

  44. Hollywood's take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thomas Jefferson: Scientist, Inventor, Gadgeteer

    In Hollywood's eyes, he's also going to be a Vampire^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Werewolf Hunter!

  45. When nerds attack by Reacharound · · Score: 1

    I like when nerds try to have opinions about something other than technology. It reminds you of why that word still carries some pejorative meaning.

  46. Inventors versus Rent Seekers by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    When I compare the group of people who started the United States of America, to the current crop of so-called "leaders" in the congress and the White House, I can't help but notice the following:

    1. The current crop of "American Leaders" are made up of rent-seekers, such as lawyers

    There is no "inventor" amongst the current crop of "American Leaders"

    2. Very few of the founding fathers of America were rent-seekers. In fact, many of them were inventors

    Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only inventor in the group, btw

    Ben Franklin was another famous inventor
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Inventors versus Rent Seekers by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      Conversely, none of your political leaders today own hundreds of fucking slaves, so it's not all been downhill.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Inventors versus Rent Seekers by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The founding fathers were a bunch of long haired open-source reefer-smoking hippie nerds. Too bad none like that are in office today, now we have parasites like bankers and lawyers running things.

    3. Re:Inventors versus Rent Seekers by greywire · · Score: 1

      This is true.

      Today, 99% of us (thats millions) are economic slaves (like indentured servants back then) to a small population (1%) of wealthy people who virtually own (lobbying) our political leaders (or ARE are leaders).

      Thats progress!

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
  47. Re:Jefferson had it right by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Too bad it didn't happen. It'd have stopped trouble they cause nowadays (gangsta wannabe crap those punks do).

    Always good to see reminders that the US is the land of the free, if you're a rich white Christian male.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  48. Re:Jefferson had it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +5 points added to your Liberal White Guilt karma score.

  49. one of the worst presidents by JBaustian · · Score: 1

    Amidst all the cheers and applause for Jefferson, I dare to offer my opposing view.

    As governor of Virginia, he failed to properly defend the state's armory and then fled in a cowardly fashion when the redcoats showed up. In effect, he handed over the weapons and ammunition needed for his state's defense to the enemy, without offering any resistance.

    As secretary of state, he was utterly disloyal to President Washington and sided with France against the government of which he was a part. Fortunately, Washington, Hamilton, and Adams prevented Jefferson from doing too much damage to American foreign policy.

    As president, Jefferson stripped the Navy of its capital ships at a time when Britain and France were most threatening. Then he paid off the Barbary pirates and set free those which his naval captains had captured... even ordering pirate ships to be returned. Later, the country was so poorly defended that his successor had to flee the capital to avoid capture during the War of 1812.

    As president, his policy of shutting off trade with Britain and creating an economic depression did more damage than what the British had attempted to do. During his second term, he so totally lost interest in performing the duties of the presidency that he effectively turned over the operations of the government to James Madison; Madison was the de facto president in 1807 and 1808, before he was elected in 1808.

    Jefferson may have had some private virtues, though I cannot name them. But he was cowardly in battle, disloyal to the president to whom he'd sworn allegiance, unwilling or unable to perform the essential duties of his office, and so ignorant of economic principles that he did more damage to the nation's economy than did our mortal enemies.