INTRODUCTION

Rediscovering Thomas Jefferson

xi

When I speak at universities and law schools across the nation, schools full of America’s best and brightest students, I like to display a slide of the famous painting of the signers of the Declaration of Independence that hangs inside the Rotunda of the US Capitol. While displaying that slide, I often comment that it is unfortunate that the Founding Fathers were a collective group of racists, bigots, and slaveholders. Almost always I receive nods of sad affirmation from the students.

I then ask them to identify which signers in the painting owned slaves. Everyone immediately points to Thomas Jefferson, but to date no one has ever pointed out a second example. They have been taught that the Founding Fathers were racists. They know that Jefferson owned slaves; apparently that is all that is necessary to prove that the rest of the fifty-six also owned slaves. Yet a large majority of the Declaration signers were antislavery, introduced or passed antislavery legislation, or founded or led antislavery societies (including Jefferson—something students are never told).

Because of the many modern disparagements, these students have no idea that very few individuals in history have received as many titles of honor as Thomas Jefferson, including “Apostle of Liberty,”¹ “Man of the People,”² “Pen of the Revolution,”³ “father of the Declaration of Independence,”⁴ “the defender of the rights of man and the rights of conscience,”⁵ the “Sage of Monticello,”⁶ and “the apostle of Democracy.”⁷

xii

Jefferson was truly a visionary and an innovator—a Renaissance man in the classical sense of the term. He was masterful and skilled in diverse areas, and his multidimensional abilities were profusely praised by those who knew him. For example:

• Marquis de Chastellux, a French general who served with Jefferson during the American Revolution, described him as “a musician, skilled in drawing, a geometrician, an astronomer, a natural philosopher, legislator, and statesman.”⁸

• Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of Jefferson’s fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence, said he was “enlightened at the same time in chemistry, natural history, and medicine.”⁹

• John Quincy Adams knew him as “a man of very extensive learning and pleasing manners.”¹⁰

• The Reverend Ezra Stiles, a military chaplain in the Revolution and the president of Yale, called him a “naturalist and philosopher, a truly scientific and learned man.”¹¹

• General Marquis de Lafayette considered him a “great statesman, zealous citizen, and amiable friend.”¹²

• Alexis de Tocqueville, historian and political leader who penned the famous Democracy in America as a result of his visit to America in 1831, called Jefferson “the greatest [man] whom the democracy of America has as yet produced.”¹³

Perhaps the best summation was given by President John F. Kennedy, who once quipped to a group of Nobel Prize winners dining with him at the White House:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet.¹⁴

xiii

Jefferson was a remarkable man, and it is an understatement to say that his positive influence was enormous. He indisputably helped shape America for the better, and he exerted a positive influence on nations across the world. Wherever tyranny is opposed and freedom pursued, Jefferson and his words are held forth as the embodiment of liberty and limited government—a fact especially reaffirmed in the latter part of the twentieth century.

For example, Chinese students who strove to force democratic reforms under their totalitarian government regularly invoked Jefferson, even as the world watched the Communist tyrants massacre those students at Tiananmen Square.¹⁵

When Czechoslovakians rose to throw off forty years of Soviet Communist tyranny, Czech leader Zdenek Janicek quoted Jefferson and his words to encourage the revolting Czech workers,¹⁶ and after Vaclav Havel became the first president of the freed Czech Republic, he, too, pointed to Jefferson and his governing philosophy as the standard for his new nation.¹⁷

During Poland’s struggle for independence from the Soviet Union, Jefferson was invoked so often that award-winning Polish author Jerzy Kosinski observed, “In every Pole, there is Jefferson more than anyone else.”¹⁸

Reform-minded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev spoke openly of Jefferson’s positive influence upon him, explaining: “For myself, I found one thing to be true: having once begun a dialogue with Jefferson, one continues the conversation with him forever.”¹⁹

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and Russia became free from its Communist oppressors, Andrei Kozyrev, the foreign minister of the new Russian republic, openly acknowledged that he was indebted to Jefferson and his governing philosophy.²⁰

xiv

This pattern has been repeated around the globe. As former prime minister of England Lady Margaret Thatcher affirmed, “[I]n the history of liberty, he’s a great figure everywhere in the world.”²¹

Jefferson and his ideas of liberty, freedom, limited government, and God-given inalienable rights literally changed the world, and historians across the generations consistently praised his contributions and influence.

American history presents few names to its students more attractive and distinguished than that of Thomas Jefferson, and rarely has a single individual, in civil station, acquired such an ascendancy over the feelings and actions of a people.²²

—BENSON LOSSING, 1848

Thomas Jefferson . . . [was] singled out to draft the confession of faith of the rising empire. He owed this distinction to . . . that general favor which follows merit, modesty, and a sweet disposition. . . . No man of his century had more trust in the collective reason and conscience of his fellow-men, or better knew how to take their counsel.²³

—GEORGE BANCROFT, “Father of American History,” 1864

[He] had a faith in humanity that never wavered. He aimed to secure for it law that should deal out equal and exact justice to all men, and he sought to lift all men up to their native dignity by life-long labor in the cause of education.²⁴

—RICHARD FROTHINGHAM, 1872

Few men have exerted as much influence in establishing the free institutions of the United States as Thomas Jefferson.²⁵

—BENSON LOSSING, 1888

xv

Of all the men of that time, there was, perhaps, none of wider culture or keener political instincts.²⁶

—JOHN FISKE, 1891

[O]ne of the finest traits of his character was his magnanimity. . . . His dearest aim was to bring down the aristocracy and elevate the masses.²⁷

—EDWARD ELLIS, 1898

Jefferson often made mistakes, but, as he said of Washington, he “erred with integrity.” If he changed his mind, it was because he had new light or a clearer understanding; if he altered his course, it was because he believed he could accomplish greater good.²⁸

—WILLIAM ELEROY CURTIS, 1901

Democracy has won in the United States, and the spirit of its founder lives in all our political parties. He has stamped his individuality on the American government more than any other man.²⁹

—HENRY WILLIAM ELSON, 1904

[Jefferson] is a kind of Rosetta Stone of the American experience, a massive, tectonic intelligence that has formed and rattled the fault lines of our history, our present moment, and, if we are lucky, our future.³⁰

—KEN BURNS, 1996

Regrettably, this once universal praise of Jefferson has diminished in recent years. Mention Jefferson today and most Americans who have been through American history classes since the 1960s will retort, “Yeah, he may have done some of those things, but he was also a racist and a bigot—a slaveholder. And he slept with his fourteen-year-old slave Sally Hemings and made her pregnant. And he hated religion so much that he founded the first secular university in America, even writing his own Bible from which he cut out scriptures with which he disagreed.”

xvi

Why can today’s Americans list so many negatives about Jefferson but so few positives?

The answer is found in five twentieth-century practices that now dominate the study of American history and its heroes: Deconstructionism, Poststructuralism, Modernism, Minimalism, and Academic Collectivism. Although these five isms might suggest that an ivory-tower discussion is about to commence, this is not the case. Once we go through each of the five, you may have an aha! moment and recognize how each has shaped your own view of Jefferson. In fact, if you now think poorly of Jefferson, I can promise you that you will almost assuredly hold a very different opinion at the end of this book—and such is its object: to reverse the effect of the five malpractices of modern history that have distorted not only the presentation of Jefferson in particular but of American history in general.

Deconstructionism

The first of the five methods by which Jefferson (and most traditional history) has been impugned is Deconstructionism. Deconstructionism “tends to deemphasize or even efface [malign and smear] the subject” by posing “a continuous critique” to “lay low what was once high.”³¹ It “tear[s] down the old certainties upon which Western Culture is founded”³² and the foundations on which those beliefs are based.³³ In short, Deconstructionism is a steady flow of belittl ing and negative portrayals of Western heroes, beliefs, values, and institutions. Deconstructionists make their living by telling only part of the story and spinning it negatively, manipulating others into supporting their views and objectives.

xvii

Deconstruction of American heroes, values, and institutions—which especially occurs in today’s classrooms—is the reason most Americans can recite more of what’s wrong with our nation than what’s right. They can identify every wart that has ever appeared on the face of America over the past four centuries, but not what has made America the envy of every people in the world—every people, that is, except Americans.

Recall the students in the beginning of this chapter who believed all the Founders in the painting were proslavery. When I ask those same students to point out in the painting notable religious signers such as Robert Treat Paine, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Rush, Francis Hopkinson, John Witherspoon, Lyman Hall, Charles Carroll, or others, they look at me quizzically and say they’ve never heard those names before. They can always point out only Jefferson and Franklin—the two least religious among the Founders—but not the others. Students are taught the exception rather than the rule. (Incidentally, even the religious views of Franklin and Jefferson are frequently inaccurately portrayed in today’s academic settings.)

Under Deconstructionism students are similarly taught about the “intolerant” Christian Puritans who conducted the infamous witch trials. And while twenty-seven individuals died in the Massachusetts witch trials,³⁴ almost universally ignored is the fact that witch trials were occurring across the world at that time; in Europe, 500,000 were put to death,³⁵ including 30,000 in England, 75,000 in France, and 100,000 in Germany.³⁶ Additionally, the American witch trials lasted eighteen months, but the European trials lasted years.³⁷

Furthermore, the Massachusetts witch trials were brought to a close when Christian leaders such as the Reverend John Wise, the Reverend Increase Mather, and Thomas Brattle challenged the trials because the Biblical rules of evidence and due process had not been followed in the courts, thus convincing civil leaders and the governor to end those trials.³⁸ Twenty-seven deaths in America but 500,000 in Europe? Why emphasize the twenty-seven but ignore the 500,000? The answer is “Deconstructionism”—presenting a negative portrayal of American faith and values.

xviii

Rarely do students hear that it was these “despised” Puritans who instituted America’s first elective forms of government, originated the practice of written constitutions,³⁹ constructed the first bills of rights to protect individual liberties,⁴⁰ instituted the free market economic system,⁴¹ or began America’s system of common, or public, schools.⁴²

In short, Deconstructionists happily point out everything that can possibly be portrayed as a flaw—even if they have to distort information to do so—but they remain conspicuously silent about the multitude of reasons to be proud of America and its many successes and heroes. They have led Americans toward knowing everything that “lays low” American traditions, values, and heroes but virtually nothing that honors or affirms them.

Poststructuralism

The second historical device for attacking and pulling down what is traditionally honored is called Poststructuralism. Poststructuralism is marked “by a rejection of totalizing, essentialist, foundationalist concepts” such as the reality of truth or “the will of God.”⁴³ Poststructuralism discards absolutes and is “a-historical” (that is, non- or anti-historical),⁴⁴ believing that nothing transcendent can be learned from history. Instead, meaning must be constructed by each individual for him- or herself, and historical meanings may shift and change based on an individual’s personal views.⁴⁵ Poststructuralism is especially evident in the judiciary, where judges often interpret and ascertain the meaning of the Constitution for themselves, redefining even the simplest words with new and previously unknown meanings that the judge has supposedly discovered for him- or herself. Poststructuralism also encourages citizens to “view themselves as members of their interest group first, with the concerns of their nation and the wider community coming second, thus encouraging individual anarchy against traditional national unifying values.”⁴⁶ In the past, America was characterized by the Latin phrase on the Great Seal of the United States: E Pluribus Unum, meaning “out of many, one.” This acknowledges that although there was much diversity in America, there was a common unity that overcame all differences. But Poststructuralism reverses that emphasis to become E Unum Pluribus—that is, “out of one, many,” dividing the nation into separate groups and components with no unifying commonality between them. In short, Poststructuralism ignores traditional national unifying structures, values, heroes, and institutions and instead substitutes personally constructed ones.

xix

American Exceptionalism

Regrettably, the greatest casualty of the joint influence of Deconstructionism and Poststructuralism is American Exceptionalism—the belief that America is blessed and enjoys unprecedented stability, prosperity, and liberty as a result of the institutions and policies produced by unique ideas such as God-given inalienable rights, individualism, limited government, full republicanism, and an educated and virtuous citizenry.

Americans are blessed. America is an exceptional nation. That exceptionalism encompasses her great diversity of race, ethnicity, and religion, and it has benefited every American. But now, following several decades of Deconstruction and Poststructural indoctrination in education and politics, American Exceptionalism is no longer recognized, understood, or venerated. To the contrary, many American political officials now feel compelled to apologize to the world for America; they are conscious of our flaws but seem ignorantly oblivious to our matchless benefits and opportunities.

xx

The two-headed monster of Deconstructionism and Poststructuralism allows nothing respected to stand untainted—including Thomas Jefferson. Hence, Americans can readily point out what they have been told are his multitude of unpardonable sins but can list nearly none of his invaluable and timeless contributions that changed the face of America, and even the world.

Modernism

A third common attack device is Modernism, which examines historical events and persons as if they occurred and lived today rather than in the past. It severs history from its context and setting, misrepresenting historical beliefs and events.

For example, Modernists would look at what American Methodists believe today, recognize that they are among the most socially liberal of Christian denominations, and then declare that John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield were also socially liberal because they founded Methodism. Yet the Wesleys and Whitefield were characterized by numerous beliefs and practices that are anathema to most Methodist congregations today, including the overtly evangelical nature of the denomination at its founding, its outdoor camp meetings and revivals, and its tendency for demonstrative behavior that observers in that day described as emotionalism and fanaticism—behavior that would make many Methodists today extremely uncomfortable. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the Wesleys or Whitefield would ever be invited into the pulpits of modern Methodist churches. Modernists assume that everything is static—that as it is today, so it was then, but to accurately portray history, each group or individual must be measured not by today’s modes of thinking, customs, and usage but rather by the context of their own times.

xxi

This is not to say that there is no absolute truth or that historical eras, movements, and individuals should not be judged by the immutable standards of right and wrong that transcend all generations—the standards that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers described in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, all must be judged by immutable objective standards, as “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” But just because those in previous generations often saw through a glass darkly does not mean they can be dismissed out of hand. Yet this is invariably what occurs when history is presented through the filter of Modernism. Too often today, Jefferson’s life is wrongly judged and critiqued as if he were living now rather than two centuries ago—a practice that produces many flawed conclusions.

Minimalism

The fourth modern device used today is Minimalism, which is an unreasonable insistence on oversimplification—on reducing everything to monolithic causes and linear effects. Minimalism is easily recognizable in political campaign rhetoric: candidates take behemoth problems facing the nation—complicated difficulties that often have been decades in the making—and reduce them to one-line platitudes and campaign slogans. Minimalism is also apparent in the modern portrayal of history.

Our modern culture insists on easy answers, but the life of Jefferson does not accommodate that demand. He was an extremely complicated individual, not a man to be flippantly stereotyped or compartmentalized. In fact, he was probably much more complex than most other historic individuals from the same era. But many who write about him today try to conform him to a preshaped, preconceived, simplistic mold into which he does not fit. The image of Thomas Jefferson as presented by one modern writer will therefore often completely contradict the image presented by another, because each writer attempted to squeeze Jefferson into his or her own Minimalistic perception.

xxii

Minimalism is especially utilized by single-issue groups seeking to keep their issue at the forefront of public thinking—an especially difficult task in a culture already overloaded with single-issue organizations. Because such movements often lack widespread public support, they frequently attempt to bolster their standing by attaching someone of much broader public appeal to their narrow agenda, making that person appear to prove their objectives. Consequently, Minimalists portray Jefferson only as a racist, atheist, secularist, or whatever else they believe will help their agenda.

Academic Collectivism

The fifth and final device that undermines historical accuracy is Academic Collectivism, whereby writers and scholars quote each other and those from their peer group rather than consult original sources. This destructive and harmful tendency now dominates the modern academic world, with a heavy reliance on peer review as the almost exclusive standard for historical truth.

An excellent, if chilling example of this historical malpractice is evdent in a book called The Godless Constitution. In that work, Cornell professors Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore assert that the Founding Fathers were a group of atheists, agnostics, and deists who deliberately set out to create a secular government.⁴⁷ This text has become a staple in many universities across the country; law reviews, courts, and other professors now cite this work as an authoritative source to “prove” the Founding Fathers’ lack of religious belief.⁴⁸ Strikingly, however, at the end of the book, where footnotes customarily appear, the professors candidly acknowledge that “we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.”⁴⁹

xxiii

What a startling admission by two so-called academics with PhDs! They make sweeping and forceful claims about a supposed lack of faith among the Founding Fathers, and their peers in academia herald this book as a great scholarly achievement. But there is not a single academic citation in the book to any original source or primary document. Not even a student at a community junior college would be permitted to submit a research paper with the same lack of primary source documentation, but somehow it is acceptable for professors at a noted academic institution to do so in a nationally published book.

This type of “peer review” is incestuous, with one scholar quoting another, each recirculating the other’s views, but with none of them consulting sources or ideas outside his or her own academic gene pool. The presence of a PhD after one’s name today somehow suggests academic infallibility—but this view must change if truth, accuracy, and objectivity are ever again to govern the presentation of history and historical figures. Primary source documents and historical evidence are the proper standard for historical truth, not professors’ opinions.

In the following chapters, we will embark on a search for historical truth. We will attempt to reclaim many of the puzzle pieces of the image of Thomas Jefferson that have been discarded and lost in the twentieth century. Specifically, we will delve into seven contemporary claims about Jefferson’s faith and morals, answering these questions:

• Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child (or children) by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings?

• Did Jefferson found a secular university as a reflection of his own allegedly secular lifestyle and beliefs?

• Did Jefferson write his own Bible, excluding the supernatural parts of Christianity with which he disagreed?

• Was Jefferson a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?

• Did Jefferson, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate secularizing the public square and the expulsion of faith and religious expressions from the public arena?

• Did Jefferson hate the clergy?

• Did Jefferson repudiate religion? Was he an atheist, deist, or secularist, or was he a Christian?

Let’s examine Jefferson’s own words and the eye-witness testimony of those who knew him best on each of these questions.