Thomas Jefferson is rightly revered for his contributions to the founding of the United States. He was a complex man of his time, with wide-ranging talents and interests—and many of the same flaws as his contemporaries.
Then, as now, Jefferson had his critics. He was, after all, a politician. And as a public servant depending on the will of the people for elective office, many of the complaints may sound surprisingly familiar today.
We asked Bill Barker, who has been interpreting Jefferson for more than three decades, what he considers some of the most common misconceptions about the author of the Declaration of Independence.
#5 HE WAS A HEAVY DRINKER
Make no mistake, Jefferson loved his wine! It’s well known that he had a large collection of fine vintages, and he hoped that the young United States would one day develop its own vineyards. But his fondness for the grape has led some people to assume that he drank, well, a lot. In reality, he started the day with coffee or tea, and drank quite moderately.
Jefferson did admit to doubling his doctor’s “prescription” of a glass-and-a-half of wine a day, and even tripling it in the company of friends and family, but declared that he drank “the weak wines only.” Barker points out that his wine glasses held only about three ounces, and that Jefferson would frequently cut its strength by adding water.
So while he considered wine a “necessity of life” (especially favorites from Bordeaux and Burgundy), Jefferson’s consumption was quite moderate.
#4 HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN STATES’ RIGHTS THAN A UNITED NATION
Jefferson was the anonymous author of the Kentucky Resolutions, which gave the impression that states could nullify federal laws. But this strong stand was a one-time attack on the constitutionality of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. He actually specifically discarded the word “nullify” after the first draft out of concern that it would incite thoughts of secession.
Jefferson was a true federalist, according to Barker, who sought to keep power balanced between the national and state governments. He was hardly as ardent a nationalist as Alexander Hamilton.
Barker points to Jefferson’s relationship with John Adams as a metaphor for American unity in the Republic’s early years. Adams represented the North, and Jefferson the South. Despite their personal and regional differences, the principle of compromise was the foundation of the American union.
After Jefferson defeated Adams in the bitter election of 1800, their relationship was strained for several years. They eventually reconciled and grew closer as they both recognized that the union was essential to protecting the principles of the Revolution.
#3 HE WAS A POOR PUBLIC SPEAKER
John Adams wrote that he never heard Jefferson string three sentences together while they served together in Congress. When he read his inaugural address, it was reported that the people couldn’t hear him beyond the second row. He had his annual messages to Congress delivered in writing rather than in person.
Barker acknowledges that Jefferson never saw himself as a great orator, nor did he expect he would be perceived as one. But he points out that Jefferson’s eloquence was well known, and he regularly ascended to positions of leadership, so he must have had some verbal acumen.
Perhaps we shouldn’t assume our expectations of today’s leaders be so quickly attached to a different world.
Barker suggests that in Jefferson’s mind his highest priority was to communicate with the public, which was largely made up of the people who would later read his messages in the newspapers.
Barker imagines him thinking, “Here is my inaugural address, which I am reading and submitting to the press. This will go in the Congressional Record, this will be printed in the newspapers, so let me get the words right.”
#2 HE WAS AN ATHEIST
Jefferson certainly wasn’t one for sectarian dictates and doctrines, but he was a great defender of religious liberty. He is often dismissed as a deist dedicated to a watered-down version of Christianity, or blamed, rather than credited, for talking about the separation of church and state.
But Barker reminds us that deism, which held that the Creator was the omnipotent prime mover in the universe, was not so much a religion as a philosophy. Indeed, a philosophy shared widely among Jefferson’s intellectual peers, the men and women influenced by the Enlightenment.
Barker says that Jefferson’s chief purpose was to protect religion, not government. The “wall of separation” he talked about in his 1802 letter to the Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut was meant to ensure freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.
Jefferson said he was opposed to politics in the pulpit and the pulpit in politics. “The idea that the author of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom is trying to disengage religion from our lives or deny the ability of a person to express their religious opinions is wrong,” says Barker.
#1 HE WAS A HYPOCRITE
Which Jefferson should we believe? The one who wrote that all men are created equal or the one who didn’t even emancipate his enslaved people in his will? Barker says both can be true, insisting that he was a sincere abolitionist. He called slavery “an abomination to our Creator.”
“Like many of his generation, he had inherited his property in slaves,” says Barker. “We were a nation of slave owners. In the midst of this, Jefferson became a turncoat to his class. His legislation and writings that looked for a way out of slavery served to aggravate and divide his neighbors in society.”
You can’t accuse Jefferson of ignoring the subject. His very first act in public office, in Williamsburg in the spring of 1769, was to second a motion by Richard Bland to debate banning the importation of slaves. Through much of his life, he continued to look for ways to change the system, but without a practical solution, the revolutionary generation kept kicking the can down the road.
Jefferson is also accused of hypocrisy because he sometimes changed his mind. It’s easy to cherry pick quotations from different periods of his life and find apparent contradictions. However, that can be unfair. Like all of us, he did change his mind, but as Barker points out, Jefferson was always open to changing his mind when he learned something new or circumstances changed.
“In this, do we not see ourselves as we grow older?” asks Barker.
Now there’s a civics lesson for all of us.
I’ve always wanted to go back in time and meet Thomas Jefferson. After having discourse with Mr. Barker portraying Mr. Jefferson, I feel that is as close to time travel as one can get. Truly enjoyed “arguing” with you, Sir.
Jefferson was a republican, not a federalist and he preferred strong state governments over a strong federal government. Otherwise good article.
In honor of TJ’s birthday, I would like to share an article written by a friend of mine which was posted just yesterday. It addresses #1, the hypocrite question. The article “Thomas Jefferson in Theory and Practice” begins with the Declaration, and if you scroll down to the section, “Thomas Jefferson’s Opposition to Slavery”, you will find something difficult to find in today’s popular literature… an accounting of Mr. Jefferson’s many attempts to alleviate the institution slavery. As Mr. Barker says, “You can’t accuse Jefferson of ignoring the subject.”
http://historybuff.com/declaration-independence-thomas-jefferson-in-theory-practice-1-2VwZqn3gd4G6
That is an article worth keeping. Thank you for sharing.
Jefferson died in 1823 or 1826. Notice the sofa in the background: an Empire piece for sure, c 1830 at best. The 4-legged card-table is also questionable. Someone was not paying attention when including this photo! How did it get by CW’s editors?? !
If you read this article from Old House Journal, you will see that the antique collection belongs to Mr. Barker and includes family pieces.
http://www.oldhousejournal.com/home_tour_living_in_colonial_williamsburg/magazine/1581
The photo is indeed from the Old House Journal article and appeared several years ago when I was “a bit” younger version of Mr. Jefferson. All the pieces in the photograph are personal possessions, including the wine glass, wine bottle and book. The Empire sofa is a family heirloom and has been in my family since about 1820. In fact, it was purchased in Philadelphia by my great, great grandfather, who was born in 1767, in Ajaccio, Corsica, and who fought under the Emperor Napoleon. He was captured by the British at Waterloo but escaped and made his way to America that same year, 1815. Many consider the first French Empire period to have lasted from about 1801 into the late 1820s. Mr. Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. The card table against the wall and to the right side of the settee is, at a distance, not dissimilar to period pieces of the same during Mr. Jefferson’s lifetime. Mr. Jefferson owned several card tables with somewhat similar legs as you will see in “The Worlds of Thomas Jefferson at Monticello” by Susan Stein. The small oval Louis XVI side table next to the Campeachy chair, in which “Mr. Jefferson” is seated is of the French Neoclassical period, early 1770s through about 1800.
What I had not realized about Mr. Barker is what a remarkable Jefferson scholar he is. For decades he has immersed himself in the study of original documents of the time and all things written by Jefferson.
He truly has an understanding of Jefferson. He can see Jefferson from the inside out. This is so rare, especially today, when much scholarship is often driven toward one’s desired conclusions, rather than gaining an understanding for the sake of knowledge.
I am very hungry for this kind of true scholarship, as are so many others … Mr. Barker has my deepest gratitude and admiration for his work and many talents in illuminating us. What a gift he is!
– Sally Hemmings was the half-sister of Martha Wales Jefferson (TJs wife). Sally was asked by Ms. Jefferson to take care of Mr. Jefferson.
-There are no recorded pictures of Sally but her mother was biracial and allegedly looked like her sister.
– Sally could have had her freedom in France but chose against it.
– Upon Mr. Jeeferson’s death she and her children lived free.
-Sally’s father was a slave owner and owned Sally
Fantastic article! I agree with every one of these points. There seem to be several people on this thread who are disagreeing with #1, but in re-reading the text of #1 line by line, I can find nothing to disagree with. Yes, it is a fact that Jefferson owned slaves. But it is also a fact that Jefferson made a dedicated effort throughout his life to change the system of slavery in such a way that the institution would eventually (and organically) be eradicated from these shores. He didn’t advocate that slave owners should immediately and abruptly free their slaves, because he didn’t think that would be in the best interest of the fledgling country. He believed that chaos, widespread economic ruin, and hardship for both races would result. So, if he advocated for a gradual, systematic change which would preserve the country and also serve in the long-term best interest of the population (of all races), but then he abruptly freed his slaves, then yes, he would have been a hypocrite and acted in a way that was contrary to his professed beliefs. But his professed beliefs were not that slavery should suddenly end. His beliefs were that an orderly, systemic change would serve the long-term best interest of the country and the citizens. His words and his deeds supported that belief.
Also, to the person who thought this article was poorly-timed in light of current events: I believe this article is perfectly timed and adds context and depth to the debate of current social issues. CW always does a great job of presenting history in a factual, interesting, and unapologetic manner, and it is much appreciated!
Well said…
I don’t think Jefferson was any more guilty than other slaveholders who decried slavery, but maintained their lifestyle on the backs of slaves. Hypocrisy abounded in the north and south.
Also disturbing to me is the part Jefferson played in the trial of Aaron Burr, especially in attempting to coerce John Marshall. He had a great mind, but he also seems capable of forgetting principle when it interfered with objectives or desires.
I say B.S. to #1. Regardless of what he may have “said” or “attempted” to legislate, what he actually DID speaks volumes. If he was sincere, he would have stopped engaging in slavery. But guess what? Through it all, he KEPT OWNING SLAVES! He didn’t even have the decency to free them in his will– his family SOLD them to pay his debts. Complete and total hypocrite; myth #1 BUSTED.
In that time it wouldn’t be beneficial for his slaves if he just freed them. There was no law to protect them from being enslaved again. It was a bit of a catch 22. There were colonists who inherited slaves but didn’t believe in slavery but they would rather keep them and teach them and treat them well than to free them just to get taken by an owner who wasn’t as sympathetic. I’m not saying it’s right but legislation was also needed.
Jefferson anonymously authored the Kentucky resolutions while serving as vice president, thus stabbing the president, John Adams, in the back. John and Abigail Adams had been great friends to Jefferson, and treated him as family, especially during their time together in France. While I admire many of Jefferson’s accomplishments, I question his character in the way he treated his friend, John Adams. It certainly took Abigail a long time to forgive Jefferson, and for good reason.
You can argue that Adams drew first blood by signing the Alien and Sedition Acts which were an affront to everything the Revolution stood for (from Jefferson’s perspective.) Who stabbed whom in the back first?
I agree with Tom from New York… great point.
John Adams’ final breath spoke the name of his beloved friend, Thomas Jefferson. If he forgave Jefferson, why can’t you? The forgiveness necessarily flowed in both directions…
I had heard that Jefferson, unlike Washington, could NOT even choose to set his slaves free as the laws in Virginia had changed between their deaths and forbade the action for Jefferson.
Not sure on the reference and hence the veracity of this law change. Anyone else aware of it?
Wrong.
Jefferson’s estate was simply too in debt when he died. He had always lived well beyond his means. After his death, his slaves were sold to pay his debts, and his family was thrown out of Monticello.
One of the laws Jefferson was trying to change required the state to sign off on any attempt to free a slave, so you are correct. I am not sure if that law was still in effect when Jefferson died.
“It was a different time” is not a rationalization. It is a fact. It makes no sense to try to judge people in a vacuum.
I appreciate Colonial Williamsburg’s attempt to provide lively and interesting interpretation, but the timing of this article is concerning. Given the newly heightened national conversation about the confederate flag, race, same-sex marriage and states rights, etc., downplaying Jefferson’s role in slavery (aka owning them) and highlighting his love of states rights seems a bit tone deaf. It’s also a missed opportunity to connect history to relevant issues that still haunt us. I encourage you to find more nuanced and socially responsible ways of discussing his legacy, warts and all. There’s a difference between offering historical context to explain why he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong and slipping into the “well, it was a different time” brand of rationalization.
Everyone owned slaves in that era…even the people leading the north…the civil war was not fought over slavery…it was fought bc the south wanted to leave the union and the North couldn’t afford to survive without the crops from the soutb…slavery was negotiated after the war…when the constitution was negotiated and signed into law….lots of slaves even fought in the war for the north and south…
The lead up to the civil war was built by slavery. Free states vs slave states. SC seceded after Lincoln was elected basically without a single vote from the Slave states (he didn’t even appear on many of their ballots). So, the war may not have started based on the individual freedom of the slave but it was built on a foundation of slavery. The southern economy was a small portion of the countries overall economy. The industrial revolution made the economy of the north much more successful than the south.
My understanding has been that the issue of slavery was postponed 60 years so the Southern Colonies would vote for Independence. Their economic survival depended on the institution. What are your thoughts on this?
I agree with Jake. The Civil War began as a war against succession.. The North knew they could not survive wthout the South.. A media blitz, if you will, appalling to the North s emotional side, brought slavery into the picture.
Numbers one and three were unconvincing.
There’s nothing under #3 to convince me that Jefferson, while an eloquent writer, was not a poor public speaker. In fact it concedes very “misconception” it’s purporting to debunk.
Correct.
He was, by all accounts, a poor public speaker, and a fine writer. This article tries to say he was a good speaker by saying that he considered how his words would appear in the newspaper. All you’re saying is that he was a good writer. That’s not news to anyone.
The Constitution requires the president to deliver a state of the union to Congress. When Jefferson was president, he delivered the state of the union by writing a letter. He was very shy, and lacked confidence as a public speaker. He may have written the Declaration of Independence, but it took John Adams to sell it. The shy Jefferson would never have been able to do so.
This was a very nice piece. Thank you.
I wish more was taught to kids about the battle between the dreaded republicans and the dreaded federalists in the late 18th Century. The battle is pretty much the same today, with one side (The Jeffersonians/today’s conservatives) looking for limited government, lower taxes, and separation of powers and the other side (The Hamiltonians/today’s progressives) looking for greater concentration of power in the federal government. In fact, the Hamilton and Adams faction wanted to import someone with British royal blood to begin a new monarchy here. The battle led to beatings with canes and fire place irons on the floor of Congress and a duel on the Palisades, so the hand wringing about lack of comity in today’s politics is mild in comparison.
This is BS. He was a hypocrite. He owned slaves and made babies with them. All of the YOUR forefathers were hypocrites; not heroes.
He also freed all his slave children and had them learn skills that would keep them employed as free men
HE owned slaves that he inherited. And what was he to do on an agrarian plantation if he hoped to have any say so? Had he freed his slaves he would have been destitute. In fact he was anyway, his children had to sell off many of his belongings to settle his numerous debts. How much good could he do to attempt to end slavery as a pauper? you have to understand the time. Patrick Henry debated before the Virginia legislature that Virginia should not ratify the constitution because though he loathed slavery it was not the role of the federal government to end it. At that time there was virtually no one speaking out against slavery other than to say it was bad. Jefferson did more to end the slave trade than did anyone else at the time.
As to the made babies with them, there is no proof of that. The DNA tests were done between the descendants of Sally Hemming and the descendants of Jefferson. All the test have shown was that there was a common ancestor. There are diary entries from an overseer that reports his brother Roger leaving the slave quarters in the wee hours of the morning on numerous occasions that coincide with the gestation time of Hemming’s children. That is not to say that Thomas couldn’t have done so, but there is no absolute proof that they are anything more than relatives. Furthermore, based on the writings of witnesses such as Abigail Adams, it seems unlikely Jefferson was having relations with Hemming. What has happened is that a little piece of genetic information has evolved into a story that is far removed from the original.
Letter to the Danbury Baptists was in 1802,not 1804.
Thanks for catching that. I’ve corrected the error.
#1- he was a hypocrite, for a variety of things- even if you take the slavery issue out of it…
His treatment of Adams in the 1800 elections all the while derying dirty politics…
and, the big one to me…
screaming about how his political foes ignored and trampled over the constitution, but then purchasing Lousisiana without congressional approval, essentially forcing them to agree to a done deal after the fact…
Jefferson was probably the only one in his administration that truly believed that he needed a constitutional amendment for the LA Purchase. He wanted one and actually wrote one out and was ready to submit it to congress. He was talked out of it by most of his admin and some very close congressmen who didn’t believe it was necessary. I believe he regretted this, because he knew he did not have the constitutional power to do this. He also knew that he had to move fast because Napoleon was threatening to rescind the offer.
Personally, I think he should have requested the amendment simply because he was setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents. He was right and should have stuck to his guns….
YOUr a hippocrite averyone is guilty to some extent get over yourelf
There’s a fun tour of Jefferson’s intriguing life in DC:
https://www.facebook.com/LafayetteSquareTourOfScandalAssassinationIntrigue
As regular visitors to Colonial Williamsburg, my family and I have enjoyed Mr. Barker’s interpretation of Thomas Jefferson for many, many years. This article is a fascinating window into several areas of Jefferson’s life and thinking, and here, as in person, Mr. Barker’s insights are much appreciated!
Thank you for commenting and for being a part of this world. Hope we’ll see you again soon!
Maybe we should say he was a human being with flaws like everyone else. Why do we hold up people as saints, when, I’m sure, if we had been there to see for ourselves, not much has changed in people no matter what time your apart of.
I wholeheartedly agree. One of the great things about being around living history is the opportunity to really take the time to consider these people of our founding era as real people, not wax figures. They love and hate, work, argue, and make mistakes like all of us.
I have seen Mr Barker several times during our visits. He is the true spirit of Jefferson in his interpretation, demeanor and style. Twilight at Montecello has a very good insight into Jefferson as he grew and aged as well as an understanding of the times in which he lived. To understand Mr Jefferson you must see him through the eyes and mind of his times not our “enlightened” attitudes and opinions. Jefferson is as relevant today as he was during his times.
Well said. I think there is a depth of understanding that comes from not just reading Jefferson’s writings but adopting the more personal characteristics of the man. We’re very fortunate to have access to Bill’s insights from that experience.
Hi Bill!
I would like to know your opinion regarding Mr. Jefferson being the father of one or more children by a slave of his.
Do you think he was the father?
The controversy continues on both sides of this issue as it has for the better part of two centuries. There is little paper trail, though it began in an anti-Jefferson newspaper in September 1802. The article was meant to disparage Jefferson, then the new president, as he had become well known as an advocate for the abolition of slavery.
Most accounts have been passed through one generation after the other in oral history. The DNA investigation conducted by geneticist Dr. Eugene Foster appeared in Nature magazine in November 1998. The “official” conclusion related that “The study — which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson’s uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson’s Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas Woodson — indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants.”
Thomas Jefferson himself never made a public statement upon the subject and we will never know what Ms. Sally Hemings may have said or felt about it. Annette Gordon-Reed wrote a definitive history of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, “The Hemingses of Monticello, An American Family.” William G. Hyland, Jr. wrote a rebuttal, “In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal.”
One thing is certain, Mr. Jefferson would welcome the conversation.
Mr. Barker,
Thank you so much for responding.
I am familiar with the books you mention and have read quite a bit on the subject.
I truly appreciate your answer.
I hope to see you in person some day.
I believe you may have been a part of a program some years ago at the Old Capitol Museum in Jackson, MS. I work for the Department of Archives and History and have for some time. Unfortunately, I missed your performance.
I had always thought the story of Jefferson and Sally Hemmings was widely accepted canon. I remember reading about it as a child and hearing it discussed during a tour of Monticello. Would love to know the truth of the matter. My childish mind romanticized the affair, star crossed lovers against all odds…
The short answer is “yes”.
While the longer, more thoughtful answer is “probably not”.
Thank you, Todd!
You just said Jefferson never publically addressed the issue yet “one thing is certain he would have welcomed a conversation about it?” You purport to be an impartial expert on Jefferson but that statement suggests otherwise. Very biased. Jefferson was a great man but he fathered slave children by his wife’s sister. The evidence suggests it and he tried to sweep under the rug. Stop pretending he was perfect. And he was only the chief writer of the Declaration of Independence but others had alot of input and he borrowed language from other texts. He also made the Lousiana Purchase which directly contradicted his Federalist principles. Apologist.
There is absolutely no way you can prove that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’ children. There was more than one male Jefferson at or around Monticello who could have easily been the father, particularly his brother, Randolph. Mr. Barker, in my memory, has never attempted to portray Jefferson as a perfect man, nor has he stated he was such. As to the Declaration, Jefferson never tried to hide the fact that what he included in it was affected by legal and philosophical writings with which he and others of his time were familiar. Finally, Mr. J was no federalist.