Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Final draft (?)

As there are so many things contained in both Jefferson's and Coles' letter we should only quote/use those passages that directly relate to Jefferson and his decline of Coles' request. I am hoping this latest draft, with an additional phrase in bold, will satisfy all.

• In 1814 Jefferson received a letter from Edward Coles who had just inherited a nine hundred-acre plantation and twenty-three slaves from his father, a close family friend of the Jeffersons. Coles having deep moral objections about owning slaves and faced with the dilema of freeing slaves in Virginia, whose laws prohibited freed slaves from living there, sought the council of Jefferson hoping he would undertake the arduous task of "devising & getting into operation some plan for the gradual emancipation of slavery". Because Jefferson believed slaves were in a "degraded condition" from slavery, both he and Coles favored gradual emancipation over outright and immediate abolition of slavery and the subsequent releasing of many thousands of slaves into society with no shelter, food or means to support themselves. However, Jefferson, who at that time was seventy one years old and who had fought over the issue of slavery for many years, was sympathetic to Coles' plight but declined to take on such a task at that point in his life, stating .."

"This enterprise is for the young; for those who can follow it up; and bear it through
to its consummation. It shall have all my prayers, & these are the only weapons of an old man.

Crawford, (2008), pp.102-103; Washburne, (1882), pp.22-24; Jefferson letter to Coles, (1814)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I like that sentence, however, I do not believe that the full quote is neccessary for the article. Here is another suggestion:

Jefferson in his letter to Edward Coles desired that slaves be gradually emancipated, educated, and then expatriated, believing that blacks were not yet in condition to take care of themselves in American society. Jefferson, at age 71, told Coles he was to old to take on such a large "enterprise" stating this was better left for Coles and the younger generation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the slavery section is already a bit long and my draft is also sort of long, your draft here is good but it needs an intro sentence and a little rewording:

In 1814 Edward Coles inherited a plantation and twenty three slaves from his father but because he was opposed to owning slaves wrote a letter to Jefferson asking him to embark on a campaign of gradual emancipation. Jefferson responded in a letter telling Coles that he also desired that slaves be gradually emancipated, believing they were not yet in condition to take care of themselves in American society. However, at age 71, Jefferson praised Coles but said he was too old to take on such a large "enterprise", maintaining it was better left for the younger generation who could see the task through to fruition. --

If there are no further objections or other comments, I'll enter this paragraph into the 'Slaves and slavery' section. It will be the second to the last paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I will accept the paragraph. I believe the above paragraph represents accurately Jefferson's letter to Coles. Good work Gwillhickers. I apologize for any remarks in regards to "works of fiction." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, I imagine I'm not winning any popularity contest around here either with my hard line tone at times. In any case, I'll wait until tomorrow to give others a chance to chime in before putting pen to paper. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. The phrase, because they were born into a life of slavery' , was also added to make that point clear, regarding their condition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Great edit Gwillhickers! Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's expansion of slavery theory

I believe the Slaves and slavery section is almost [complete? Gw'] with the additional edits. Are there any sources with page numbers concerning Jefferson's theory that expanding slavery would end slavery? I am not quite sure what Jefferson meant, other then there would be a decrease in the use of slaves if slavery expanded. Does anyone have any other ideas or suggestions on Jefferson's expansion of slavery theory? I know this has been discussed previously, yet, without any conclusions. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert: It's a plausible theory only if the importation of other slaves was outlawed. {add:] Expansion of slavery? Shouldn't we be saying the diffusion of slavery? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll track down a quote on Jefferson from Freehling's book (have a copy at home), but for the moment here's a quote from an earlier Freehling article available online, "The Founding Fathers and Slavery," page 84: "The ideological stance of Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers on slavery, then, was profoundly ambivalent.... Whenever dangers to the Union, property, or racial order seemed to them acute the Founding Fathers did little.... But whenever abolition dangers to them seemed manageable Jefferson and his contemporaries moved effectively, circumscribing and crippling the institution and thereby gutting its long-range capacity to endure."--Other Choices (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Freehling source Other Choices. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I found something on Jefferson and the expansion of slavery that Jefferson believed "diffusing slavery was more humane." Was Freehling stating that Jefferson believed diffusing slavery would make slaves less likely to have a slave rebellion? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No doubt the thought crossed his mind. If we can find a RS that nails it then we can run with it in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Freehling source

I have read through Freehling's, The Founding Fathers and Slavery. I believe this article could be used to wrap up the Slaves and slavery section. Freehling's article, published in 1972, appears to be balanced neither being effectively pro Jefferson, nor being anti-Jefferson. Freehling gives a perspective from Jefferson's times rather then modern day conventional views. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have no real objection to this, but do suggest more recent scholarship would be more appropriate. Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was trying to get an article that most editors could agree on. Freehling seems to be neutral concerning Jefferson. I am all for newer updated articles or books on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Yopienso. Modern scholarship has too often demonstrated to be naive, peer driven, politically/socially motivated and highly presentist. On what basis is the modern scholarship "more appropriate"? You didn't qualify your claim. I think we should use old, not so old/new, and new sources for a balanced view. After all, what facts are the new sources in possession of that the older sources didn't have? The only thing I've seen the new sources offer is new opinion, and we've all too often seen what that's amounted to, ala "Jefferson the monster", et al. 'Other Choices', thanks for introducing the Freehling source, a not so old/new source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia."Mainstream" is whatever the current consensus among scholars is. Not that there's much of a consensus on some points! But there is respected scholarship. Some abbreviated guidelines:

• "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship."
• "Wikipedia never endorses the expert understanding of a subject; it merely pays the most attention to it. Articles in Wikipedia maintain a neutral, dispassionate tone with regards to the subject, never indicating a preference for or against the perspective being examined." Yopienso (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Freehling believes Jefferson and the Founding fathers were ambivelent towards slavery in their views and actions. Freehling believes that there was a difference between Jefferson of 1784 and Jefferson of 1819. The Jefferson of 1819 was against the containment of slavery. Rodriguez states that Jefferson's Land Ordinance influenced banning slavery in the Northwest Territory. In this area the abolitionists led by Edward Coles were able to gain roots. Jefferson and the Founding fathers did nothing to little to stop slavery in the Southern states according to Freehling. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Cmguy777's impression that Freehling argued that "Jefferson and the Founding Fathers did nothing to little to stop slavery in the Southern states" is a bit off target. To repeat part of the quote that I posted earlier, "Jefferson and his contemporaries moved effectively, circumscribing and crippling the institution and thereby gutting its long-range capacity to endure." Of course that is only part of the quote and shouldn't be taken out of context. But Freehling clearly states that Jefferson and his fellow founders circumscribed and crippled the institution of slavery, setting it in the course of ultimate extinction ("gutting its long-range capacity to endure").--Other Choices (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

William W. Freehling is a heavyweight in his specialty, the political debate over slavery in the Old South. His most recent book, vol. 2 of The Road to Disunion, was published in 2007, and Freehling remains active in the ongoing dialogue among professional historians. His output as a historian is all of a single piece, and he is one of the most readable historians I've ever read. Here's a bio page: link

Here is Freehling's take on the change in Jefferson's views on slavery during the Missouri Crisis. In The Road to Disunion, vol. 1 (published 1990), starting on page 150, Freehling discusses the "crucial swerve in slaveholder thought. Speaker after speaker, in Congress and out, urged that spreading, not containing the institution would best create the conditions for terminating bondage. This important so-called diffusion argument was not so much new as newly accepted." Freehling goes on (p. 151) to identify future president John Tyler as the ablest supporter of the newly-popular diffusion argument, which Freehling condemns as a "noxious sedative" for southern slaveowners. Then, starting on page 155: "Jefferson's key letter on the subject went to Congressman John Holmes on April 22, 1820....Jefferson moved from patriarchal gloom to parochial attack on outsiders who meddled with states' internal affairs. These phrases, according to the current conventional wisdom, announced Jefferson's transformation into Calhoun....Jefferson's Holmes letter did break new ground, Calhoun's ground, in repudiating the former Jeffersonian gospel that the federal government should bar expansion of slavery in territories....Jefferson did indeed emerge from the Missouri controversy as a territorial expansionist, or better, diffusionist....(p. 156) But Thomas Jefferson remained as far from John C. Calhoun as Virginia was from South Carolina. Calhoun would expand slavery to perpetuate it. Jefferson would diffuse slavery to end it."

In other words, Jefferson's change in view marched in lock-step with the change in public opinion in his native Virginia.--Other Choices (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How diffusing of slavery ends slavery theory needs to be explained in the article. Slavery did not end, but was rather entrenched. How does Freehling explain why diffusion of slavery would end slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The public opinion becoming more and more anti-slavery as time went on. Of course we know Jefferson was way ahead of his time in this regard, opposing slavery in his youth, on into the 19th century as is evidenced by established facts, his letters to Coles, etc. And as OC' points out, Freehling mentions ""Jefferson and his contemporaries moved effectively, circumscribing and crippling the institution and thereby gutting its long-range capacity to endure." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree Washington and Jefferson moved to eradicate slavery in the North West territory where slavery was not yet firmly established, but Freehling notes Jefferson and the founding Fathers did nothing to stop slavery in Virginia and the southern states. Freehling stated that Jefferson's view of diffusing slavery was more human. I suppose he meant that anti-slavery public opinion would grow, but Freehling does not go that far. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, you might be misunderstanding Freehling's assessment of the "diffusion" argument for ending slavery. Freehling describes the diffusion argument as a "noxious sedative," so he's ambivalent about it at best. His point is that, at the time of the Missouri Crisis, this argument became politically popular. The basic logic of the argument (which he documents in detail in an earlier chapter dealing with emancipation in the northern states) is that if the percentage of slaves in the total population of a state falls below a certain level (say 10%), emancipation becomes politically possible. The "noxious" part of the argument goes like this: "Let's open up the western territories to slavery so Virginia slaveowners will bring their slaves there, lowering the percentage of slaves in old Virginia and moving toward emancipation, yeah, that's it -- support slavery in Missouri, it's a good cause, yea!" And according to Freehling, that's what Jefferson signed on to during the Missouri crisis with his Holmes letter. Perhaps this could be developed in the Thomas Jefferson and Slavery article -- or perhaps a new "slavery diffusion argument" article -- with a brief summary (or just a sentence) in the main article.

Beyond that, Freehling discusses at length (in The Road to Disunion) the entrenched southern belief that slavery needed to expand in order to survive.

The Founding Fathers, by severely limiting the expansion of slavery (with the Northwest Ordinance and the treaties with the Indian nations of the Southwest), crippled the institution in the long run. It was Andrew Jackson who, by tearing up the treaties with the Indians, gave slavery new life in the Deep South.Other Choices (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Jefferson's diffusion theory is important for the article. However, we all know that slavery became more entrenched and a Civil War broke out. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

TJ, Louisiana Purchase & slavery

I've stumbled on an unread copy of Roger G. Kennedy's |Mr. Jefferson's lost cause: land farmers, slavery, and the Louisiana Purchase, Oxford University Press, 2003. At the time of the printing, Roger G. Kennedy was the Director Emeritus of the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.

_ _ Any scholarly evaluation/calibration on his previous or subsequent work that I should take into consideration before I launch into his account? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

None that matter evidently. Here are two reviews of the work. The first mentions that Napoleon sold the territory to keep the British in check in that region and concludes the work is "Fresh, endlessly fascinating, and altogether extraordinary." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Other sources

Hosmer's, Louisiana purchase (1902), beginning at p.50, gives us an excellent account of events involving Napoleon, Jefferson, Charles Leclerc and others that preceded the Louisiana Purchase, much of it based on Napoleon's's July 1st 1802 correspondence to French general and his brother-in-law Leclerc and W.M. Sloan's, American Historical Review. This would help to explain why Jefferson, being an ardent supporter of the French Revolution, did not rush in and impose anti-slavery laws in the newly acquired territory. Would be interesting to see how, or if, any 'modern opinion' can sweep these events under the historical rug. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Expatriation

Why is expatriation not in the current section in the Slaves and slavery section? Jefferson was for expatriation and sending freed blacks to colonies starting in 1770's and into the 1820's. Any objection to putting Jefferson proposed expatriation for emancipated slaves? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving from "deportation" to the more neutral "expatriation". And I believe it would be expatriation for those emancipated with state funds, not those freed directly by "owners". How should we call them, "masters"?

_ _ Can it be collaterally termed in the same paragraph, free land for freedmen? or some such direct quote from the Colonization Society to signify the historical context and motive?

_ _ It was NOT meant to have the same effect as inner city "renewal" and interstate construction of the 1960s, resulting in "negro removal" from downtown, preparatory to "gentrification" as in Washington, DC and Alexandria, Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jefferson did not have any sinister motives for "expatriation", his own word, but he did not believe blacks and whites could live together in a free society. Colonization then was the rational choice for resolving his view blacks and whites could not get along. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this fact needs to be included, however 'expatriation' might confuse the average reader. As the 'Slaves and slavery' section is getting a bit long perhaps we should try to incorporate this in with other text. Seems it should be worked into the 'gradual emancipation' text. (Cm' careful, you managed to sign your name after a passage I entered here)

• In the mid-1770s he drafted and proposed a plan of gradual emancipation whereby all slaves born after a certain date would be emancipated. Ultimately Jefferson wanted to send emancipated slaves to Africa where he thought they would live better lives among their own people in the land they evolved in. This idea has been met with mixed reaction among historians. (Got sources?)

(Additional text in bold.) Comment about historians would be optional. Any further details covering this topic should be entered into the Thomas Jefferson and slavery page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Inserted: That is a good start Gwillhickers. I am not sure I would use the word evolve, since this may imply evolution, a concept yet to be developed by Charles Darwin in 1859. Possibly using the word "colonization" would be better then "expatriation". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

"In the mid-1770's, Jefferson was part of a commission that devised a general plan of gradual emancipation, education, and colonization for African American slaves in Virginia. Jefferson continued to adopt this policy throughout his lifetime and suggested such places as Haiti and Africa as potential colonial sites." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Jefferson's ideas of emancipation and 'expatriation' extended further than state boundries I would think. What would be the point otherwise? I'm not sure what sources cover it off hand, but we should include why Jefferson felt expatriation was a good idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert_01 : I believe Jefferson wanted to decrease the slave population to prevent a slave revolt. The other reason is that his did not believe blacks were capable of participating in American democracy. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would only add for now, my interest in sketching an arc of change versus mid-1770s-skip-to-"ultimately" 1820s. In his forward to Part I, "The land and Mr. Jefferson", R.G. Kennedy has it, before 1784, Jefferson "had expressed in radiant language his aversion to slavery and his preference for a republic of free and independent farmers ... In his later years ... interposed no public objection as his edifice of dreams was systematically reduced to rubble". And, decisions made repeatedly by narrow majorities, none were inevitable, none foreordained, -- and though "responsibility for these outcomes lay with the entire nation, it fell most heavily upon the planters of Virginia, led by Jefferson". p.3-4. (Indeed! - Gw')

_ _ "John Quincy Adams said of [Jefferson], that he 'had not the spirit of martyrdom'. Adams was not referring to Jefferson's failure to risk military exposure during the Revolution. Instead, he was commenting upon his refusal to persist in action against slavery after early rebuffs, though 'he saw the gross inconsistency between the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the fact of Negro slavery ... which from his soul he abhorred." p.18-19 -- This from "Old Man Eloquent" who stood against the gag rule concerning abolition, not as U.S. President, but as Congressman from Massachusetts.

_ _ Note cites Jack McLaughlin's "Jefferson and Monticello", as a source, although Kennedy explains he takes an interpretation different from McLaughlin. I really want to keep the discussion grounded in the sources on the subject of slavery, which in the R.G. Kennedy case so far, say (a) Jefferson's soul abhorred slavery, (b) he did much opposing it before 1784, (c) he did not have the spirit of a martyr [insert, read, a compromising politician ], and (d) by a deepening silence on the matter of free soil, Jefferson bore some responsibility for the loss of his earlier dreams, leading to civil war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Very enlightening! An actual draft from you (and others who have contributed to this discussion) would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm on it. I'm trying to read into Meecham and Kennedy to intersect at Louisiana-to-Missouri Compromise. As you and I have discussed the context includes (a) major European powers embroiling themselves in world war elsewhere than the North American continent, (b) Britain, the greatest North American threat turning to commerce versus conquest in its proto-industrialization, (c) the technological and organizational and disease advantage over Amerindians (McGillivray has only appeared in my Amerindian readings prior!), and

_ _ (d) the fact that the 1/4" forest floor top soil was a "fresh ground" to be mined on the march west was a testimony to the fact that Amerindians in a sedentary culture had left it unexhausted and balanced. Using the Three Sisters meant a burn-over brought enhanced fertility. Burn-over followed by "scouring tillage" of the planation meant complete devastation. "Yeomen among the European-Americans adopted more salutary conservation practices from Indians than did planters because yeomen and Indians had more in common than planters and Indians." p.9

_ _ The soil bears on the possibility and prospect of national independence apart from the European colonial mercantile world which would replace U.S. in thrall to one alien power or another. I have not yet come upon Kennedy's treatment of Jefferson's Washington-like shift to grains such as wheat as a chief cultivar to both lessen soil damage AND market a more fungible commodity, capable of wider smuggling and international trade.

- - - footnote: the flag of the East India Trading Company at this time was thirteen alternating red and white stripes. If your U.S. flagged masthead poked over the horizon, an observer in port would see through his spyglass -- a symbol from afar which would send the tradesmen to the wharves, not soldiers to the ramparts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No more opinion wars

Evidently there seems to be an opinion that the "modern scholarship" is all on the same page, when in reality they are not. There are many reputable historians and professors who don't follow along with the Finkelman/Reed school of thought that flourished in the 1990's. The year is now 2013 and most of their views have been exposed as skewed and politically and socially motivated, almost always out of context, while other evidence, slave's testimony, etc is routinely ignored. We have been through this already, time and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The nature of historical writing is such that there will be a diversity of viewpoints. I am not suggesting we use only "negative" modern scholarship. I have checked out the "reputable historians and professors" to whom you linked. This is what I found:

• LOC--never mentions Hemings and acknowledges the article was paid for by Reuters
• Miller Center: Contemporary debates continue to rage—as they did during Jefferson's own lifetime—concerning his relationship with Sally Hemings, one of Jefferson's slaves, after Martha's death. Recent DNA evidence presents a convincing case that Jefferson was indeed the biological father of Heming's children, and most historians now believe that Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term sexual relationship. Jefferson was ambivalent about slavery throughout his career. As a young politician, he argued for the prohibition of slavery in new American territories, yet he never freed his own slaves. How could a man responsible for writing the sacred words "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" have been a slave owner? He never resolved his internal conflict on this issue.
• Third link was to a non-scholarly website.
• Next two are dead links.
• Next ten are to the TJHS, which we have defined on the talk pages as unreliable because their stated purpose is "To further the honor and integrity of Thomas Jefferson [. . .] To stand always in opposition to those who would seek to undermine the integrity of Thomas Jefferson."
• Eliot Marshall is a science news editor, not an historian or professor. (Monticello.org lists him as a resource.)
• Bear's book was published in 1967.

I have no fear that any of us editors will object to including any modern scholarship that casts TJ in a good light. I happen to admire the guy despite his faults, which I have rationalized to my own satisfaction. Yopienso (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You say we shouldn't challenge the RS's but you have done so right down the line. You discount Bear because his work was published in 1967, and the ten historians, from places like Harvard, etc were part of an independent commission. They do not belong to any organization, and once again, your challenges are academic, at best. There are plenty of RS's used here, and throughout Wikipdiea, that were published more than ten, twenty or fifty years ago. What do you feel is the 'cut off date' for RS's?? Shall we begin the 'great purge'? Ridiculous. Please challenge whether or not the facts presented are in indeed facts and are based on the same primary sources as anyone elses. You didn't do that, not once. i.e."a non-scholarly website". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the RSs, but identifying them. I understood you to say you were showing reputable modern scholarship, which excludes Bear. You will remember when we agreed the TJHS is biased; those 10 "independent" scholars were working under its aegis.

I don't says cut off scholarship at any point; we were talking about modern scholarship, which I would call anything since (and including) Gordon-Reed. Presently I am writing a historiography on TJ; my professor says Dumas Malone is the gold standard, but he greatly admires Gordon-Reed's and Finkelman's scholarship, too. Naturally James Callendar's insinuations are part of the historiography, as are TJ's own writings. Yopienso (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Yopienso, you say you're not asserting any cut off point but single out Bear's work for being published in '67, while Dumas Malone, the "gold standard" published his works long before that. (1, 2, etc) Whether or not the ten scholars were working under the "aegis" of the TJHS, their works are not published by this org and remain independent. Let's be done with this ambiguous bickering and cut to the chase. -- If there is a RS in the Jefferson bibliography you feel does not belong, please point it out. As for asserting selected opinion and commentary, i.e.cherry picking, do you really want to get into that all over again? Commentary by a given historian should only be used when needed and to clarify the facts, not be used as a substitute for, or to obscure the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to obscure any facts. (See my long-standing talk page.) I'm talking about two categories of sources:

• Modern, because:

1. Cm' suggested Freehling's article should be used to "wrap up the section."

2. I suggested a more modern source should be used without explaining that a "wrap up," in my view, should point to the current consensus. I am not adamant about this; it was merely a suggestion.

3. He agreed, but you then challenged the reliability of modern sources that say things you don't think like. You listed Bear, and I pointed out he is not modern.

• General, among which many historians believe the distinctly not-recent Malone is the most complete, accurate, and best overall. (Except, of course, Malone wrote before modern scholarship had discovered his paternity of at least some of Sally Hemings' children.) Bear belongs in this category. I am not familiar with his work nor with expert opinions of his work. His bio leads me to believe he is a RS. Yopienso (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, however not all of the "modern scholarship" believes Jefferson paternity of Hemings children as the DNA evidence points to a number of Jefferon males, most notably Randolph and his five sons who were around the same age as Sally Hemings, all of whom were known to fraternize with Jefferson's slaves, often at night. Besides, Malone's six volume biography of Jefferson deals with his entire life, the greater bulk of which was not effected by Hemings, regardless if Jefferson was the father of her children or not. Try not to make the same mistake as some "modern scholars" believing Jefferson's life, his accomplishments, his role in the Revolution, etc, etc, etc, revolved around this issue. Btw, I too think Malone sets a very good standard, unmatched by most of the modern scholarship, who for the most part have only copied and reworded people like Malone. They are not in possession of any new and significant facts, other than DNA and a theory about Jefferson paternity, and as such, can only offer us new opinion about this one issue, and as I've said, we've all seen what that has amounted to, too often, unfortunately. A truly modern 'scholar' would have the capacity to maintain this perspective and not let political, social and racial peeves effect their writing. In reality, much of the "modern scholarship" is just as archaic in their thinking and approach as was Callander. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiencek's skewed account

It's not surprising that the like's of Wiencek would leave out very important context regarding Jefferson's refusal to execute Tadeusz Kościuszko's 1824 bequest of $20,000 to free and resettle slaves. Not only did Virginia law forbid such a bequest but it would involve much litigation, and relatives and con artists challenging the bequest, and much more time than Jefferson, who died in 1826, had to live, as Alex Storozynski's The Peasant Prince: and the Age of Revolution (2009) clearly outlines. --

Same old debate

Here we go again. The "current scholarship" is not on the same page, at all. This is why we have decided, time and again, (1, 2, 3, etc, etc.) to submit the facts and leave opinion and commentary out of the mix when it comes to controversial issues, letting the readers to draw their own conclusions, because there are simply too many Jefferson historians to be cherry picking the opinions. Has anyone uncovered any new facts? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Jefferson et al REALLY do “nothing to little to stop slavery in the southern states”? How does current scholarship place the following statute, Acts of the Virginia Assembly, Chap.XXXVII, passed January 8, 1788. “Stealing or selling a free person for a slave, felony, without clergy”. – “without benefit of clergy” meaning there was NOT to be a lesser punishment for those who could read and write, as from the days of monasteries in feudal England.

_ _ “I. WHEREAS several evil disposed persons have seduced or stolen the children of black and mulatto free persons, and have actually disposed of the persons so seduced or stolen as slaves, and punishment adequate to such crimes, not being by law provided for such offenders, II. Be it enacted, That any person who shall hereafter be guilty of stealing or selling any free person for a slave knowing the said person so sold to be free, and thereof shall be lawfully convicted, the person so convicted shall suffer death without benefit of clergy.”

_ _ What does recent scholarship find, How widespread was this problem that the malapportioned General Assembly of 1788 could muster a majority for the DEATH penalty to stop an internal southern-state-source of English-speaking, educated, skilled, industrious and light skinned -- slaves? Where was the trade located, supply, demand? Was the law ever enforced, where, when, in what numbers? This was in the last year of Edmund Randolph's governorship, a disciple of anti-slavery George Wythe at William and Mary. From 1890 to 1810 Virginians freed so many slaves that the state percentage of free blacks grew from under 1 to 10 percent.

_ _ A Whig newspaper publisher in Norfolk raised money in the 1830s to pay for an agent to pursue kidnapped free blacks and repurchase them at sale in New Orleans, returning them home free. But I know of no convictions related to that or any other kidnapping of the kind. What does recent scholarship say on this DEMONSTRABLE avenue of founders stopping one aspect of slavery growth in Virginia and the other southern states? Surely it cannot be willfully blind to a death penalty in law. Any scholars? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have decided no such thing. In general, interpreting historical events requires specialized knowledge that is primary available to trained historians, who publish their results using venues with good quality control, namely scholarly journals and specialized publishers like university presses. What is and isn't a fact is open to debate in many areas of scholarship, and particularly in the social sciences and the humanities. In general, more recent publications have access to better sources (the actual number of primary sources on Jefferson has probably not increased a lot, but access has become much much better throughout, first with edited collections of his papers, and nowadays with wide electronic dissemination), and to more previous insights. It's the whole shoulders of giants story. Modern scholarship sometimes challenges established beliefs, especially the simplified narratives present with the general public, but that does not make it more opinionated - it just means that with a more detached perspective and a better set of tools, we find new facets of history. Of course, the very latest research has not yet been evaluated and discussed by the scholarly community, so we should keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, and not follow the latest fad every 3 months. But publications that have been out 5 or 10 years without massive backlash are certainly better than books from 30 years ago, and incomparably better than books that are 100 years old. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are the scholars? and you have not decided to ignore the substantial contributions of G. Wythe and E. Randolph as founding fathers against slavery in the southern states. Very good, please copy an FYI to Cmguy777.

_ _ As you assure me, there is no blind eye in current scholarship to the death penalty for those who kidnapped free blacks into slavery in the southern states, but I do not recall reading of a hanging in Virginia. Can you give me a source to catch up?

_ _ Does Roger G. Kennedy's |Mr. Jefferson's lost cause: land farmers, slavery, and the Louisiana Purchase, Oxford University Press, 2003.pass muster as both (a) non-fad, and (b) more recent scholarship than Freeling's 1972? Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? I referred to Gwillhickers, not to you, as I tried to make clear by the customary indentation. I take exception at Gwillhickers' claim that "we have decided, time and again, (1, 2, 3, etc, etc.) to submit the facts and leave opinion and commentary out of the mix", and even to the inherent assumption that facts, opinions, and commentary can be clearly separated in history. On the face of it, "Jefferson disliked slavery" is a statement of opinion, while "Jefferson profited from child slave labour" is a fact. But on their own, both of these statements are painting an oversimplified picture - they need context and interpretation. I have no idea what you are referring two in your first two points. I'm not familiar with Kennedy's book, but, given the publisher, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. However, the reviews seem to suggest that it is not a very clear and well-structured book, so even if reliable, it is probably is easy to misinterpret. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Schulz, once again you are trying to blur the line between fact and opinion, and in that event almost anything can be said if one is so inclined and as we've seen, too many are. No thanks. You're wrong, the past debates speak for themselves, because at one time the section was so rife with opinion from a few select (pet) authors with cherry picked opinions that it looked like a social/political hit piece -- so instead of loading up the section with dozens of conflicting opinions we (not all, evidently not you) decided it was best to present the facts and let the readers decide for themselves. Your assumption that most folks need 'specialized training' reeks of academic bigotry and assumes people can't see facts and circumstances for what they are. Jefferson's letters and other primary sources have long since been published and available to scholars for quite some time, while the facts speak more loudly than do the opinions which vary considerably. The fact that the (very) many opinions varies so considerably is in of itself more than an indictment of the opinion process, it sort of condemns it by its own disjointed and politically/socially motivated devices.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

[Additional:] Schulz, I didn't mean to single out your comments about scholars, etc., however while, as you said, Modern scholarship sometimes challenges established beliefs... we should remember that sometimes we need to challenge the modern scholars, because as I've mentioned, their opinions, esp today, are all over the map. It was good to read your comments regarding how both facts and opinions need context, for with out it even the truth can be passed on to give the readers a distorted picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, do you agree that one needs specialised training to perform brain surgery? Or to audit the bookkeeping of IBM? Or to solve systems of coupled differential equations? Or to program complex application programs? Or to translate 1st century aramaic documents? If yes, why do you think that no such specialised knowledge is necessary to interpret the life and history of one of the most complex people in early US history? Sure, I can extract a splinter from my finger, or do my own bar tab, or solve a small system of linear equations, or look up a single aramaic word in a dictionary. But I remain an amateur in these fields, and, if I need serious knowledge, I do rely on experts. That is not "academic bigotry", that's simply a realistic understanding of my own competency. And this is what we do in Wikipedia, per WP:V. If there is a variety of opinions, WP:NPOV requires that we mention all significant ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

new

Insert : Schulz, comparing the study of human history to brain surgery or book keeping is perhaps not the best analogy. The two latter fields of study involve things that are not common to the human experience whereas evaluating human affairs and events most often involves things that are common to us all. Do members of a jury need "specialized training" when they evaluate evidence and pass judgement on a defendant? Assuming average intelligence, all they need to know is that they must evaluate all the evidence and the circumstances involved. Those are 'the' most important considerations -- and so it is with history, when we sit and evaluate the affairs of various individuals. When it comes to complex individuals like Jefferson, granted, many things come into consideration and we must be especially careful to evaluate all the evidence and circumstances involved, and yes, a knowledge of the priorities, customs and circumstances of that period is required, so on that note I will agree, to a point, because, regardless of the time period, we all share the same legacy in terms of love on the one hand, and survival on the other. Those are the things that remain common to us all and put us in the same place. Bear in mind however that evaluating the events of long ago is like putting a puzzle together where many of the pieces are missing -- all the "specialized training" in the world is not going to replace them. I also have reservations about some 'college training'. If our beloved historians possess such specialized training, why do their opinions vary considerably? On the one hand we have Jefferson, the 'champion of liberty', and on the other, we have "Jefferson the monster". Seems to me some individuals have abandoned their training altogether when they come to such 'monsterous' conclusions. I have seen better historical evaluation from high school students than I have with some college graduates with all of their "specialized training". This is the perspective I believe we should maintain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, what I try to point out to you is that just as in medical science, or book keeping, there are different levels of understanding in history. Nobody can take "all the evidence" and "all the circumstances" into account, in particularly not starting from scratch. Jefferson wrote over 20000 letters in his lifetime - how many of these can you even read, let alone keep sorted out? In addition, he wrote five or six daily diaries. And those are only some of the primary sources from the man himself, not yet anything written to or about him, or about his time. Dumas Malone took what amounts to a whole productive lifetime to condense Jefferson down into his monumental 6 volume 3300 page biography - and its still woefully incomplete. One thing training in history does is to expose you to a lot of reading, and a lot of previous thought - certainly more than most people ever read or encounter. Do you know anyone personally who has, e.g., read all of Malone? I've read Bernstein, Hitchens, Gordon-Reed, and maybe five research articles on Jefferson, and listened to two podcast versions of Ivy League lectures on the US revolution and early US history. That barely scratches the surface - any bachelor with an interest in the topic will have been exposed to 10 times more material. There is a reason history is taught at university level. Of course historians' opinion on Jefferson differ. But very few will have either a "champion of liberty" or a "monster" point of view. Instead, they recognise that Jefferson is a complex person. And regardless of their overall view of him as positive or negative, good historians will not overlook the other aspects. Gordon-Reed does not hate or despise Jefferson - she studies him (and, what's more, his slaves). You seem to insist on classifying anything in pro- or anti-Jefferson terms. But a high school student perspective is simply not going to cut it for even remotely encyclopaedic coverage of Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that going to college to study history exposes one to much more historical literature than the average readers, however, I still don't think the average reader requires a college degree to understand the facts when they are presented to them. Also agree that most historians don't have a "Jefferson the monster" point of view, but I do believe he has been praised by many as being, not necessarily a 'champion' of liberty, but a well founded proponent of it, despite his dealings with slavery, which he fought over almost his entire life -- because he was such a proponent. Your words are thought provoking Schulz. I will consider them further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

we should remember that sometimes we need to challenge the modern scholars, because as I've mentioned, their opinions, esp today, are all over the map.

That's the fundamental flaw in your editing, Gwillhickers, that has caused such controversy about this article. Our job is not to judge the experts, but to provide a narrative of their conclusions.

This is not our own article about TJ, but a compilation of scholarly views about him. It's fine if we want to make a full-blown historiography out of it. (I think it's fine; Schulz or Parkwells may know the guidelines better.) That would entail tracing the changing views of TJ from his own day to the present. We should not omit what current scholars say, no matter if in our most humble opinion they are "all over the map." Yopienso (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Same old debate/break

Yopienso, evidently you need to review edit history a bit more thoroughly and I don't quite appreciate dumping the controversy problem entirely on my shoulders -- esp since it was not I who at one time had the controversy and Hemings sections bloated out to some five pages long. And the Jefferson biography is not the place to be building a "full-blown historiography", esp with hundreds of historians who are indeed all over the map. This is an encyclopedia, not an expose' on opinion. Most if not all the other U.S. president bios deal with facts and RS's with an occasional comment from a historian when appropriate i.e.needed for clarification and not one sided and controversial. The only reason some (not necessarily you) are so inclined to bloat this page with opinion is because most of the facts are not on their side. Easy to see. Please don't remind me that this is not my page. Virtually all of my edits (save bibliography work, tweaking, etc) have been done with discussion and I have time and again made more concessions than most others. If you would like to build a Thomas Jefferson historiography you are free to do so. I'll come around later and make sure it's not as one sided, out of context and skewed as this page once was.

Currently the page makes reference to differing opinions three times and there already exists a Historical reputation section on top of that. Was there some particular content you feel is lacking in the article? You didn't say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I'm sorry if my words were offensive to you. I was responding to your rejection of modern scholarship that you don't like, which is simply not a good basis for editing. Stephan was right on the button about that. The reason this article is so much more difficult to manage is because TJ was so much more complicated than most of our presidents and there is such a wealth of scholarly research that continues to be published.

There was nothing in particular I felt lacking, but felt it was important to point out that WP doesn't judge the experts, but only identifies them and summarizes their arguments. You have not been amenable to this, and frankly stated that we should challenge them. You, of course, can challenge them all you want, just not here.

I appreciate your courtesy that is so much more collegial than some of your past fulminations. Yopienso (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What I don't like is past attempts to pass off "modern scholarship" as one unified body in lock-step with one another. I believe I've made that clear all along. Editors scrutinize what are reliable sources all the time and they also scrutinize if they are being piled up on one side of the fence. This is good and makes for balance. Yes, research continues to be published. Let's be careful not to assume it's all on the same page and we should be esp careful not to cherry pick it to push a particular POV. I think you know this has been done all to often around here in the past. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This article does mention that Jefferson used slave children at the nailery. How profitable was the nailery? If there is a source that states Jefferson made profits on his nailery, then I believe the article could state Jefferson profited on child slave labor. The nailery could be complicated, if there were white people who also worked their who were paid by Jefferson. More information of profits or working conditions at the nailery should be expanded in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As you said, the article already mentions slave children were used at the nailry, and it's already understood that slaves were used to make a profit. Is the wording not derogatory enough? Weren't you the one who just recently said "I believe the Slaves and slavery section is almost complete..."? Now it seems you're looking for other opportunities to use less than neutral wording. "Jefferson profited on child slave labor". Let's not forget that Jefferson provided housing, clothing, food and everything else, expected slaves to work no more than free farmers and that children of free farmers began work before the age of ten, and that slaves were guaranteed these things, unlike free farmers. Btw, what has this got to do with the above 'modern scholarship' discussion? Seems you're just pulling another rabbit out of your hat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct Gwillhickers. My point is that profits and child labor could be expanded on in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. This article does state Jefferson was one of the wealthiest plantation owners in Virginia. People reading the article can infer Jefferson profited from child slave labor. I do not have any issue putting into the article that Jefferson profited from child slave labor, if in fact, there is enough information on how much Jefferson profited from his nailery. This is a discussion. Shultz brought up the subject. I am not trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat. How much profit Jefferson made from slavery is a valid issue, in my opinion, if that can be assertained through historical records. I am not sure there are any sources that state exactly how much Jefferson profited from slavery, since as you mentioned he fed, housed, and clothed his slaves. This is one of those difficult issues concerning Jefferson and slavery, since Jefferson spent lavishly and was in debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The article section, Slaves and slavery, is almost complete. Two issues slavery diffusion and expatriation would be needed for the completion of the section. Childhood labor could be expanded in the article, if there is enough information on the actual expenses versus revenue from the nailery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First it was Coles, then it was slavery diffusion and expatriation, and still is, but before we have even looked into that further you're off wondering about 'how much profit' Jefferson made from "child labor", as if that dollar amount is important to the biography. At this point all you are doing is finger pointing at notions and doing little in the way of reading and research. As I said, it's understood that profits were made from slaves. I'm at the point now where unless you can introduce new facts with RS's to support whatever it is you're complaining about I am not going to entertain this needless and endless question asking which is not accomplishing anything other than to keep the controversy alive at the expense of improving the rest of the article. Unless you can show an interest for all of the Jefferson biography, your preoccupation with slavery and your many and past attempts at 'wording' would suggest you are not here to improve the article overall and have other ideas in mind as I and others have pointed out before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion Gwillhickers. I believe that the Slaves and slavery section has been improved. I have made edits to the article that I believe give better context to the section. Schulz brought up the idea of profit from Jefferson's nailery. The reason why I start a discussion expatriation and slavery diffusion is that I believe this leads to more productive edits in the article. I don't want any edit wars but I feel this method is best. Better to sort things out in discussion rather then "shock and awe" edit warring. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why am I concerned with the Slavery and slaves section, because I believe Wikipedia can create a balanced article that give Jefferson a fair assessment on slavery. Remember Jefferson has been critisized for his ownership of slaves, views on African Americans, and percieved lack of comittment to the Antislavery cause. By the way I started the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. I had some resistance with that article being published in the first place. I have done plenty of research on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I started the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article on July 4, 2009. I do not hate or despise Thomas Jefferson and believe that every President deserves a fair shake in their articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

True Scholarship

It was mentioned here that we are not here to judge the sources or to pass judgement on Jefferson, et al, yet some of the so called 'modern scholarship' does exactly that. Take Wiencek's 'The dark side of Jefferson' , more than suggesting a sinister motivation, and Finkelman's 'Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On' and most recently, his ' Jefferson the monster' . Both of these 'scholars' not only make a judgement but do so in the very title of their works. It was refreshing to read Freehling's essay. I registered at Jstor and have read it. In particular, these two passages, on page 82, speaks volumes.

..the trouble with the new condemnatory view is not so much that it is a one-sided judgement of the Founding Fathers as that it distorts the process by which American slavery was abolished. The new charge that the founding fathers did next to nothing about bondage is as misleading as the older notion that they did everything. The abolitionist process proceeded slowly but inexorably from 1776 to 1860: slowly in part because of what Jefferson and his contemporaries did not do, inexorably in part because of what they did.

If men were evaluated in terms of dreams rather than deeds everyone would concede the antislavery credentials of the Founding Fathers. No American Revolutionary could square the principles of the Declaration with the perpetuation of human bondage. Only a few men of 1776 considered the evil of slavery permanently necessary. None dared proclaim the evil a good. Most looked forward to the day when the curse could be forever erased from the land. "The love of justice and the love of country," Jefferson wrote Edward Coles in 1814, "plead equally the cause of these people, and it is a moral reproach to us that they should have pleaded so in vain." ( must register to read all of page 82 )

Many thanks to 'Other Choices' for bringing this account to the table, and thanks are due to Cmguy777 for using and citing some of this material in his last edit. Hopefully we can all stay the course of neutrality as exemplified in Freehling's writings, a true scholar in my opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome Gwillhickers. You deserve thanks and credit for your valuable edits to the article as well. See I told you Freehling was a good source and Other Choices deserves recognition for giving Wikipedia editors the chance to read a neutrally written account of the Founding Fathers and slavery. I agree with Yopensio that modern sources need to be cited in the article, however, Freehling, I believe is a source that can be used, when and if other sources are viewed as biased. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Gw', you're not appreciating the distinction between scholars who write books and WP users who write articles. Yopienso (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yopensio, in my opinion, historians who write for an established historial journal such as American Historical Journal, have more clout then book authors. Freehlings, The Founding Fathers and Slavery, specifically deals with slavery and the founding generation, when a book only addresses slavery in a scattered unpredictable random manner . For example, Ferling's Setting the World Ablaze discusses Jefferson and slavery, however, this is done in a sporatic design that will fit in with the rest of the book. There is no specific chapter on slavery in Ferling's book. Ferling's discussion of slavery is scattered throughout the book. Although Ferling is a an excellent source, he tends to view Jefferson as a backwards racist slave owner. Ferling's discussion on slavery and Jefferson is in somewhat condensed and maybe full of standard anti-Jefferson historical account. This, however, does not reduce Ferling's credibility, but I believe Freehling trumps Ferling in terms of historical weight. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that depends. Certainly being published in a peer-reviewed journal (if not retracted!) establishes reliability. Many of those authors also write books, too, though, that are equally good. We can't really generalize on books beyond looking at the rigor of their scholarship, including notes and bibliography, publisher, and author's credentials and status. A scholarly book, for example, trumps a popular one; Cambridge University Press, trumps Dorling Kindersley. Then the response of scholars matters, too. Yopienso (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Finkleman did write a book, Slavery and the Founders, that is good research on slavery and the founding generation. In that sense, Finkleman, is more in depth in his coverage then Freehling. What makes Freehling valuable, is that one can read neutrality in his wordings. Does Finkleman's book trump Freehling's journal article? That is a good question. I have not read Finkleman's book, however, from what I have read, Finkleman, although a valid source and a good writer, has a tendency to lead the reader to make Finkleman's conclusions on Jefferson and slavery. Freehling, in my opinion, is a better writer in that he allows the reader to make their own conclusions on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, Finkleman references Freehling several times in Jefferson and slavery found in Onuf's compilation book Jefferson's Legacies. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a forum

Reminder: Seems the discussions we all been having belong on the Thomas Jefferson Historiography page. If it existed I'm sure it would directly serve to improve that page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversial quote about banking

Jefferson in several of his letters claimed that banks were more dangerous than standing armies, an idea that seems to have validity given the forclosures of 1000's of farms and other properties across the United States during the 1920's and 1930's. However there is one quote that is causing some controversy:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

While the passage in plain text occurs in several of his letters, the passage in bold, it is claimed, (see links below) does not appear in any them. After a quick search I have not found any myself. Anyone have any insights about this full quote?

http://rense.com/general85/phony.htm

http://www.dailypaul.com/80247/can-we-please-stop-propagating-the-fake-jefferson-quote-about-private-banks

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com here and Monticello agree that that the quote is bogus, although some parts are similar to things Jefferson has said. However, we don't use the quote, and, given that it's bogus, we shouldn't, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Schulz, If TJF-Monticello says it's bogus that would seem to be good enough for me, however after a little more searching I came up with some sources that say otherwise: , Ross, 2011 and B Ghandi and The Money Masters and GoodReads. -- Wonder why someone would make a bogus quote when part of the quote, ala Standing armies, is used in several other of Jefferson's letters all conveying the same basic reservations about banks. 1, 2 Will have to dig a little deeper to make sure.
Btw, it's okay to use quotes so long at they are published by RS's and are not used for original research. There are guidelines about using the full text of lengthy primary sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ross 2001 is a novel, hence fiction. "Code Black Strategic National Emergency" is self-published by B. Ghandi. I cannot make out if it is a parody or if he is serious, but the fact that, according to the front matter, it was send to the US congress, news media, the UN Ambassadors, and Hollywood (to no reaction, because "they are afraid"), and that it is declared "required reading for graduation from all high schools" raises more red flags than I care to count. Obviously not a reliable source. And it does not even claim the full quote is Jeffersons, only the more dubious part (the first part is claimed to come from Adams). "The Money Masters" is a website promoting a conspiracy movie. No sign of reliability, either. And finally, GoodReads is allowing users to submit new quotes, so any yokel with a Facebook account can put in new content. Not reliable, either. Sure, we can use full quotes. But we obviously don't have to use any particular quote, and in particularly should avoid dubious quotes. And per WP:PRIMARY, while we can use primary sources for illustration, we cannot interpret them or use them in synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to enter any of these sources into the bibliography and use them in refs but only to show that there is differing opinion. Don't have any intention, or need, to construe, interpret or use this particular 'quote' in any sort of synthesis as to mean that Jefferson disliked and distrusted private bankers -- that has been pretty much established all by itself, given Jefferson's opposition to Hamilton, the National Bank and his several other quotes regarding banks and bankers. As I said, we'll have to dig a little deeper. Btw, The Money Masters is a documentary, a "conspiracy movie" if you prefer, on banks. In particular, they are promoting the 'Monetary reform act of 2009' directing the Treasury Department to issue U.S. Notes, as Lincoln did, to pay off the national debt and are urging people to write their Congressman. The effort is endorsed by Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The website lists a good number of quotes from notable people in history who all had the same regard for the big private bankers in Europe as did Jefferson, Lincoln, Napoleon, Roosevelt and many others. Careful with the labels and slurs, Schulz. "Yokel" and "conspiracy movie" sound tacky and media like. As I said, we'll have to dig a little deeper. They are claiming the Jefferson quote in question was made by him in 1809 during the debate over the re-charter of the Bank Bill. I don't expect characters like Finkelman or Onuf to ever credit Jefferson with such an effort, so they of course would be the last sources to check. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I point out that the sources you gave are not reliable not to stop them being used on Wikipedia, but to point out that they are, well, unreliable, and hence that the fact that they use this quote is not good evidence for its correct attribution to Jefferson. If you read the two sources I provided at the top, you would notice that Snopes points out that the word "deflation" is not attested in use with currency before 1920. Also, you would notice that the different proponents of the quote claim different sources. The Monticello article describes how they searched various collections of Jefferson papers, including the very complete Digital Collection at the University of Virginia for the quote. They also state that they were unable to find any record of a publication called "The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill", but, just to make sure, they checked Congressional documents from the relevant time frame and none contains the quote. Finally, the fact that "The Money Masters" share a goal with some reasonable people does not give any weight to them. Presumably even Vito Corleone liked puppies. "The Money Masters", according to our article, claims "that there is no publicly owned gold left in Fort Knox [and] that bankers have intentionally caused, exploited, or profited from the circumstances surrounding a number of significant events, including Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the War of 1812, the Battle of Waterloo, the American Civil War, the Russian Revolution, and the Great Depression." And if that were not enough, "these banks have influence over the mainstream media through their ownership and [...] this influence is used to prevent criticism of the financial monopoly from entering the general public's consciousness". I stand by "conspiracy movie". I don't know how Finkelman and Onuf even enter this debate. But both Monticello and Snopes acknowledge that Jefferson expressed distrust and dislike of banks.

As an aside, the ability to quickly check for the occurrence of certain phrases or topics in (mostly) complete electronic collections of documents is something that historians 30 years ago did not possess. Doing such a search manually is not only error-prone, for something the size of the Jefferson collections it's also prohibitively expensive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if the sources are unreliable in terms of citing facts on WP, then they, as you maintain, cannot be used, which as I said was not my objective. As for the "The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill" I am assuming you are not claiming that the debate never occurred, or that any such reasoning wasn't used to oppose it. I concede the exact quote is peculiar, however its overall meaning has been conveyed by Jefferson and others. The term 'deflation' "not attested in use with currency before 1920" is a compelling argument. Something to indeed consider. Thanks for your thoughts on that, Schulz. -- Doing electronic searches 30 years ago may not have been possible for the average scholar, but the primary sources were already compiled, sorted and published and well covered and discussed in history curriculums and available to any scholar worth his weight in salt. I would think most major Universities had this material in their libraries, standard issue. What facts have the electronic searches provided that has changed the insights into Jefferson's overall thinking? As I said, easy searching of info doesn't mean you are in possession of new info and as I pointed out before, 99% of what we know about Jefferson in terms of primary sources and facts has long since been accounted for by the 1000's of historians that came along before you or I did. For the most part, "modern scholarship" has only given us new opinion, and we've all seen what that can amount to, too often.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Slaves and Slavery section review

Does anyone believe that slaves and slavery section is complete? I am not sure Jefferson's expansion of slavery theory and expatriation have been adequately addressed. Any comments or objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article needs to state that in order for Jefferson to emancipate slaves, expatriation was a condition. Jefferson did not believe blacks and whites could live in the same country. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope to be getting to something on this with a "bottom-up" balance. In this time of Jefferson's contemplating expatriation of slaves into freedom manumitted at state expense, slaves in Virginia numbering 300,000 are actually expatriated out-of-state to the cotton West of perpetual slavery. I know from other sources that the rapid rate of increase among free black populations in Norfolk, Fredericksburg, Alexandria and Baltimore of the 1790s slowed considerably after 1810. One-way incidents of racially motivated rioting and other labor unrest accompanied urban developments. Jefferson's pessimistic assessment needs context. More after I go further in Meacham, now beginning Ch.25. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian. Here is a proposal:

" Jefferson advocated conditional expatriation for all slaves as a requirement for emancipation. Jefferson did not believe blacks and whites could live in the same country together peacefully. In order to prevent racial conflict between whites and blacks, Jefferson advocated a graduated emancipation program that required slaves to be emancipated after reaching the age of seventeen. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian policy not in lede

Jefferson set the tone for 18th Century Indian policy, forced removal to the West. In fact the Louisiana purchase was meant to remove Indians in the East into that territory. Jefferson started the process of moving Indians off their lands to the West. This is not in the lede section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Reading your statement you make it sound like the Louisiana Purchase was the only or primary reason the purchase was made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers, I am not stating that Indian removal was the primary purpose for the Louisiana Purchase. I suppose from Jefferson's point of view the primary reason would be the purchase of land without war from France or Spain. Any alternative reasons for the LP should not be ignored in the article, such as Indian removal or the expansion of slavery. Objibwa, who according to TheVirginianHistorian, is in agreement with Kennedy, believed Jefferson initiated Indian removal as President. I believe this needs to be in the lead of the article, without any malice or read between the lines opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course, we certainly don't want to connotate any negativity towards Jefferson, do we? Okay, we can mention that many tribes were war like, xenophobic, refused to assimilate and that for everyone's own good and general welfare it was deemed best to keep the two diametrically opposed cultures in separate parts of the country. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, can you honestly assert that every American Indian tribe was war like? If Jefferson believed that moving tribes West was best for both cultures and there is a source that states so, that is fine. I would not have an issue with that being put in the article. The term "removal" is meant to be stated neutrally without bias. Jeffesron initiated this process while he was President and he wanted Indians removed to the Louisiana territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cm', I said "many tribes", not 'every tribe'. Yes, many were war like. Is this something that actually amazes you? Indian wars amongst themselves were numerous. Regarding the white man, in the early days of colonization whole sale massacres of settlements were common enough. While the white man seems to get the brunt of the 'credit' for killing Indians many don't seem to realize that for every Indian killed by a white man, 'many' were killed by other Indians, simply because of the demographics. More Indians were in proximity to other Indians than was the white man until much later on in history. The notion that the American Indians were this one big unified family of peace loving 'indigenous peoples' is typical of the view from afar we have gotten for too long from much of modern day academia and others with a racial and/or other axes to grid. My suggestion would be to familiarize yourself with the (very) basic history involved before you attempt to make lede statements about this topic in a presidential biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Objibwa has written a good article on Jefferson. Thomas Jeffesron and American Indians. Is there any objection to have a Native American perspective in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert : A "Native American perspective"? You seem to be suggesting that there is only a Euro-American perspective here. I have no objection of including a historical perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of Ojibwa’s insights can be found in published scholarship at Roger G. Kennedy’s “Mr. Jefferson’s Lost Cause: land, farmers, slavery and the Louisiana Purchase”. I am just beginning Part Three, Ch. 9 on Alexander McGillivray. One difficulty with non-scholarly treatment of American history from Amerindian perspective is --- lack of context. U.S.G. distinguished between allies in the Revolution and Tories such as McGillivray, between first nations living in coexistence with the new nation and military allies of English foes who made war after English peace. -- the land speculators and squatters in the states, not so much as U.S.G.

_ _ War-time English ally McGillivray organized a southern-nations conference July 1785, “We chiefs and warriors … protest against any title or demand the American Congress may set up … in consequence of said treaty of peace ...” And again McGillivray, “His Britannic Majesty was never possessed by cession, or purchase or by right of conquest … [of the] territories … the said [1783] treaty gives away.” (Kennedy, “Lost Cause” 2003, p.120) --- a sentiment closely paraphrased in Madison’s “Federalist” as a rationale for adopting the 1789 Constitution of stronger central government.

_ _ In that Creeks and Cherokees under McGillivray’s 1780s leadership would not admit the competence of the U.S.G., some sort of context for each decade of history must be set out apart from that of Chocktaws or undisclosed “Indians” of the 1793 report in the “Ojibwa” blog. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

TVH, once again, thanks for being mindful of historical context. The Indians overall were "macho", meat eaters, racist, xenophobic, wanted the entire continent for themselves, and who overall refused to assimilate or be tolerant of other races, cultures and customs while not allowing their women to do much except cook and take care of children. Yes, tongue in check, because this is the stereotype that is so fashionable for many so called modern thinkers and various 'friends of America' to describe the white man in America. Hope we're not going there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cm’s point-in-context might not fit in the introduction --- one use of west-of-Mississippi territory was removal and preservation of tribal culture/governance. See career of Jefferson appointee, pro-Amerindian Missouri territorial governor Meriwether Lewis and his defeat running for popular election at statehood. "Indian removal" can be referred to in the context of removing implacable foes such as the Creeks who would not make peace.

_ _ This perhaps "Enlightenment" treatment of defeated unassimilating enemies might be contrasted to known rules of European warfare extinguishing whole populations of villages, valleys and regions as in the religious wars of the Germanies 1550-1700. I’m just not sure that element of Jefferson’s career can be economically mentioned in context at the introduction as proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe this issue needs to be in the lede section of the article. Both Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian make valid points concerning American Indians and Indian policy. However, my concern was that Jefferson started this process of Indian removal. The word "removal" is not suppose to have a negative or positive connotation, rather, that Jefferson started this process. That was one of Ojibwa’s points or at least in agreement with Kennedy's assessments. Gwillhickers description of Indians in my opinion is an accurate view of the Anglo Americans who desired to take over the continent, including Jefferson. With that stated, my purpose was neither to judge Anglo's nor Indians, but that Jefferson initiated as President the Westward removal of American Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cm' I don't know if Indian 'policy' needs to be in the lede, but in any case why don't you give us an example of how this statement would read, in one sentence, the same as most of the other topics are covered. e.g.Both the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition are covered in the same sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

In order to decrease hostilities between American Indians and United States citizens, Jefferson intiated a process of eastern tribal removal westward to the Louisiana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson initiated this? You're saying that other Indians were never driven from their land before Jefferson was President? From what sources are you referring to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Meacham paints the political portrait of Jefferson ruling by indirection. Do we have a statute and who sponsored the legislation for federal monies/troops? Removal is definitely a policy at odds with the legislation passed in Federalist congresses which allowed Amerindian residency in place. Even so, to my knowledge, U.S. army was only applied to disburse white settlers in the Ohio country to protect Iroquois claims, and Federalists got lots of push-back for that. And never U.S. troops used inside state borders to stop Georgia militias from burning out Cherokees. After Jefferson's death at the Trail of Tears, U.S. troops evicted in violation of a Supreme Court ruling, though without killing on the spot of the Georgia gold rush.

_ _ Again the context would be, Jefferson advancing a policy which would take Amerindians out of the reach of state militia massacres when he was powerless to get congressional appropriation through congress to make war on the Georgia militias inside the state borders. With a source, it may be said removal was begun in his administration, if that were so. I've not got that far in my reading yet, but I do know his early proposals for admitting Tribal states was shot down by southern congressmen who said they did not like the idea any better than a state of runaway slave maroons in Florida, which Jefferson had not proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Objibwa

Objibwa was my source for the western relocation of American Indians. Jefferson initiated a bill in Congress to remove American Indians to the Louisiana Territory. The bill was defeated. Then Jefferson while President encouraged Indians to move West. Possibly Kennedy as a source could confirm Objibwa's historical perspective. Objibwa states that Jefferson defended American Indian intelligence in terms of making mounds in Notes. Objibwa states that Jefferson overestimated American Indian dependence on hunting. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

On what does Objibwa base his claim that Jefferson overestimated American Indian dependence on hunting? Does he cite definitive examples of Indians engaging in farming, ranching, tool making, science, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While the article written by Objibwa is indeed interesting, esp regarding "The Genoa Industrial Indian School was started in 1884", I don't think we can use the article as a Reliable Source. i.e.Obviously he/she is an American Indian but 'who' is Objibwa in terms of RS's and historians?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

One would have to look up the Kennedy source TheVirginianHistorian mentioned to find any agreement concerning the Objibwa source. Maybe American Indians have their own resource system on their respected reservations. Objibwa stated Jefferson offered a bill to remove eastern Indians. Finding that bill or mention of that bill from another source would confirm Objibwa's article in part. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: Rodriguez (2002), The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia, p. 149

How about this?

To preserve Indian culture and increase land production for U.S. citizens, Jefferson initiated a process to remove eastern American civilized tribes to a permanent Indian Territory in the Louisiana Purchase. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Since the topic of the lede has surfaced once again I reviewed it in terms of subject content and how much text is committed to each subject. Bellow is an outline.

• Jefferson one of the founding fathers -- mentioned with half a sentence

• Declaration of independence -- half sentence

• American Revolution -- half sentence

• Continental congress -- half sentence

• US Minister to France -- one sentence

• First S.O.S. -- one sentence

• Elected V.P. -- one sentence

• "Louisiana Territory" -- half sentence

• Lewis and Clark Expedition -- half sentence

• V.P Arron Burr / trial -- half sentence.

• Troubles at home, Embargo -- one sentence

• Rated one of the greatest Presidents -- half sentence

• Leader in the Enlightenment -- less than half a sentence

• First mention of slavery, historians -- two sentences

• Martha, marriage, death, widower, children -- all in one sentence

• Second mention of slavery, Salley Hemings, DNA, children and historians - three sentences, one very long, lots of details

• Indians not mentioned

For balance and undue weight considerations we should eliminate any mention of historians, as they are not referred to in any of the (landmark) subjects and the subject of Hemings (covered with a paragraph) should get one sentence and read something like this:

Since 1802 it has been alleged that Jefferson was the father of his slave Sally Hemings' children.

Indians should be mentioned also.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree Indians need to be mentioned in the lede. I do not like the term "alleged" in the lede. I would mention that modern scholars view that Jefferson fathered at least one child by his slave Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also change "founding fathers" to "founding generation". Warren G. Harding invented the term "Founding Fathers" to his credit, however, I believe that term is antiquated for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The allegation about Hemings' children is indeed an allegation and has not been proven. 'Founding Fathers' -- "antiquated"? This is sort of an anti-social comment and slights all of humanity that came before us, as if we, automatically, are wiser than they. As many modern thinkers have often demonstrated, we as a society are often self centered, undisciplined, peer-driven, acutely presentist, follow along and in great part have a view of the past that has largely been shaped by the distortions that routinely come out of Hollywood, not reality, but I digress. Let's try not to speak of historians as to suggest they are in lock step with any particular opinion. Details about historians, on both sides of the fence, belong in body of text, esp since many more important topics in the lede don't have historical commentary to prop them up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cm', your draft for including Jefferson and Indians in the lede, while being neutral, has too many details (i.e."preserve Indian culture" -- "increase land production(?) for US citizens"), yet doesn't mention the 'hostilities' that prompted Jefferson's initiative for relocating. Former details should be covered in the body of text. Here's another draft:

• Because of wide spread hostilities between the American Indian and American settlers Jefferson initiated a process to relocate various Indian tribes to the Louisiana territory.

Insert: Rodriguez stated Jefferson wanted to preserve Indian culture and that the Indians and Americans had different uses for the land. I was rephrasing Rodriguez. There may have been hostilities, however, there needs to be a reference that states hostilities caused Jefferson to initiate the processe of Indian removal. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Draft covering Hemings is also short and unopinionated with nothing to prop it up either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Antisocial? Freedom of speech is not antisocial Gwillhickers. I do not need your permission to state my opinion. I would hope you know your 20th Century History. Warren G. Harding made the term "Founding Fathers" popular in 1920. Now if your a Warren G. Harding fan, that's fine. He had successes during his administration of the early 1920's. However, I have never heard of Jefferson refer himself to as father except in an indirect reference that his immediate family and his slaves were his family. I am not a slave Gwillhickers to any man or woman. I am a born again Christian who has one Father in heaven. Jefferson gave me the opportunity to have freedom of religion. I do not have to call Washington, Jefferson, or any other Virginia slave owning President my father. I give them respect for founding this nation. I would hope Gwillhickers that you would respect my religious faith. I respectfully do not believe any Christian has to call Jefferson their father. I believe the term Founding Generation is appropriate and respectful. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Insert:Jefferson did refer himself as Father of the State of Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Whooa.. Back up a couple of giant steps, Cm'. I don't think I even inferred, much less stated, that you need my permission to state your opinion -- but it is an opinion that, IMO, slights our fathers, grandfathers, etc. As for Harding, he's no particular fan of mine other than he was an elected leader of a free and democratic, self determined, nation. There was no reason to appeal to me with your religion and your aspiration to our Father in Heaven, though it was heart felt to hear you say these things. 'Founding Father' is a common and widely used and recognized term. We need more than the view of it being 'antiquated' to scratch it from the record. Is our 'Father' in Heaven also an 'antiquated' phrase? Can we now get back to business? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We can get back to the business at hand, Gwillhickers, but when you mentioned founding generation was "antisocial", that got me in a defensive mode. I believe founding generation would be appropriate for the Jefferson article, out of respect for Jefferson, not disrepect. The term Founding Father, could be inferred as a slight poke at Jefferson, in light of Sally Hemings children. My history professor once said, "What did Thomas Jefferson's slaves call him?" Pause "Daddy." I believe the term founding generation is a better term since this encompasses the woman who helped during the Revolution as well as any others who helped win the War, including any Indian allies and the French Navy. I am not sure why departing from 1920's phrasing is disrespectful. There is nothing in anyway degrading to the term Founding Generation. In addition the Americans that died during the Revolutionary War are the founding generation. I am not sure but I believe other historians may use the FG term rather then the FF term. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Onuf (2007) uses the FG term in his book, The Mind of Thomas Jefferson, page 181 "What do Americans make of Jefferson and the founding generation generally?" Cmguy777 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Finkleman (2001) uses the FG term throughout his book, Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson, pages 39, 53, and 81. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with the reading problem! I referred to your term 'antiquated', twice. We have not even finished discussing the two passages proposed for the lede and you are off on other topics and dragging in items from your pet authors. I'm not very impressed nor interested with revisionist terms used by fringe theory authors and/or people who have shown a clear hatred for Jefferson. Let's stick to putting the statements at hand into the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I seriously doubt Onuf and Finkleman hate Thomas Jefferson. I will agree that historians can show bias, however, that bias can be both negative and positive. Warren G. Harding was a journalist and he knew how to use phrases that captured peoples attention. "Founding Fathers" was one of these phrases. I am not sure why historians or Wikipedia editors need to be bound by a speech made in 1916 by Warren G. Harding and used while he was President during the early 1920's. The term founding fathers also tends to ignore that there was a Civil War over slavery, that the country split apart, hundreds of thousands of casualties on the North and South and the Reconstruction process that gave African Americans civil rights and citizenship. Harding was ambiguous in terms of race relations and was a reconciliationist wanting to unify the North and South. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

End lede on a positive note

Previously the lede ended on a sour note. Right after it was mentioned that Jefferson remained rated as one of the top rated presidents someone attached commentary about historians and slavery too this particular sentence:

In scholarly surveys Jefferson remains rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents, though since the late-twentieth century, he has been increasingly criticized by many historians, often on the issue of slavery.

The passage now reads like this and appropriately placed at the end of the lede:

Though Jefferson has been criticized by many modern day scholars over the issue of slavery he remains rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents.

I simply turned the passage around and while still mentioning criticism from modern scholars over slavery it now ends on a positive note, regarding his presidential rating as it should, as we all know Jefferson did much in the effort of trying to emancipate slaves and he provided for them very well while expecting them to work no more than did free farmers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Jefferson was not critized only for slavery. He did have scandals while he was President. There was the Wilkinson affair. Aaron Burr duel with Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr plot's to have the northern states succeed. There was the Burr-Wilkinson conspiracy. The $2,000,000 Act; the Post Office Investigation; and Quincy's attempted impeachment of Jefferson. I do not believe any of these has been covered. I believe that Jefferson's successes and any scandals need to be mentioned in the article. Why do historians believe Jefferson was a great President? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Enough of your endless fiddle-faddle. Where was this question when the comment about historians was made and attached to the presidential rating statement?
Get a source for the Indian draft and the Hemings draft, show us a neutral draft for Hemings, free of commentary, and maybe you'll find someone to take you seriously from here on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I can look for sources on the slavery, Hemings, and the Indian drafts. I am hoping we can get something written that can be agreed upon concerning slavery and Sally Hemings. I am not attempting to insert opinion. As for Jefferson being a great President I would state this:

• "Historians have rated Jefferson highly as a great President for his ending the American slave trade, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Lewis and Clark expedition." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Indian policy draft for lede section

Here is my Indian draft with reference. I can not find a source that states Indian wars as a reason why Jefferson desired to move Indians to the Louisiana Territory west of the Mississippi River.

"In 1803 President Jefferson initiated a process of Indian tribal removal and relocation to the Louisiana Territory west of the Mississippi River, in order to open lands for eventual American settlers."

Added without objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast. This is a different statement from the draft I referred to as 'excellent', and you didn't give anyone much time to comment either way here. Are you in possession of Miller, 2006? (Answer please appreciated.) The Google Miller book only allows partial viewing and pages 31-191 are not available for viewing. Rodriguez, 2009, p.149, available for viewing, says Jefferson relocated Indians because of hostilities and to preserve Indian culture, something that even you mentioned just recently. Your version needs clarification. As there are a number of reasons for relocation, we should just make a general and neutral statement, and then we can provide the qualifying details in the text. [Additional: Also your statement says "eventual American settlers" -- the settlers were already there and in appreciable numbers.] While were on that topic, the Native American policy section is lacking in much of this information. i.e.There's no mention of preserving Indian culture, Jefferson's hope that Indians would assimilate and take to farming and ranching, etc. -- and more importantly, there's no mention that relocation efforts didn't appreciably materialize until Jackson's administration took the helm many years later, ala the Trail of Tears.

• In 1803, because of growing hostilities between American Indians and settlers President Jefferson
  initiated a process of Indian tribal removal and relocation to the Louisiana Territory.

'Growing hostilities' is what prompted the immediate need for action. Details about 'west of the Mississippi' and 'open lands for eventual American settlers' and 'preserve Indian culture' should be mentioned in the text. The above statement is neutral and sourced. IMO we should use this instead. I'm hoping you'll agree and replace your last edit with the above draft. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the above draft can be edited at any time. I needed a source that stated hostilities initiated this process. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I read Rodriguez. He does not state hostilities as motivation for Indian removal. Rodriguez stated culture and different uses of land were the primary motivations. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rodriguez doesn't say 'because of hostilities' verbatim but he does make the point by saying "Previous negotiations and compacts between the federal government and indigenous peoples had focused on pledges of friendship and cooperation, promises of peace, the termination of hostilities ...", directly implying that there were indeed hostilities, as I think we all know, however, I will try to find a better source for this particular point if you feel we should do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Miller (2006) source:

• Native America, Discovered And Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny, p. 169 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link but apparently I have reached my viewing limit for this book and am getting this message: -- You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book -- but if you say this source supports your statement I'll take your word for it, but we still should make the point about hostilities prompting Indian removal policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Starting with Thomas Jefferson in 1803, the plan developed to move tribes west of the Mississippi to get them out of the way of American expansion and open their lands for American settlers." --- Miller (2006), p. 169

Proposed additions for the lede

• Since 1802 it has been alleged that Jefferson was the father of some or all of his slave Sally Hemings' children.

• During his presidency Jefferson initiated a process seeking to relocate various Indian tribes to the Louisiana territory because of wide spread hostilities in the east between Indians and settlers.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, for the first element, While Jefferson was a plantation owner who generally followed slaveholder domestic conventions, he manumitted all of Sally Hemings children by the end of his life. He encouraged his plantation slave artisans, manufactury and produce exchange with the wider commercial community surrounding Monticello. --- arrrrrgh was that R.G. Kennedy or Meacham? But if I get the page citations, could that formulation fly with a polished style?

_ _ I like the second Amerindian element, ending with the edit, ... widespread hostilities east of the Mississippi between Indians and encroaching settlers. This would account for "The Firm"s speculation in 8 million acres of cotton lands in what would become Alabama and Mississippi, which can be expanded in a later section developing the Jefferson-cotton political alliance. -- per R.G. Kennedy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Like the rest of the passages (except for Hemings) we should try to keep the proposed statements as short and free of secondary details as possible, as these can be entered into the text. e.g."encroaching settlers" sounds opinionated. Mind you, we could also end the statement with 'settlers seeking a new life'. Best to keep things short and neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not like using the term "alleged" for Jefferson. The term "alleged" implies that Jefferson is guilty of something. This is not a trial. Was there wide spread hostilities between the settlers and Indians? There needs to be a source that states this. Here is my alternative:

• Modern scholars have maintained that Jefferson was the father of at least one of Sally Heming's children, although others disagree.
• During his presidency, Jefferson initiated a process of American Indian western relocation to the Louisiana territory to preserve Indian culture and curb violence between white settlers and Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

According to one source Jefferson advocated forced removal or extermination of Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we use "Amerindian"? It is current among some 'first nations' scholars, but I do not know of the term's wider acceptance in current American historiography .

_ _ Cm's "... process of Amerindian western relocation to the Louisiana territory ..." sounds pretty good to me with a page cite. Context of 'forceable removal' is important, were it related to a particular rising.

_ _ If Jefferson's parenthood of Sally Hemings children is controversial among scholars, why not say what is uncontested in the introduction, free of unnecessary details, "In an unusual practice for a Virginian slaveholder of his time, Jefferson manumitted the four children of his household servant Sally Hemings before his death." (Jon Meacham, "Jefferson:Art of Power". 2012, p.218-219). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to not mention details about historians or scholars anywhere in the lede, just like the other topics, keeping all details to a bare minimum and to not give the proposed topics more text/weight than the DOI, Presidency, Wife and factual children, etc. And just mentioning 'modern scholars' ignores all other 'people' who have alleged Jefferson's paternity since 1802. And the idea of 'alleged' may infer guilt to some, but it definitely conveys the idea of 'unproven'. We need to be clear about that. Again, details and further clarification belong in the text, and at this time we might also want to start thinking more about how we will write about these topics in that text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would add the term "mandatory Indian removal". In terms of who fathered Sally Hemings children, scholars are the ones who have made this an issue. Is there another word then "alleged" that is more neutral. Even if (one concludes) Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings, as far as I know he was not breaking any laws. There was no law that stated slave owners could not have children by slaves. I don't believe the article needs to put Jefferson under jeopardy of being guilty of having children by Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "forced" could be used in terms of Indian removal to the Louisiana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point regarding Hemings and the few 'scholars' who initially made this topic an issue. Unlike the DOI, Jefferson's presidency, etc, events that effected the lives and the fate of an entire nation of people, the Hemings topic has not, even in the least. The DOI and President events are issues under their own right and were not made into issues via speculation and opinion at the hand of a few given historians, often with an agenda and who have cherry picked the evidence and testimony to get their racially and politically charged hot-air balloon of the ground. Aside from 'scholars' being secondary details (which are not used to prop up and give added weight for other more important topics) you have presented us with yet another reason to keep details about historians out of the lede. I am now wondering whether we should mention Hemings at all in the lede because the greater issue of slavery is already mentioned and Hemings and Jefferson's paternity is just an unproven theory and a detail about that general topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe Hemings needs to be left in the article's lede, since scholars for whatever reasons, have tended to put emphasis on the father of Hemings children. I do not have an issue with using "scholars" in the lede. I would put this:

"There is evidence that Thomas Jefferson was the father of at least one of Sally Hemings children." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. This more than suggests there is no evidence for the many other possibilities. If we were to use this line it would have to read 'There is evidence that a member of the Jefferson family was the father...' . There is no evidence that Jefferson himself was the father. All evidence, i.e.DNA, looks, times of conception, etc, "taken together", suggests other possibilities. Some of them likely possibilities. We should mention the allegations made since 1802 and be done with it. If this suggests to some he may be 'guilty', fine. If it suggests to others it is 'unproven', fine. In any case the Jefferson paternity issue is in fact an allegation, and it is in fact an unproven theory. Again, we need to be absolutely clear about the facts. Btw, you didn't even mention Hemings was a slave in your last spin off.

• Since 1802 it has been alleged that Jefferson was the father of some or all of his slave Sally Hemings' children.

• During his presidency Jefferson initiated a process seeking to relocate various Indian tribes to the Louisiana territory because of wide spread hostilities in the east between Indians and settlers.

These are neutral statements and free of details, opinion and commentary. "Alleged" is also a neutral term, often and routinely used to give the benefit of the doubt to people accused of crimes or other misgivings. If we can't even use these then perhaps it's best we just exclude these topics from the lede entirely. At this late date that's my opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the term "it has been alleged" is weasel wording. Who alleged? Scholars do not allege, they gather evidence and make conclusions. Sally Hemings needs to be in the lede. We can't ignore scholarship, even if scholars have given Hemings excessive emphasis. I believe that simply stating there is evidence Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings children, is neutral. I don't believe in avoiding the subject in the lede. Possibly using term "evidence that suggests" could be more neutral. The alternative would be to add, "According to scholars". That is better then the term "it". As for the Indians, I would state "Indian removal and relocation". Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

edit break

Here are my changes.

• Modern historical research suggests or concludes Jefferson was the father of at least one of his slave Sally Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• During his presidency Jefferson initiated a process of Indian removal and relocation of various Indian tribes to the Louisiana territory because of wide spread hostilities in the east between Indians and settlers. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You speak of weasel wording and then, after just saying "I do not have an issue with using "scholars" in the lede." you turn right around and instead say "historical research suggests or concludes..." referring to historians as if they are all on the same page all over again! That's it Cm'. I'm done running around in the same pathetic circle with you. We need to speak in terms of facts and give mention to this inflated and racially motivated controversy with no more details or weight that the established facts. -- Your above draft regarding Indians is fine. If we are going to mention historians then this is how we should present this controversy in the lede.

• Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether or not
  Jefferson was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• The current stable version was arrived at last summer after much talk. However, I have shortened it, given the Gwills concerns. Nonetheless, it must be remembered that the purpose of the lead is to reflect the article in summary form. In short, we don't bury the lead. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers, I used the term "historical research" because you did not want to use the term "scholars". My concern was with your use of the word "it has been alleged". Who or what is "it"? I do not have an issue with the term "scholar" or "historians". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked Alanschottwalker's previous edit. For this issue I prefer we could discuss before making any changes to the article's lede and arrive at concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to the term "consensus among historians"? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

ASW, thanks for your edits, removing some details and Cm' thanks for your tweak from 'most' to 'many'. I changed 'certain historians' to 'various historians' because 'the former makes it sound like there are only a few. I was inclined to say 'many' but thought it best not to throw gasoline on the fire at this point. Agree with Cm' about no more lede edits until the miracle of compromise occurs here. Again, we need to treat this topic with no more details and weight that are given to the landmark and established facts. Reminder, the only reason this non factual topic (in terms of Jefferson's paternity) is included in the lede is because it is a controversy, yet the lede currently doesn't mention controversy. Hence my above draft. Regarding historians -- they are not the topic and I had reservations about mentioning them in my above (now below) draft but compromised and mentioned them, in context with 'others' and 'since 1802'. This puts the issue into historical context with a minimum of details.

• Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether or not
  Jefferson was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.

This is as neutral as it can get. The idea of 'most' is only sourced by TJF which Cm' feels is not a RS for the controversy (if I'm not mistaken) as do I. The only other RS that asserts 'most historians' I believe was Fawn Brodie, one source out of 100's, and of course some peer-driven high visibility web pages. Since there are many prominent historians who never have or no longer subscribe to the Jefferson paternity theory we should keep that statement neutral and let the readers decided what's what for themselves. Btw, we need more opinions. Come on guys, it's not fair to let just a couple of editors hack this out all by themselves. I'm just as tired as the next guy over this debate, but it needs to be settled once and for all. I believe the way to do that is to keep things as neutral as possible while not doing a disservice to either view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally find minimal controversy, if any, in Thomas Jefferson having children by his slave Sally Hemings. John Adams, I believe, stated that this was common among slave owners. The 1802 Callander article fell flat as a pancake. There was no Jefferson impeachment, and Jefferson went on to win a second term. With that stated, I believe Sally Heming belongs in the article lede, since there is so much emphasis on this subject by historians. I believe "concensus of historians" accurately depicts the current mainstream view by historians of Jefferson having children by Hemings. More editors are welcome on this subject. I am against stating "majority" and "minority" opinion. This issue is not on trial at the U.S. Supreme court. There is no 5-4 decision on Jefferson having children by Hemings. I believe the lede needs to reflect modern historical research rather then include the 1802 article accusation by Callander. I am hesitant to use the word "alleged" since that implies guilt or that Jefferson had committed some sort of crime by having children by his slave Sally Hemings. Let's not forget Jefferson's Indian policy. I believe that needs to be put in the article on Jefferson's Indian removal and relocation policy so editors can focus on the Hemings issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

tvh.#4: “Throughout his political life, Jefferson sought to expand opportunities for slave owners to free their slaves both individually and at state expense. By the time of his death, he had personally manumitted all four children of his slave, Sally Hemings.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert : If there is no controversy then the paternity theory should not be in the lede. Having said that, I too feel there isn't much cause for a controversy, but as I think we all know, there is and has been one, so our personal opinions aside, we must include this issue, such that it is, in the lede. Regarding historians and stating "majority" and "minority" opinion, I agree that this is an ambiguous claim, either way, so we should just simply mention that historians are divided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

tvh.#4: “Throughout his political life, Jefferson sought to expand opportunities for slave owners to free their slaves both individually and at state expense. By the time of his death, he had personally manumitted all four children of his slave, Sally Hemings.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

edit break2

AGREE to Cm's During his presidency Jefferson initiated a process of Indian removal and relocation of various Indian tribes to the Louisiana territory because of wide spread hostilities in the east between Indians and settlers. Meacham has it, Jefferson was one of the architects of Indian removal, personally acquiring 200,000 square miles, though he did not live to see the 1830 Trail of Tears. Indians were to either incorporate as individual citizens, or remove as a tribe west of the Mississippi. Any attacking tribe should be proceeded against by attacking all and "seizing ... the whole country of that tribe." Jefferson quoted in Meacham, 2012, p.392. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Append : (Edit conflict) TVH, your draft above would do well in the lede as a comment about slavery, however Hemings needs better representation in regards to the paternity theory. i.e.The lede passage for slavery should forego details about 'manumission' and "individually and at state expense". The topic of slavery and Hemings should be combined into two short sentences, neutral and free of secondary details and one sided commentary.

Current lede passages for slavery and Hemings:

• Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, yet he was opposed to the ultimate continuation of the institution of slavery throughout his
  life and privately struggled with the dilemma of slavery and freedom and its compatibility with the ideals of the American Revolution.

• According to many historians, Jefferson had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings after his wife's death
  and fathered at least one and likely all of her six children, four of whom survived to adulthood,
  while various historians note that some evidence can also support other possible fathers..

Combined:

• Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, yet throughout his political life, he sought to expand opportunities for slave owners to free
  their slaves but was unsuccessful. Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether or not Jefferson
  was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.

This is definitive, neutral with a minimum of details. The statement that Cm' drafted for the Indian topic is excellent and should also be used.

• During his presidency Jefferson initiated a process of Indian removal and relocation of various Indian tribes
  to the Louisiana territory because of wide spread hostilities in the east between Indians and settlers.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian. In terms of slavery, Jefferson did not directly challenge Southerners to give up their slaves, and he was not in office when the 1782 manumission law passed. There were the three E's with Jefferson: Education; Emancipation; Expatriation. In addition Jefferson had an opportunity with Coles, who told him to keep his slaves. The term "to expand opportunities", in my opinion, is stretching the truth. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert : We are discussing the lede statement. Again, you jump track to different topics before resolving the one you initiated. This pattern has repeated itself once too often. IMO you are here to destabilize the page and keep it in a perpetual state of controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My attempt on slavery:

• "Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. Throughout his political life he sought conditional gradual emancipation for African American slaves, to prevent hostilities between former masters and freedmen. A concensus of historians has concluded that Jefferson was the father of one or more of his slave Sally Hemings children, however various historians have accepted other potential fathers." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinionated, one sided, not at all neutral and too may details. There is no unified consensus. It's like we never had a discussion. It now seems you are purposely trying to torpedo the stability of the Jefferson page. You have just demonstrated why we need to remove any mention of historians from the slavery and Hemings topic. None of the other landmark events in the lede are artificially propted up so we need to remove such questionable and opinionated commentary altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How can this be one sided Gwillhickers, when Jefferson himself advocated Education, Emancipation, and Expatriation? This was who Jefferson was. That is not opinion. Jefferson did tell Coles to keep his slaves, meaning he did not endorse abolition in what he viewed was the degregaded condition of the slaves. Jefferson never gave opportunities to free slaves domestically. That is a stretch. No torpedos here. We can't make a fantasy novel of who Jefferson was on Wikipedia. His farm books stated the boys who were tardy for work at the nailery were whipped. There was a cover up of this information and only recently exposed. I don't hate Jefferson. We need to have an honest and objective account of Jefferson in the Slaves and slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is in my opinion, a manufactered and fantasy view of Jefferson:

• "Although Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, he was always a kind master, treating them as if they were family members. Jefferson always sought to set his slaves free and to end slavery in the United States, but certain Southern interests prevented him from doing so. Jefferson also believed blacks were child like and could not take care of themselves. Masters, were to be their gentle caretakers. The slaves enjoyed being under Jefferson's care and even protected his property during the American Revolution. Jefferson remained single after his wife died and celebate. An unproven rumor that Jefferson had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings was designed to slander Jefferson's good character." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography still needs work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside to lede discussion

Wow. First -- you guys are both way faster than I am, which I guess you both have figured out. This is the “digital divide” at some level, also, I hate getting old the way I'm doing it.

_ _ Second -- there is lots of ammunition for Cm from Roger G. Kennedy on the “empire of cotton” re-enthralling the south to British factors post 1790 and cycle of debt, (then re-echoed in 20th C. southern sharecropping).. That Louisiana Purchase was expanding slavery is part of my earlier point -- we need to address the evolution of Jefferson’s thinking, not simply declare an inconsistency. It turns out to be Kennedy’s thesis in “Jefferson’s Lost Cause”.

_ _ That cotton-based lifestyle of planter debt-ridden fantasy can be directly connected with the secessionists hallucinatory “King Cotton”. Turning back to Gwillhickers national-international context, the elites and cotton factory owners were sympathetic to southern cotton interests, BUT merchants needed wheat to capitalized on the European grain shortages following their crop failures, and the British army did not want to have another go at defending Canada – after Antietam it was over, the U.S. army was superior to anything that could be fielded by Britain, France, Germany or Russia. See John Keegan, “The American Civil War”, 2009. Then there was preliminary Proclamation, election results and Emancipation as a war measure, the anti-slavery urban laboring classes mobilized, the Brits were out of it and the Confederates were sunk. Napoleon III would have joined in with the secessionists if the Brits went first, but he, reinstating slavery, was about to be kicked out of Mexico by Santa Ana, savior of his country, again, somehow, Cinco de Mayo.

_ _ Third, both R.G. Kennedy and Meacham establish Jefferson held national existence as a first priority, he was a politician who very much could not take the continued existence of the U.S. for granted. 1) U.S. had undeclared war with Britain and France and a declared war with Britain (New Orleans = Gibraltar trade choke point, still occupied, neither the Senate nor Parliament had ratified Treaty of Ghent at the New Orleans attack, British launched during peace negotiations, like Pearl Harbor, ...) and 2) the slave-power were always threatening secession and fooling around with the English cotton and Spanish slave interests – Cuba is the last place in the Americas to abolish slavery. So you see how I like Gwillhickers international context for the article narrative, in addition to some of Cm’s new scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

TVH, I encourage you to make edits to the Jefferson page as you see fit as you have consistently demonstrated the ability to maintain objectivity and context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the term "Jefferson's evolution" in terms of slavery going from ending slavery in the West in 1784 to expanding slavery in the Louisiana Territory in 1804, twenty years difference, and then his deep opposition to the Missouri Compromise in 1820 that limited the spread of slavery. Jefferson's foriegn policies were never designed to end slavery in other nations, including Cuba. In terms of the LP Jefferson was concerned more with French resistance by Napoleon, who could have waged a War with the United States, then I believe with Spain and Britain. Jefferson attempted to pay the Spanish $2,000,000 in secret funding to get Florida from Spain. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson, slavery, and Sally Hemings lede sentences draft

• Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves, throughout his lifetime advocated a conditional antislavery emancipation plan that required slaves to be of a certain age and then expatriated to a colony paid for by the sale of public lands. A controversy has developed among modern historians over whether Jefferson was the father of at least one or more of his slave Sally Hemings seven children. Historians have concluded the "preponderance of evidence" strongly supports Jefferson paternity. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because the many prominent historians who have not made such "conclusions" are not at all represented, and there are many. Again, we need to simply say they are divided, and there are sources that say so, starting with Hyland, McDonald, Turner, Mansfield, Mayer, Ferrell, Bear and others, not to mention Barger, who worked side by side with Foster. -- The "preponderance of evidence" strongly supports Randolph and his sons also, all of whom were known to visit Monticello when Jefferson was there, ala times of conception, and it's no stretch of the imagination that Randolph resembled his brother Thomas which easily explains any resemblance of Hemings' children to Thomas. Further, Randolph and his sons, all around Sally's age, were known to fraternize with slaves, at night -- not Thomas. And we have oral history, ignored by Reed and co, that says Randolph was the father of at least one of Sally's children. Seems we'll never get past this issue unless we compromise and opt for neutrality, an idea that you were once waving around like a flag. We have been down this road many times, and you keep initiating the process of doing so. No one else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I used Kierner (2012) as a source since she was fairly recent. We are not here to argue for or against Jefferson paternity. Is there a book source that states Randolph most likely is the father of Hemings children? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert :

• William G. Hyland, In Defense of Thomas Jefferson, (2009). on page 30-31 articulates many reasons why Randolph is the likely candidate, and he notes others, including Cynthia Burton, 2005, and Robert Turner, 2012. -- Forest McDonald, author of The presidency of Thomas Jefferson and numerous other books on American history endorses Hyland's book on the front cover.

• Cynthia H. Burton, Jefferson vindicated: fallacies, omissions, and contradictions in the Hemings genealogical search, 2005, p.53

• E.R. Coates & Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (2001) The Jefferson-Hemings myth: an American travesty, p.34

• Robert Turner (2012) The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings

• Husna Haq, (2011) Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: one of history's myths

• David N. Mayer (2001) The Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History

There are others and the fact that you have to ask about the existence of any of them tells me, 1, you don't remember past debates, so I don't have much faith left in you in terms of discussions, and 2, that you are not very familiar with the topic in the first place save the narrow view you seemed to have boxed yourself in with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision 01:

• Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves, throughout his lifetime advocated a conditional antislavery emancipation plan that required slaves to be of a certain age and then expatriated to a colony paid for by the sale of public lands. A controversy has developed among modern historians over whether Jefferson was the father of at least one or more of his slave Sally Hemings seven children. A concensus of historians view there is a "preponderance of evidence" that supports Jefferson paternity. Various historians challenge this view and believe Jefferson's younger brother Randolph may be a possible father. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this version is better since this establishes the controversy is among historians, not people in general, and that the concensus view has been challenged. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Again with your "A concensus of historians...". Also, the "preponderance of evidence" also supports Randolph/sons paternity. Your draft is still skewed to one side. Pass on that draft also. -- Slavery: Jefferson and slavery cover many topics, so citing the details about an "emancipation plan", in the lede, again, tells me you don't remember past discussions about summary statements in the lede. -- Cm', I'm just about at the end of my rope talking with you. You need to collect your thoughts, try to remember past discussions, stop jumping track to other topics before the issue you initiate has been resolved. That's it, unless anyone else can offer a viable reason to keep one sided commentary in the lede I'll be editing the existing commentary shortly. Cm' you've been given plenty of opportunity to discuss this and all you've done is trot around in the same circle ignoring whatever doesn't suit your fancy.

• Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether or not Jefferson
  was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.

Fair, free of details, per lede statements and doesn't slight either view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Kiener (2012) stated the "preponderance of evidence" strongly supports Jefferson paternity. What sources state that Randolph Jefferson is more likely the father then Thomas Jefferson of Sally Hemings children? Please give me a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• "A concensus of historians view there is a "preponderance of evidence" that strongly supports Jefferson paternity. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already displayed the sources. Why did you ignore them? Once again, and for the sake of other readers, Hyland pp.30-31 articulates in no uncertain terms why Randolph is the much more likely candidate. He also cites Cynthia Burton, Robert Turner, Forrest McDonald, and Andrew Burstein who also hold the same views. Since there are so many other prominent sources that maintain a much broader view, the practice of cherry picking one or two pet sources will no longer cut it -- actually it never did. All the evidence also supports Randolph and his sons. There is also testimony from slaves and an overseer, Edmond Bacon that supports only the likelihood of Randolph paternity. Would you like to learn about that also? -- Sorry, Cm'. Many scholars have moved on. Try to come to terms. Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Combine statements, or neutral statement?

Cm', here is your (above) statement, taken from Kierner, who btw only mentions ""persistent rumors about her father's long standing relationship with Sally Hemings".

• A concensus of historians view there is a "preponderance of evidence" that strongly supports Jefferson paternity. (Kierner)

You are including a quote in the lede from only one source, btw, and since this is not a complete statement in terms of facts, it should also read:

• A consensus of historians view there is a "preponderance of evidence" that strongly supports Jefferson paternity^{(Kierner, p.12)}, however there is also a consensus among other historians that mainatain the evidence also supports Randolph Jefferson, and note some of the evidence only supports Randolph paternity. ^{(Hyland, pp.30-31)}

Or we could simply say:

• Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether or not Jefferson
  was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.

Also, we do not have to include citations in the lede if the general lede statements are covered and sourced in the text, as we once discussed here at this talk page. Why are you insisting we not be fair and neutral? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please show me the complete Hyland source, i.e., what book or article? I object to going all the way back to 1802. This dispute is among modern historians. Callander's "accusation" in 1802 had no affect on Thomas Jefferson's popularity. Other historians since then did not believe Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings. This modern controversy started with Sean Brody in her book on Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Although I don't believe Brody intentionally or purposefully started this controversy. This is a controversy among historians who place much emphasis on the importance of whether Jefferson had slave children by his slave Sally Hemings. I like your first draft better then your second. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

• "Modern historians remain divided over whether Thomas Jefferson or his younger brother, Randolph, fathered one or more of his slave Sally Hemings children. One concensus of historians has concluded there is a "predonerance of evidence" that strongly supports Jefferson paternity, while another consensus has concluded Randolph paternity." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hyland source link does not show pages 30-31. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your draft is too long with too many details and still tends to favor once side. You use the term "preponderance of evidence" referring to Jefferson paternity but not for the other view, and you are still quoting one source, out of dozens of varying sources, to make your lengthy and detailed statement in the lede. This is skewed editorship, Cm'. You should know better. And btw, no one has "concluded" Randolph paternity. That is something else you should think about. TJF, Reed and company, and apparently yourself, have all "concluded" Jefferson paternity, while the other side, with their objective approach to the evidence, has not "concluded" anything, either way. All along they have only maintained there are other possibilities, some even believe Randolph to be the likely candidate, but none have "concluded" anything. Jumping to conclusions has been the fundamental scholarly flaw with TJF, Reed, et al. How in the world can you "conclude" anything when the evidence points to Randolph just as much as it does to Jefferson?? TJF, Reed, etc, indict their own credibility by declaring "conclusions" on such scant evidence, and in doing so they reveal their acute and subjective bias, POV pushing, and a less then scholarly approach to history. The TJF / Reed school of thought are agenda and peer driven. Shame on them all.

The controversy started in 1802 and is not confined to 'modern historians'. It has involved many people from all walks of life. Citing 1802 doesn't favor either view so what exactly is the big deal if we put the controversy into historical context?

I have Hyland's book in hand. I will see if it is ok to scan pages 30-31 and upload them, per fair use, not that it's required to use it as a source, as many of the cites in the Jefferson bio can't be viewed online either. In any event, you have presented no valid reason not to use the neutral and contextual statement, your one quote/source notwithstanding.

• Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether or not
  Jefferson was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this for a final version?

• "Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves, advocated throughout his lifetime a conditional antislavery emancipation plan that required slaves to be of a certain age and then expatriated to a colony paid for by the sale of public lands. Since 1802 historians and others have been divided over the controversy of whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello."

I think we are making allot of progress. I removed the "or not" part from your sentence. The controversy is whether Jefferson actually had children by his slave Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use image

As I suspected, anything uploaded under 'Fair-use' has to be placed in a specific article, and not a talk page. In any event, cites are not required to be viewed on line to be eligible as cites. If you would like to challenge this particular citation, you are free to do so. Viewing Google books not in the PD can be funny. Sometimes you can only get a snippit view. Go to this address and do a search for y chromosome. I just did and was able to view pages 30-31. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From your link, I do not believe we can endorse Hylands personal attacks on other scholars. The reader needs to be given enough information to be make decisions. I have had so much forced endoctrinated history lessons taught to me when I went to elementary school. We could not even question or critisize anything the "founding fathers" did. Wikipedia needs to be an open source version of Jefferson, even if we disagree with a historians opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Personal attacks on other scholars"? "forced endoctrinated history lessons"?? And again, you have issues with the term "Founding Fathers", a term used throughout WP American history articles, while at the same time you don't blink when terms like "Jefferson the monster" are slurred to the public. Your personal attacks at common American historical terms aside, we need to keep lede statements simple and neutral, the likes of which will not require citations from Hyland or anyone else. Thanks for your revealing comments just the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be fair and neutral Gwillhickers. Wikipedia should not side with one author over another. Have you read the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's attacks King George III and refers to his rule as tyranical. Americans have freedom of speech, thanks to Jefferson and Madison. We certainly owe the founding generation respect for the freedoms we have in this country. However, we have a right to discuss the founding generation in a constructive yet critical fashion. We owe respect to the "founding fathers" for starting this country, but we certainly do not have to agree with all their statements, actions, or non actions. I do not believe children in our schools should be endoctrinated to call Jefferson, Adams, or Washington their father, as I was. That is my opinion. People need the freedom to decide and discuss if Jefferson was a "monster" or a great man and an American patriot and author. I don't hate Jefferson or any of the "founding fathers". This article needs to be free of any opinions or bias I have concerning Jefferson. I am all for neutrality. This is a discussion page where I believe there needs to be freedom to express opinions that are constructive to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert : No one says we have to agree with everything the Founding Fathers said and did. For example, I disagree that Jefferson taught one of his slaves to be a French chef -- he should have taught him to be an Italian chef. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your statement on having a slave that cooks Italian food versus French food in my opinion is inapproriate. Reading between the lines, I take that you codone African American enslavement. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, Cm'. 'Reading between the lines' I take it that you have been indoctrinated to see past history through one little tiny modern day hole and that you view anyone who tries to present the entire picture as some sort person who 'condones slavery'. My remark was just an attempt to bring a bit of levity to an otherwise tenuous discussion. Apparently you're only peeved because it also mentioned a slave, a person you turned around and referred to in terms of race. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If Hyland believes Randolph Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings children, that is fine. I disagree with personally attacking other historians. I know I have not been perfect in my own written words, but I have endevoured to keep our conversation civil. I believe we are making progress slowly on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does Hyland "personally attack" other scholars, moreover, 'which' scholars? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From the link you gave me Hyland says other scholars are sloppy and manipulative researchers. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound like he targeted specific authors by name and that we are citing these particular statements and targeting specific authors here at WP. Hyland is not the first to be critical of other authors, in fact, as you should know, this is common among modern historians. In all fairness, modern scholars can always criticize the veteran and past scholars, but past scholars could never criticize future scholars, simply because most of them were not born yet. -- Q. So who is left to criticize modern scholars? A. Other modern scholars. Seems you didn't have much concern about this when the 'modern' door swung the other way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, "sloppy and manipulative research" is a fair and legitimate criticism regarding various authors, given the cherry picking of evidence and the jumping to "conclusions" that have followed, much of it racially motivated. As I've already said, the TJF-Reed school of thought has made the conclusions, while others only acknowledge other possibilities and have not concluded anything. Again, in terms of honest and objective scholarship, TJF, Reed et al, have shot themselves in the foot, no one else. If others come along and point this out, well, too bad. As for citing this criticism in the article, no one has done this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your the one who is attempting to present a one-sided view of Thomas Jefferson, slavery, and Sally Hemings. I believe other editors are afraid to get involved in conversation because you control the article. I have been very cooperative and have not objected to putting in Randolph as potential father of Hemings children. You force your opinions on other editors and do not allow them to have their own historical view of Jefferson. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. I almost feel you are baiting other editors to get into an edit war. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Correction, I am the one who has attempted to show both sides of the issue, and this obviously is what angers you the most, for whatever reasons, I am done caring. Also, don't speak on behalf of others. I discuss edits, and don't jump track and start other issues before resolving ones that I have initated and do not control the article. For openers, you wanted mention of Indians in the lede. Has this not been done?? Overall you have not been cooperative, as you repeatedly ignore past and current discussions and have all along been looking for ways to inject your 'supremacist' rhetoric (however veiled) into the article. You say you don't hate Jefferson but your actions tell us a different story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Indians allowed to be mentioned in the lede. I feel we have been bogged down by slavery and Hemings. Jefferson's consistent policy of slavery was emancipation at a certain age and expatriation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede

The lede draft statement for Hemings looks better, finally. The draft for the slavery lede statement is a bit long however and centers around one event, i.e.emancipation. Needs to be a more general statement.
Also, I moved a couple of sentences from the ' Member of Congress and Minister to France ' section to the ' Controversy section, covering Madison Heming's testimony regarding Sally being a concubine, etc. It was presented and written as fact, not as testimony, and also added some qualifying context. I also mentioned that Jefferson taught himself to read and write Spanish during his 19 day voyage to France, i.e.in the ' Minister to France section, cited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Though Jefferson owned many slaves he opposed the institution all his life and consequently treated
  and took care of them very well and expected them to work no more than free farmers.

(Note, at least two of these references (TJF and Halliday) believe Jefferson paternity.)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers your statement is an exaggeration of the truth. You can't oppose slavery and own hundreds of slaves, specifically when Jefferson could have freed all his slaves after 1782. Free white farmers could control their own destinies while slaves were in bondage for life, unless, their master set them free. Jefferson kept hundreds of slaves in perpetual bondage. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been exaggerated. The sources say he owned slaves yet opposed slavery and treated them well at the same time. Jefferson was a complex man and so is the issue. Though free farmers were indeed free, this does not change the fact that Jefferson expected slaves to work no harder than they. We've entertained this flat earth analysis of Jefferson and slavery time and again, along with the racist and political feelings that fosters most of it. The year is 2013. Time to move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you only pick historians who support your own personal view of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Instead of your usual reactionary opinion just show us a source that says Jefferson didn't treat his slaves well and over worked them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of bias concerning Jefferson. Slaves were whipped at Monticello. But historians state, Jefferson rarely whipped his slaves. But the fact is Jefferson whipped his slaves. I believe three slaves were whipped at Monticello. Then there is Jefferson's farm book that states slave children were whipped for truancy. Can you refute Jefferson's farm book? I speak for other editors because other editors have fled this article, afraid of getting into edit wars with Gwillhickers. Speaking the truth is not hatred, but rather in accordance with God's scripture. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." KJV John 8:32 Believing lies is a trap that many historians fall into. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson did not have slaves whipped except in exceptional cases involving fighting, etc, as were free men in other walks of life, and these events were rare and are supported by slave's testimony. There were cases of excess whippings at the hand of overseers when Jefferson was away, but this was not his policy and was a practice he abhored. Overall, he treated slaves very well, exceptionally well, and again, worked them no more than free farmers worked. And if anyone has "fled" from this page it is because of the same debates that you initiate, and as edit history will clearly show, much of the animosity is directed at you, so kindly do not quote scriptures to me about your version of "the truth". You only bring shame to the religion you profess to embrace. I have not read the farm book in its entirety. Would you kindly quote the passage where Jefferson approved of the whipping of children for being late? After that you get to quote sources that say Jefferson 'did not' treat his slaves well overall and overworked them as I asked you in the first place before you got up on your pedestal. Then get back to me about "the truth". Thanks, Cm'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson gave me the freedom to quote scripture. I apologize if I have gotten preachy, but I am not ashamed of the Bible. I did not say Jefferson did not treat his slaves overall well, but whippings were an extremely painful process. Saying whippings are rare does not make the process any less painful. Thomas Mann Randolph wrote to Jefferson that the slave children at the nailery were whipped for being truant. I don't have the letter, however, I have been trying to find the full text source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edwin Betts, according to Weincek, edited out a letter from Colonel Thomas Mann Randolph that stated the "small ones" were being whipped at the nailery for "truancy". I am trying to find that letter by Col. Randolph. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Whipping" can be switching with a green twig, or a pop with a leather belt, or a strung-up lashing permanently disabling. We are going to put this in context, yes? We are talking about the same world where gentlemen shot at one at one-another 20-feet apart over being "dissed" (okay, mostly shooting in the air except for Andrew Jackson, a kind of "serial killer" by "modern" scholarship write-ups?, one can only hope for context), and common laboring free men wrestled drunk from a quart of whisky not beer, in the mud outside a "grocery" or tavern, biting off one another's ears and noses. Are we not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson is different TheVirginiaHistorian. He is the primary author of the Declaration of Independance who stated "All men are created equal". He owned hundreds of slaves. That is not equality. I would not take whipping lightly since all the forms you listed are designed to inflict signifigant pain on the body. Dueling is not the same as perpetual Chattel slavery. The other issue is race. Jefferson only had blacks whipped, not whites. Since historians view Jefferson as a great man he needs to be held at a high standard. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Roger G. Kennedy does that scathingly in his critique of Jefferson's knowing choices for political-power-for-union, sacrificing his cause of the virtuous republic of free yeomen. And I want to bring some of his insight, especially the international commerce and multinational corporation connections. Meacham's intellectual history is also useful interpretation. Jefferson consistently held blacks and Indians capable of self-government, proposing statehood for tribe-nations as secretary of state, and independent nationhood for freed slaves in Africa. Conceptually, he held all men created equal in rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

_ _ He condemned the condition of slavery as degrading humanity, then is quoted as saying those so degraded required some training for the skills of independent living in the marketplace of yeoman farmers and commercial interests. As to race and colorblindness, well he personally freed all the children of Sally Hemings regardless of who may have fathered them. Her son said because that was the deal to get her to return with him from France where she might have been freed on demand by petition to any Paris justice of the peace during her stay there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hemings children were 1/8 black and according to Jefferson's own rule were white. Jefferson did not free one non Hemings slave. Jefferson did not want blacks to participate in the United States as citizens. That is not equal. The "rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" only belonged to whites. Jefferson did pay respect to Native American intelligence. That is not the same as self government. Jefferson thought blacks were like lazy children and pests to society. The job of whites was to take care of them through slavery. That is why Jefferson sought to expand slavery with the Louisiana Purchase. The LP could have been a place of African American refuge, but Jefferson brought in slavery to the territory in 1804, when he permitted by federal law Southern colonists who migrated and brought in their slaves. The LP was Jefferson's slave empire. Jefferson said if Indians did not go West of the Mississipi they would be exterminated by the hatchet. Ulysses S. Grant brought this up in 1869 when he stated wars of extermination are wicked and unjust. Why do historians keep making excuses for Thomas Jefferson? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cm', you're confusing "excuses" with explanations, and you're still ranting and parroting the same short, out of context, remarks. "Jefferson's slave empire"?? Slavery already existed in the Louisiana territory, and Jefferson had no personal interests there and didn't impose new anti-slavery laws so as not to strain relations with France who had great interests there and was a much needed ally at that time. Remember? -- "Lazy children and pests to society"? Jefferson only mentioned 'pests' (not "lazy") to Coles in the context that they would have no shelter or means to provide for themselves. Remember? This has been explained to you several times before, yet you keep blowing the same horn over and over, and then you wonder why most have "fled" from the talk page while trying to dump blame on my shoulders.
-- You said Jefferson whipped children! You said you read this in the 'Farm book'. This is yet another example of the vile and distorted views you have attempted to inject into the biography. I asked you to produce that passage but as usual you're all over the map, still jumping to other topics, still blowing your horn over your perceived 'inconsistencies', easily explained in the light of historical context. Please produce that Farm book passage.
-- Btw, we were talking about the lede statement before you became all angry and righteous when I mentioned that Jefferson treated his slaves well and didn't over work them, and there are plenty of sources that back this up. Any 'inconsistencies' regarding the DOI and equality, etc, doesn't change that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

-- TVH, once again, thanks for bringing context into the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote from Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, p 162-163

• "During the American Revolution, Jefferson did nothing to ameliorate the burdens imposed on slaves or extend rights of citizens to free blacks. The lustrous statements on human rights and equality in the Declaration of Independence caused many contemporaries to rethink their racist convictions, but that had not been Jefferson's intent. Indeed, he accepted, and advanced, every element of racist dogma then in fashion...He thought blacks were innately lazy and slow." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferling seems to be aloof to the idea that during the Revolution everyone's first priority was dealing with the 'war' with Britain. You should learn someday that during times of 'war' it is a wonder any attention was given to 'rights of freed blacks' at all. That is a modern day expectation where national security is secure, taken for granted by individuals like yourself, and the threat of death and/or destruction of your home town is little more than an abstract idea, if it's even an idea at all, and where all you have to do to put dinner on the table is drive over to the local supermarket and pick out a micro-wave dinner for yourself. Now reread Ferling's one little passage. Name one fact, other than Jefferson 'did nothing' for 'civil rights of free blacks' during the middle of a war. I can't believe you are so incredibly naive. Btw, I asked you to present the passage in that Farm book twice now, and all you can do is cherry pick one source that is all speculation and conjecture in an obvious attempt to evade the issue regarding the lede statement about slavery. Third request: Please present the passage in the Farm book where Jefferson says he approved of the whipping of black children. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

'Whippings' or 'switchings'?

I am looking for the Wiencek source reference. Wiencek mentioned that slave children were whipped. I am looking for the Thomas Mann Randolph source letter. Wiencek stated that Betts purposely did not put the letter into the Farm Book. Your personal attacks on Ferling are inappropriate. National security? Setting the blacks free would prevent all slave uprisings and could have prevented the American Civil War. Keeping blacks slaves was a national security risk. Here is the Wiencek reference source: The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson page 5 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to cite the farm book or any actual letter. The source you provide in the above link gives us quite a different picture than the one you are trying to hand us. Wiencek refers to several well known historians:

• Merrill Peterson writes ... "in the management of his slaves Jefferson encouraged diligence but was intinctly too lenient to demand it. By all accounts he was a kind and generous master. His conviction of the injustice of the institution strengthened his sense of the obligation towards its victims.

• Joseph Ellis observed that only on rare occasions and as a last resort he ordered overseers to use the lash.

• Jack McLaughlin noted that Lilly "resorted to the whip during Jefferson's absence, but Jefferson put a stop to it."

• Dumas Malone stated Jefferson was kind to his servants to the point of indulgence and that his 'people' were devoted to him.

In reference to Lilly, the overseer who used the whip excessively Jefferson was worried and wrote to Raandolph "I forgot to ask the favor of you to speak to Lilly as to the treatment of the nailers, it would destroy their value in my estimation to degrade them in their own eyes by the whip and therefore must not be resorted to but in the extremities." When Jefferson learned that Lilly used the whip at the nailry he had him replaced by William Stewart.

There are instances of using the whip, as we have already acknowledged in the slavery section, but again, this was rare and used only as a last resort in extreme cases and administered on the legs, perhaps the hind quarters. If it makes any difference, parents in those days, and still today, often took a belt strap or a switch and administered discipline to children in the legs or hind quarters.
Fighting had to be discouraged among slaves, esp among the older boys and young men. At the nailry in one instance a slave took a hammer and smashed the skull of a fellow slave. That is the context you have conveniently omitted from this picture.

If children were "whipped" for being truant I am convinced by the very account you provided that they were merely switched in the legs or hind quarters a few times as parents often did to children in those days.
Listening to your exclamatory rhetoric, it seems you would have us believe that children were tied to a wagon wheel, their shirts torn off and were outright whipped and that this was Jefferson's policy. Next time you give us something to read I would recommend that you read all of it. After reading Wiencek's account I am wondering how in the world he can entitle it "The Dark side of Thomas Jefferson". It only goes to show you that some people see only what they want regardless of the facts. Please don't ever preach to me about "the truth" again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Though Jefferson owned many slaves he opposed the institution all his life and consequently treated
  and took care of them very well and expected them to work no more than free farmers.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your completely missing Wiencek's view that Jefferson whipped the boys so they would be more productive! You talk as if whipping is a walk in the park. You are purposely making whipping appear to be "matter of fact". If a person whipped their children today they would be indicted and on trial for felony assault. Jefferson stated all men are created equal but he is whipping slave boys for profit. That is contradictive. Jefferson was not for equality. That is obvious. Keep living in your fantasy world Gwillhickers, but don't force people to live in your lies and false assumptions on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't miss Weineck's view, I saw it in the context he presented it in, the likes of which Peterson, Ellis, McLaughlin and Malone also support. No one said whippings, such as they were, were a "walk in the park" -- this is more of your empty rhetoric and smacks of the worst sort of POV pushing. You continue to miss the reality that whippings, or switchings, were rare and had to be administered in some cases given the behavior of some slaves, as was pointed out to you in a most definitive way regarding a slave bashing in the head of another slave. And slave children were not whipped as you would have us believe. Apparently they were 'switched' in the legs or hind quarters sometimes for being late or being lazy on the job, but as was pointed out by Joseph Ellis, author of American Sphinx, this was not Jefferson's policy and an overseer was dismissed for doing this. Slaves knew what Jefferson's feelings were regarding slavery and because of that, and the fact that he took care of and provided for them very well most were devoted to him and cheered him when he returned to Monticello from the Whitehouse. Again, this is the context you have been trying so desperately to sweep under the rug, apparently so you can make your statement here on the Jefferson page. Even slaves had a better view of Jefferson than you -- or are you saying slaves were too stupid to know any better? (!) Given your apparent indoctrination and prolonged exposure to the fundamental cynicism of various 'modern thinkers' and agenda hacks, this must all sound very strange to you.

Reminder. This is all Weincek's view and given the POV title of his essay, "The dark side of Thomas Jefferson", I'm surprised he quotes Peterson, Malone and others, but we still we need to see the actual 'Farm book' passage in question and Bett's letter. You spoke of the Farm book passage as if you actually read it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Wiencek is stating that viewed these other views opinions of Jefferson as a kind slave owner promoted by Peterson, Malone, and Ellis are false or misleading. Their views on Jefferson and slavery were possibly designed to make Jefferson look like a nice guy who got caught up in a world of slavery and was a victim. I respect Malone as a historian and I do not make personal attacks on Peterson and Ellis. I disagree with the view that Jefferson was a victim of the slavery system and he did the best he could to be a nice guy. Wiencek gave snippets of Randoph's letter in the article, The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson. The Randolph letter maybe at the Massachussetts Historical Society online. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Weincek doesn't say that about McLaughlin or Ellis, and I don't see where he says that about Peterson or Malone. As I said, I'm surprised Weincek included their perspectives, yet, to his credit, he did. All you are exemplifying is that well know historians, including a well know Jefferson critic, Ellis, have starkly different views than what you've been trying to hand us. Nothing has been presented by you that changes the context in which whippings or switchings occurred. Still waiting for that Farm Book passage, Cm'. Seems if you wanted to clear things up you would have presented it by now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My source is Wiencek for the Randolph letter on Jefferson having black children whipped at Jefferson's nailery. Wiencek used the above historians views as examples of Jefferson protectionism. Weincek was pointing out how these historians lightly covered the slavery issue. Wiencek points out that Betts intentionally withheld Randolphs letter so Jefferson would appear to be a nice guy. Your dispute is with Wiencek, not me. Wiencek was not using Malone and Peterson as alternative theories as you suggest. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My dispute is with you and your attempt to exaggerate and distort the event of whippings and switchings, and since you nor Weincek don't cite the actual farm book passage or Bett's letter this is still all unclear and speculative. What remains constant are the scores of historians, past and present, that maintain Jefferson was opposed to slavery all his life and treated and provided for his slaves very well, and in spite of any opinions he had about their race. Apparently this has been something you've been incapable of grasping all along, given your two-dimensional analysis and writing style and repeated attempts to specifically make Jefferson not look like "a nice guy". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

I find, regarding the 1800 election: "He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson and Burr received the most electoral votes, but since neither had a majority, the election was decided in the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."

Try:

"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, with whom he ran on the Democratic-Republican ticket. They received the same number of electoral votes, which was a majority, but under the laws of the time, the electoral vote could not distinguish between President and Vice President, and the election was decided in the outgoing Congress (by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives)."

I have omitted "rallying support for his party" as it's not clear who is referred to (because it was followed immediately by "Jefferson and Burr"). They received 73 electoral votes each, and that was indeed a majority at the time (correcting the remark "neither had a majority"). Notice that "election was decided in the outgoing Congress" is part of the laws of the time; nowadays, the "lame duck" (22nd) amendment provides that if Congress has to be involved directly in the election of President and/or Vice President, it will be the new Congress, not the outgoing Congress.

Given the laws of that time, the ATTEMPTED practice was that the vice-presidential nominee would receive 1 less electoral vote than the presidential nominee. As it turns out, the U.S. never had a president and vice president elected with that method; in 1796, the Federalist electors scattered their 2nd vote (causing Jefferson to get 2nd highest number of electoral votes and become VP), and in 1800 the Democratic-Republican electors goofed in that every one of them voted for both Jefferson and Burr.

And yes, we have the pointer to main article about the 1800 presidential election. I take it my suggested change is not a long one, because of that main article.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the proposed. It keeps the important element, Jefferson went to Burr to learn how to do the street organization of a political party, as he went to Madison to learn how to do the legislative body organization. alternative wording:

"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, with whom he ran on the Democratic-Republican ticket. They tied with the most electoral votes, but under the laws of the time, the ballots not distinguish between President and Vice President. The election was decided in the outgoing Federalist House of Representatives."'

[Aside] Hamilton threw his weight for Jefferson because Jefferson had principles, so was predictable, Burr was not reliable; Jefferson paid his card gambling debts, Burr did not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed this at the BEGINNING of the section in question:

"Thomas Jefferson took the oath of office on March 4, 1801, at a time when partisan strife between the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties was growing to alarming proportions."

The comment is OK as far as I know, but the 4 March 1801 date puts it out of CHRONOLOGICAL order. I suggest it be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)