I have read many books about Jefferson, and Wiencek's book is the latest trend among left wing liberals to disparage our founding fathers.

With his use of adjectives, Henry Wiencek interjects himself and his interpretation of material into his presentation. And he draws conclusions based on his notion that "it seems..." Facts are not established by "it seems." In another variance of "it seems" he states that "It might seem unfair to mock the misconceptions..." he is indeed correct, it is unfair. More than that, it is a myopic view of history. I also find the great revelation that Jefferson put an economic value on his slaves and their increase not particularly innovative.

Dr. Wiencek, when you criticize anyone you take on all his or her burdens and responsibilities. Are you really prepared to take on those of Thomas Jefferson? In addition, when you criticize a national icon you take on the ire of that nation, or in this case 49% of that nation. Yes, I think you understand my implication. You and people like you, educated scholars, educators of young and impressionable Americans do this country a great injustice. You have begun your demolition at the very base of American values. Who might be your next subject for personal degradation? John Adams, James Madison? You have a long road ahead of you Wiencek. Our Founding Fathers were men of sufficient character to provide us with the foundation of the country which has become The Leader of the Free World. When you choose to undermine them, you choose to undermine the United States of America. Among the freedoms you enjoy Wiencek, is the freedom to pack up your inadequate understanding of the history of human kind, and their understanding, in their time, of morals and responsibilities, along with your pile of diplomas from all of your liberal cronies in academia and move to the communist country of your choice. When you get their, tell your pals how wonderful it is and invite them to join you.

Writing as a retired university professor who has read the original excerpt from Henry Wiencek's book in The Smithsonian and read these objections and Wiencek's reply to them, in my professional judgment Wiencek has made his case, while the objectors have NOT made theirs. If I were on some sort of academic jury, I would cast my vote for Wiencek. In fact I would strongly recommend that his article be taught in American grade schools and high schools and be put on the required reading lists of university courses in American History.

This controversy is a reminder of the old comment about fights in academia, that they are so fierce because the stakes are so small!

Had America not succeeded in aggressively marketing its "Founding Fathers" as cartoonish demigods, the truth about Jefferson would be less difficult to ascertain and less uncomfortable to accept. A comprehensive, objective examination of his (or ANY person's) true character requires suspending modern-day socio-political beliefs -- including our addiction to slapping overly-simplistic labels on people -- and above all by remembering that human lives are complex, quirky and sometimes ultimately self-contradictory when viewed in retrospect. I'd love to see what picture an FBI profiler might paint of Mr. Jefferson. IMHO, anyone who literally cut-and-pasted together his own personal version of the Bible (as Jefferson did) could conceivably have been capable of construing the way he dictated the lives of his slaves as charitable. And though it took two centuries for DNA tests to prove it, we now know for certain that Jefferson DID father children with his slave Sally Hemmings. I think it sheds considerable light on the above debate that Jefferson could have a long-term relationship/affair with one of his slaves and even sire children with her yet never grant her freedom.

"What self-absorbed folly to attempt to hold Jefferson to the mores of the modern age." What a self-absorbed folly to believe morality changes like the fashion of every new season.

While the historians quoted on these pages make their rather competitive statements about the evidence of hypocrisy and self-serving ways of Jefferson, in his individual dealings, another extolled historian indulges himself in a sweeping statement that dismisses, on the sole weight of similar evidence as cited by his peers, the entire significance of a holistically thorough history of Jefferson and his peers. Descending into nothing short of suspiciously pointed propaganda, he gushes: If there was “treason against the hopes of the world,” it was perpetrated by the founding generation,which failed to place the nation on the road to liberty for all. No one bore a greater responsibility for that failure than the master of Monticello. “(P.Finkelman) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?_r=0 How splendid it is that he sneaks a stab at every bit of evidence, of every intention of all the Founders to build the very road he claims was closed to "the nation" (oh..and the world..their hopes) by the Founders individual failures in their personal, societal, and business dealings. Finkelman's skunkweed revisionist garden is fertilized by the vain sophistry naively promoted by his quarreling "peers". Grammar school students have had a more enlightened view than I am seeing here, of the overarching problems of bringing liberty, democracy and equality into fruition over time. The founding assemblage was bold enough to address these issues unsolved for millenia, if only with a pen and the risk of of their very lives. I'd say it was sad that these people didn't live for 200 years, but if they had, so would all of you. Then I'd fear for my grandchildren's values. I can accept the paralyzed paradigm of the pedantic, but it is unacceptable for their ivy-covered edifice to give shelter to a snake like Finkelman.

Though I am not a historian, and I have not read all the material that is available on Jefferson, I was surprised at the degree of his involvement with the slaves in the nailery. I had not been aware of the business side of this endeavor ----the amount of profit from sales outside the farm. I had thought that all the efforts of the slaves were used for maintenance of the property, and to serve the needs of the family----crops, cooking, creating tools, etc. The contrast between Washington's freeing of his slaves, and Jefferson's freeing of only certain ones which resulted in separation of families, leaves Jefferson with a smudge on his name. However, his other outstanding attributes do outweigh this unfortunate lapse. The fact remains that he could have done something about his slaves, and he chose not to change the convenient status quo. With all his glowing accomplishments, he was , after all , a man subject to some human faults. I think the end result is that I admire George Washington and John Adams more than Thomas Jefferson.

What self-absorbed folly to attempt to hold Jefferson to the mores of the modern age. We may as reasonably leap forward 230 years from now and observe how Americans then will look back on the barbarity and moral liquidity of Roe v Wade and lament: how could they have possibly been so willfully ignorant, cruel and duplicitous? How could they have been so blind to the humanity wronged?

Bravo Henry!! It is so refreshing in this post racial era where far too many whites and Black apologists lack the courage and integrity to acknowledge and confront the depths of inhumanity of so many of our historical heroes. Gordon-Reed if she had any integrity and courage would admit her whitewashing of Jefferson was wrong. Yet intellectual cowardice still stains so many in the world of history. Bravo Henry!!

It seems as if Ms. Stanton might be of a mind that slavery, if practiced under certain terms, might also be considered a "noble art".

Ms. Stanton's comments are disgusting. An order to refrain from whipping the children "except 'in extremeties'" is an order to whip children. Period. Oh, but wait, the children aren't 10, they're 12 & 13? Sick. Tyring to obsure the fact that they're 12 & 13, by saying, instead, they are "about to be thirteen and fourteen"? Sick. And, defending it all by saying "we all know that the whip was the universal tool of slave discipline"? Sick.

Is it possible that the writer here, who is described on the net as "Monticello’s Shannon Senior Historian" is perhaps a little too close to Monticello for the proper persective herself? When I go to the Montecello org webpages I read in one article they publish on the web the following "To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves." Freedom is indivisible, democracy cannot make compromises in which a free class lives alongside an enslaved one. Writing from the opposite extreme of detachment, I live in Australia, this Montecello approach reads to me as bosh - and I am left thinking that Wiencek is really under attack for exposing over two centuries of hypocrisy. We have similar problems here with our own history. Our histories are components of the same scenario, the rise and eventual fall of the British Empire, which in common with other European Empires was largely about repression, slavery and the genocide of indigenous peoples- and a process of decolonisation that will not be completed, including in the Americas, until racism is eradicated and we all share, as brothers, one history of humanity. Reconciliation requires honesty, integrity and a common purpose. History is about facts not blame.

It is interesting that Monticello's web page on Jefferson and Slavery-- http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery --does not mention any of these "troubling events in which Jefferson was involved" which Ms. Stanton mentions: "the flogging of James Hubbard, the selling south of Cary “in terrorem” to his fellow nailers, the addition to capital through slave childbirth." Indeed this web page begins with the statement that "Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life" and carries forward with this theme throughout. Do Ms. Stanton and her former colleagues at Monticello believe that the 600+ human beings that Jefferson owned would agree with the statement that Jefferson opposed slavery his whole life? Clearly, the view of slavery held by some Jefferson scholars and the staff at Monticello needs to change, no surprise to those of us who have visited Monticello over the years. (When I visited 20 years ago, the word "slave" was not mentioned on the house tour. Slaves who worked in the house were called "house servants.") So thank you, Mr. Wiencek, for writing a more accurate view of Jeffeson and slavery. With Master of the Mountain as a guide, I remain hopeful that, in time, the Monticello website will be rewritten, and this national monument will also become a place of remembrance for the 600 men, women, and children who lived, worked, and died in bondage there. Each of them should a have plaque. Perhaps Monticello will see fit to conduct a ceremony some 4th of July--at the time of the naturalization ceremony that takes place there each year--to symbolically free all of Jefferson's slaves.

To demonize T.J. because he owned slaves is a shallow view put forth by the self proclaimed, “more highly evolved”. Henry Wiencek’s new portrait decision is his decision. It is not a decision for all as to the character of Thomas Jefferson. Many readers enlightened by 200 years of progress in human kind are influenced, by this article, to judge T.J. as a poor example of their modern standards. Many others have an understanding of the changes in education and values throughout history. In defense of Mr. Jefferson from those who choose to call him a hypocrite, equality for Americans is a word that has been expanded in its definition since the founding of our country, 236 years ago. For T.J. and many of our Founding Fathers, the phrase "...that all men are created equal..." meant that "all free, property-owning males are created equal". Fortunately for all races and both sexes, the United States has moved to achieve full legal equality since that time. Every generation is a victim of its vices, misunderstandings and Doctors of Egotism. Be careful and sparing of judgment, especially of national icons. This practice is capable of national degradation. Our Founding Fathers were men of sufficient capability to bequeath to us a nation that has been the leader of the free world. It is the responsibility of academia to keep it so, not to strap young minds with clouds of guilt over imagined sins. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams passed away within hours of one another on July 4th 1826, fifty years, from the day they declared our nation’s independence. Many consider this a sign of divine intervention. Methinks T.J. has friends in high places. Noticed any swarms of locust or dark clouds following you around, Wiencek; any close calls with lightning strikes? Be careful out there.

Wiencek: "I quoted from George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights: 'all men are equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity.'" But when Mason set his hand to a constitution for the state, he added the key phrase "When in a state of society" to "all men." A slave holder himself, he hated the institution in the abstract but availed himself of its benefits in practice. Thus he is closer to Wiencek's Jefferson and Washington than to Malone's--ironic then that he uses the Mason quote to show how close Va was to ending slavery. One further note, on the corporal chastisement of boys who did not show up for work. Not only young slaves, but apprentices, servants, and even free children were rountinely "whpped" (not with a whip, of course, but with a switch or some other "rod") in that "spare the rod and spoil the child" era. Best, Peter

I just now finished Wiencek's riveting (and depressing) "Master of the Mountain," and I agree with JohnD's posting below. None of the critics that I have read have been able to undercut Wiencek's central thesis: that Jefferson had the opportunity to make a difference, to make a stand, on the issue of slavery but, after the 1780s, refused to do so. Instead, he continued to pay lip service--for whatever reasons--to the horrors of slavery but continued, also, to live a lavish lifestyle (possible only by the use of slave labor) which left his heirs in debt and the slaves who had devoted their lives and their children's lives to his comfort facing the auction block upon his death. And what do Wiencek's critics have to say about Jefferson's support of slavery in the new Louisiana Territory?

Critics of Weincek's approach in this book seem to base the argument that you cannot view Jefferson in the context of today's morals and if you do try to hold him accountable to these views then you are doing a grave disservice to him. I get it, but really is this appropriate? Having read most of the book I have to admit it made me challenge my on beliefs and pre-concepts about Mr. Jefferson and perhaps that is the point of the book to a degree. Jefferson, above all else, was a man and he was subject to the moral shortcomings that all of us suffer as imperfect beings. We can understand Jefferson's dilemmas without completely accepting them nor completely viewing him with contempt. What he did with his slaves is counter to his own writings and his own beliefs (at least for much of his life), therefore he knew that his ownership of slaves was morally wrong, but he choose to subject hundreds of humans to it for the sake of his own wants and needs and as well as immediate family. You really can not reconcile that to paint him in anything other than hypocrisy, greed and self interest, at least in regards to the topic of slavery and his part in it. I will always admire him for the great things that he accomplished and will always regret the fact that he could not see past his own self-interests in regards to slavery.

Ms. Stanton is appalled by Mr. Wieneck's scholarship, but her strongest critique is Jefferson wasn't quite so cruel because he only ordered the slave children to be whipped under special conditions, and those who were whipped were 13 not 10. The reality appears to be that Ms. Stanton and Ms. Gordon's scholarship is based on a kinder, gentler Thomas Jefferson then Wieneck exposes, and based on their responses and Mr. Wieneck's response to Ms. Gordon they don't present a very convincing argument.

After discovering early 19th century portraits of famed biracial abolitionist Stephen Smith and his wife Harriet, I was prompted to write a book about the artist, James Stidum, whom I argue was the first black portrait artist in US history. My research into slavery, slave masters, and slave breeding, in the Mid-Atlantic States was largely corroborated in Mr. Wiencek’s last two books. Whereas Mr. Wiencek has been occasionally criticized for being “fast and loose” with historical sources, I found his work to be well researched and his interpretations of the historical record as being very accurate. If anything, I think Mr. Wiencek was a bit too forgiving of Washington and Jefferson. In my view, most slave masters, and particularly the Virginia planters, were very cognizant of steady profits being realized from the breeding of slaves. A white European derived Slave Society existed on the North American continent for over 10 generations, so it is difficult to make conclusive “catch all” statements regarding the institution. Many odd circumstances developed over the centuries. That all considered, I found that numerous white slave masters fathered biracial slave children with black female slaves and profited from enslaving their own children, sometimes even selling their own progeny off on auction blocks. Tough history indeed, that needs to be further discussed and debated. Thank you for your scholarship Mr. Wiencek.

So Stanton's argument against Wiencek's claims is that, sure Jefferson whipped slaves (or had them whipped; the distinction is morally meaningless) and sure he raped his slaves, but at least he wasn't as bad as the other slave holders. That is a very slender reed to grasp and a very fine distinction to make. As for her claim that she and other historians are not given credit for having discussed this before, that says more about her sour grapes than it does about his allegedly poor scholarship.