- Friends, citizens,
countrymen, fellow Virginians,
fellow Willamsburgians,
inhabitants of this continent
and now, dare I say, this country,
welcome to this conversation.
My name is Thomas Jefferson.
I have the happy honor of
hosting this conversation
over the next 45 minutes
and I would delight in
seeking your curiosities
as we delve ever deeper
into the collective well
of human knowledge.
There has been, indeed, upon this soil
a great change of events.
You likely have not heard,
as these events have taken
place behind closed doors,
but this day, July the 2nd
of 1776, there was a vote.
Now, I am going to relay to you
some information that perhaps,
as you do not know and were
not part of the meeting,
should not be yours to have,
but I suppose that I can trust you.
And therefore I feel, as
friends and as fellow citizens,
that I can tell you there
was a vote for independence
in the affirmative on
this day, July 2 of 1776,
which means we have indeed
found ourselves in a new country
founded not upon blood
right, not upon divine right,
but rather upon a deeper right:
mankind's right to choose the government
that mankind would for himself.
Our creator gifted us with reason
and he expects us to use it.
Our creator did not tell us, for example,
what form of government to take,
which means our creator
gifted us with this life,
the utilization of this
reason, we sapient humans,
and it is up to us, friends,
to choose the best form of
government that man might create
that effects the greatest
amount of security,
safety, and happiness for our people.
We have done that.
We did so today and will continue to do so
as this union ever perfects.
This day, July the 2nd, a
dear friend of mine said,
should be remembered ad infinitum
with parades, fireworks,
bonfires, grand illuminations,
candles in every window.
John Adams, a dear friend,
sat on that committee of five.
Our job it was, formed on June
11th, to create a document,
a declaration should the
vote go in this direction,
and it has.
You know, on that same day,
June 11th of this year, 1776,
there were two other committees created.
One committee was to discover,
question what form of
government might we take,
look into ancient history
and begin proposing systems of government.
A second committee was also
formed to look into treaty.
The third committee was
the committee that I sat on
with Franklin, Adams, Sherman,
Livingstone, myself, of course.
That committee was to draft
a declaration of America's independence
and that is now the work of
the Continental Congress.
Now, it should be said, friends,
please do not spread this arout.
No one knows entirely of this issue.
It is treason, you know. (chuckling)
The punishment for treason is not kind.
It is death eventually.
First, you are hung,
and then you are cut
down while still alive
and then your bowels are
removed in front of you
and burnt in front of you
while you're still alive,
and then you are drawn and quartered
and the parts of you sent around
to the various parts of the
empire to serve as an example,
and then your head is to
be placed upon a pike.
So, I hope we win,
not just for me and my personal safety
of this mortal corpus,
but rather for all of us.
We are gifting a promise to you.
I hope this is understood.
This radical nature of 1776
isn't that we declared independence.
The radical audacious nature of 1776
isn't that we took the
crown off of one man's head.
The radical nature of this year of '76
is that after taking the
crown off of one man's head,
we turned right around
and are placing that crown on all men.
What a radical, beautiful,
audacious, stupid idea.
(laughing)
We are giving the government over to you.
Certainly, you will not harm it.
And when I say all men,
I mean all men, yes.
Well, perhaps there is some discrepancy.
And perhaps, friends, we should
get into that discrepancy.
I am certain that you have curiosities
and I wish to engage
with your curiosities.
Many of you, well, all of
you grew up as subjects.
We are just now coming to understand
what it means to be a citizen.
We have no idea what this
responsibility holds.
Let us discover together.
Let us understand the momentous movement
that has brought us to
this day of July 2 of 1776.
And more importantly, let us
present to each and the other
this great hope that exists before us.
For as man is inherently given the ability
to create the government
that we so choose,
you can alter the government.
In what ways might you do so?
What rights might you extend to mankind
that we could not fathom?
This is your obligation, you kings,
you freshly-minted kings
in this new republic
taking its fledgling first steps.
Huzzah.
Don't tell anyone about this meeting.
It's treason.
And if we lose this thing, you know,
I don't wish my name to be bandied about.
I should turn the conversation over
to my dear friend, Mr. Ziarko,
who I believe has some
questions amalgamated
from folks around this country.
Is this true, Mr. Ziarko?
- [Mr. Ziarko] Yes.
We already have some questions coming in.
But to begin, Mr. Jefferson,
you mentioned just a moment ago
that 'all men' does mean all men,
and yet I think there are some people
who maybe see some
inconsistencies with saying that
and you then, a man such as yourself,
who, if I'm not mistaken, does
own other people as property.
Can you talk a little bit about that?
- Are you suggesting that
I'm human, Mr. Ziarko?
- [Mr. Ziarko] I only
ask the question here.
I make no suggestion.
- Are you suggesting that,
being a part of we sapient beings,
I might subject myself to
the same system of flaws
and yet equally the same greatness
that every generation
that has ever existed
and every generation
that might ever exist,
being collectively in the body of mankind,
might present themselves to?
- [Mr. Ziarko] I suppose so. (laughing)
- If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Certainly, certainly.
But not all men wrote
this; you wrote this.
- That's true.
- [Mr. Ziarko] I thought
you might have some insight.
- When I said 'all men' in that document,
the declaration of America's independence,
which you have not had
the opportunity to read
but no doubt you shall, my
declaration of independence
could have no doubt said 'all white men'
and it would've passed, assuredly.
It could've said all white Protestant men
and it might have passed,
Protestant Christians.
It could've said all white
men 21 years of age and older.
When I said 'all men'
in our declaration of
America's independence,
I meant all men.
And I shall point you back
six years ago in 1770,
and here's why; this is a pertinent point.
In 1770, I tried a case
back when I was senseless
and I was an attorney--
I have since given up the
practice; I saw the light.
When I was an attorney, there was a case,
Howell v. Netherland, and
Samuel Howell was my client.
He was a third-generation mulatto slave.
And in that case presented
at the high court,
the highest court in Virginia,
Mr. Netherland was the slave owner.
Samuel Howell, being a
third-generation mulatto slave
and was my client, we
argued on prosecution
on the hope that we
could gain his freedom.
We utilized, as per our
argument, certain acts:
Slave Acts of 1705 and 1723,
1705 Slave Act of course saying
that the condition of the mother
being the condition of the child
and that any child borne of her body
is now in lifelong servitude.
The 1723 act continues this,
thus pushing even into mulatto,
that should a mulatto,
that, as the act states,
abominable mixture of blood,
are also bound in lifelong servitude
and any child borne of her body.
But it does not state specifically
that a third-generation mulatto
should be bound in lifelong servitude.
And if you recall, I
mentioned that Samuel Howell
was a third-generation mulatto.
In 1770, I promoted that
case pro bono publico.
And in 1770, in the
promotion of that case,
the trying of the case, I wrote,
rather, said on the floor of
the highest court in Virginia
that all men are equal
in 1770
on behalf of a mulatto slave.
So, when I wrote that
all men are created equal
in our Declaration of
Independence, I mean it.
Now, here is...
Here is the consternation.
It is one thing to promote it.
It's one thing to say it.
It's one thing to promise it.
And yet, it is an entire
'nother thing to deny it,
to defer it, to keep some
system of people subjugated,
denying them rights.
My declaration of America's independence
is not a constitution.
It does nothing to constrain
and confine a people
to a system of laws;
it is merely a promise.
And I promised with our
Declaration of Independence
that one of the foundational
principles of this country
is this idea of equality
and that we should continue to maintain
and promote systems of
equality upon this land.
This is the promise.
And if it is unfulfilled, then
it is our job to fulfill it.
It's your job to fulfill it.
It's my job to fulfill it.
So, when I said 'all men,' I meant it.
I could've said 'all white men.'
I didn't.
I said 'all men' six years ago in 1770
with the case Howell v. Netherland.
Just because it does not make
its face known in our laws
does not make it untrue.
No doubt, you have systems
of philosophy in your time
that accede your system of law.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Thank you.
Actually, as you were answering that,
even Karen asked whether you thought of it
as a factual reality that
all men are created equal
or more of an intentional ideal
that should be walked towards,
that should ever be strived to.
- Karen, this is a question of our age.
A factual reality might mean indeed
a physiological distinction
or lack of distinction.
Factual reality; science
is what I'm speaking of,
natural philosophy.
We might find a distinction
between the two species or races
depending on which man
of science you listen to.
This might sound harsh
for your ears to hear,
but this is exactly the systems of thought
that we are engaging with at this moment.
Since I have been born in 1743,
there are Academies of Science in Berlin,
Academy of Science in Bordeaux,
the Royal Academy in England.
All have done dissections,
sometimes literally,
upon the physiology of humans.
And the question that
was put round the world
by all three of those
institutions is this:
What is the cause of blackness?
What is the cause?
Are we physiologically the same?
Are we physiologically different?
Are we a different species?
Are we a different race?
Are we one people bound
through monogenesis as one?
These studies that have been done
have been varied in their
nature, including some studies
that have placed a caustic
agent on skin to increase boils
and thus cutting away the boils.
And the gentleman who did that study
found a black agent within the
skin of our African peoples.
He called this agent aethiops:
A-E-T-H-I-O-P-S, aethiops.
Apparently have done by another study
by a man in Berlin whose
name, I believe, is Meckel,
and this man did a dissection
upon the brain of Africans,
saying that the African brain is blue,
it is lighter in weight,
and there is a pituitary gland inside
that produces aethiops
and produces a degenerative
quality upon the mind.
This is literally, Karen,
the cutting-edge science of our time.
So, when you ask what is
factual versus what is promised,
we must not just look
to philosophic sophisms.
We must look to the best
science that we have.
And right now, Karen, the
best science that we have
seems to suggest that we
are a separate species.
I write about this.
I write about it in "Notes
on the State of Virginia,"
or perhaps someday I will.
I'm a bit ahead of myself
on that one, I apologize.
In "Notes on the State of Virginia,"
I shall dig into this topic
and end with simply this;
I hold it as a supposition only.
Perhaps there is a
distinction in the races,
but isn't the beauty the
distinction between us?
It's one thing to promise something.
It's another thing to find the facts.
And you, Karen, are
attempting to find the facts.
So are we.
This is why we must promote
education and science, yes?
- [Mr. Ziarko] Wonderful.
One last, because we have
questions in other areas,
but since it's along those lines,
Larry asks, have your views
on slavery been changing?
Are they still developing?
- Well, Larry, I should tell you,
I, much like our society,
find myself somewhat fluid.
I grew up with slavery, as
you know, as we all did.
We all inherited slavery.
Some of us quite literally
inherited slaves.
I inherited 65 or so slaves
with the death of my father,
160 or so slaves with the
death of my father-in-law.
We all inherited slavery and
some of us inherited slaves.
My thoughts on slavery have
not changed for many years,
and that it is quite simply I
call the practice abhorrent.
I call the men who
forced it upon us wicked.
And yet I continue to
hold bipedal property.
What a change, quantum mutatus ab illo.
How can these two things coexist?
"How can you in one hand, Mr. Jefferson,
"say that all men are created equal
"and yet in the other continue
to hold the lash of slavery?
"This is hypocritical at best.
"At worst?
"Well..."
My opinion on slavery is
that it subjugates mankind.
And if man in nature
is born free and equal,
then shouldn't we attempt
to create a government
that places that natural
equality upon man?
This is about rights.
And, believe me, this is a rights issue.
We have been discussing this since 1765.
It's not audacious to consider
the rights of another human.
What we are considering now is
how to get out of this thing.
I hope we can.
I hope that I can.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Speaking of which,
why haven't you freed your slaves?
- Why haven't I freed my slaves?
Well, first, we must... (sighing)
We must legally change the
nature of what they are.
As you know, perhaps you do
not, but as you might know,
in Virginia, they are
not considered humans.
They are considered property.
And as such, they are
not given the same rights
that humans, mankind, man, white
men, white women are given.
It is easy, you know,
when science says these things,
when science proves to us,
why, the Academy of Science
in Berlin and London,
when science proves, perhaps factually,
that these people are a different species,
how easy does it become to dehumanize?
And once dehumanized, it is
even easier to present to them
different systems of laws and rights.
We would never give our horse
the same rights that we give a human.
And when science tells us that
they are perhaps not human,
then how easy it becomes is the
problem with dehumanization.
My people are my people.
I never call them my slaves,
I call them my family.
I call them my people.
And occasionally, I call them servants.
I inherited them.
And you might also know I
have a bit of a debt problem.
Maybe you do not know that.
Do not spread that one around either.
I cannot, in my attempt
to solve this equation
of my personal finances,
I cannot remove the bulk of my income,
which are my people, and solve my debt.
I do not know how to do it.
I think the thesis is this:
I'm attempting to get the state to do
what I personally cannot.
I have proposed systems of erosion
of this institution of slavery,
with the Declaration of Independence,
with a bill, bill 51
in a batch of 126 bills
which erodes and makes
illegal the slave trade.
My Virginia Constitution, for example,
presented from Philadelphia,
sent, I believe, by Mr.
George Wythe to Virginia,
made slavery at large
illegal in the year 1800,
generational slavery
illegal in the year 1800,
and the promotion of slave
trade illegal as well.
All of these things must be
presented to a body of men,
all of whom own (pausing) slaves.
And then, it must be
debated by a body of men,
all of whom own slaves,
and voted by a body of men,
all of whom own slaves.
Do we see a problem?
The problem is self-interest
and status quo.
And, friends, once we've
solved self-interest,
we will not just solve slavery.
We will solve every single problem
this nation will ever face.
- [Mr. Ziarko] We've gone
very deep into that topic,
so I wanna steer us in a little
bit of a different direction
just for a moment because
I've had two questions,
one from Joseph asking
about your relationship
with Dr. Franklin.
We also had Alan ask about
whether or not you got along
with Mr. John Adams.
I've heard some that say that
he is obnoxious and unliked.
- Oh.
Well, I thank you, Mr. Ziarko.
Who are the names of these folks again?
- [Mr. Ziarko] Alan was
asking about Mr. Adams and--
- We shall go with Alan first.
Mr. Adams has been a dear friend of mine,
of course, on that committee of five.
We thought Mr. Adams
might write this business.
We thought Franklin should write it first.
You know, when we were
formed on June 11th,
it wasn't that the committee was formed
with one man chosen to
write the declaration.
We were just simply formed
and then we were supposed
to get the work done.
And then we sent amongst our number
around a table covered
in broad green cloth
and we decided who should do it.
We looked around at one and the other.
Our eyes fell on Dr. Franklin.
Franklin declined.
(laughing)
He's not around; I'm going
to tell you something else.
You've found me on a good day.
Franklin leaned back in his
chair, crossing his arms,
(laughing) and said, "I will
never again suffer my work
"to the scrutiny of a committee."
I should've listened to him.
As for Adams, we thought perhaps
he should write the thing second.
He declined, and then he said,
"No, Jefferson, you should write it."
And he gave me three reasons,
and this is perhaps your
point, Alan and Mr. Ziarko.
Three reasons, Mr. Adams said.
I'm telling you this also in confidence.
This was behind closed doors.
I shall have no friends in confidence
after this conversation ever again.
Mr. Adams turned to me and he said,
"No, Jefferson, you should write this
"and I'll give you three reasons why.
"First, you are a Virginian,
"and a Virginian ought to be
at the head of this business.
"Secondly," he said, "you're
the finest pen we have."
I offered no objection.
"Thirdly," he said, I kid you not,
"I, John Adams, am obnoxious." (laughing)
I offered no objection to that one either.
Nonetheless, I took his three
reasons and I wrote the thing.
I like them both.
Dr. Franklin gave me a delightful
story while my declaration
was being emasculated
by Congress at large,
removing that anti-slavery clause.
The story was about a
hatter, John the hatter.
I won't get into it now
unless you so desire,
but it's Dr. Franklin at his best.
And (laughing) I believe he
says he told me that story
about John the hatter,
John Thompson the hatter,
sitting next to Thomas Jefferson
while Jefferson writhed.
They were destroying my document, but...
(chuckling)
- [Mr. Ziarko] Is this a long story
that Franklin went through or--
- I can make it somewhat
short if you so desire.
- [Mr. Ziarko] I think
it should be shared.
- Franklin turned to me,
this is in the middle of my
document being torn apart
by committee as a whole,
which is their procedural obligation.
He turned to me and he said,
"Have you heard the story about
John Thompson the hatter?"
I said, "Nay."
He said, "John Thompson was a hatter."
I guessed as much.
And he was creating a new
sign for his establishment
and he brought it to his friends.
He was very proud of this thing.
It was etched in wood and
it said, "John Thompson,"
with a picture of a hat
embossed on the thing,
"maker and seller of fine hats."
And he brought it to his friends,
and that was his first mistake.
This road is paved with the
most beautiful of intentions.
And his friends said, "Well, Mr. Thompson,
"they do not need to know
that you make the hats.
"They just are in the market for a hat.
"It's redundant.
"You should etch it out."
So, he took it away, etched out.
"John Thompson, seller of fine
hats," with a hat embossed.
He took it back to his friends,
his friends again looking at the sign
and John Thompson looking
at them expectantly,
excited to hang the thing
upon his new storefront.
And his friends looked at him and said,
"Well, John Thompson,
"they already know that you sell the hats.
"There are hats in the window.
"There's a hat on your sign.
"It doesn't matter.
"That's, again, redundant."
Very good.
John Thompson walked away,
etched away, "Seller of fine hats."
Now it just says, "John Thompson,"
with a picture of a hat.
Finally, thinking the thing was done
in this very small work of a committee,
he brought it back to his friends,
assured that this would
be the final product,
his final draft of his declaration.
He presented it to them and one
of his friends turned to him
and said, "John, they don't
care what your name is."
This was Dr. Franklin's consolation to me
while they were destroying,
emasculating my Declaration
of Independence.
That's the story.
- [Mr. Ziarko] I thank you, Mr. Jefferson.
Rebecca wants to know,
what are your thoughts on inoculation?
- Inoculation; it's good, Rebecca.
Do it if you have not done.
I understand there is some
fear upon the subject.
Why on Earth would you inoculate yourself
with some viralatic nature
and create a sickness upon yourself?
But I tell you, friends,
our creator has gifted us
with a greatness of our bodies
and we might, for example,
through the smallpox,
which is a great danger in our time,
look to the milkmaids, Rebecca!
Look to the milkmaids!
You know cowpox.
Cowpox is a less virulent
version, as we understand,
and milkmaids being
somewhat immune, I suppose,
because they have contracted cowpox,
a relation of the
smallpox, and thus we find
that these pustules
which carry this disease
might be scraped away from the diseased
and placed in lacerations on
your arm or perhaps your thigh,
and then you infect yourself
with a lesser degree of the disease.
And wouldn't you know
it, Rebecca, we survived.
I have survived.
I've been inoculated.
I was inoculated in, (muttering) in '62,
I believe, in Philadelphia.
You're laid up for quite
some time, you know, Rebecca.
Several weeks it takes
for your body to fight off the illness.
But once you have done it,
you never again find the sickness.
There have been riots, Rebecca,
around this idea of inoculation.
Do not believe it.
Trust in science.
It's good for you.
- [Mr. Ziarko] We have
another question here.
This is going back to some
of those more difficult.
Carla's asking, if you thought
all men were created equal,
why did you ignore women?
She seems to posit that
women weren't given rights.
- Carla?
- Carla, yes.
- I thank you, Carla.
Carla, when I say 'man' in the document,
the Declaration of Independence,
it is generally understood
if you read philosophy of
my time and before my time
and philosophers and statesmen of my time,
when we say 'man,'
we are talking of the
collective body of mankind,
which would necessarily
absolutely include the fairer sex,
your sex, the female.
If I said that all men are created equal
in my Declaration of Independence
and then I went home to my wife,
well, I wouldn't be sitting here today.
When we say 'all men,' we
mean mankind, generally.
Read Locke.
Read Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Read Descartes, Rene Descartes,
for these ideas of mankind.
We generally include the women as well.
I thank you and I understand your concern.
Now, the right of suffrage,
the right of vote,
do not press me so hard.
- [Mr. Ziarko] There's also
been a question from Ken.
In the document, he believes--
I think he might have an early copy,
so there might already be
some of them out there.
This isn't just on you,
because he mentions,
in the fourth paragraph there's a phrase,
'merciless Indian savages.'
Can you elaborate on that phrase
and do you want to perhaps share
with who may be credited with that?
Is that yours or was that from committee?
- As I recall, 'merciless Indian
savage' was in the document
that came out of our
subcommittee or committee of five
and into the committee as a whole
that had just been
dissolved out of Congress
into a committee of the whole.
As I said, our merciless Indian savages
have been forced upon us.
This is a common known system
of warfare on this continent,
has been used for decades
and decades and decades,
and this is to utilize a
people who have no interest
in our particular wars
against one and the other.
It should also be said, Ken,
that we have done the same.
We have employed their
number for our cause,
and I guarantee you we will look to them
to further secure this thing
through future bloodshed.
Their system of warfare
is somewhat merciless
as I understand it.
We sit in fine lines and
fire at one and the other.
We are very orderly
and we understand how a
gentleman should and could fight.
Their systems of combat
are quite different
and perhaps, to an English
eye, an English ear,
and an Englishman's
understanding of tactics,
quite savage indeed.
This phrase might speak
harshly to your ears.
But to our ears, we understand
the tactics that we have
and that we utilize versus
the tactics that they utilize.
I thank you for your question, Ken.
It is an apt and right question.
The document's not perfect, you know.
I don't know if you know
this, but a human wrote it.
I say that man cannot create a government
that's better than mankind itself,
so I apologize for my
discrepancies therein.
But nonetheless, it is
the best that I could do.
I stole most of it.
- [Mr. Ziarko] I have two questions here
that might be a very
short or very long answer
depending on the person involved.
Both Izzy and Tina want to know
what your feelings are towards
and what it's like working
with Alexander Hamilton.
- Who?
- Alexander Hamilton.
- What's his name?
- [Mr. Ziarko] Alexander Hamilton?
- No doubt, there are a
million things he has not done,
as I have never heard of him.
- [Mr. Ziarko] I'm only
asking the questions
as they put it forward.
- No idea, friends.
We shall be introduced someday, no doubt,
and we shall have a glorious
and lovely friendship
that shall not be impeded upon
by policy, platform, or politics.
Hypothetically, we will have
a beautiful, brilliant relationship,
opening up like the spring tulips.
For the rest of our lives,
there shall never be a
difference between us.
What's his name?
- Alexander Hamilton.
- Huh?
- Alexander Hamilton?
- That.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Thank you.
Next, Andrew would like to know,
can you elaborate on your
views of God and Christianity?
Some of your statements, he says,
apparently he's heard from you
before, seem contradictory,
whether or not America
is a Christian nation
and just what are the beliefs
of some of your peers upon this?
- My goodness, Andrew, you
wish me to divulge to you
something quite so domestic
and close to my heart.
I say it this way, Andrew:
I never ask another man his religion
and I ask that no man inquire into my own.
But as we are friends,
as I can tell through this
delightful mutual confab,
that I can trust you, I
shall tell you frankly.
I was born and raised in the
Church of England, Andrew,
as were we all by law
attending that church
unless you paid your year's fine
up front every year, Mr. Wythe.
Nonetheless, we have some
understanding of Christianity
that has been passed to us.
Now, here is perhaps the
most salient point, Andrew.
I do not believe it to be
beneficial to mankind at large
for a government to dictate a
man's ecclesiastical pathway.
It is not the object of government
to tell you what you should practice,
what you should practice
or should not practice.
It is not the government's object
to interject itself in the conversation
between you and your creator, Andrew.
That is a sole and private conversation
between you and your creator or creators
or lack of a creator.
It does not matter to me,
it should not matter to your government.
In fact, I say it this way, Andrew:
Whether my neighbor
believes in one god or 20,
it neither steals money from
my pocket nor breaks my leg.
It is simply an opinion.
And yet, sure as the
sun will rise tomorrow,
Andrew, there will be
one person on this globe
killing another because of
a difference of opinion.
Let us do something new.
Let us disentangle this web
between church and state
with roots generations long,
beginning in 1493, Andrew.
1493, these roots grow so deep
when Chief Justice Prisot's translation
was mistranslated by a Mr. Finch.
He said that our current
laws, civil authority,
should give credence to holy scripture,
and that's not what Chief
Justice Prisot wrote.
Nonetheless, here we find ourselves.
I wish to disentangle church and state.
Andrew, whatever your religion is
you should be able to practice.
That's my belief.
Now, I have studied many
bibles, many religions,
and my particular
ecclesiastical understanding
towards a creator or creators is mine own
and I shall not get into that.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Audrey says,
"Hello, Mr. Jefferson,"
and she asks, could you tell
us more about your family?
- My family, Audrey?
Well, I thank you for it.
My wife and I married in 1772.
We wanted to marry in '71,
but (pausing) her child by her
first marriage passed away,
and so we had a year of annus luctus.
We had a year of mourning.
We said, "That's fine,
we'll push the wedding off
"until sometime in 1772."
And so, on January 1 of 1772, we married.
(laughing) We could not stay apart.
We have since had, our
first child was born in '73,
one year later, September as I recall,
just nine months and a few days
after getting married on January 1.
When my wife discovered
that she was with child,
we had the conversation that we all have.
You know, "If it is a boy,
what should we name him?"
I said Peter, after my father.
And she said, "Yes, but
what if it is a girl?"
And I said, "Well, I
haven't thought of that."
And...
(laughing)
I said, "We should name
her Martha, after you."
And she said, "No, Virginia
has too many Marthas."
And I said, "Fine,
"then we'll name her
after my sister, Martha."
So, the next year in September,
the three of us, Martha,
Martha, and Thomas,
celebrated our first Christmas.
Nonetheless, childbirth
is not easy on my wife,
but I hope that's not entirely too much
domestic private information,
but we're ever growing our family.
My father, Jane Randolph, born in London.
My mother, Peter Jefferson,
born in Virginia.
Peter Jefferson was a surveyor,
a planter, an explorer,
a man of the House of Burgesses
for a brief period of time,
a sheriff, a cartographer.
He was my mentor.
And when he passed away when I was 14,
I say that he left me in the snow,
no footsteps before me to guide my path,
no torch to lead me.
And my mother passed away
just a few months shy
of watching her son tear down
the entire country that
she knew, this year in '76.
Sometimes I wonder what
my father would think.
What would he think of his son,
the traitor, tearing it all down?
I don't know.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Thank you.
Lindsey was wondering,
can you ride a horse?
- Can I ride a horse?
Well, yes, of course; I am a Virginian.
We're known for drinking,
riding, and litigation.
- [Mr. Ziarko] As simple as that?
- Well, sure, yes!
Come to Virginia, Lindsey!
- [Mr. Ziarko] Wonderful.
- Must be a Marylander.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Probably, probably.
Frank is asking about what
your favorite travel is like
and what your favorite tavern is.
Now, I don't know if that's--
- Travel and tavern.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Your favorite
tavern you've ever been to
or maybe recently?
- Well, I quite enjoy,
there are some 14 taverns,
you know, in Williamsburg
and I enjoy them all.
But when I stay in this city,
I stay at the Red Brick Tavern
and the Market Square Tavern generally.
I have family in this city.
I'm related to the Randolphs,
which means I'm related
to half of Virginia.
And that means I also
equally have some beds
in Williamsburg as well.
When I'm in Philadelphia,
this year of '76,
I have just moved away from
one of my relative's homes,
Benjamin Randolph, or as I
write in my books, Randall,
but it's Randolph.
And I moved out,
all the way outside of
the city of Philadelphia
on the corner of Seventh
and Market Street,
entirely outside the city, as
I write, for more elbow room.
And I'm staying at Jacob Graff's place.
Do you know Jacob Graff?
Jacob Graff, Jr.?
He's a bricklayer and
he owns a place there.
I rented the second floor of his flat.
So, that's where I'm staying currently.
Hiltzheimer, he's the
man who has the stables
across the street and
he's readying my horses.
Speaking of horses, here's
one for the last question
from the Marylander, Lindsey.
I have a new horse, just
born, of the Fearnaught line.
Fearnaught.
Do you know that line, Fearnaught?
F-E-A-R-N-A-U-G-H-T?
They're very prized in Virginia.
I paid a great deal of
money for this bloodline,
and I shall name him Caractacus.
- [Mr. Ziarko] All right, wonderful.
But now we have one, I
think, that's gonna be
a little bit longer answer
because Andrew wants
to know, Mr. Jefferson,
is it more important to
you being a Virginian
or becoming an American?
- Well, that is fascinating, Andrew.
You gave me pause there
because we have nothing truly
that unites us as one people.
There are no articles that
unite us at this moment.
There is no centralized
federal form of overarching,
overreaching government
that unites us as a people.
The only uniter we have,
Andrew, is a common enemy.
But sometimes a common enemy
is the greatest uniter
that man has ever had.
The strange thing, and
your question is correct,
what happens if we win this thing?
What happens if that enemy is removed?
Will we then see ourselves
as Virginians and Marylanders
and New Yorkers and New Jerseyans
and tear ourselves asunder?
You know, Newton speaks of this.
This is centripetal versus
centrifugal force, is it not?
Should there be then, Andrew,
as you seem astute of government mind,
should there be then
some centralized force
that binds us together
as our understanding
of the celestial spheres bound together,
else we spin ourselves
apart as different states
fighting amongst one and the
other with this enemy removed?
This is a fascinating question.
I don't know what you're proposing,
but it is perhaps the right question.
I should say this:
At this moment, it is best to be united.
But I can tell you honestly,
Andrew, I'm a Virginian
and Virginia has my heart,
this great, beautiful commonwealth.
When I talk sometimes of my
country or my countrymen,
I'm talking about Virginia.
And at other times, when I
say those exact same things,
I'm talking about Americans.
Virginia has my heart.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Wonderful.
Matt wants to know, how will
you rank this declaration
among great human documents:
Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689?
There are some great documents
that we look to in history.
Do you see this as part
of those documents?
- Oh, I know not.
You know, I say it was not
my job to write new words
which had never fore
been writ or put into ink
thoughts which had never
before been thought,
and my job was simply to capture
the current spirit of mankind
and to put it into terms
so clear and so plain
as to command man's ascent.
When viewed in that way,
it is not my document.
It never was my document.
It is our document.
If my intent was to capture
the current spirit of mankind,
then whose document is it?
It's mankind's document.
It is yours, it always has been.
How shall it rank?
I will tell you this:
I am writing, I spend one day a week
writing almost the entire day.
I'm writing, at this week,
in this moment, in 1776,
I'm writing not about the document.
I'm writing about the
movement away from England.
For me, I believe,
I believe I'm correct
in understanding myself
that the document is not
nearly as large of an impact
on my personal life or perhaps
a life post this moment,
not near as large as the
fact that we are separating.
That is the large portion
of this movement forward.
Now, I will say, I hope that this document
is perhaps looked to as a touchstone.
I placed in it phrases
that we might look to
should we ever need them
to find some clarity.
No, it's not my document, never was.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Donna has
an interesting question.
She wants to know, do you feel
Independence Day is July 2nd
or July 4th?
- Thank you, Donna.
Independence Day is July the 2nd.
- Simple as that?
- Well, yes!
Why would we consider it the fourth?
- [Mr. Ziarko] I don't know;
Donna asks the question.
- You know, Donna, I see your question.
Your question is this:
Is it more important to celebrate
the day that we voted on independence
or to celebrate the day
that everyone knew about independence?
I don't know, you choose.
- [Mr. Ziarko] All right,
and I think we have time
for just one last question, but
I think it's a wonderful one
as it looks to the future.
Larry wants to know, what
do you see the results
of the Declaration of Independence?
What do you think they will be?
- The results of the
Declaration of Independence.
- [Mr. Ziarko] Yes.
- Well, certainly,
it's called the Declaration
of Independence,
but let's not mince words.
It is the declaration of war.
There is some legal understanding
as to whether or not we
even needed to declare war.
Perhaps the king has already declared war.
I understand this argument very well.
The hope is that this
document will be read aloud,
will be read to our people;
and not just our people but
printed around the world.
My hope, and I say this,
I write this, rather,
my hope is that this document
will be to some immediately,
to other eventually, and
finally to all around the world.
So, what do we mean by that?
Well, let's look at some of
the most resident phraseology
within that document, that
all men are created equal.
Well, you know, Larry, as well as I do
that there are systems of
government around this world
that do not hold that idea
as a part of an ingrained
and sanctified principle
within their government.
My hope is that this document,
thus being read round the world,
might be adopted round the world;
the philosophy within
this document, the ideas.
Ideas are meant to be spread.
There's no such thing as
plagiarism, for example.
How sad would that be to read Descartes,
to read Montesquieu, to read John Locke
and say, "Oh, what a beautiful idea.
"I should never say those
words because that's plagiarism
"or utilize them in
simple government form"?
We would not have, "Give me
liberty or give me death."
We would not have sanctified rights
of life, liberty, pursuing happiness.
We would not have these ideas
of a separation of church and state.
Ideas are meant to be spread,
so I hope that this document is spread.
That would be my hope.
- [Mr. Ziarko] I think
we've come to the end.
I think there's one
last very short question
that I'll put for you.
Theresa would like to know
how you're going to celebrate
your Independence Day?
- How am I going to celebrate
my Independence Day?
Theresa, I shall tell you,
and this is in my memorandum books,
I brought with me a pipe of Madeira wine
that was casked in 1770, six years ago.
I brought it with me and I'm
going to broach it tonight!
Do you wish to join me?
Seventh and Market Street in
Philadelphia, I shall be there.
Knock on the door thrice,
kick it with your foot once,
and then coo like a bird;
perhaps a rooster, not a crow.
I can abhor crows.
And then, we shall perhaps broach
that pipe of Madeira together.
I like Madeira, I like wine,
I like good fine French
food, and I like to dance.
And now that I have done
a great deal of industry
here in Philadelphia,
spilling a bit of ink,
engaging in treason for which
the punishment is death,
I believe perhaps a nice glass
of wine is in order, yes?
(exhaling)
Is that it?
- That's it.
- Very good.
Friends, thank you for joining me.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you for having this brave,
enlightened, heightened conversation.
Where on Earth are we more free
to have enlightened
conversation than on this soil?
Does not matter the flag
that flies above your head
or the soil that's beneath your feet.
Never forget that your right to your mind
and your freedom of
expression of that mind
is a right inherent to all men
regardless of the nation
that you call home.
If you find yourself in
times of uncertainty,
if you find yourself with
times of needing clarity,
then perhaps you should come here.
Come to Williamsburg, beyond our walls.
Come here and we shall have
heightened, enlightened conversation
and we can talk of all the things
that you're not supposed to speak of
during Thanksgiving dinner.
Until we meet again, I'm ever your humble
and most obedient
servant, Thomas Jefferson.
