by David Barton
The next year, in 1816, he wrote Christian theologian and fellow Founding Father Charles Thomson, who had earlier produced the Septuigent (Greek translation) Bible that Jefferson so admired. Thomson had just published his famous Synopsis of the Four Evangelists in which he had taken all the passages from each of the four Gospels and arranged them chronologically. The result was something like one long Gospel with all Jesus’ words and acts arranged sequentially.
Having seen Thomson’s newest work, Jefferson told him of his own project—“a wee little book . . . which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma [example] of His doctrines made by cutting the texts out of the book [the Bible], and arranging them on the pages of a blank book in a certain order of time or subject.”56 Jefferson added, “If I had time, I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin, and French texts in columns side by side.”57 (Jefferson read seven languages: Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, German, and English.58) Four years later, in 1820, Jefferson did indeed add those languages and columns to his “wee little book,” thus completing his Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as a four-language polyglot.
Today’s critics of Jefferson who claim that this is the “Jefferson Bible” from which he excluded the supernatural are either ill informed or ill intentioned. Jefferson did not produce and had no intention of producing a theological work. Rather, it was a work in which he compiled some fifty different moral teachings of Jesus. But inexplicably, many of today’s alleged scholars refuse to allow that work to be just what he said it was. Instead, they insist on converting it into a supposed Jefferson attack against the Bible and the supernatural.
But the 1820 work, like the 1804 one before it, contained numerous passages on the miraculous and the supernatural, including Jesus’ teachings about:
• healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:10–12; John 7:23)
• Hell (Luke 12:4–5; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 13:37–41, 50; Matthew 23:33; Matthew 5:29–30; Matthew 18:8–9; Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:23)
• Heaven (Luke 16:22–30; Matthew 19:16–26; Matthew 25:34; John 18:36–37; Luke 12:33; Luke 15:7)
• Angels (Matthew 13:39, 41, 49; Luke 15:10; Matthew 22:30)
• the Devil (Matthew 13:39)
• eternal life (Luke 10:25–28; Matthew 19:16; Matthew 25:46)
• the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13)
• resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:28–30; Luke 14:14)
• the Second Coming of Christ (Matthew 24:20–44; Matthew 25:31–34)
Many similar passages can found in that 1820 work.
Modern claims that Jefferson deleted the miraculous and supernatural, whether in reference to the 1804 or the 1820 work are erroneous. Neither of the two works fits the critics’ description of the alleged “Jefferson Bible.”
But if the 1804 work was prepared for the use and edification of Indians, then who was the intended audience for his 1820 work? The answer to that question was provided by Jefferson’s beloved eldest grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph:
[H]e [my grandfather] left two codifications of the morals of Jesus—one for himself, and another for the Indians; the first of which I now possess: a blank volume, red morocco, gilt, letters on the back, “The Morals of Jesus”—into which he pasted extracts in Greek, Latin, French, and English, taken textually from the four Gospels and so arranged that he could run his eye of the reading of the same verse in four languages. . . . His codification of the Morals of Jesus was not known to his family before his death, and they learnt from a letter addressed to a friend that he was in the habit of reading nightly from it before going to bed.59 (emphasis added)
This, then, is another problem with the modern description that this work was a “Jefferson Bible.” It was not for public use, and Jefferson would never have allowed it to have been described as a “Bible.” It was only a personal assemblage of Jesus’ moral teachings from the Gospels for his own study. So how did this private work—a work unknown even to his family—become public?
In 1886 Cyrus Adler, the librarian for the Smithsonian, located the original that had been in the hands of Jefferson’s grandson and arranged for its purchase by Congress in 1895. In 1900 US representative John Lacey of Iowa was so inspired by Jefferson’s compilation of the moral teachings of Jesus that he brought the work to national attention through a newspaper article widely reprinted across the country.60 In 1902 Lacey sponsored a congressional resolution that the government reprint Jefferson’s Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for use by the nation’s senators and representatives.61 Lacey described Jefferson’s work to Congress:
[It] is a consolidation of the beautiful, pure teachings of the Savior in a compact form . . . and the opportunity is given, plain and unadorned, to compare these teachings with Marcus Aurelius’s and other pagan “morals.” They are in striking contrast to Plutarch’s “morals” (or rather his immorals). No greater practical test of the worth of the tenets of the Christian religion could be made than the publication of this condensation by Mr. Jefferson. . . . A verse of John is combined with a verse of Matthew with no interlineations, but is blended into a harmonious whole. . . . The work was intended to place the morals of Jesus in a form where, simple and alone, they could be contrasted with the teachings of the pagan philosophers. In doing this work, Mr. Jefferson has builded . . . this beautiful little volume in a form to be accessible to the Christian world.62
Congress passed Lacey’s resolution and printed nine thousand copies at government expense.63 For the next fifty years, a copy of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was given to every senator and representative at his or her swearing in.64
So what is the origin of the modern charge that Jefferson hated the traditional Bible and therefore made his own? A contemporary researcher who investigated this claim concluded:
Unfortunately, all those who have published the “Jefferson Bible” since 1903 have been almost universally either Unitarian or rationalist and secular in their approach, and their introductions to the book have . . . misrepresented Jefferson’s motivations and beliefs to conform to their own theological assumptions or agendas.65
In summary, there is no “Jefferson Bible,” and Jefferson did not produce any work for the purpose of deleting the miraculous and supernatural. He did, however, make two works that compiled the teachings of Jesus—one for use as a beginning reader for Indians and the other for his own personal use. Each was exactly and only what Jefferson said it was. Two centuries ago Jefferson told his close evangelical friend, Dr. Benjamin Rush: “My views . . . [are] very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions,”66 and that declaration certainly remains true today.
So the next time someone refers to a so-called Jefferson Bible, ask them to identify the specific work about which they are talking; most won’t be able to do so. Then ask them where they got their information. The chances are high that it was some recent Deconstructionist, Minimalist, Modernist, or Academic Collectivist source but certainly not any original documentary source—for the very simple reason that no such source exists.
LIE # 4
Thomas Jefferson Was a Racist Who Opposed Equality for Black Americans
In the past, leading civil rights advocates, both black and white, regularly invoked Jefferson as an inspiration for their own efforts, pointing to his lengthy record of legislative proposals and writings on the subject of emancipation and civil rights. But modern portrayal of Jefferson’s views on these issues is just the opposite and is often deliberately misstated. Modern writers claim:
Thomas Jefferson was demonstrably a racist—and a particularly aggressive and vindictive one at that. . . . His flaws are beyond redemption. . . . Jefferson is a patron saint far more suitable to white supremacists than to modern American liberals.1
Jefferson . . . did not believe that all were created equal. He was a racist.2
Jefferson was a racist. There is no question about that.3
Stephen Lyons, a writer for majo
r national newspapers, adds even another charge:
The venerable Thomas Jefferson has been the subject of a recent rash of bad publicity, including [Garry] Wills’ Negro President. The book is an expansion of three lectures Wills gave at Northwestern University in which he examines the influence on Jeffersonian politics by the infamous “three-fifths slave vote.” . . . The infamous three-fifths vote, or “federal ratio,” a non-negotiable ratification compromise insisted on by the South at the Constitutional Convention, counted each slave as 60 percent of a person. 4
Before unequivocally demonstrating that Jefferson was not a racist, Lyons’ charge concerning the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution must be addressed.
Fortunately, the discussion by the Founding Fathers concerning the Three-Fifths Clause is readily available, even online.5 It will be evident to anyone reading that discussion that the clause did not deal with the innate worth of any individual. No individual, whether black, white, brown, purple, green, polka-dot, or any other color, was ever considered three-fifths of a person. To the contrary, the Three-Fifths Clause addressed federal representation, not human worth. And it was an antislavery provision inserted by the North (not the proslavery South, as Lyons and others wrongly claim) as a means of reducing the number of proslavery representatives in Congress.
In the Constitution, each state was to receive one federal representative to Congress for every 30,000 inhabitants in the state.6 Since slaves accounted for much of the Southern population (almost half the inhabitants of South Carolina and 40 percent of Georgia),7 Southern states planned to count their slaves as though they were free inhabitants, thereby using slaves to send more proslavery representatives to Congress.
The antislavery Founders from the North strenuously objected. They wanted only free residents to be counted, thus not only limiting proslavery members from the South but also providing them an incentive for emancipation. If the South wanted more representatives to Congress, it should free its slaves. Governor Morris, a strong opponent of slavery and “The Penman of the Constitution,” argued:
Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. . . . [But t]he admission of slaves into the representation . . . comes to this: that the inhabitants of Georgia and South Carolina . . . shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind than the citizens of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who view with a laudable horror so nefarious [wicked] a practice.8
Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly argued that if the South was going to count its so-called property (that is, its slaves) in order to get more proslavery representation in Congress, then the North would count its “property” (that is, its “horses, cattle, mules, or any other [type of property]”9) in order to get more antislavery representation in Congress. Of course, the South objected just as strenuously to this proposal as the North objected to counting slaves.
The final compromise was that only 60 percent of the total slave population (that is, only three-fifths) would be counted to calculate the number of representatives to Congress.10 This would reduce the number of representatives to Congress from Southern states with large slave populations. The Three-Fifths Clause had nothing to do with the worth of any individual; in fact, Free Blacks in the North and South often were extended the full rights of a citizen, including the right to vote.11 The clause had to do only with calculating representation.12
Because previous generations actually read the debates surrounding that clause rather than just quoting some modern author’s mischaracterization of it, black civil rights leaders such as Frederick Douglass identified the Three-Fifths Clause as one of the antislavery provisions of the Constitution.13 But Deconstructionist scholars and writers are determined to twist that clause into a tool by which to bash the Founding Fathers—specifically Jefferson, as Lyons has done.
While the modern charge abounds that Jefferson was a blatant, unrepentant racist, an examination of his actual writings and actions on civil rights will demonstrate just how ridiculous these claims are. It will also make evident why civil rights leaders in previous generations praised Jefferson for his efforts on emancipation.
America in Jefferson’s day, as today, was not homogenous, whether in business, religion, or culture. Many differences were distinguishable by geographic regions. This was especially true on the subject of slavery and civil rights.
In the Northern colonies (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, etc.), slavery was generally abhorred; blacks were elected to public office (Wentworth Cheswill in New Hampshire in 1768, Thomas Hercules in Pennsylvania in 1793, and others). Blacks also distinguished themselves for their exploits in military service during the Revolution (Peter Salem, Lemuel Haynes, Prince Estabrook, Prince Whipple, and others); and both blacks and whites voted in elections.14 Blacks could be found pastoring or preaching to largely white churches and congregations (Lemuel Haynes, Richard Allen, Harry Hoosier, and others); and in many churches, blacks and whites attended and worshipped together. While there definitely was some racism in the North, it was largely the exception rather than the rule. In the North, both ministers and political leaders were boldly and unapologetically outspoken for civil rights, and the general stance was for immediate emancipation and equality. Abolition societies abounded and exerted significant influence.
The Southern colonies (North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia) were almost polar opposites. Racism was institutionalized. Churches where both blacks and whites worshipped together, such as those pastored by black minister Andrew Bryan of Georgia, were the exception rather than the rule. The possibility of blacks holding office or voting was virtually nonexistent, and political leaders who spoke out against slavery were attacked. Freedom for slaves? Never! Equality for blacks? Unthinkable! This was the dominant view with only a few individual exceptions, such as Founding Father John Laurens of South Carolina. Abolition societies were rare, and the ones that existed were impotent.
The Middle colonies (Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware) were somewhat a mix of the two other regions, but they were much closer in philosophy to the Southern colonies than the Northern ones. The majority strongly supported slavery, but there were definitely vocal minority groups advocating civil rights. Institutionalized racism was present but not as rigidly enforced as in the Southern colonies. Many ministers and a few civil leaders—such as Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Bland, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, William Hooper, William Few, and others—spoke openly for emancipation. But when doing so they often received a cold and sometimes even a hostile reception yet usually not with the virulent reaction and intolerance so common in the Southern colonies.
While the Northern colonies wanted emancipation immediately and the Southern colonies not at all, the Middle colonies believed that if emancipation was to occur, it must be gradual with relocation. Thus the Middle colonies had colonization societies rather than abolition societies. They sought emancipation for slaves, and then planned to transport them back to Africa from whence so many had originally been stolen. This Middle colony approach acknowledged that slavery was wrong, but it also recognized that blacks had greater freedom and opportunity in Africa than in the prejudice-filled Middle and Southern colonies.
The different views in each region required that differing political tactics be used. That is, abolition laws introduced in the North would never have seen the light of day in the South; and the colonization approach of the Middle would have been unacceptable to the other two regions, although each would have opposed it for opposite reasons. Therefore, those wishing to change the national culture on slavery had to start at different levels, depending on the region in which they lived.
It is evident that Jefferson was acutely aware of these distinct regional differences. A 1785 exchange he had with the Reverend Richard Price of England demonstrates this. Price had sided with America during the Revolution and written seve
ral pro-American pieces. He sent one of his pamphlets on the American Revolution to South Carolina where it met a very cold reception. Political leaders there condemned it “because it recommend[ed] measures for . . . abolishing the Negro trade and slavery.”15 Based on their reaction, Price was concerned that he had misread American intentions toward liberty, and he asked Jefferson whether South Carolina was representative of the other states.
Jefferson reassured Price that South Carolina was not representative of the country on the issue of slavery and then explained to him the three different reactions his pamphlet would likely receive. From the Southern colonies, Jefferson affirmed what Price had already discovered: “Southward of the Chesapeake, it will find but few readers concurring with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery.”16 The Chesapeake is the large bay between Maryland and Virginia, so “southward of the Chesapeake” means the colonies below or south of Virginia.
Concerning the Middle colonies, Jefferson told him: “From the mouth of the head of the Chesapeake [the Middle colonies], the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, and it will find a respectable minority ready to adopt it in practice.”17
Regarding the Northern colonies, Jefferson explained:
Northward of the Chesapeake, you may find here and there an opponent to your doctrine as you may find here and there a robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of America, there being but few slaves, they can easily disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put into such a train that in a few years there will be no slave northward of Maryland.18
Jefferson therefore reassured Price: “Be not therefore discouraged. What you have written will do a great deal of good. . . . I wish you to do more, and wish it on assurance of its effect.”19
