Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 44

Nailry

According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Young workers, like the boys in the nailery, were encouraged to be more industrious by non-financial incentives, such as special clothing and meat rations. No where do they mention that boys were "whipped" to make them work. Again, the TJF is the forerunner when it comes to newly discovered documents, letters and such. Even Wiencek, p.93 mentions incentives of extra food and clothing. Still waiting to read the letter or coverage that was "suppressed" from Jefferson's Farm Book. Not even Wiencek provides us with any quote from it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative approach

Cm' once again we seem to be moving away from the possibility of coming up with a general statement regarding the way Jefferson treated his slaves overall. At this point I would recommend that we let @TheVirginiaHistorian and Rjensen: cover this area if they are willing. What say you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Rjensen approved of my alternative paragraph. I have listed the sources. What more is to be said ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided housing for them, giving them financial incentives to work. Some scholars disagree noting there were cases of whippings, the purchase of slave collars, children working in his nailry, his calculation of slave profits, and two of his Hemings slaves bartered or paid for their freedom. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you have an abundance of minor details all of which are exceptional and most of which belong in the daughter article. Every one is presented out of context. You didn't clarify that whippings occurred at the hand of overseers, that they were rare and used only in cases of fighting and stealing. And his slaves didn't wear collars. There may have been some cases when punishment was meted out but your above version more than suggests that Jefferson's slaves were kept in chains (every collar had to have a chain). Btw, scholars don't disagree that Jefferson provided housing, etc. Your proposal more than suggests this.
Accurate proposal :
Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Rather then using coercion to promote work he gave them financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of whippings at the hands of overseers when Jefferson was away, and for having children working in his nailry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Your proposed details are questionable and don't involve the treatment of all slaves, as do the ones I have included. I removed calculating profits and collars. The practice of "calculating" is simply the practice of taking care of the financial end of business and is a very minor detail that has nothing at all to do with treatment, while the use of collars was probably used instead of whipping for the rare cases that called for it. Again, in our summary here we are covering how Jefferson treated his slaves overall. I will compromise and settle for "many historians" rather then "Historians generally...", and the mention of children working in the nailry, where it is uncertain that children suffered as you would have us believe. i.e.many children got their start in the trades by working there. Child labor was common in Jefferson's day. e.g.Children of farmers began working at age five, not at age ten, as was the case at Monticello. These apparent attempts to obscure the truth and block context from the narrative need to stop. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, your paragraph contradicts itself. No coersion for Jefferson and his slaves but then there were the whippings of his slaves. That would be coersion. At least you added "children working in his nailry".
  • Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of slave whippings, slave children working in his nailry under harsh conditions, and for his purchase of slave collars. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
or
  • Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of excessive slave whippings and slave children working in his nailry under harsh conditions. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, Cm. How about putting the material which does not reflect the ongoing practice at Monticello by and large in a note, as some few historians see such detail as noteworthy but most do not recognize the exceptions as significant enough to enter the narrative.
  • Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. note Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of documented slave whippings in his absence and that his nailry was worked by slave children who were promoted to supervisory positions there and elsewhere on the plantation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
To be neutral both scholars who are for and anti Jefferson and slavery should be in the article rather then hidden in a note. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: Again you misrepresent what I have written. My proposals reads " Rather then using coercion to promote work he gave them financial and other incentives.." This doesn't mean that Jefferson used coercion. Some overseers did. Can you provide us with one incident where Jefferson put his slaves in chains (i.e.collars)? As I said, your version would easily give the impression that Jefferson held his slaves in chains, and I believe a man of your intelligence knows this. There are plenty of other historians who are critical of Jefferson, yet you insist on using the most fringe and vehement critic of them all. Finkelman does not represent the average Jefferson critic and Weincek reveals himself to be on the same page, albeit not as flagrantly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: I agree, that we need to author our summary with commonplace events and such, however I wouldn't go quite as far as to put criticism of Jefferson in a footnote, as general criticism of Jefferson represents a significant view. Having said that I like your version also. At the same time, we need to put obscure and exceptional details, in context, in the daughter article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I gave the page number for the Weincek source. I don't speak for Weincek. I do have his book. Jefferson's dad ordered slave collars and so did his son Thomas. That is the context. The Smithsonian is stating there were slave whippings of children. I don't speak for Smithsonian too. Why do you have to personalize everything? Whipping is coersion and Jefferson approved of his overseers to use whipping to increase production. Finkelman and Weincek are valid historians. I don't agree everything Finkleman has written on Jefferson and slavery but that does not make him fringe. Weincek is a respected historian who studied Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well, no footnote.

  • Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of documented slave whippings in his absence and that his nailry was worked by slave children who were promoted to supervisory positions there and elsewhere on the plantation. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the paragraph is on the right track maybe reworded a bit and adding Weincek as a reference. The Smithsonian says slave children were whipped. Yes some slave children were promoted but that does not negate any harsh treatment by Jefferson's overseers. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many historians view Jefferson was a benevolent slaveowner who humanely treated his slaves, not overworking them, providing them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of documented slave whippings in his absence and that slave children at times received harsh treatment by overseers while making nails in Jefferson's nailry. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Claims without context

  • Cm', you've cited Wiencek regarding the purchase of collars and about children being whipped to get them to work, however, the Smithsonian page you linked to doesn't mention collars. Are you in possession of Wiencek's book? What about the letter omitted from Jefferson's farm book? Do you know where we can read a transcript of this letter? Have you read it? We need to examine the context of these claims before we can even consider writing about them in the daughter article. Weincek is also artful with his conjecture. He claims profits from the nailry were used to buy Jefferson's groceries. Jefferson had many expenses, including providing for his slaves. Wiencek tips his biased hand when he claims that profits from the nailry were used only to stuff Jefferson's stomach. I word this so as it's sort of obvious that this is the impression Wiencek wants to create in the young and/or naive who don't know any better. In any case, we need to see some context here. Do you know of any? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, (who supports the theory of Jefferson's paternity of the Hemings children and has led the way in promoting new evidence, documents, etc) has extensive coverage of Jefferson's Farm book, yet they mention no suppressed letter or any whipping of the children at the nailry, nor do they mention any of this in their coverage of Jefferson's nailry.
  • Wiencek's claim of children being whipped is not consistent with the event of a boy found stealing nails, where Jefferson did not punish the boy (let alone had him whipped) saying Ah, sir, we can't punish him. He has suffered enough already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Gwillhickers, I don't speak for Weincek and the Smithsonian. I have Weincek's book and have read through his book. "Daughter article" ? This is a discussion for the main article. This is obstructionism. Without critical analysis of Jefferson Wikipedia becomes a blog and lacks neutrality and reliability. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Critical analysis goes in the “Historical reputation” section for the sake of a readable life of Jefferson. It is to be written in an encyclopedic style, — not in the style of an historiographic essay. The preponderance of historians find Jefferson a good man for all his faults, a positive weight in the scales of history, and only a fringe style him a “monster". Every element of Jefferson’s life as reported by the preponderance of evidence need not be accompanied with equal emphasis on contrarian publications, that would be WP:UNDUE. Fringe interpretations in the detail of minor unrepresentative occurrences can be explored in daughter articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion of slavery is not fringe and belongs in the Jefferson article under the slavery section. It only seems when some author is critical of Jefferson and slavery that is somehow viewed as fringe or POV, but all authors who support Jefferson and slavery are neither fringe or POV. That appears to be a double standard. Weincek said slave collars where ordered and his context was "like father like son". Jefferson's father ordered slave collars and so did Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: No one said that "the discussion of slavery" is fringe or that we should not include critical analysis. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, Finkelman is fringe and Weincek is not far behind him, both hyper-opinionated and subjective individuals who routinely ignore basic facts. They are not in line with the average and objective critic of Jefferson like Anette Gordon-Reed, Chester Miller and others. You were asked fair questions regarding the missing letter and about context, yet you seem to be either avoiding these things or are simply ignorant of them. Yet you continue to push such exceptional items, having little to nothing to do with how Jefferson treated the lot of his slaves over most of his lifetime. Would you please respond to what has been written, not to any notions that may be invoked? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

benevolence

  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: Agree. The many things that point to Jefferson's benevolence and humanitarianism are more than I could enumerate in this forum. Definitive among them however is his stance against the death penalty except in cases of murder and treason in the military. He was against any form of torture under any circumstances. He fought against any established religion in government and maintained that human rights were not given but were endowed by our creator -- which is what drove him to promote legislation to end slavery on a number of occasions. Though he owned slaves he worked them no more than a free farmer worked, providing them with a lifestyle that was often better than the average farmer who was struggling in the dirt for his livelihood. Though he sometimes spent foolishly, he never pursued wealth, and had contempt for banks and bankers who created debt and dependency and who often instigated and then funded wars. He disliked standing armies and preferred that the national defense be handled by the militia (i.e.the people). He claimed that slavery was against the laws of nature and that a just God would come to toll on this advent. He spent much time in his garden developing new strains of vegetables, etc. (A "monster"?) Needles to say, one could go on with such examples. The exceptional items, typically presented out of context, that have been proposed here need to go in the daughter article, with context, while objective and general criticism is of course welcomed in our summary account here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Finkelmen and Weincek are not fringe. That means only historians who are favorable to Jefferson can be allowed in the article . That is POV and censorship. I have not pushed anything. Rjensen approved my first paragraph. There is no need to gang up on me. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia says, Wikipedia is neutral, which means it does not take sides in any dispute. If the preponderance of the best sources indicate that a subject has many equally valid sides, then Wikipedia gives equal space to the description of all sides. However, the best sources may indicate that a subject does not have equally valid sides. This is why Wikipedia gives the most space and prominence to descriptions of a subject that conform to the expert understanding while marginalizing in space and prominence the minority understanding, or even excluding some descriptions or issues that have no reliable sources.
There is no reliable source that Jefferson used the purchased collar in our discussion to date, nor anything about the intended context of its usage. Is three days in a collar the punishment for fighting with a weapon versus the practice of selling away? Indeed, felony assault is punished with coercion in the modern era, involuntary exclusion from society for a period of years. As slavery is a human institution we anticipate some form of social control, the context of each aspect is of interest to the specialist, but not necessarily to the general reader of a biography of someone who is not known primarily as a slaveholder. It is of interest that as a slaveholder believing that all men are created equal, in 1783 Jefferson proposed a Virginia state constitution which would have freed all children born of slaves in Virginia after 1800, the contemporary solution in place at various dates for most states north of the Mason Dixon line. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Cmguy777: -- Wiencek's account of the collars is a little more than suspect. As I said he failed to explain what prompted Jefferson to order them. Wiencek p.114, gives a Civil War soldier's account of iron collars that had spikes on either side to prevent the person from turning his head from side to side, with the apparent attempt to carry this idea over to Jefferson's alleged use of them, employing the usual conjecture with no factual basis. Assuming Jefferson ordered these types of collars for slaves, we must ask how would productivity be increased if slaves were to wear these restricting collars?

In Wiencek's note 7 (p.114) he is not certain if the collars were horse collars. He cites Jefferson's letters when he ordered "horse collars" mentioning that he was specific on the type. He then cites another example of Jefferson's ordering of "collars", claiming he was not specific about the type in that case and infers that since he was not specific that these particular collars were therefore slave collars, (an assumption) but conveniently ignores the fact that Jefferson was not specific in referring to the collars in question as "slave collars" either. Again he fails to mention what prompted any use of them, and how many slaves were supposed to have worn them. Wiencek's fuzzy account of collar usage is also not consistent with the account of overseer Edmund Bacon, and a slave (Peter Fossett) who claimed that the use of the whip (harsh punishment) was rare and used only in extreme cases. Wiencek's sketchy account is wholly an inference based on conjecture and simply does not add up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there historians that refute Weincek's writing that Jefferson purchased collars? Until proven otherwise Jefferson purchases "collars" the use of which Jefferson saw on first hand account by his father. However, slave collars seems to controversial at the moment. Jefferson did not say "horse collars". The context is that Jefferson wanted to use force on his slaves in his direction to his overseer. That force was the use of collars. Why would Jefferson tell his overseer to use force on this slave but then purchase "horse collars". That makes no sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No one has to prove a negative. Where does it say Jefferson used force and then purchased collars in response? Again, Wiencek mentions Jefferson's ordering of horse collars,(see p.114, note 7) yet assumes Jefferson was ordering collars for slaves when in one case he was not specific about the type. Also, Jefferson's father has nothing to do with how Jefferson chose to treat his own slaves. This is another reaching assumption. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Side discussions

Tertiary source on TJ as a slave master: Morgan on Gordon-Reed on TJ

The New York Review of Books Jefferson’s Concubine Edmund S. Morgan and Marie Morgan OCTOBER 9, 2008 ISSUE The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed Norton, 798 pp., $35.00

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008/10/09/jeffersons-concubine/

. . . historians and biographers . . . have struggled to illuminate, and sometimes to gloss over, the dark places in his life. Like many upright public figures who know they are pure and their enemies vile, he was capable of deviousness and treachery.

Jefferson’s private life, particularly the life he built at Monticello with the enslaved children and grandchildren of Elizabeth Hemings (1735–1807), was the focus of obsessive, often scurrilous, speculation. Jefferson observed a strict silence on this subject, an embargo that extended to his private papers, which were, moreover, culled by his white descendants to protect his secrets and to preserve his honor.

[TJ's relationship with Sally Hemings] could be called a closely held secret only in the special sense of the word prevailing within Virginia planter society.

What is important to the Hemings family’s story is the harsh and nearly inescapable nature of the “peculiar institution” in the time of Thomas Jefferson.

Every Virginian who lived in slavery or lived off of slavery had to soft-foot his or her way through a thicket of social fictions.

That cohesion [of the Hemings family in the context of bizarre relationships], unrecognized in Virginia law, might be seen as the result of the fidelity and benevolence of Martha and Thomas Jefferson.

“Between 1784 and 1794, he had either sold or given away as part of marriage settlements to his daughters and sister over one hundred people.”

He was known to detest brutality and harsh treatment of “the people,” as the workforce was called. Whatever went on under the overseers and drivers of the outlying “quarter farms,” at Monticello the rule was beneficence, especially toward the Hemingses.

It was as natural as breathing for Jefferson to prefer wheedling to whipping.

Nonetheless, coercion, however wrapped up it was, underlay the slave system.

Jefferson kept the cruelty of slavery out of sight, down the hill, but he was nothing if not self-indulgent.

Benevolence required him to identify the Hemingses’ special talents, give those talents full scope, and set them up in appropriate trades. Goodwill aside, in Gordon-Reed’s interpretation it was Jefferson’s needs and preconceptions that governed. “Once he took ownership of them, the process of shaping all the Hemingses to suit his aims only intensified.”

Like so many questions concerning the sage of Monticello, credible conjectures come up against contradictions of opinion and character.

It was not race alone that consigned these boys to the nailery. White boys of the same age could expect to work twelve-hour days setting type, driving horses, making bricks, or splitting logs.

The government and economy of Monticello was slavery, but it was conceived as an ameliorated form of slavery. It was a system intended to allow a degree of autonomy and self-respect, a freedom of movement and occupation, and other aspects of a nonenslaved existence.

Precisely because he was so civilized, Jefferson never exhibited feelings of personal guilt about owning human beings. [...] When he thought about ridding Virginia of slavery, he was more concerned about making Virginia white than about making it free.

He wanted the national government to buy all slaves, in effect confiscating them, when they would be shipped out to form a free nation of their own in Africa. At a cost he calculated at $900 million, the United States would gain security by ridding itself of the black menace that flourished within it.

. . . slavery in America, an institution from which Jefferson derived most of the benefits that made his life worth living but which he persisted in describing as a monstrous growth engrafted onto free institutions.

Slavery within Jefferson’s domains could be modified and freed of some of its constraints. It remained slavery.

A blind eye? (not directly involved in article improvement

A blind eye?

The issue of Jefferson turning a blind eye to the excessive (yet rare) practice of whipping was brought up. This is of course a general notion that some of today's modern thinkers seem to be locked into. The fact is Jefferson was well aware of the abuse, spoke out against it on numerous occasions and made efforts to control it.

Moving on

It would appear that the 'Indian' section is balanced and covered well enough for purposes of a Good Article, so it would seem it's time to continue moving forward. While a couple of sections involving Jefferson's major dealings have increased in size a fair amount, many of the others have been scaled down, so let's hope the page length guideline, which allows for exceptions, won't be a reoccurring issue, esp since there are a number of GA and FA articles that exceed the prescribed guideline. My only remaining concern is a statement in the Slavery section, where we mention what historians think (i.e.benevolent slave owner) but qualify it with no basic facts. We will have to be comprehensive on this important point if we ever hope to bring the biography up to FA standards, so we should at least make the general claim that Jefferson didn't over work his slaves at this point in time. Considering the prior and comprehensive coverage on Jefferson's slave treatment, this is more than a fair compromise. If there are any other remaining issues we should air them now and try to at long last nominate for and return the biography to GA status. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would add that some historians do not describe Jefferson as a benevolent slave holder. i.e. Weinchek and Finkleman. To get to GA all the references should check out in addition to possibly having one format. I earlier suggested sfnRef format. Have all the disputes on Jefferson been resolved ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The statement reads that "Historians have 'generally' described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner." Finkelman's view is fringe, once referring to Jefferson as a "monster" and once claiming that "Jefferson hated the negro". Not even Annette Gordon-Reed comes close to that sort of description, nor did any of his slaves who by and large liked Jefferson. Again, this is why it's important that we include some of the basic facts so the reader can put the sort of hyper-opinion Finkelman comes off with in perspective. Seems we have gone down this road about twice a year for the last several years. Yet another reason to include some of the basic facts regarding treatment. Of course we can always dispense with commentary altogether and just include the basic facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • References. Yes, as I took the trouble to explain in dedicated sections,( 1, 2 ) we need to adhere to one citation convention. There were only a few SFN types, while more than 300 use the convention that has been in place for years. Since then you continued to use the SFN type, sometimees citing consecutive sentences with the same cite. Don't understand. In any case, I believe most if not all cites are now consistent in their format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"dispense with commentary altogether" = A formula for leaving readers totally baffled about The scholarly literature. Interpretation of Jefferson has changed very dramatically every 50 years or so the reader looking for "facts" will not understand why some "facts" have disappeared and others have suddenly appeared. We can do much better than that. Rjensen (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree. It was sort of a toung-in-cheek suggestion. Don't actually want to remove the statement about what historians generally think. If we must say, in so many words, that Jefferson did not treat his slaves well, it should be qualified with an example. There were cases of whippings at the hand of overseers when Jefferson was away, but according to Edmund Bacon and an actual slave, these were rare and used only in cases of extreme offenses, like stealing or fighting. I believe Jefferson did not promote and frowned on the practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for coverage of slave treatment

Historians have generally described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves and provided well for them. However, there were cases of whippings at the hand of overseers when Jefferson was away, but according to Edmund Bacon and a slave at Monticello these were rare and used only in cases of extreme offenses like stealing or fighting. <Bear, 1967, p. 99; Peterson, 1986, p. 535; Halliday, 2009, p. 236>


Have used the existing sources here but will check them to see if they support this proposal in its entirety. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, before the GA nomination the article once covered and sourced this context with Miller, 1994 and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Treatment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We can't ignore Finkleman and Weincek. Finkleman is not fringe he disagrees that Jefferson was not benevolent. We don't have to put in the "monster" word. Edmund Bacon is a primary source. The word "generally" is speaking for all historians and is unsourced. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Alternative paragraph:
  • Historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner who didn't overwork his slaves and provided well for them. However, some scholars disagree noting there were cases of whippings at the hand of overseers when Jefferson was away, using his slaves as collateral, and forcing two slaves to barter or pay for their freedom." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Alternative version looks good to me. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "generally" does not speak for all historians. This is basic grammar, Cm'. Your version now suggests that historians are generally divided about Jefferson's treatment of his slaves, which flies in the face of all the facts and testimony that verify his good treatment. Once again, you seem to be reaching for ways to indict Jefferson. Also, Primary sources are allowed so long as no original research is involved where a new position is advanced. In any case your version seems okay, except for the 'bartering' bit, which, btw, earned the two slaves involved their freedom. After being fed, clothed, housed and furnished for all of those years it would seem like they got a bargin. Since this was an exceptional event, occurring once in a life time, I'm wondering if we should mention it at all. If we do then we must balance it out and note that Jefferson paid many of his slaves for various work done, and for the eggs, produce, etc they produced and sold to the Monticello household, which was a common event. He also paid his master carpenters and gun/metal-smiths for work done.
  • Finkelman's basic view of Jefferson was that he was a "monster" who "hated the negro". This easily puts him into the fringe category. I suppose we can use him to cite general and established facts, but using him to source controversial topics like slavery would be like using a book written by Yassar Arafat to source Jewish history. The current version, per "generally", is cited with three sources. There are others. Can you show us one source where facts or opinion are presented that supports your notion that Jefferson (not the exceptional cases involving his overseeers) treated his slaves cruelly or harshly? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If we leave out the exceptional bit about bartering, then we can leave out where Jefferson paid many of his slaves for services rendered.
    Modified alternative:
Historians generally described Jefferson as a benevolent slave owner who didn't overwork his slaves and provided well for them. However, some scholars disagree noting there were cases of whippings at the hand of overseers when Jefferson was away.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickwer's historians are divided on Jefferson's treatment of his slaves, to say other wise in not historically accurate. There is no "generally" concerning Jefferson and his treatment of slaves. We can't mislead the readers or POV the article to "prove" Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner. Rjensen agreed to my alternative sentence. Your alternative does not mention Weincek's view that Jefferson calculated the worth of his slaves, I.e. collateral for his debts, nor Finkleman's view that Jefferson's forcing two slaves to barter or pay for their freedom was not benevolent. Both Weincek and Finkleman represent division among Jefferson scholars concerning Jefferson's treatment of slaves. Again this is censorship. I am not againt saying Jefferson was benevolent in the article but Finkleman's and Weinceks' views should not be ignored. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There are no sources, or evidence that supports them, that historians are more or less equally divided regarding Jefferson's treatment of slaves. Many sources only cover slavery in terms of what Jefferson did or didn't do on the political front. The ones that cover slave life at Monticello and Jefferon's personal dealings and treatment point to an assortment of facts that clearly support the premise that Jefferson was kind and considerate of his slaves as human beings. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which draws on numerous sources, clearly says Jefferson opposed slavery all his life and outlines the many things he did to care for and provide well for his slaves. See further comments below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for good treatment

Sources for good treatment, rare whippings, etc:

(more sources pending...) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Why is there a need to prove Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The point is to contrast Jefferson's 1800 management versus the 1860 stereotype of slavery found in most high school and college survey textbooks. They report conditions of 85% of those held in slavery in 1860, field hands working Deep South cotton plantations, — rather than Jefferson’s wheat field laborers, artisan mechanics and local bartering economy among his slaves of 1800 in Virginia a half century before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: It could be asked of you why you have this "need" to disprove Jefferson was not a benevolent slave owner in the face of many examples and sources that clearly support this premise. It would appear you have your own POV in mind.
In our summary of Jefferson and slavery here we're discussing Jefferson's 'overall' treatment of his slaves. We need to come up with a general counter statement that addresses Jefferson's general treatment of slaves with facts, as I have done. Can you provide us with a general statement that suggests Jefferson was less than a benevolent slave owner? The case involving bartering is a singular and exceptional event that has nothing to do with how Jefferson treated his slaves over the years. It's not even a case of bad treatment, as the slaves involved were being given a fair opportunity to obtain their freedom. Besides, this is a (very) minor detail that belongs in the daughter article for Jefferson and slavery, which needs to be presented in context, btw.
If you want to mention that some historians have their doubts, fine, we can do so with a source that clearly supports the idea -- and when I say "clearly", the statement must be cited with a source that specifically says that some historians do in fact have doubts about Jefferson's overall good 'treatment'. Can you find us one? Can you at least find one that gives us an example of actual bad treatment? If you want to mention exceptional whippings while Jefferson was away, we can do that also, even though this also was a rare and exceptional event, committed by overseers, and something that Jefferson frowned on, which btw should also be mentioned for context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Moreover, the point also is overcoming 'modern day' stereotypes surrounding slavery, often perpetuated for social and/or political reasons by the 'friends of America' crowd who often are found in academic circles and unfortunately have managed to set the tone by ignoring many of the facts while piling on the conjecture, which again, plays on such stigmas. This is why it's very important that we place facts at a higher priority than we do opinion. Esp since, as Rjensen mentions, historical opinion has always swung back and forth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I respect your opinions I would hope you do the same to me. It is not a question of "bad treatment" but a question of "benevolence". Please don't tell me what to do or what statements I need to find. You state "historians generally" but you do not supply a source that states "historians generally" then you demand I supply you a source that states "historians generally" when I told you I opposed the use of the phrase "historians generally" in the first place. I used Finkleman and Weincek as sources. You call Finkleman fringe apparently because you disagree about his negative view of Jefferson and slavery. The same concerning Weincek. Also Rjensen approved of my alternative paragraph. The reader needs to be allowed the freedom to decide if Jefferson was benevolent. There is no need to compare cotton plantation slavery to wheat plantation slavery. Finkleman believes Jefferson was not benevolent because he had two slaves barter or pay for their freedom. Weincek believes Jefferson was not benevolent because he used his slaves as collateral i.e. calculating the worth of his slaves creating his own mathematical formula for doing so. Whippings were allowed while Jefferson was gone from the plantation but there is evidence Jefferson allowed whippings to increase productivity. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Searching for terms supporting one view and then citing the hits without proper understanding of the context is not a useful way to get a fair sample of the literature. It basically cries confirmation bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

All this talk about Finkleman, but you have yet to cite a particular publication by him with a page number. As for 'generally', speaking, there are more than enough sources to make a general statement about Jefferson's overall benevolent treatment. We did the same thing when we were in mediation for the Ulysses S. Grant article. We couldn't find a source that addressed historians collectively but we had enough sources lined up to make a general statement where you went along when I maintained The sources don't actually refer to historians collectively on this note, but as editors I believe we are allowed to make obvious deductions if there is consensus.. You even suggested, and we included, another source to the line up.

It's more than obvious that most historians who cover slave life and Jefferson's treatment all say the same basic thing, that he was kind and considerate and provided well for his slaves -- and they don't have to use the word benevolent for us to use it here, so please don't try to get tacky about this. In light of all the facts and sources it's quite obvious that Jefferson was a benevolent, or kind, or a considerate slave owner. Your attempts to obscure or block this are becoming a little much. In the mean time you have yet to provide a single source that addresses any less than good treatment. All you've done thus far is mention Finkelman and Weinek. What do they actually say about Jefferson's overall ' treatment ' of his slaves? Please find a source that covers Jefferson's less than good treatment. "Collateral", doesn't address the way Jefferson treated his slaves. If you want to say that historians are more or less equally divided about treatment, you will have to come close to matching the above list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you keep barking orders at me and your accusatory words do not help the matter. "you will have to" "don't try to get tacky" "Your attempts to obscure or block" "find a source" . If you still believe Finkelman is fringe then what is the purpose of supplying a source ? I don't believe in censuring Finkelman or Weincek opinions. Rjensen approved of my paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You're evading numerous points. Please include "we should" before anything you assume to be an order. If you want to say that historians are more or less equally divided about treatment, 'we should' come close to matching the above list. If we are not allowed to refer to historians collectively then 'we should' include as many basic facts as possible regarding treatment, housing, provisions, etc, and let the readers decide whether Jefferson was benevolent. If you want to include minor and exceptional details that have nothing to do with Jefferson's treatment 'we should' put them in the daughter article -- and 'we should' do so with context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Into the mix: In “Jefferson’s Tardy Constitution”, Jack Lynch wrote in the Colonial Williamsburg Journal, Spring 2007, [1], "Jefferson's plan for a Virginia constitution in 1783 went further, not merely ending the slave trade but emancipating all slaves in the state: "The General assembly shall not have to power to ...permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be living on the 31st day of December 1800; all persons born after that day being hereby declared free.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for non benevolence

Page 215 Jefferson forces Two Hemings slaves barter or pay for their freedom. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Insert : -- Is this a quote? in any event the two slaves in question were given an opportunity to obtain freedom, and again, this is a singular and exceptional event that doesn't address Jefferson's overall treatment of slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Finkelman says on p. 215 that Jefferson "reluctantly allowed Hemings to purchase his own freedom". It says nothing about "forces". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I was not quoting Finkelman. In order for Hemings to be freed he was forced to pay for his freedom. There was no choice. Payment or remain in slavery. Interupting my edits does not help for constructive discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wiencek, Henry. (2012). Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Pages 8-9 4% formula used to calculate profits for slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 102 "...Jefferson's overseerer William Page was aquiring a reputation as a "terror" with free use of the whip to maintain productivity" Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 114 Jefferson orders "Extraordinary exertions" slave "collars" are ordered Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Please provide us with the context of this exceptional event. And in the future, anytime you come up with such examples, 'would you please' provide us with the context of the situation? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Insert :I am not sure as to the time or exact context, however, Weincek maintains slave collars were ordered by Jefferson. Just going by what the book says. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wiencek, Henry. "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson". Smithsonian Magazine online. Retrieved January 6, 2014.
Here is a full paragraph:
  • And this world was crueler than we have been led to believe. A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills. This passage about children being lashed had been suppressed—deliberately deleted from the published record in the 1953 edition of Jefferson’s Farm Book, containing 500 pages of plantation papers. That edition of the Farm Book still serves as a standard reference for research into the way Monticello worked. Page 3 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Whipped? -- or were they switched, as was a common practice in disciplining children in Jefferson's day? How could anyone expect a child to work and function if they were whipped in a manner that you seem to want us to believe? Did Jefferson endorse this treatment? The letter was suppressed because it was probably understood that various people would stretch it into something that would suit the likes of Finkelman and Weinek. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Would you please cite page numbers were coverage of Jefferson's less than good treatment are covered? Please remember, it was against the law to free slaves in Virginia. Jefferson also felt that releasing unprepared slaves with no shelter or means of support was not a good thing, so it can easily be argued that selling slaves was in their best interests as well as Jefferson's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I need time to put in the page numbers. I don't want to block quote paragraphs. I am giving the sources and page numbers where available for now. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Jefferson did not force anyone to purchase their freedom. Please provide us with sources and examples that addresses the way Jefferson treated his slaves. If you can do that then we can at least say that 'some historians' have doubts, even if a publication doesn't specifically use that phrase. Fair enough? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We are talking non benevolence not bad treatment. I changed the language but the only way for Hemings to gain freedom was to pay or remain slaved. There was no choice but to pay for freedom that is why the term "forced" was used. Paying for freedom is not benevolent. That is the real issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, benevolence is a general term regarding Jefferson's treatment. If you have issues with that particular term then we'll simply have to go into all the ways Jefferson's provided for his slaves and let readers decide about benevolence, etc. So far all you've done is snipe at exceptional incidents that doesn't even involve Jefferson's treatment of his slaves. i.e.Calculating profit. Bartering. Both of these events assume less than kind treatment, and it seems you have done so. Is this the best you can offer us? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers you challange me before I can even put in the sources and seem to be ignoring what is being said by Weincek and Finkleman and the Smithsonian article. I don't appreciate being bullied around in this manner. You can have your own beliefs but there is no need to enforce them in this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
"Bullied" implies that I have some sort of advantage over you. I am challenging your exceptional and out of context assertions and the way you tend to word things, as you've just demonstrated here. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Weincek

Cm', I am now at the public library and was fortunate to find Wiencek's book here. On page 114 it says Jefferson was in France when he directed an overseer to purchase collars. Perhaps being far away his imagination got the best of him and he advised an overseer to take precautionary measures the only way he could think of while he was absent. We don't know. Wiencek mentions Jefferson's father collaring a slave, but fails to mention why. Wiencek also fails to provide any coverage about putting these items to use at Monticello, nor does he indicate what event prompted Jefferson's call for these collars. Seems to me, if these collars were used in a manner and frequency that you seem to think he would of said so. He didn't. All he does is mention this with the apparent hope that modern day stigmas will do the rest for the average reader. In any event, he doesn't use this to refute any benevolence as you seem to be doing. Again, he simply mentions it out of context.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Just after Wiencek's book was published, it was roundly criticized by several, the most prominent being Annette Gordon-Reed herself. I posted here at the time so it would be in the talk archives. Wiencek jumps to conclusions on several matters . Brad (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Scrutinized proposal

  • Seems it's time to add a proposal to the Slavery section. I approve TVH's modified version of my original proposal, with a couple modifications of my own added. We are compromising by saying "many historians" and mentioning the exceptional whippings, and children working in the nailry. The bit about slave collars is a complete speculation, and even if it was certain it was a factual event, there is no indication as to what prompted such use, and no mention of how frequent, per general treatment. For all we know, Jefferson ordered horse collars. Even Wiencek doesn't go as far as to say they were meant for and were actually used on Jefferson's slaves.
  • As an aside, we could easily introduce an array of other sources with the idea of including various items covered, and could easily cry 'censorship' if a given item was not included in our summary here. This is why we should stick to the general and established facts and stay away from any opinion if not based on such facts.

proposal

Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner [1][2] who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. The use of the whip was usually employed only in rare and extreme cases of fighting and stealing.[2] Slaves were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months.[3] Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence[4] noting cases of excessive slave whippings in his absence and that his nailry was worked by slave children, supposedly under harsh conditions, but who were often promoted to supervisory and other positions on the plantation.[5][6] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bear, 1967, p. 99; Peterson, 1960, p. 535; Halliday, 2009, p. 236
  2. ^ a b Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Treatment
  3. ^ Slave Life at Monticello
  4. ^ Wiencek, 2014, pp.114, 122
  5. ^ Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Nailry
  6. ^ Wiencek, 2014, p. 93
In the interest of compromise I can accept the above proposal. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slave owner who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. The use of the whip was usually employed only in rare and extreme cases of fighting and stealing. Slaves were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months. Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of excessive slave whippings in his absence and that slave children worked in his nail factory, supposedly under harsh conditions, but who were often promoted to supervisory and other positions on the plantation. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: -- Thanks Cm. Let's wait a bit for any other responses before we commit the proposal to the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I think "nail factory" is better then "nailry" because I am not sure the modern reader knows what a "nailry" is. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I like "nail factory" because “nailry” in modern usage is a fingernail manicure shop. A reviewer might think “supposedly under harsh conditions” contains the wp:weasel word ‘supposedly’, but it refers to scholars doubting, who do not delve into the comparative child rearing practices across historical eras and pre-teen apprenticeship regimes of the time. Switching is still not unheard of in Southern culture, witness the unfortunate example of an NFL family recently where a child received “a good whipping” — he was not flogged, he was switched. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Weincek and the Smithsonian specifically said "whippings". We can't speculate switching. I only agreed to the compromise to put in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Suggested rewrite: "Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence noting cases of excessive slave whippings in his absence and that slave children worked in his nail factory sometimes receiving physical punishments by whippings to increase productivity." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The consistent spelling in the literature is nailery. Context tells the reader it was a nail factory.

Addendum: But the nailery isn't in the article and I'm not suggesting it should be. YoPienso (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that speculation about whippings cannot be in the article.

We older Americans were taught the brighter side of Jefferson, as noted in an excerpt from Weincek's book in the Smithsonian magazine. I've bolded the most pertinent part.

Weaving slavery into a narrative about Thomas Jefferson usually presents a challenge to authors, but one writer managed to spin this vicious attack and terrible punishment of a nailery boy into a charming plantation tale. In a 1941 biography of Jefferson for “young adults” (ages 12 to 16) the author wrote: “In this beehive of industry no discord or revilings found entrance: there were no signs of discontent on the black shining faces as they worked under the direction of their master....The women sang at their tasks and the children old enough to work made nails leisurely, not too overworked for a prank now and then.”


It might seem unfair to mock the misconceptions and sappy prose of “a simpler era,” except that this book, The Way of an Eagle, and hundreds like it, shaped the attitudes of generations of readers about slavery and African-Americans. Time magazine chose it as one of the “important books” of 1941 in the children’s literature category, and it gained a second life in America’s libraries when it was reprinted in 1961 as Thomas Jefferson: Fighter for Freedom and Human Rights.

— Henry Wiencek

Cinder Stanton, a preeminent Jeffersonian scholars, pans Wiencek's book, but her own research shows TJ wasn't the altogether benevolent master he was portrayed as in the middle of the 20th century. As we all know, TJ pioneered in offering incentives instead of whipping his slaves to motivate them, but Stanton says "his provision of meat was smaller than that of many of his contemporaries." I don't know if they had better hunting and fishing and thus needed less, or if TJ was remiss. Monticello.org also notes TJ doesn't seem to have given his slaves Saturday afternoons off, which many plantation owners did.

In a blurb for one of Stanton's books, Monticello.org makes a statement crucial to this article: Our perception of life at Monticello has changed dramatically over the past quarter century. The image of an estate presided over by a benevolent Thomas Jefferson has given way to a more complex view of Monticello as a working plantation, the success of which was made possible by the work of slaves. This Wikipedia article must reflect current scholarship. YoPienso (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not allowing scholars who are critical of Jefferson and slavery is censorship. Is wikipedia endorsing the institution of slavery ? To remain neutral authors critical of Jefferson should be in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Authors critical of Jefferson should be in the article, in the “Historical reputation” section, including his characterization as a “monster". Slice-of-life not generally mentioned in the literature on Jefferson, focusing on elements out of context, can only be adequately addressed in a balanced way in daughter articles. A distinct minority in the literature is not to be featured in the narrative, rather the preponderance of sources must be.
Slavery should be ended in Jefferson’s view, either gradually for those born after an 1800 date certain, leaving descendants of slaves in Virginia, or when that proposal failed to gain traction after Gabriel Prosser’s uprising, gradually abolishing slavery by individual manumission and sponsored migration into Liberian self-government, another idea which failed to gain traction after Nat Turner’s Rebellion. Jefferson was not responsible for the General Assembly's reaction to slave revolts, whether as President or as ex-President. He made his objections to the state legislature malapportionment favoring slave-holding counties east of the Blue Ridge 12:1 well known over a number of decades, indeed proposed at one point to allow the easterners their slavery and make western counties of Virginia free-soil, another idea which failed to gain traction.
The mild administration of slavery under Jefferson’s direct administration was notable for wheat production, independent slave economy, apprenticeships in factory production, and promotion of slaves into artisan and supervisory positions, all of which demonstrated a human capacity among African-Americans which was generally denied by the "scientific" scholarship and politics of his time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
There you are--a perfect example of an older American locked in the idea that being a slave at Monticello was a pretty good life. You're totally ignoring the field hands, which formed the larger part of TJ's enslaved workers. You're ignoring the runaways. You're ignoring the cruel overseers TJ turned a blind eye to. YoPienso (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Insert : -- @Yopienso and TheVirginiaHistorian: Yp', accounts of good treatment include the field hands, who were also given good housing, food and clothing, Sundays and Christmas off, were not over-worked, etc, etc, etc, etc. There are accounts of slaves who even say that case of whippings were rare and exceptionable. Even the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (which subscribes to Jefferson's paternity) outlines the overall good treatment. I have outlined above many modern sources that also support this premise. It was inappropriate of you to refer to TVH in such a narrow way. If you are in possession of a source(s) that can give us more than reaching conjecture and which cite and document the advent of slavery under Jefferson in a manner and frequency that you seem to think occurred, it would be an interesting read and worth consideration. So far, all we have are the usual sources that snipe at exceptional events in the too often attempt to overshadow the rule of good treatment under Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm unable to imagine any of our contemporary (the average educated at any rate) locked into such an idea. I've got my eye attracted by the word "wheat" in the previous paragraph by the way. But you may be simply reticent to any appearance of the word "mild" in that context, and I might share your sentiment regarding the runaways. The promise regarding life otherwise was that in the end it could finally get better whereas shortsightedness could not lead to anything else but to the dead-ends of all possible failures. --Askedonty (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the natural, intended condition of mankind is freedom. Every slave has a right to freedom, and if slavery somewhere cannot be abolished immediately, it should be abolished gradually, providing for the education and economic independence of those made free, so that they may live in self reliance. --- Even at the time, life as a slave could not have been “a pretty good life” at Monticello, even as a house slave, or Sally Hemings would not have negotiated freedom for her children. Runaways for short periods as a protest against arbitrary overseers was commonplace, often resulting in the dismissal of the overseer. See Ira Berlin’s 1998 “Many thousands gone”.
But slave life at Monticello was demonstrably greater in its variety of expression and possibility for independent self development than most places in the South and even in Virginia. Jefferson’s slave practice put the lie to the then “scientific” assertion that those of African descent could only be productively occupied working at enslaved gang labor on the mud sill of society without mass murders in slave revolts. Please read the distinction between tobacco and wheat plantation life for slaves [2] as suggested above. I do not ignore field hands independently working a plow in a field of wheat versus field gangs under an overseer working hoes in tobacco, but it seems that some persist in totally ignoring the difference. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We should not get sidetracked but keep the article paragraph focused on Weincek's critical view at the Nail Factory...where Jefferson seems to get the most attention. The worst incident was a sick slave getting whipped three times by an overseer. One fight took place that cracked the skull of a worker slave. Jefferson did want productivity. Stating facts is not POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

editbreak1

  • We must be clear that Jefferson did not condone or promote whippings to increase productivity. Whippings, overall, where rare, and any whipping that may have occurred at the nail factory was only a fraction of this overall rarity, so let's not give undue and equal weight to something that doesn't begin to match the weight that is due to the good treatment of all slaves over most of Jefferson's life time. Wiencek's book, with a picture of Jefferson torn in half on the front cover, is filled with over-opinionated conjecture. e.g. His attempt to associate a Civil War soldier's account of a steel collar, with spikes on it, to Jefferson's supposed (and undocumented) practice, and his attempt to associate his father's use of collars with Jefferson again (with no mention as to why and how often) more than suggests that he has an anti-Jefferson agenda and is reaching for ways to effect this. We need to use objective criticism from those historians who have done so if we are going to embark on this sort of exceptionable and questionable coverage. However, I have no problem using Wiencek to cite items in the way that's done in the above proposal. We seem to be getting wrapped up in rather menial items -- debating whether to use "nail factory" v "nailry" and deliberating about how much meat Jefferson may have given to slaves compared to others. Let's get back on track and simply mention whippings, harsh conditions at the nailry and keep a good perspective on the weight we give to exceptional items as compared Jefferson's overall treatment of slaves over a life time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Cm' touches on an important event. Yes, there was an incident where a fight occurred resulting in grave injury to another slave. It is perfectly understandable that measures had to be used to discourage this sort of behavior. We must remember that among large groups of slaves, as with any other large group of people, there were always a few unruly and not so nice people that had to be dealt with. As for the sick slave being whipped, I hardly think Jefferson of all people condoned this sort of thing, and giving this singular incident undue weight, involving an overseer, will only give the impression to the young and/or naive that this sort of activity was the norm, and I believe we all know that it wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, as Weincek mentions Jefferson is presented as a strong leader, exception slavery. Then historians view that slavery was beyond Jefferson's control. This was not the case. One contemporary slave owner forbid whippings. Washington freed his slaves. Jefferson controlled every aspect of his farm. He placed men that whipped slaves for more production. Jefferson was for production whether done by whippings or without whippings. Wikipedia does not judge Jefferson concerning slavery. We don't know what the norm is Gwillhickers but only can rely on historical evidence covered by any reliable author. Wikipedia can't justify whippings nor condemn them. We just put in the facts and let the reader decide concerning Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The whippings and harsh condition at the Nail Factory seem to Weincek's main complaint against Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
What is Weincek's comparative context of wheat to tobacco plantations and other nail factories. There were some free labor nail factories in Pittsburg that later took over the Valley market share in the 1830s even before the extruded process, they would be the ones I am most interested in learning about for comparison, but what did Weincek choose? If no context is chosen, the reader is left comparing 1800s practice as presented out of context with 2000s internalized norms. Such a source out of context is inadequate for Wikipedia use. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not say sources have to supply context. Only Weincek can answer the above questions. The reader is not left comparing to 2000's norms. The reader should be given the facts. One thing is correct Wikipedia has a 2000's audience. The article is not saying Jefferson's Nailry was controversial for his times. Jefferson's religious beliefs were controversial for his times...i.e. the 1800 election. Since the article is contending Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner then scholars opposed to this view should be put in the article for neutrality. Jefferson could have ordered no whippings on his slaves but he did not. Slave owners did not have to whip their slaves during Jefferson's times. Slave owners were freeing their slaves during Jefferson's times. Wiencek's main contention is that whippings and harsh conditions as the nailry did not make Jefferson a benevolent slave owner. We could put in that Jefferson allowed whippings and there was a violent attack at the nailry on a slave by another slave. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with @Cmguy777: in part. Opposing views must be included, as I'm sure everyone around here agrees, however we must observe the amount of weight given to exceptional issues. We should consider also that Jefferson opted not to whip a slave for stealing a large amount of nails while working at this nailry. Even Wiencek refers to this event on p.146. In fact Wiencek has no particular disparaging words regarding the nailry in relation to Jefferson's benevolence, or in any other capacity.
    Do not agree that "Jefferson allowed whippings" and don't know of any source that says this in no uncertain terms. The attack on a slave was committed by another slave, having nothing to do with Jefferson or any overseer, so mention of this in our summary paragraph of slave treatment makes no sense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems the proposal is contextual and neutral. I included "supposedly under harsh conditions" in regards to the nailry, but I know of no sources that nails this idea (ha ha), however, I am not about to make that an issue in terms of not including this idea, for now anyway. Will have to see how the sources pan out on that one. In any case, unless the idea of Jefferson "allowing whippings" at the nail factory is still an issue, I believe our account is good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers allowing whippings is not the same as condoning whippings. I have no problem for including Jefferson optioned out of whipping a slave for stealing nails, but the practice was done. No overseer was punished for whipping of slaves. When productivity went down Jefferson allowed "whippings" to increase productivity. Jefferson was a business man. This goes against the view that Jefferson was benevolent. If documented whippings occured on Jefferson's plantations then whippings were allowed. Jefferson knew the overseers who used whippings and he placed them in charge of the slaves. Weincek says violence in the nail shop was due to one slave stealing the iron rod from another slave. This would have caused the slave to have been whipped, because having no iron rod to make nails, the slave would have not met his quota. In other words a slave would potentially get whipped for not meeting the quota. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Well, if Wiencek will not do his homework, we can know in the 1700s in England, "Apprentices were corrected (whipped) or ordered to the hemp blocks (to beat hemp, as a form of hard labour), or, in egregious cases, discharged from their indentures and expelled.” [3]. Those who are whites in English factories are “whipped" as an ongoing norm at the time for “correction". Whipping of apprentices is not outlawed in England until 1836.

As of 1795, in the Laws respecting masters and servants; articled clerks,apprentices, journeymen and manufacturers [4], we have for whites in the British Empire, beginning with George I, “If any journeyman shoemaker shall fraudulently purloin, fell, pawn or exchange any boots, shoes, slippers … he shall, on conviction of one witness, make satisfaction for the same” or “he shall be whipped in the parish where the offense was committed”. Some context is required if we are going to use terms which no longer apply in common usage.

Your apparent consternation over Jefferson’s interest in having productive operations in his plantation enterprises is bemusing, the intent of any business is not charity for the employed, now or then. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian:The above British 1700 laws applied to white workers not African American slaves in the United States. THe 1836 British law banning whippings did not apply to Jefferson's slaves. For that matter there was no laws on the books that protected African American slaves as far as I know. There were laws protecting the owners in case of theft by the slaves or runaway slaves. Even up to the Civil War there were no laws protecting black slaves anywhere in the United States. The discipline of the slaves was at the discretion of the master. No one is attesting Jefferson was a cruel task master in the article. Rather the question for historians was whether Jefferson was benevolent. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
As outlined above by numerous sources and examples Jefferson was a benevolent soul. The rare whippings that were meted out in rare and extreme cases in Jefferson's absence doesn't begin to change that, given the extraordinary lengths he went to to provide for all of his slaves, and the way he interacted with them on a personal level. i.e. With kindness and consideration for their person. Again, he didn't have a slave whipped for stealing a large quantity of nails, so that documented event casts a strong doubt on the idea that children were actually whipped at the nailry to increase production, with Jefferson's approval no less.. If you insist on including (sources permitting) that children were so whipped at the nailry we will have to present it in context and include the example where he didn't whip a slave for stealing nails. Can you provide us with more than one source, or any source, that says Jefferson "allowed whippings" to increase productivity? You can't merely cite an undocumented example that occurred in his absence and assume that he "allowed" this. If this can't be done then we should move forward with the existing proposal that already mentions whippings and harsh conditions at the nail factory. We have gone around in circles with this well enough, and all for including coverage of treatment that was in place for a couple of years to begin with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: The line in the proposal, "his nailry was worked by slave children, supposedly under harsh conditions,” should read, “…slave children under apprentice-like conditions”. This eliminates the wp:weasel "supposedly harsh". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
"apprentice-like" These are slaves not apprentices such as white children would have been. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: Considering that a good number of slaves were trained to be master carpenters, chefs, metal/gun smiths, etc, the term seems appropriate -- and you did say 'apprentice like'. Since there is no source that claims that the nailry actually posed harsh conditions perhaps that is the better term, however, I'm just going to go ahead and remove harsh conditions for now and add the proposal, since Cm' seems to have no further comments and has gone off and rendered the slavery section in other areas on his own accord all of the sudden. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: Adding two subsections to the already lengthy Slavery section is inappropriate. You don't need permission of course to add content but making such a major change while we are in the middle of discussing a proposal was inappropriate, imo. There is not enough content that warrants this and the issues were already covered well enough. And why are you still using SFN citations? What is the problem with sticking to the citation convention used? I've made considerable efforts in cleaning up citations, urls, etc, etc, yet you continue to break with convention, even after several appeals were made to you here in talk. You didn't even use the correct ref link to the bibliography. You seem to care not about any of these things and appear to be harboring contempt with your approach to editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: It's very difficult to edit on this an article or to make the article better. SFN is a better method of referencing sources because it takes up less space in the article. All of my edits made the article better. I even cleaned up some slop Black Hoof was not the Chief of the Cherokees. Subsections help the reader. I habor no contempt and I care about the article. You seem to be the one that holds contempt and attack any edit not opproved by yourself. Your bullyism should not be allowed in the Jefferson talk page. That is why I believe Yopensio left the article. Editor control of articles is against Wikipedia policy and you and the Virginia Historian have set up this editor control. Your POV protecting Jefferson from critical assessement by historians is obvious. Even adding simple subsections goes under sever and unneccessary scrutity. Attacking good faith edits and reliable sources does not help Jefferson get to GA or FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: Making false and highly opinionated statements about other editors isn't helping your case. If you want to add appropriate content, please do so with reliable sources to back it up. You've proposed a number of rather weird items and were even ready to include mention of a slave getting a head injury, even though it was caused by another slave, along with a statement that claims Jefferson condoned whipping children at the nailry to increase production -- an assumption with no source that clearly says this. Not even Wiencek. Also, as has been explained, the Harvard style citation convention has been in use with more than 300 citations that use this. The number of characters used in either isn't anything to even make an issue of. I've made more compromises around here than i care to count. If you feel I've been "bullying" you perhaps it's so because you don't have any legs to stand on much of the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't "attack" the items you included and have left them alone and have only removed the two added section headings, and fixed the citations, fyi.
  • @Cmguy777: Please collect yourself and come back to the table. Your view is significant and your presence is needed around here in that regard. There are plenty of things you could be adding, but you seem hell bent on adding the most vehement and unsourced "criticism"(?) around. No one is accusing you of POV, and I even stuck up for you when another editor once accused you of having a POV agenda. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: "come back to the table" This may be the second time Weincek (2012) Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves source has been removed from the article. I mentioned I approved your edit out of compromise. How can I make any edits without Weincek as a source? I did not use the Smithsonian article. The edit concerned Jefferson and Congress banning slave trafficking for one year in the LT. Weincek is critical of Jefferson, but it is a well researched book, and I believe included in the article. I just don't like being accused of my edits not being done in good faith. We have had enough discussion and it was time to do some editing. I appreciate the time you stuck up for me. I think we have had agreements before either on the Jefferson article or the Grant article. I hope we can have more agreements in the future. Jefferson installed a tough task master at the nailry because profits and productivity were down. Weincek mentioned the slave fight because of one slave steeling the nail rod from another slave. That would have caused the other slave to be whipped who did not meet production quotas. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
So apprentices in the nailery were whipped as “correction” for not meeting production quotas just as apprentices in England. It shows Jefferson again showing that African-Americans held in slavery had the same human capacities as indentured Europeans, and in general they responded positively to the same system of rewards and punishments as the English children did at the same ages. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
White apprentices are not the same as African Americans in perpetutal slavery. No one is saying Jefferson was a cruel task master. That would mean Jefferson was concerned about production and profits not benevolence. Why is Weincek (2012) being banned from the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

a) The point is under Jefferson African Americans in perpetual slavery and white apprentices of the 1700s are treated much the same, the working conditions were alike, they are presumed by Jefferson to be equal in their humanity despite their different circumstances. Gradual statewide emancipation would be different circumstances for the individual, whatever racism there might be in surrounding white society. Liberia would be different circumstances for the individual, free from the constraints of racism held by a majority of the Virginian population in the 1800s.

b) I'm not sure how to take the second sentence. There is nothing inherently incompatible with a concern for production and profits and a benevolent management practice. As there are other than charitable concerns, it is of interest that benevolent management practice in modern corporations is related to increased productivity, see Peter Drucker, "people are an organization's most valuable resource, and a manager's job is both to prepare people to perform and give them freedom to do so."

c) Weincek's take away impression of Jefferson should be prominently featured in the "Historical reputation" section of the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reposting proposal

Many historians described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner [1][2] who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions. Additionally Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. The use of the whip was usually employed only in rare and extreme cases of fighting and stealing.[2] Slaves were given Sundays and Christmas off and had more free time during the winter months.[3] Some scholars doubt Jefferson's benevolence[4] noting cases of excessive slave whippings in his absence and that his nailry was worked by slave children, supposedly under harsh conditions, but who were often promoted to supervisory and other positions on the plantation.[5][6] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I object to "who didn't overwork his slaves, provided them housing with fireplaces, good clothing and household provisions." Mentioning fireplaces makes them sound like a luxury detail, when in fact a fireplace was the only provision for heat and cooking. Cooking at a fireplace is backbreaking and smoky. They weren't given "good clothing," but cloth they had to sew by hand into clothes in their spare time. Allotments were skimpy for all but the most favored slaves. What does "household provisions" mean?

Note that nailery has an e before the r.

"Supposedly" isn't encyclopedic.

Original research on English apprentices isn't appropriate at Wikipedia. TVH, my credentials as a historian are less stellar than yours, but I do have a BA in history, summa cum laude, with departmental honors. I had to be coached at Wikipedia about WP:NOR, which is exactly the opposite approach the trained historian takes.

I believe Gwillhickers, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Cmguy777 all want to see this article be accurate and well-written. TJ is a notoriously difficult subject, so it's not strange well-intentioned editors are perennially bogging down in his negative and positive aspects. I'm putting into a hatted section here below excerpts from what I consider an excellent tertiary source on his benevolence and contradictions as a slave master. My hope is that it will help sort out some thorny questions regarding what to include and what to emphasize in this article.

The excerpts are from Edmund S. Morgan and Marie Morgan's review of The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, by Annette Gordon-Reed, in The New York Review of Books, Oct. 9, 2008. Morgan was a highly regarded scholar on the colonial period, the Revolution, and slavery; Gordon-Reed's work is widely praised in academia. I recommend reading the entire review. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Weincek (2012), Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves covers Jefferson and slavery in detail but this book has not been allowed to be in the bibliography. Yes. This book is critical of Jefferson and slavery. But Weincek gives good details concerning Jefferson, profit, and slavery. Admittedly his book ruffled some historical feathers, but that does not make his book fringe. The Smithsonian used him to write an article, Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson (October 2012). Obviously Weincek is thus far the most critical of Jefferson and slavery. His views can be balanced by other authors and books. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In the interest of neutrality here is a critical review of Weincek (2012), Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson, and His Slaves, Some Scholars Reject Dark Portrait of Jefferson by Jennifer Schuesslernov (November 26, 2012). I don't believe this article should be used to ban Weincek (2012) but rather to give more insight into his work. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The encyclopedia article on Jefferson’s life cannot be allowed to become an annotated historiography of all the recent scholars of interest. However, Weincek deserves prominent placement in the “Jefferson’s reputation” section, along with Annette Gordon-Reed’s condemnation of his work. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Yopienso: Thank you for the considerate words. For an online source, see Paul Howard Douglas, 1921 [5] “Among many of the Southern Colonies, notably Virginia and South Carolina, the same laws were made applicable to negro slaves and to white apprentices." These included great latitude in work conditions and corporal punishments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! My point about original research is that we aren't citing a source that specifically justifies TJ's use of slave labor in the nailery by comparing it to white apprenticeship. I agree with the validity of your research and conclusion, but that's what we can't do here. Please see WP:NOR:
"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
Also see WP:SYN on that same page:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
You make a cogent argument, and if you can find a RS about apprentice-like conditions at Monticello, it can be included. YoPienso (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Yopienso: Well, instead of "good clothing" we simply could say clothing. And fireplaces by themselves don't suggest "luxury", esp when associated to log cabins. As for original research, everything about slave life and treatment, dwellings and such at Monticello has been pretty well established and among other sources is well covered at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation ( 1, 2). I removed "good" in the clothing, though a visitor to Monticello once remarked how well taken care of Jefferson's slaves were. That's buried in some source I encountered somewhere. Will look for it again. I also added a critical statement, that Jefferson has been criticized for not freeing all of his slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping "good." A visitor to Monticello wouldn't be a RS unless s/he was a recognized authority.
I think some of what you want to include could be sourced to Morgan, who I quote below. Your statement, "The fact remains that slave life and treatment was overall good at Monticello," however, is troubling, and unacceptable to modern sensibilities. TJ saw himself as benevolent, and in many aspects he was. Nonetheless, many times he sold slaves for economic advantage. Some of his overseers--for whom he ultimately bore responsibility--were cruel to his slaves. Sally Hemings agreed to return to America and slavery as part of a bargain for her children, but not because she thought slavery under TJ was "good." Some slaves found it so not good they ran away. Today we don't assess any aspect of slavery as "good." We do need to show TJ was no Simon Legree. Stating that the slaves were generally well treated would work. YoPienso (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: No one has banned Wiencek, he is currently used in the proposal. What we have been objecting to, and have been more than clear about with you, btw, is your attempt to introduce very questionable speculation. i.e.Collars, whipping children to increase production, a slave with his head bashed in, etc. We have been more than patient with you, and have taken the time to explain these things time and again, but you have yet to introduce factual content backed up by sources. As I mentioned above I just added comment about Jefferson being criticized for not freeing his slaves. This is factual, something you should have brought to the table long ago. Instead you seem intent on adding ugly and reaching speculation only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: I have not introduced anything but just discussed what was written by Weincek (2012) and Weincek (October 2012) that mentioned collars and whipping children. Production or profits was a primary value for Jefferson according to the Weincek. A slaves head was bashed in. I never put any of this in the article. I supplied Finkleman and Weincek references. I have introduced factual content back by sources and references. If you disagree that Weincek is factual don't blame that on me. Your issue concerns Weincek and when I put the Weincek (2012) as reference in the article that was deleted. Gwillhickers you have been the one putting on this promotional campaign, possibly original research, on Jefferson being benevolent. You can't fact check benevolence. That is an opinion held by historians. The current article makes Jefferson look as if he was their caretaker rather then there slave master and owner. Rather then debate you attack editors such as myself who supply references. In fact my Weincek (2012) was deleted from the article by your own editing. Attacking editors is not helping Jefferson get to GA of FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Here are the sources that I provided for the record:
Wiencek, Henry. (2012). Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Pages 8-9 4% formula used to calculate profits for slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 102 "...Jefferson's overseerer William Page was aquiring a reputation as a "terror" with free use of the whip to maintain productivity" Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 114 Jefferson orders "Extraordinary exertions" slave "collars" are ordered Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Paul Finkelman (April 1994)Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 102, No. 2 pp. 193-228 Published by: Virginia Historical Society Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 215 Two Hemings slaves barter or pay for their freedom. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Wiencek, Henry. "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson". Smithsonian Magazine online. Retrieved January 6, 2014. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 3 "And this world was crueler than we have been led to believe. A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills. This passage about children being lashed had been suppressed—deliberately deleted from the published record in the 1953 edition of Jefferson’s Farm Book, containing 500 pages of plantation papers. That edition of the Farm Book still serves as a standard reference for research into the way Monticello worked." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: It doesn't surprise me that Gordon-Reed has condemned Wiencek's work. As I pointed out, Wiencek often attempts to use vague accounts (like e Civil War soldier's account of spiked collars) and attempts to hang them at Jefferson's doorstep. His 'Dark side of Jefferson' article at the Smithsonian is also filled with the same sort of conjecture. e.g.Jefferson's "immense silence", with no mention of a greatly divided House and talk of a confederacy in the North. Child labor was also the norm, yet we're supposed to believe this only occurred to slaves, who btw didn't begin to work until age ten at Monticello, unlike many farm children who were given many chores to do at a much younger age. I believe noting that Jefferson has been criticized for the factual things we mentioned is good enough for our article. We don't need to dwell into the speculation and conjecture that seems to be Wiencek's trade mark. Imo, his title 'The dark side...' is just a grand-standing effort to promote his book and is aimed at the typically naive and complacent audience. As you pointed out, corporal punishment was the norm in Jefferson's day, but listening to the likes of Wiencek one would be led to believe that this sort of thing only occurred to slaves. The fact remains that slave life and treatment was overall good at Monticello and we need to be clear about that and not let exceptional items and fuzzy conjecture overshadow this advent in a way that seems to be attempted here lately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: Thanks for the link to the Finkelman article, Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: the Myth Goes On. I found his analysis of Jefferson’s “private relationship with the peculiar institution” and “his racial ideas” informative not to say persuasive.
However his treatment of “Jefferson’s public role in opposing slavery” is not convincing, considering Jefferson sought to forge a national coalition to win the presidency and both houses of the Congress for multiple terms. In this he sought to oppose the Washington’s Federalists, then Finkelman sets up Washington as an exemplar for Jefferson to follow. This seems to me the opining of a political naif. The Virginia Dynasty ran six consecutive terms, for twenty four years, based on southern domestic slavery and the northern allies who condoned it. They too were nationalists, Jefferson's war against the Barbary Pirates, some scholars date attachment to the nation-state at the emotional outpouring following Madison's War of 1812, Monroe Doctrine.
As Finkelman points out, “The image of Jefferson as a proto-abolitionist who did everything in his power to end slavery remains strong in the academy and [among] Jefferson scholars and biographers writing for the general public.” As Wikipedia is not the place to wp:rightgreatwrongs, we should follow the preponderance of scholarship, acknowledged even by professional Jefferson critics. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

comments2

@Yopienso: It wasn't my intention to say that slavery, as an institution, was good, only that slave life at Monticello was, okay, not at all horrible, modern stereotypes notwithstanding. Regarding "modern sensibilities", we should be careful there, as many people today take much for granted, live sheltered lives, spend three, four and more hours a day watching television, and are ready to dial 9-1-1 every time they stub their toe, or sue someone for any number of petty reasons, if you get my meaning. In Jefferson's day life was generally short, cruel and unforgiving and beset with wars, hunger, etc. Infant/child mortality was to be expected, and numerous diseases took their toll on almost every family, including Jefferson's. So it was sort of difficult for the average citizen to lend much concern (unlike Jefferson) for the problems facing slaves, who were guaranteed food, clothing and shelter, unlike the average man. Don't mean to sound insensitive, but that was the reality. That I believe is the perspective many 'modern thinkers' have not much of a clue about. As for runaway slaves under Jefferson, this was rare. (i.e.runaway to where?) In any case, I am also going to replace "housing" with 'log cabin', per sources, as 'housing' as you suggest may mislead the so called modern thinker. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777:, yes, as before you listed a lot of speculative claims. There is no established connection between Wiencek's use of "Extraordinary exertions" and Jefferson's ordering of collars, which, as I explained, Wiencek assumes to be slave collars because Jefferson was not specific about the type. Did Jefferson actually say 'purchase collars for unruly slaves'? Were collars ever used, at all? In any case, for purposes of our summary paragraph on treatment, we are including well established and factual content and any criticism based on those facts. If you want to give selective lip service to the sordid speculations that Wiencek and Finkelman are noted for there is a dedicated article for that sort of thing, which should btw be balanced out with facts and other commentary as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: If your contentions on speculation are for Weincek and Finkelman that is fine. But please don't ask me to speak for Weincek and Finkelman. Editors can't automatically assume speculation on the part of scholars or sources unless in fact authors specifically state speculation. I supplied references and sources as an editor in a talk page. I don't know if collars were ever used, but Finkelmen mention "collars" could be slave collars rather then Jefferson specifically stating an "ox collar". But again I don't speak for Weincek and Finkleman. I hope this article can proceed and less contention in the talk pages such as accusing other editors of historical bias or speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I have no problems with using any source so long as it's used to cite established facts and any criticism based on those facts in our summary paragraph on treatment. I believe that is fair all the way around. Just for the record, the last broadside of accusations came from your ship, but that was 'yesterday'. :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If we stop the attacks then Jefferson can get to GA and FA status. Since slave collars is circumstancial I don't think that needs to be in the article because there is no evidence of them actually being used, at most being ordered. Your paragraph edit looks good because that allows critical assessment of Jefferson and slavery. Editors don't have to agree what authors or historians mention or believe. It's important to get references correct. Maybe there should be a discussion on what refence style to keep in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, if we all pull in the same general direction, which includes adhering to the citation convention that's been in use, we will get there even sooner. Just a reminder, GA, and esp FA, articles require that the narrative be well written, include context and not leave out major and definitive details, regardless of daughter articles. A few editors will also have to come to terms with the page length guideline, which allows for exceptional subjects to exceed it to allow for inclusiveness and comprehensiveness, as do a fair number of existing GA and FA articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Context for TJ silence

Note for Jefferson’s anti-slavery sentiments and his silence in the public arena in context: Hugh Blair Grigsby in his “Virginia Convention of 1776” (1855) notes on page 67 that in Convention, Henry’s western radical party, along with the Enlightenment-lawyer party (George Mason, Wythe, Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson) were for emancipation, but the wealthy planter party (John Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas) succeeded in sustaining slavery. Jefferson both proposed a plan for emancipation in the House of Burgesses, and succeeded in committee in offering an amendment to a bill to emancipate slaves gradually in place, but it failed.

Jefferson subsequently was reluctant to try again at the hopeless gesture, he held out little hope, even for emancipation with removal to free self-government. It was hopeless not because a majority of Virginians did not support emancipation of slaves, it was hopeless because the counties east of the Blue Ridge were malapportioned 16:1 of white population in the General Assembly and in Virginia Conventions. Most of the malapportioned Assembly were not ready for free blacks to vote proportionately at the time, at the 15th Amendment in 1870, or before "one man one vote" Reynolds v. Sims 1964, depending on one's vantage point in the historical narrative.

This is not to say that eccentric social isolates opposing slavery and emancipating their slaves at the time should not be celebrated. But they were not about the business of building a statewide party majority and national majorities for president and both houses of Congress for twenty four years. Washington's Federalist Party favoring emancipation and guaranteeing Native American treaties declined and perished, primarily over the abuse of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and opposition to the War of 1812.

The larger provisions for manumission of the revolutionary period in Virginia were sharply curtailed after Gabriel Prosser’s Uprising in 1800, and schemes of emancipation became increasingly unpopular, until we see in Virginius Dabney’s “Virginia: the new dominion” (1971) on page 234-5 how freedom of thought and expression in Virginia was undermined by perhaps the “most intolerant law” ever enacted by the General Assembly in 1836 (after Jefferson's death). It defined as a felony any expression that denied the right of masters to property in their slave. It extended to anyone entering the state to advocate or advise the abolition of slavery, and to anyone circulating or printing a book, pamphlet or newspaper for the purpose of questioning chattel slavery or promoting slave rebellion. Postmasters were authorized to open any suspicious mail and destroy it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. At the time, given all the circumstances outlined here, along with a divided House and all the talk of a northern confederacy, Jefferson would have only been throwing gasoline on the fire had he as President gotten up in front of everyone and began preaching for abolition. I believe there is a letter written by him in his elder years to this effect where he says the task for achieving freedom for the many slaves was now best left to the up and coming generations. Again, I remain amazed that a few 'historians' don't (or refuse to) get it. In any case, a short paragraph covering this perspective seems to be in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Jefferson's plan was for gradual emancipation, education, and deportation to Africa. This plan was enacted under President James Monroe when federally funded ships brought freed African Americans to Africa. Silence implies lack of public communication. When Congress debated allowing slavery into the LP Jefferson was publically silent on the issue opting for diffusion of slaves after a one year moretorium. Jefferson did ban slavery for one year into the territory. Interesting the Jefferson was concened over South Carolina succession 55 years before the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Silence also implies that the issue was best left alone, esp after numerous and failed attempts at abolition was only dividing the country. We'll have to find Jefferson's letter to this effect, being careful of course not to advance a new position, per OR. Re: South Carolina. Yes, Jefferson was way ahead of his time on a number of social and political fronts. His stand on inalienable and God given rights was a kick in the teeth to monarchies and other social/political elitists, which is much of the reason why he has had a bull's eye painted on his back all these years. Of course, some of his 'friends' have been subtle, attacking him indirectly, in the attempt to shoot the messenger, rather than squaring off with the message. Easier that way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is an interesting assortment of Jefferson's letters at TJF, listed chronologically (through his presidency), that may help to shed more light and context on Jefferson's so called "immense silence". Quotations on Slavery and Emancipation -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The following excerpts/quotes are from letters that help to explain Jefferson's silence.
Good quotes but don't actually tell why Jefferson was silent in 1805 while President. Remember he had no trouble in 1776 denouncing King George III in the Declaration of Independence. As President he had the national podium and was in charge of protecting all states and territories. "Should an occasion ever occur"...Historically wouldn't his Presidency be that occassion...This is perplexing to historians like Weincek and Ferling... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The quotes actually do explain Jefferson’s silence in Jefferson’s words as of his second presidency. He was awaiting a time to “interpose with decisive effect”, and not before anyone had dared to lay the groundwork in Congress. You have failed to show where the anti-slavery Federalists proposed legislation on the floor or reported from committee that commanded a near majority among the Democrat-Republicans --- where the executive of 1805 might interfere with the ongoing prerogatives of the legislature. TJ is not FDR, for a number of contextual reasons that anachronistic critics overlook.

Jefferson proposed emancipation in the 1760s and won in committee as a part of the Enlightenment-lawyer party, but he failed on the floor of the House of Burgesses overwhelmingly, and was humiliated. He did not have the temperament of radical Patrick Henry to go down to repeated public defeat unflinchingly for a decade before prevailing; even in the four extralegal Virginia Conventions before the one recommending independence to Congress, there was no official mention of independence. Jefferson "had no trouble in 1776 denouncing King George III” only after the eastern planter party majority had been persuaded to independence when the British burned Norfolk in late 1775. Before 1776 Jefferson was for Virginia's participation as a realm of Britain under the King but self governing apart from the English parliament, like the modern British Commonwealth. (The coat of arms for Virginia had four quadrants with the England, Scotland, Ireland and Virginia with the Latin motto, "Virginia the Fourth" realm.) See Grigsby's "Virginia Convention of 1776".

As president in 1801 and 1805, based on the suffrages of slave-holding states, facing a Congress with a majority of his coalition, Jefferson could not chose that occasion to throw his political capital away before securing the Revolution of 1800 away from the Federalists. They were not finally disbanded until branded "unpatriotic" in the War of 1812 during Madison's presidency. There were other items on the agenda. Wide political platforms embracing a majority are often perplexing to one-issue special interests, as Weincek and Ferling appear to be on this topic of slavery -- good for a purpose, but a very limited one, most appropriately useful for specialty daughter articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not proving or defending anything. This is not a court case and Jefferson is not on trial. We are suppose to use sources. Weincek, Finkelman, and Ferling address Jefferson's non actions concerning anti-slavery. VirginiaHistorian you said something correct though that Jefferson did not want to throw away his political capital. There is the other alternative that Jefferson was in fact a domestic slavery proponent rather then opponent and that is ultimately Weincek's assessement of Jefferson, increasing his profits by slave births, as Weincek pointed out in Jefferson's 4% rule. Jefferson allowed slavery into the LT after one year moretorium. Where was the Jefferson in 1784 who authored a bill to ban slavery in all western territories. As an editor I don't want to continue to argue in this talk page, but get Jefferson to GA and FA. Wikipedia should remain neutral concerning Federalist vs Republicans. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
No one proposes to say 'Jefferson was silent because...'   What we should say however is something to the effect that
While Jefferson remained silent about slavery, there was heated debate and a dangerous rift in the House over slavery, and talk of a northern confederacy (along with mention of some circumstances TVH mentions above) In various letters Jefferson expressed reservations about continuing his effort to abolish slavery.
Once again, we should stay away from (the many and varied) opinions in particular and let the facts speak for themselves. And once again, we can simply say historians differ in their opinions over Jefferson's silence about slavery while president. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I am all for context on why Jefferson was silent on domestic slavery. According to Weincek Jefferson passed a note saying there will be slavery in the LT when Congress was debating slavery. That could be interpreted as an endorsement. The reader can decide that. Remember Jefferson spoke a few sentences on ending the international slave trade. Congress complied. A few sentences on ending the domestic slave trafficking into the LP could have ended the slave trade or possibly a Civil War. Jefferson was bold on many other areas but slavery he seemed to be at best neutral or biased towards slavery. Did Jefferson represent only Southern intersts while President ? Historians either defend Jefferson or are severly critical of him. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

“Jefferson spoke…and Congress complied?” — NO. — Jefferson “spoke a few sentences on ending the international slave trade” — after fifteen of the sixteen states had previously abolished it — “and Congress complied”. Without the context, it seems as though Jefferson dictated events, instead of leading from behind, awaiting issues to "ripen", persuading a legislative majority before he acted, --- which is what the shyly tempered man did in most things, as he had done in the matter of independence 1775-1776 (he was NOT a Patrick Henry), later as Governor waiting for the Assembly to act before mobilizing militia, even as Tarleton's cavalry was charging towards Monticello. Even at the Louisiana Purchase he was acting on western Congressional initiative to purchase New Orleans.

The few outlier historians who are severely critical of Jefferson as a rule rely on anachronistic half-truths out of context. The article cannot include their unwarranted half-baked assertions because is must be written in summary style. Imagine the half-baked careless effort to characterize whipping errant children in a nailery as "harsh" without investigating contemporary child-raising, schoolroom or apprenticeship whipping practice! Space required for “balance” would make the article unreadable as an article on the historiography of Jefferson, including fringe opinions. All detail of interest for daughter articles cannot be included here. An encyclopedic article on the life of Jefferson cannot promote a few POVs contradicting the preponderance of sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson is "shyly tempered man"...the same person who is credited for writing the tirades against the King of England...launching the Lewis and Clark expedition...aquiring the LT from Napoleon...As far as context goes Presidents in the early 1800's made most of the policies and were very influencial to their own party...There was no beauracracy set up like in 20th and 21st Century presidents...I would not say Jefferson led from behind. What kind of context is being proposed to be put in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal covering Jefferson's silence

A rough draft was proposed above, citing a few basic circumstances/facts, along with a quote from a least one of Jefferson's letters mentioning his silence. Below is a modified proposal, containing no opinion, allowing readers to sum up issues about Jefferson's commitment, sincerity, etc for themselves.

Proposal : During his presidency Jefferson was publicly silent on the issue of slavery and emancipation. During this time there was heated debate and a dangerous rift in the Congress and elsewhere over the issue, and much talk of dividing the nation and of a northern confederacy. After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation during his political career, Jefferson in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell maintained "I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us.

TheSlavery section already mentions: Historians are divided on Jefferson's commitment to end slavery... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources and issues for consideration:

Jefferson was concerned about South Carolina succession. Jefferson gave up on extinguishing slavery at the time he held the highest office in the land when he could have proposed legislation to do so just as he did to end the international slave trade. The paragraph does not answer why Jefferson gave up or why he allowed the diffusion of slavery in the LT after a one year moretorium. There was the potential of a northern and southern succession. You can put things in context: out of the first five Presidents of the U.S. four of them were from Virginia who served two terms and only Adams was from Massachusetts serving only one term. That is 32 years of having southern slave owning Virgina presidents versus four years of having a northern president. Also the southern states could invade northern states to capture fugitive slaves. Maybe putting in that Jefferson was concern over the division of slavery inside the United States so he kept quiet on the issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Jefferson was concerned about a race war and was against freed blacks incorporated into a white society (Wiencek) 2012 Master of the Mountain Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves p 54. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Also the Haitian Revolution confirmed Jefferson's fears of slaves rising up against their masters. Source: Patrick Rael (2015) Eighty-Eight Years: The Long Death of Slavery in the United States, 1777-1865 page 98 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion:
  • During his presidency Jefferson rarely discussed publically on the issue of slavery and emancipation. Congressional debates over the allowance of slavery into the Louisiana Territory created a sectional rift between northern and southern states. The violent attacks on white slave owners by former slaves during the Haitian rebellion confirmed Jefferson's fears of a race war in the Southern States. Jefferson in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell maintained "I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternate C: During his presidency Jefferson rarely discussed the issue of slavery and emancipation publicly. The Congressional debate over slavery extension into the Louisiana Territory caused a north-south rift threatening a northern confederacy. The violent attacks on white slave owners during the Haitian Revolution confirmed Jefferson’s fears of a race war due to injustices under slavery. After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation with and without resettlement, Jefferson wrote privately in 1805, “I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Both versions here look good, but TVH's version is somewhat better as it retains mention of a northern confederacy and Jefferson's numerous attempts at and failures to bring about emancipation, which ties in with Jefferson's letter to Burwell, who imo we should mention/link to, as it reflects on the weight of the letter. However the wording should include publicly silent, as "Jefferson's silence", or "Jefferson was silent", are the terms generally used among biographers, etc. Now we need to chose which sources we'll use to cite these things. I have added one cite for 'silence', which is perhaps temporary until we can find one more specific. Used Meachaam, 2012, to cite Haiti. We'll have to hit the books to find other specifics cites.
  • Proposed final draft: During his presidency Jefferson was publicly silent on the issue of slavery and emancipation. The Congressional debate over slavery in general and the extension of this institution into the Louisiana Territory, among other issues over slavery, caused a dangerous north-south rift among the states, threatening a northern confederacy. The violent attacks on white slave owners during the Haitian Revolution also confirmed Jefferson’s fears of a race war due to injustices under slavery. After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation, Jefferson wrote privately in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell, “I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us.
    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Good edits VirginaHistorian and Gwillhickers ! Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Modification without references:
  • During his presidency Jefferson was for the most part publicly silent on the issue of slavery and emancipation. The Congressional debate over slavery in general and the extension of this institution into the Louisiana Territory, among other issues over slavery, caused a dangerous north-south rift among the states, threatening sucession and break up of the nation. The violent attacks on white slave owners during the Haitian Revolution also confirmed Jefferson’s fears of a race war due to injustices under slavery. After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation, Jefferson wrote privately in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell, “I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us." Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Like Gwillhickers' "proposed final draft" because it specifies the threat to disunion came from the proposed northern breakaway confederacy. (friendly aside: secession was threatened by New England, not "succession") TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There were three sucession threats: northern confederacy, South Carolina, and the Louisiana Territory. To only put in nothern confederacy sucession threat is POV. My version is more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The northern confederacy was unknown for many years. There is no evidence Jefferson knew of the conspiracy. Aaron Burr was involved in that too, but since he did not win the New York governorship the conspiracy ended. Burr was also involved in a potential Louisiana Territory sucession. As for South Carolina, there was threat of that states sucession if Jefferson outlawed slavery in the LT. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: -- Cm' you surprised me with your claim that there is "no evidence Jefferson knew of the conspiracy". Jefferson would have had to been completely out to lunch not knowing of the talk/conspiracy to form a northern confederacy. With all the debate and controversy going on, how could he not of known?? Aff & Mapp, 2009, p. 164, Northern Confederacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The Northern Confederacy was secretive and relied on Aaron Burr's potential involvment. It came to nothing after Aaron Burr was not elected governor of New York. Then Burr took off to the LT to potentially break the LT from U.S. territory but Wilkinson told Jefferson of Burr's plot. Just to say that there was a Northern Confederacy is not accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The northern confederacy may have started out in secret, no doubt, but to effect it the people involved would have had to come to the surface, as they did when Pickering offered Vice President Burr the presidency of the proposed new country if he could persuade New York to join. We are not just mentioning the northern confederacy in a vacuum. It is a general statement presented with more than enough context and is well covered by RS's. Burr's involvement is a rather telling detail, but if you insist, we can mention him also, as it gives us yet another example as to the unstable situation Jefferson was faced with. In any event, re your original contention, Jefferson, a standing President with many informative resources, had more than a clue about his surroundings at that time. As you mentioned, he had people like Wilkinson to keep him abreast of such matters.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments about sources/citations

Still have to find a source that is specific about the rift in the House over slavery during Jefferson's terms. Meacham, p.305 mentions that Federalists regarded Republicans as "dangerous" and vis-verse, but is not specific as to the reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Source on rift: Weincek (2012) Master of the Mountain pages 257-258...I would not focus only on northern succession...South Carolina wanted to succeed from the Union...The Northern Federalists...in addition to those in the Louisiana Territory if Jefferson outlawed slavery... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Louisiana Territory, already mentioned, and South Carolina's interests contributed to the overall rift we are referring to. We don't have to mention this one particular state in our summary paragraph to convey the general idea and context surrounding Jefferson's silence. The Louisiana Territory, was just that, a territory, not a state, so the idea of secession doesn't really apply, esp since it was largely occupied by the Spanish and French still. Besides American settlers, most of them non slave owners, were still pouring in at increasing rates so I doubt the lot of them were on the same page in regards to any idea of secession. The territory didn't have the backing of people like Timothy Pickering, Washington and Adams' former Secretary of State, or the many Federalists who also served under Washington and Adams, e.g.some of them former cabinet members no less. Let's keep it simple -- I don't see any POV because S.C. isn't mentioned in particular. It would seem we have conveyed the idea of a 'rift', overall political division over slavery, and Jefferson's apathy towards any further attempts to advance emancipation legislation while he was President more than adequately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Below is another modification reflecting the idea of political division in places other than in the north.
  • Added a foot note about Pickering and Federalist misconceptions of Jefferson's agenda.

Modified final draft

(Moved proposal to bottom of section)

I am not sure the Logan comment is necessary. Jefferson is avoiding the subject of slavery but not telling the reader why. If Jefferson is anti-slavery why is he avoiding the subject. I think the Burwell letter is sufficient for the paragraph. The other parts look good. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggested rewrite:
  • During his presidency Jefferson purposely avoided publicly addressing the issue of slavery and emancipation. The Congressional debate over slavery in general and the eventual extension of this institution into the Louisiana Territory, caused a dangerous north-south rift among the states, threatening a northern confederacy and sectional conspiracies. The violent attacks on white slave owners during the Haitian Revolution due to injustices under slavery supported Jefferson’s fears of a race war and also increased his reservations about promoting emancipation at that time. After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation, Jefferson wrote privately in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell, “I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Cmguy777: Jefferson does tell the reader why he avoids the subject of slavery. The proper word in the last sentence of the Modified final draft is “reluctance” not the proposed “apathy”. --- Jefferson expressed his reluctance to subscribe to George Logan's poems, --- while affirming support of "decisive measures" to abolish slavery was his “duty”.

At a time when South Carolina was already challenging Virginia’s leadership of Southern states in Congress, there were other issues than the single issue of anti-slavery measures in contention. In the period following Gabriel Prosser's uprising in 1800, even private manumission became a non-starter in Virginia. The situation was similar in other southern states, unlike the universal (but for South Carolina) state abolition of the international slave trade, which the shy Jefferson was happy to "decisively" follow -- leading from behind -- by making a clarion call for federal action aligning the national government with 94% of the previous state initiatives.

1805 January 28. (Jefferson to William A. Burwell). [6] "I have most carefully avoided every public act or manifestation on that subject. Should an occasion ever occur in which I can interpose with decisive effect, I shall certainly know and do my duty [to interpose to abolish slavery] with promptitude and zeal. But in the meantime it would only be disarming myself of [political] influence to be taking small means.

"The subscription to a book [of poetry] on this subject [of abolition, “the cause of which is so holy"] is one of those little irritating measures, which, without advancing it's end at all, would, by lessening the confidence and good will of a description of friends composing a large body [in Southern delegations in the Congress], only lessen my powers of doing them good in the other great relations in which I stand to the publick [sic].” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This illustrates the difficulty of editor's analyzing what Jefferson is saying since this letter is a primary source. What is Jefferson actually saying ? Are there any scholarly sources that have analyzed this letter ? This seems to be Jefferson double speak. He is for a holy cause of ending slavery but does not want to upset his southern slave holder friends. Lessen his powers "in doing them good in the other great relations". That could be interpreted as Jefferson looking for votes to support his own legislation or policies. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no double speak to it. Politics is the art of the possible. Putting your name as a subscriber on the frontispiece of a book of poems to increase their sales was not a "decisive" stroke for emancipation, it was only a "little irritating measure". See Jon Meacham's pulitzer prize winning "Thomas Jefferson" aptly subtitled: "the art of power". William A. Burwell a former Jefferson secretary. George Logan was a Democratic Republican Senator from Pennsylvania 1801-1807, described in his WP article, "With reference to his political activities, he was called at various times a "busybody" and a "great fool",[1] but Jefferson considered him “the best farmer in Pennsylvania, both in theory and practice.”[4] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: Sure, we can use 'reluctance' rather than "apathy" in the proposal.
  • @Cmguy777: Jefferson was rather clear in his letters. They were written at a time when it was well known that his attempts at emancipation were met with stiff opposition and had failed. He didn't have to reiterate all the details in his personal letters to Burwell and Logan, even though he mentions "...extinguishment of slavery...". No one was "analyzing" anything here, and I believe I didn't with my use of "apathy", which almost means the same thing as 'reluctance'. Both terms relate the idea that Jefferson was more or less at the end of his rope with attempts at emancipation. Including both quotes is appropriate for a number of reasons. First, Jefferson's letter to Burwell tells us that Jefferson had "long since" given up at emancipation, giving us a perspective on the time involved. Second, his letter to Logan specifically tells us that he no longer was publicly involved and directly relates to Jefferson's public silence. Third, as this is the Jefferson biography, including both short quotes are well placed as we are addressing the subjective idea of Jefferson's silence with more than just a referral to one singular letter. Btw, on retrospect, perhaps we should be specific about South Carolina (citation pending) entertaining the idea of secession, as it tells us that the unstable situation facing Jefferson was occurring on multiple fronts. It really shouldn't be any wonder as to why Jefferson remained silent about slavery and emancipation at this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: None of this explains why Jefferson avoided the subject of slavery. This is Jefferson the revolutionary who went after the King of England in the DOA and favored the violent French Revolution. The Logan letter should be incorporated into the first paragraph...Jefferson's words are better then our own...he avoided slavery and emancipation...That is better then being silent...Mentioning SC succession if fine by me. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Jefferson's words are important, which is why we should include both quotes, but we should also use wording, i.e.'publicly silent', commonly used in the sources, which Jefferson's words ("carefully avoided every public act or manifestation") tie in with directly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph proposal for final edit:
  • During his presidency Jefferson publically avoided discussing domestic slavery and emancipation. The Congressional debate over slavery in general and the eventual extension of this institution into the Louisiana Territory, caused a dangerous north-south rift among the states, threatening a northern anti-slavery confederacy, while South Carolina was also considering secession to prevent slavery restrictions. The violent attacks on white slave owners during the Haitian Revolution due to injustices under slavery supported Jefferson’s fears of a race war and also increased his reservations about promoting emancipation at that time. After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation, Jefferson wrote privately in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell, “I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Concur with dropping "reluctant", await reference for mentioning SC movement for secession in 1805-09. I can't find it yet.
In an account by Dumas Malone, “Jefferson and the Presidency: second term, 1805-1809, John Randolph of Roanoke warned during the debates in 1807 that outlawing the slave trade might become the "pretext of universal emancipation" and further warned that it would "blow up the constitution". If there ever should be disunion, the line would be drawn between the states that did and those that did not hold slaves. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: We've already addressed the idea of Jefferson being "publicly silent", a specific term used by a number of reliable sources, including TJF, the source/citation used for this item. Your wording says essentially the same thing, so there is no reason not to use 'publicly silent', which is the more recognizable term. We have already more than compromised with you, using several of your suggestions, including the phrase "for the most part", with mention of Haiti, race war along with South Carolina secession. Also, as explained before, there are several good reasons to include both quotes, so unless there is a pressing and viable reason not to, we should. Esp since this is a somewhat controversial point. We need to be as clear as is practically possible on Jefferson's thoughts here. Last, you brought in the idea of South Carolina secession -- where are you getting this from? Having difficulty locating a source that mentions this specifically, and I've checked more than a fair number of sources at this point, including TJF, Meacham, McDonald, Bernstine, Miller and others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: Okay, we can drop "reluctant", even though it's safe to assume that Jefferson was not at all jubilant about relating such news. Also, in terms of the proposal, what are you suggesting above, that the abolition and controversy surrounding the slave trade be mentioned? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposal : During his presidency Jefferson was for the most part publicly silent on the issue of slavery and emancipation.[1] The Congressional debate over slavery in general and the eventual extension of this institution into the Louisiana Territory, caused a dangerous north-south rift among the states, threatening a northern confederacy [2] [a] while South Carolina was also entertaining the idea of secession[citation needed]. The violent attacks on white slave owners during the Haitian Revolution due to injustices under slavery supported Jefferson’s fears of a race war and also increased his reservations about promoting emancipation at that time.[5][6] After numerous attempts and failures to bring about emancipation,[7] Jefferson wrote privately in an 1805 letter to William A. Burwell, “I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us. That same year he also related this idea to George Logan, writing, "I have most carefully avoided every public act or manifestation on that subject."[8]
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References :

  1. ^ TJF:Jefferson's Antislavery Actions
  2. ^ DiLorenzo, 1998, Yankee Confederates
  3. ^ McDonald, 1976, p.87
  4. ^ McDonald, 1976, p.83
  5. ^ TJF: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery
  6. ^ Meacham, 2012, pp.255, 275-278
  7. ^ Ferling 2000, p 287
  8. ^ TJF: Quotations on Slavery and Emancipation

Notes

  1. ^ Federalists, who were outnumbered in the House of Representatives by a huge margin,[3] were not comfortable with the idea of state's rights and Democracy, believing that the Republicans under Jefferson were trying to promote "the evils of Democracy", atheism and slavery, which led former Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, a long time arch foe of Jefferson, in a futile attempt to form a northern confederacy.[4]

More comments

My suggestion of incorporating the Logan letter in the first sentence seems to be ignored. Jefferson uses the word "avoided" but for some reason "publically silent" seems to be the going expression. Two letters expressing Jefferson's reluctance to publically address slavery is POV in my opinion. My input into this conversation seems to be brushed off or negated. Not sure there is much else I can do. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "For some reason"? Using the two quotes to address the popular phrase "publicly silent" was already explained twice. Apparently you have reservations about using "publicly silent", because this is the ever popular and recognizable 'criticism' used, and that shown in context to Jefferson's own words, along with the surrounding and pressing circumstances Jefferson was dealing with, context, it tends to undermine this rather narrow take on Jefferson to the objective reader. Once again, we are using one quote to give perspective on the time involved (I have long since...), and the other (...avoided every public act or manifestation...) which address Jefferson's public capacity, and the phrase "publicly silent", a term (in one form or another) used by Finkelman and Wiencek, not to mention TJF which is the source/cite used for this sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No one has brushed you aside, and this is getting a bit silly. Again, several of your suggestions have been used. i.e.Haiti, race war, South Carolina, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, can you tell us from what source(s) you are getting the idea of South Carolina secession from? This would be a big help and allow us to finally move forward here. If we can't cite this item then we'll have to strike S.C. and add the proposal. We've deliberated about matters over and again long enough it seems. Please help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding proposal

If there are no more comments, recommendations or objections, I'll add the proposal tomorrow, with mention of South Carolina secession omitted, for lack of citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Source for South Carolina succession: Freehling (2005), The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803–1898 The Louisiana Purchase and the Coming of the Civil War p. 70 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Is that Freehling, 'The Louisiana Purchase and the Coming of the Civil War p. 70 in Levinson and Sparrow"s The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803-1898 (2005)? Page 70 is not on the review online, but I happen to have it. "Jefferson winced at ... South Carolina's threat to shun a Union tinged with antislavery, at ferocious debates over abolitionist petitions in the first congress..." and in the passage above on the same page, "Deep hostility between Northerners and Deep South planters threatened permanent disunion even before the Federal Union could be formed." and to close the page, Jefferson "shuddered over the scornful rejection of his whispers about abolition in Virginia" --- Freehling is establishing why Jefferson abandons his earlier "slavery containment" theory. These quotes cannot help us establish a fresh disunion enthusiasm in South Carolina in 1806. But they better explain Jefferson's public silence on the subject of abolition in 1806. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The Freehling (2005) reference and source are already in the article. The terms/words "threat to shun the Union" and "disunion" are synonymous to "succession". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, threats of secession from South Carolina at the formation of the Union at the Constitutional Convention. -- but not during Jefferson's second term, where this proposed sentence is placed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
So then mention of a South Carolina secession is out, as this was evidently not a factor Jefferson was worried about, per his silence during his presidency. (?) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Freehling (2005) does not give the date of South Carolina succession threat so how can one conclude that this took place during Jefferson's second term? The issue is diffusion of slavery into the territory that Jefferson allowed. Freehling (2005) is a reliable source and South Carolina succession should not be ignored in the article as discussed by Freehling (2005). Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Insert : @Cmguy777: You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You ask "how can one conclude" and in the same paragraph say "S.C. succession should not be ignored..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The date of South Carolina secession threats is given by Freehling in the referenced article as (a) “even before the Federal Union could be formed” -- which is commonly known to be ---in the Continental Congressional debates at the Declaration of Independence in 1776, when the Federal Union was formed; and (b) to the “ferocious debates in the First Congress” --- which, as is commonly known --- took place from 1789 to 1791 when the First Congress took place. There is nothing in the source relating to South Carolina and secession referenced during Jefferson’s administration on page 70, --- there is only Freehling supposing Jefferson’s recollection recalled 1776 and 1791 in his cautious transition to accept slavery expansion in 1806, --- as Jefferson did not want a similar blow up during his administration on that subject in Congress. ---
"Much frightened" by Haitian Insurrection, and Gabriel's 1800 slave conspiracy in Virginia, Jefferson "shuddered over the scornful rejection of his whispers about abolition in Virginia." Page 70 makes no indication that there was such a blow up on the part of South Carolina at that time of 1806. On page 71 Freehling goes on to explain, Jefferson "rejoiced at the slow triumph of abolition in the northern states" where blacks were diffused, there was less white anxiety at their release to freedom in place. "It is all the rage these days to call the president's shift from containment to diffusion mere hypocrisy...[it is]...misplaced cynicism". Apart from a few Northern extremists, for most northerners and practically all southern anti-slavery men, "Among moderates on slavery, diffusion almost always became the favorite antislavery weapon." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Cmguy777 , a succession is an "act of following in sequence" and has more to do with the line of succession to a throne, office, or political and/or territorial claim. See our articles on the order of succession, succession of states, and apostolic succession. It derives from the Latin verb "succedo" (which variously means "I climb, mount or ascend", "I advance", "I follow").

A secession, on the other hand, is the act of withdrawal of a group from a larger entity. It often applies to a territorial entity and its population which strive for autonomy or independence from the wider state or entity which currently holds them. It derives from the Latin verb "secedo" (which variously means "I withdraw", "I rebel").

Sometimes the etymology of a term makes clear its intended meaning. In this case, they are far from interchangeable. TheVirginiaHistorian, are you certain that "Jefferson’s recollection recalled 1766" as you say? In 1766, Jefferson was a 23-year-old man with no known involvement in contemporary politics. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Declaration of Independence was debated in Continental Congress including anti-slavery language in 1776, Jefferson's recollection of South Carolina's secession threats "even before the Federal Union could be formed" was from 1776. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • TVH, As you point out, the idea of a South Carolina secession was evidently not a pressing factor during Jefferson's presidency. In fact, S.C. who favored slavery, even the international slave trade, was probably pleased that Jefferson didn't publicly make abolition and emancipation an issue while he was President. Whatever the case, the basic gist of the proposal (i.e.Jefferson's silence in the face of a dangerously divided House over slavery, northern secession) stands quite well even without mention of South Carolina. We should move forward and simply add the proposal without mention of South Carolina. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Correction "sucession"...looks like there is one "c" difference in the two words. Of course I meant "sucession". Had Jefferson opposed slavery into the LT then South Carolina was opposed to an anti-slavery union...Freehling (2005) does not differentiate between Jefferson's first or second terms in office...The northern federation depended on Burr's election to the NYC governorship and quickly dissolved after Burr was defeated...that ultimately led to the Burr-Hamilton dual...Burr then went west and threatend an LT succession...What we can agree on is that the nation was threatening to split apart under Jefferson...and so Jefferson allowed diffusion of slavery into the LT. I believe mentioning the Northern Confederation without mentioning South Carolina and the LT sucession threats is POV...Why not insert "other sectional concerns" as a compromise ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Cm', there is no POV issue here. The reality and mention of a divided House or rift serves to satisfy the idea of any and all "splits" that may have been provoked if Jefferson made abolition/emancipation a pressing and public issue while president. As was pointed out, there is no RS that confirms a S.C. secession while Jefferson was president. The idea of a northern confederacy, even though Burr was not elected, serves to illustrate the tensions and to what extent the House was divided under Jefferson. And you need to differentiate between Secession and Succession. Seems you're only trying to confuse matters all the way around. Let's move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we have one or more sources which discuss the political situation of South Carolina in the 1800s decade, we can not assume (or include) anything about secession intentions or other reactions to abolition/emancipation proclamations. Alternate history is fascinating as a topic, but rather poor as a source.

In any case, the status of slave and free states was quite different during the period of Jefferson's presidency.

The territorial and political map had changed a lot by the 1860s. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are editors suggesting Freehling (2005), The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803–1898 The Louisiana Purchase and the Coming of the Civil War p. 70 is an unreliable source and Freehling (2005) is writing alternative history. Freehling (2005) is very reliable. The POV is noting there was a Northern Federation, but is was secretive and held together by a few misguided Federalists who needed Burr to be elected Governor of New York. Nothing came of the Northern Confederation. South Carolina was the first state to leave the Union by succession. Also left out is the LT sucession threat under Burr. The Northern Federation and LT sucession have one thing in common, Jefferson's Vice President Aaron Burr. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding proposal2

  • Dimadick -- Thank you for trying to explain matters.
  • Cmguy777 -- No one said that Freehling is not a RS. Jefferson was not publicly silent about slavery because of the Louisiana Purchase. He publicly promoted the purchase and openly discussed a one year moratorium before allowing slavery to enter the territory so as not to violate his agreement with Napoleon who was almost ready to rescind his offer. Once again, S.C. secession was not on the table during Jefferson's terms, and there are no RS's that says otherwise. Our proposal is addressing Jefferson's silence. Not including irrelevant and unsourced content is not pushing any particular POV. And for some reason you insist on using succession, not secession, which has been explained and linked for you by editors here. This is the second time, that I know of, that you've tried to rewrite basic grammar, the first time you tried to claim that the word 'generally' meant "all historians". I believe we're done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers: I concur with adding the proposal without reference to South Carolina.
@Cmguy777:. you are half way there on secession, as you've got the consonant spelling down, now the first vowel needs to be addressed. This happens sometimes when students are not taught phonically, so they do not sound out each syllable of a word, but take in the overall shape of a word to recognize similar patterns, leading to some confusion. Secession has 'se se' with a 'soft c' like an 's' (səˈ se SHən) and Succession 'suc' with a hard first 'c' like a 'k' (səkˈ se SHən) or (suh k-sesh-uh n). They are not only spelled differently, they are sounded out differently. The two different words have two different meanings, although they might be rhymed in verse.
(a) While nothing came of the rumblings for a northern secession over the demands for abolition of slavery in the early 1800s, that is the source of threats in public councils and in Congress for disunion then. (b) Burr's hidden conspiracy to disunion among filibusters and some westerners did not embroil Congress to the exclusion of all other business as threats to form a northern slave-free confederation threatened to do. Indeed Burr gained some support by telling some that he was only interested in establishing an empire in Mexico and Central America, --- omitting the part of the conspiracy that he might break away the western United States. So Burr was talking out of both sides of his mouth. (c) That South Carolina tried to secede unsuccessfully 1860-1865 by force of arms does not mean the South Carolina delegation in Congress was vociferously advocating for disunion without interruption from the time of the Declaration of Independence through the expansion of slavery into Louisiana -- which is the time now under discussion for this article. The South Carolina Nullification Crisis with renewed threats of secession from that direction does not explode until 1832, after Jefferson's death. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Finkelman (2005) clearly states that Jefferson winced at South Carolina dissunion during his presidency and that expains his promoting diffusion of slavery into the LT. Secession. There I spelled that right. Finkelman (2005) also links the LP to the coming of the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Freehling in Levinson (2005) clearly states that Jefferson winced during his presidency at South Carolina threats of disunion disrupting Congress in 1776, “even before the Federal Union could be formed”, --- a recollection of events before his presidency.— That was not a description of events in South Carolina during his presidency following Congressional expansion of slavery into the Louisiana Territory with the prospect of additional slave state representation in the Senate at the advent of Louisiana statehood.
It may be that Finkelman (2005) links the Louisiana Purchase to the coming of the Civil War, but that speculation is not in the scope of Jefferson's biography. Other sources of the Jeffersonian period note slavery was on the way to extinction until the development of the cotton gin. Freehling notes on p.71 that a majority of the moderate anti-slave movement in the north and almost all anti-slavery men in the south, believed that --- before the cotton gin spread at an industrial scale --- diffusion of slavery would lower white anxiety over emancipation in place without the expense of freed slave repatriation to Africa, --- and so it would bring about an end of slavery in America more quickly that containing high concentrations of slaves in existing states where white masters were fearful of a bloodbath of revenge at emancipation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to add the proposal without mention of South Carolina for now. If we come up with a RS that says Jefferson was worried about S.C. in terms of him being vocal while president, per his silence, we can add that item later after it's been discussed. In any case, the proposal is neutral and offers no opinion/POV, and will remain so with or without mention of S.C. Good luck guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Northern Federation was a fluke and did not amount to anything. Is there record Jefferson knew about the Northern Confederation ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a gross and over simplification, and we've been down this road. The idea of a northern confederacy was being promoted by people like former S.O.S. Pickering and had wide support throughout New England and well exemplifies the dangerous rift in the House that existed under Jefferson. The idea of a confederacy was a response, a protest, to Jefferson's anti federalist policies. What good would it have done to keep this affair (as if they could) a secret? Your notion that Jefferson didn't have a clue only suggests that perhaps you don't have one. Sorry to be so frank, but I'm tired of repeating myself for you and pointing out things that you as a long standing contributing editor to the Jefferson article should be at least half familiar with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I am only asking for a reference that states Jefferson knew about the Northern Confederation and if he responded in anyway to the Northern Confederation. Freehling (2005) linked Jefferson to South Carolina secession: Jefferson "winced" at South Carolina disunion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Another issue is that General Wilkinson was under the pay of the Spanish while he was territorial governor. Jefferson removed him from office. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it is best to mention there were northern, southern, and western sectional differences that threatened to break up the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Pickering spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate of the need for a northern secession, and published in Federalist newspapers. See the sources provided by Gwillhickers in the post immediately above yours. Wilkinson, on the other hand, was a part of a secret conspiracy. I believe I remember sources that there were sectional differences, north, south and west, --- but not that there were all simultaneously --- public movements to secession that were of concern during Jefferson's second administration.

As Freehling describes it, Jefferson “winced” at his recollection of public South Carolina disunion threats from the Continental Congress of 1776, “even before the Federal Union could be formed”. — Where is there a source showing SC public objections to the expansion of slavery into the Louisiana Territory during Jefferson’s second administration, the period under discussion? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Freehling (2005) is the source that states South Carolina was considering seccession if slavery was not allowed to diffuse into the LT...The northern confederation was going to revolt if slavery was allowed into the LT...but there was no revolt... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Cm', the Slavery section along with our proposal already states:
1. The Congressional debate over slavery in general and the eventual extension of this institution into the Louisiana Territory, caused a dangerous north-south rift among the states, threatening a northern confederacy .
2. During his presidency Jefferson allowed the diffusion of slavery into the Louisiana Territory hoping to prevent slave uprisings in Virginia and to prevent South Carolina secession.
If you want to (do we need to?) cut it any finer than that we need to see Freehling's quote that nails the idea of an actual S.C. secession effort, with page number(s).
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The idea of a northern confederacy was a concerted effort promoted by (very) notable people in government. Was the idea of a S.C. secession comparable? As I mentioned, it would seem that S.C. was altogether pleased that Jefferson didn't make abolition and emancipation an issue to the extent where he was pounding on his presidential podium. In light of that it would seem S.C. had no pressing reason to secede. President Jefferson was in a position where he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't, regarding slavery. It almost seems a miracle that the Union didn't fragment under his watch. We should also be looking for items (for the Presidency section), that covers Jefferson's efforts to keep the Union together, his anti-Federalist initiatives notwithstanding. The section already mentions that Jefferson appointed moderate republicans. Can we cover this effort better? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You make valid arguements Gwillhickers...for the sake of compromise please put in the edit...Just as suggestion...It might be important to add that the Northern Confederation came to nothing, even if there was a potential threat. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Better wording has been added making it more clear that a northern confederacy never came to anything. A footnote to this effect was also added. Bear in mind that Jefferson has been criticized by various historians for remaining silent over abolition and emancipation while president, so the focus of the proposal should lend itself to that overall. A confederacy is mentioned only to show to what extent the House was divided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Though S.C., with nearly half its population made up of slaves, was not entertaining the idea of secession, to speak of, it was of course among the most fervent opponents of emancipation during Jefferson's terms, so perhaps mention of this is warranted, RS's permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Jefferson's restructuring of the Army also alleviated any Northern Federation threats due to removing Federalists from key military positions. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that that is true. Is it your insight or is there a published source for it? We have had a number of editors who do not like the idea of Jefferson as commander in chief of the military establishment (West Point controversy here at Talk), nor do they like Jefferson as the nationalist. Removing Federalists from key military positions in response to Federalist calls for secession would certainly merit mentioning --- were we to have sourcing for it.
It would stand in stark contrast to Buchanan who allowed cannon to be stripped from southern forts or delayed their deployment amidst Deep South secessionist threats in 1859-60 by Virginian Secretary of War John Floyd, who was subsequently a Confederate General. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Federalists and the military

TVH, Cm' -- McDonald, 2004, pp.xiii-xv covers this rather well. He also covers Jefferson's dealings with Federalists and the military overall on a fair number of other pages. No viable reason was ever submitted here in 'Talk' as to why this shouldn't be covered with at least a couple of added sentences. Current coverage of this affair is something of an understatement, with no mention of any Federalist reservations Jefferson had at that time. There is also no mention that Jefferson did not want to rely on foreign sources for top grade engineers, scientists and strategists with the idea of producing such individuals on the home front. Seems he was just as concerned about that as he was about Federal elitists controlling the policy and decisions of the military. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If there was a civil war during Jefferson's presidency the Federalists in key military positons most likely would have gone over to a potential northern confederacy. Jefferson needed to reform the army to keep the army loyal to Jefferson and his Republican Party. Yes. West Point was to keep the American military independent from European influence. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Now we need to talk in terms of what will actually be added to article text, regarding Federalists in the military and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. If at all possible, we should first try to cite from existing sources. McDonald, 2004, covers what is outlined in your web cite source, so I'd recommend using this source instead. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Tadeusz Kościuszko, from Poland, designed and oversaw the construction of the fortifications at West Point, which were considered state-of-the-art. This exemplifies the lack of and need for qualified engineers who were native-born Americans. Jefferson was weary of having to depend on foreign engineers and scientists -- an idea that should be presented here also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The most pressing need for Jefferson at the time was loyalty in the military. That is why he had Lewis get rid of all persons disloyal to Jefferson who had Lewis look at everyone's political allegience. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but we still should mention that the US needed its own source for engineers, scientists and military strategists, regardless of the number of Federalists v Republicans in the military. The fact that they had to use Kościuszko to design fortifications at W.P., of all places, more than confirms the idea that the shortage of military engineers, etc was also a pressing matter. This all can be wrapped up with a couple of sentences so hopefully we can iron this out quickly and get a proposal on the table so we can finally set our sights on a GA nomination. Seems we finally have virtually everything else covered well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon review, all we really need do is mention 'Federalists', which I've done. The passage covering West Point already mentions: Jefferson strongly felt the need for a national military university, producing an officer engineering corps for a national defense based on the advancement of the sciences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Typo in 3.5 "Re-election in 1804 and second term"

Randolph is misspelled: "further alarming Randolp and believers of limited government". Pablum (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error has been fixed. Thanks for looking out. Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope to see you around. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Jefferson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016

Small quick thing. Under historical reputation, third paragraph,second sentence it says "has became" where I believe it should just be "became". Cheers 24.61.10.201 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that. Shearonink (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Poor citation of source or poor interpretation of same source.

The reference cited to substantiate Thomas Jefferson fathering sons by Sally Hemming does not state what is cited and presented as fact. Mirandaanique (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the alternative wording you would like to substitute? We need alternative wording to consider. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It would have been more helpful if the passage/citation in question was presented here. From what I can see, the Jefferson–Hemings controversy section doesn't seem to have any statements regarding the idea of any Jefferson paternity presented as absolute fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Unused source

@Tokyogirl79LVA: Thanks for contributing another source (Jefferson Looney) to the Jefferson biography. However, unless the source is used in an actual citation, it should not be listed here, regardless if the author is consulted by other historians. If you wish to use this source in a needed citation, we can then allow this source to be listed. For now we can let the source stand, giving someone a chance to use it in the narrative. If not we should remove it from the article in a couple of days. The source you provided is an encyclopedia piece. If you can instead find a book/publication written by Looney we can put to good use here this I believe would be even better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Gwillhickers: Sorry for the late reply - I was off from my volunteer gig until today and it's also going towards the end of my graduate semester, when the stuff gets more complicated. (Yay.) It would be best if the link could be added somewhere since full disclosure: the LVA prefers that the link be used. It was actually supposed to have been placed in a print edition of the Dictionary of Virginia Biography, but the Library decided to move their work online. I can find a book source as well, though. Do you have any suggestions as to where this source could be used? I didn't want to add it willy-nilly into the article and to be honest, I kind of didn't know if it'd entirely fly being put in the section I did. I know that much of the lead is unsourced, but I thought it'd be a bit gauche to just insert it after any of the given claims. I'm OK with the link remaining gone - I did warn my supervisor that the page was already fairly well sourced, so there wasn't many places that it could be used. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I didn't know that the bibliography section had to be used in the article somewhere - it might be a good idea to put a note in the section just so this is made a bit more clear. This is my first time working with an article where the bibliography section is strictly for sources used in the article - the majority of the time the section is just used to list various works written about the person, whether they're in the article or not. I don't know if it's entirely necessary, but it would be generally a good idea and I've used it to good effect in places like list articles where people would do about the same thing I did. I hope that doesn't come across as rude or anything, just that if this has happened in the past with other as well it'd probably be a good idea to include. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • On a second side note, if I wanted to add some of Looney's books (not the EV link, since that looks to be print books only) to Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson, what is the threshold for inclusion there? Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it would be much of an effort to use Looney as a corroborating citation if there are no other items in the biography that needs a citation in of themselves. Sometimes articles have a Further reading section, but because there are many 100's of publications for Jefferson, new and old, we have the dedicated Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson for that. Subsequently a Further reading section for this particular article would prove a bit impractical, inviting a myrid of such sources already found in the main Jefferson bibliography. Again, if we can cite something with Looney, preferably using one of his publications, the source would be welcomed. In any event, your interest and efforts here are more than welcomed. Good luck with your graduate pursuits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I ended up making an article for Looney and put the EV citation there, so that's out of the way. Other than that, I think that the best thing of his to use would be his volumes of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, which he did with Princeton. He's worked on most of the later volumes, but is especially known for his work on Retirement Papers since that appears to be his baby. Offhand I think that this project could probably warrant an article of its own since I found quite a few references to that in general. It looks like it is mentioned in the bibliography article here, but I think that it might be a good idea to reference the Retirement Papers separately since that's seen as a separate project, especially as Princeton shifted the work to Monticello due to time/money/staff constraints. Plus Boyd wasn't involved with the Retirement Papers so it's not entirely applicable to list under his name. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, an article (per your red link above) seems like it would offer usable information to the diverse subject of Jefferson. Just a note on Jefferson's papers, aka Primary Sources. They are allowed for obtaining content and used as citations, so long as we don't embark on original research. Primary sources are fine for quoting Jefferson or citing well established claims and such, just so long as we don't advance a new position in the process. Looking forward to your contributions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_40&oldid=967844940"