Thomas Jefferson [Paperback]

* There was no way for me to cover everything in a book of this length, so an omission of a statement that Jefferson's work on the Virginia capitol was the introduction of classical forms of architecture to America is hardly an error or a fumble.

* I grounded my interpretation of Napoleon's actions regarding the Louisiana Purchase on the work of Peter Onuf, Jon Kukla, Lawrence Kaplan, Roger Kennedy, and Alexander De Conde. Since my book appeared, the recent Monticello Monograph by James E. Lewis has appeared, and is in accord with the arguments already cited. If he disagrees with their -- and my -- interpetations, that is a disagreement, not a historical error.

* On page 74, I wrote that Jefferson HELPED to move Madison from opposing a bill of rights to favoring it. I have noted the four reasons that Madison made this transition in my 1987 book ARE WE TO BE A NATION? THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION and my 1993 book AMENDING AMERICA -- those including (i) Madison's pledge during ratification; (ii) his recognition that the Federalists' pledge to work for amendments was a necessary concession to popular opinion; (iii) his working out a solution -- embodied in the Ninth Amendment -- to his fear that a bill of rights might omit rights by failing to list them; and (iv) his having been influenced by Jefferson. I cited AMENDING AMERICA in JEFFERSON (210n118). No fair-minded reader would have drawn the conclusion that Mr. Dixon drew from that passage, or from the larger discussion on pages 72-74.

* On page 137, I write that the Executive Mansion is "now known as the White House." "Now" in that passage means today, not in Jefferson's or Madison's presidency. Indeed, not till Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1902 or 1903) did the Executive Mansion acquire its official name of the White House. No fair-inded reader would have misread the text as Mr. Dixon misread it.

* On the Sally Hemings question, Mr. Dixon is unpersuaded and, I find from previous experience of his approach to this controversy, unpersuadable. One specific error that he made in misrepresenting my work: I note in my text at page 196 that the DNA study disproved the Woodson claim. His "reasoning" on Frasier Nieman's study -- which consists of dubbing it a "Monte Carlo" methodology, then claiming that another scholar using a similar "Monte Carlo" methodology failed miserably, with the implicit conclusion that Mr. Nieman's study is similarly a miserable failure -- is worthy of a place as an illustrative example in Jeremy Bentham's HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL FALLACIES.

I respectfully but firmly request that Mr. Dixon withdraw his imputations against my book. I would have written to him privately, but I could not find a current, valid email address for him.