Thomas Jefferson by Ken Burns is a reverential documentary but never out of ones mind is that this man of "extraordinary intelligence" deemed the black inferior to the white.This question, probably the most important, is exposed but left unresolved. The only historian to put Jefferson's attitude into any context is a black one.The white historians list Jefferson's many qualities and his desire for "a pursuit of happiness" but each positive quality they list can be juxtaposition with the word "slave".Almost presented as religious scripture, the life of Thomas Jefferson and his ideals are quoted from his documents and letters but it is often forgotten that this man was a politician first and foremost and being so, could easily be classed as a man of malleable and corrupt principles. Is there one politician through out history that was not in some way corrupt?What must be remembered is that when Jefferson uses the word "people"; he is not including the African American. For historians to presume that his carefully crafted words apply to all is a mistake. I for one cannot reconcile the man and his beliefs. To state high principles in published prose yet live the life of a slave owner does not sit easily. His words become far less principled in light of the man's example. Do as I say not as I do.

I am an Asian Indian. I think America is a successful experiment. I like almost all the people who played any role in kicking Britishiers out of America. I watched this film with only one information about Thomas J that he wrote Decration of Independence. This documentary talks about a lot of stuff. After watching this documentary I am convinced that personally he was an average man who liked women, prawns, palatial houses, money, freedom from family, wine basically anything which can be considered material gain. Still It can not be ignored that he separated state from the church and had ideas of about university for learning. A man who owned slaves and thought they were inferior, conspired against Indians, came into power claiming John Adam stood for despotism and became a despot by putting embargo on the ships. I owe this to Ken Burns for bringing out the real contradictions and negatives and positives of this very celebrated dwarf. Andrew Burnstein should try his luck in drama. He is damn funny with his extra emotional tone for a slave owner who made a fool of common people by feeding them 'Liberty' and reached the highest office . Gore Vidal is right in saying that if there is any American spirit then its him. American spirit is just the same as Indian, Ethiopinan, Pakistani or Chinese spirit which is to say something else and do something else. No idea why people are confused with his contradictions. He was just a regular politician with a fantastic timing. As John Hope says "he is a blessing and a curse". Thomas J was a blessing when he represented Dr Jekyl and was a curse when he was Mr Hyde. Its nice that people and circumstances brought Dr Jekyl out of this Mr. Hyde. Thanks to intelligent people of that time. Great Documentary. A must watch. 9/10.

Ken Burns and company do an excellent job of giving us the whole Jefferson, warts and all. But one begins to wonder why they didn't do a documentary about someone else of the times, someone who didn't own slaves, didn't deport all Eastern Indians to the West, didn't build a museum for his personal abode, didn't praise the French Revolution in the most immoderate terms and didn't sink deep into debt. Whether he impregnated slave Sally is almost tangential and immaterial. He "did" so many other things! It is often said, one shouldn't judge a historical figure by today's exacting standards. Yet it is also said, by those same people, that time must pass to allow us to objectively evaluate today's leaders. And as if this weren't enough, one also hears these souls denounce "moral relativism". Go figure. But one needn't judge Jefferson by today's "politically correct" standards. One can be content with judging him by his own time's and, indeed, by his very own standards. And, one can emulate his own extremely harsh judgments of fellow founding father Alexander Hamilton. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers not to judge them. They judged each other, and they wanted to be judged. This good documentary is marred by interruptions from overexposed, self-important pundits from all corners of the vaunted political spectrum, a common documentary flaw. Interpretation and opinion should be served on a separate plate - please! A little more verve and humor would have added spice and made for a less reverential opus. Jefferson wrote so many letters. There should have been more quotations from the horse's mouth.

I am a fan of Ken Burns films, but "Thomas Jefferson" is probably the nadir of the talking-head living-history documentary style he favors. In many respects "Thomas Jefferson" is a beautiful film, and it is clearly the work of intelligent people. Ultimately it inspires me to visit Monticello, which is admirably photographed. It fails to answer the question it poses at the outset - whether Jefferson the lover of Liberty can be reconciled with Jefferson the Master of Slaves - and by default suggests that raising this question is the film's chief contribution to Jeffersonian discourse. It's a timely question, but it isn't new. The mood of the film is outrageously depressive, a sedate musical score of American chestnuts underscoring lethargic readings from Jefferson's writings, and images of Monticello, slaves, Jefferson (portrait), historically significant parchments, John Adams (portrait), George Washington (portrait), etc. If this film is anything specific, it is a memorial service for the myth of Jefferson. I don't like it, but I appreciate the film maker's effort and the contributions of scholars involved in the project. A related Ken Burns biographical film, "Lewis and Clark," is similar in tone but less confused and more forthright in its storytelling. See it.