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."

Comments

Swivel Chairs

[TemperedAlchemist]

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

Re:Swivel Chairs

[piripiri]

Fortunately he also invented the hemp break, so relax!

Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[Swampash]

"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

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[Punko]

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

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[Punko]

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.

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[PRMan]

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.

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[cpu6502]

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

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[the eric conspiracy]

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?

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[Thakandar2]

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!

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[DesScorp]

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.

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[modecx]

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.

Re:Thank Jebus he can't see the US today

[Thakandar2]

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.

and terrorist.

[quenda]

a successful terrorist, otherwise known as a revolutionary.

And yet...

[cardpuncher]

... 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.

Jefferson and friends also were the ANONYMOUS

[colordev]

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

Re:Jefferson and friends also were the ANONYMOUS

[colordev]

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

Re:What the hell is

[MrHanky]

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.

Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed

[drcln]

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.

Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed

[jedidiah]

> 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.

Re:Jefferson's Opinion of Patents Changed

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:Pedometer?

[CheshireDragon]

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.

Amazing man

[Stanislav_J]

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!

Um, Lewis and Clark?

[portforward]

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.

Common trait of national heroes

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

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?

For someone so allegedly opposed to patents...

[Theaetetus]

... 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?

Metric System

[the eric conspiracy]

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

Re:Metric System

[calidoscope]

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.

Re:Slave owner ?

[khallow]

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.

Re:moron editors

[gandhi_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.

Re:Yeah

[paiute]

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.

In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery.

[trout007]

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.

Re:In 300 years abortion seen worse than slavery.

[clarkkent09]

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!"?

Re:Yeah

[flyneye]

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.

Monticello

[Dan East]

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.

Re:Typo

[Arancaytar]

I think that's a whooosh. :P

Re:Yeah

[buybuydandavis]

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.

Re:Slave owner ?

[Money for Nothin']

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.