Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Ancestry of TJ --> Early life

Proposing to rename the article Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson to Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson. The early life article was discussed here. The ancestry article has a limited scope whereas an "early life" type of article can cover ancestry plus a lot more. Brad (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but the title seems a bit long. How about Thomas Jefferson family? Also, isn't his career covered well enough in the main page and elsewhere (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)? I would just give summary/contextual mention of his career and concentrate on ancestry, family and [very] early life. [Add: There doesn't seem to be much coverage about how Jefferson emerged from his family as a boy, all living under British rule, and became involved with the people fulminating the 'Revolution, etc. Along with dealing with existing text, the researching, writing and citing of such an encompassing article will no doubt be a large task]. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of early life and career article is to allow expansion of topics that are not going to be covered here in depth due to size restrictions. Early life and career could cover his ancestry and all the way up to the time he left for France. I know there are other articles that need to be thought out better but this would be just one step in a process. Brad (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Though there is often an area of contextual overlap, a given article has (or should have) a unique approach, its own perspective. Seems few of them cover Jefferson's background and his emergence into a political world of revolt. He was a lawyer prior to the revolution. This must have put him in line with some curious folk. Don't sweat the overlap. Some overlap is good. Common ground. Give them that perspective. At this hour I speak in broad generalities in the faith that you can fill in the spaces. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Article moved accordingly. There turned out to be enough room in "early life" to cover all the way through his vice-presidency. The article stands at about 6000 words now so contains plenty of room for expansion if needed. At a glance in regards to the TJ article, the sections on marriage and family, governor and vice-president can be reduced hence lowering the word count, as they're covered in more detail in "early life" now. Brad (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed out of context remark

Just removed a general out of place claim from the Virginia state legislator and Governor section:

Jefferson attempted to establish himself as a foe of slavery during the Revolution, however,
the 21st century historian John Ferling has called this mostly "hyperbole". (Ferling, 2004, p.24)

Does anyone know why was this general comment, a one sided claim, was stuck here? For balance we could have also noted Ferling's mention of TJ's attempt to include anti-slavery language in the DOI (2002, p.135) and TJF's claim that Jefferson opposed slavery his entire life, but simply deleting this general poke seems the simpler way to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The above is a signifigant statement from a valid historical source. Gwillhickers, you can't pick and choose historians that favor your own views on Jefferson. Critisism is essential to balanced historical observations. The Jefferson article on Wikipedia is turning into the Jefferson blog where critical analysis of Jefferson as an historical figure is censured. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ferling is an established source. There needs to be more, in my opinion, for removal other then this is viewed as a comment by, Gwillhickers, a Wikipedia editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing(?)

I can't seem to find the source that was used to paraphrase text in the Virginia state legislator and Governor section. I searched the two ref's (1, 2) that followed the 'paraphrasing marker' (hidden text) for key words like 'foundry' and 'military supplies' and 'British regulars' but found none. There are of course a few similar words, like 'cavalry', but I can't seem to locate the actual paraphrasing. Does anyone know which source(s) and paragraph(s) was paraphrased? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, 'paraphrasing' to me is four or more words in a passage which are the same as the source, excluding common items like e.g. "War against Great Britain", "Jefferson was elected Governor of Virginia", etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Paraphrasing" does have an existing meaning. In particular, it means expressing the same ideas using different words. Your best bet might be to ask the person who originally added the template. Wikiblame is helpful - in this case, the template was added by Brad101. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I posted about this when I placed the tag. The paraphrase from source originated from a History.com page. Somewhere along the line the history.com page was removed as a source and, although it's not as bad as it was in January, paraphrasing remains. To spot a paraphrase or a copyvio I used the Duplication Detector. A current comparison of source vs this article should appear here. IIRC there was something about the tone of the governor section that sent me to investigate further. Likely it was purple prose. Brad (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However, looking at the current output of the Duplication Detector, nearly all matches seem to be stock phrases used in very different contexts in both documents (e.g. "'the author of the declaration of independence was criticized" vs. "the declaration of independence was jefferson's assertion". Do you think the template is still needed? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase outlined in bold is considered, in these instances, a common phrase, something that almost any biographer/historian might use when writing about Jefferson. About a year ago I was taken to task about 'paraphrasing' and the administrator pointed out several 'exact phrases' i.e.passages that contained four and more words in the exact same order, that were not common phrases. He too used the Duplication Detector. All I did was reword the passages in question and he was satisfied. Am not quite clear on your above interpretation. We certainly can't 'copy and paste', but if we can't 'express the same ideas using different words' then what does that leave us? In any event, at least we know the source in question now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue may be avoided entirely if the section is reduced in size as it should be. I see too much devoted to the movements of the British Army than anything else currently. TJ's time as governor was an overall disaster; a lot of which was beyond his control. Brad (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just removed a lot of details an excess language along with some minor rewording. It was sort of a major edit with 'some' discussion so others may still want to comment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Because of his questionable tenure as governor" makes sense but it doesn't seem to be directly supported by the original source (at least going by what you removed). I've removed it -- seems like (as in the text you removed) we should let the readers draw their own conclusions. --Chronodm (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of State

United States Secretary of State claims without attribution to have been formed July 27, 1789. What did Jefferson do that day? --Pawyilee (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, he was on a ship coming back from his tenure as Minister to France. Washington apparently appointed Jefferson in absentia, and asked for his agreement (or forgiveness ;-) later. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

TJ was likely still in France. He arrived at Norfolk Virginia on November 23, 1789 and was informed there. He went to Monticello first and his daughter was married in the interim. He finally reported as SS sometime in March 1790. Have to keep in mind the speed at which events moved in that era. He likely stayed at Monticello because roads were pretty much impassable during winter. Just saying :) Brad (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Supported Missouri compromise

Since when did Jefferson support the Missouri Compromise? He said the Missouri Compromise "like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." How is that support for Missouri Compromise? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Monticello source does not say Jefferson supported the Missouri Compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers for fixing the statement on Jefferson and the Missouri Compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, I'm not sure about that edit. My understanding (I'll have to look this up in Freehling's The Road to Disunion) is that Jefferson supported the Missouri Compromise with the specious argument that diffusing slavery would lower the concentration of slaves in core slave areas, thus making it politically possible to abolish slavery at a future date. Of course there are probably other scholars who say other things about this hot-button issue... --Other Choices (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We can debate what Jefferson's reasons were, but Jefferson did indeed speak out against the compromise on that premise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to remember not to impose our own interpretations on what reliable sources say. I know of no reliable source that says that Jefferson OPPOSED the Missouri Compromise, although it is universally acknowledged that Jefferson was ALARMED at the whole issue. Accordingly, I will delete the statement from the lede, with the understanding of course that somebody might actually find a reliable source that states that Jefferson opposed the compromise. However, then the problem arises of the multitude of sources that say no such thing when they discuss this issue.

Please understand that I have no problem with mentioning the Missouri Compromise in the lede; I just think that the sentence which I deleted is inappropriate, not least because it is not supported by the cited sources.--Other Choices (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What filled Jefferson with terror concerning the Missouri Compromise? Was it that he favored the spread of slavery and that he believe the South would fight to keep slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've already cited, what filled Jefferson with terror was the dividing line of the 'Compromise, believing, correctly, that it would eventually serve to divide the nation along geographical lines also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I dug up my copy of Peterson (1970), which says that Jefferson "vehemently disapproved" of the Missouri Compromise, with three pages of analysis. So I went ahead and restored a modified version of the sentence to the lede. I don't insist on the wording; others might be able to improve it.--Other Choices (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction Monticello source

There appears to be a contradiction with the Monticello source stating Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery, then stating he was publically silent after 1785. Is this contradictive? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Simply because Jefferson didn't take any 'concrete' action against slavery after a given date still does not mean he wasn't always against it. And he wasn't publicly silent after 1785, so that needs to be fixed in the lede. In 1820 Jefferson denounced the Missouri Compromise in regards to slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Monticello sources says nothing about Jefferson being silent on slavery after 1785 -- and it says nothing about Jefferson privately struggling with the idea. What it does say is that he struggled to make ownership of humans compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions so this needs fixing as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson made a number of private statements about slavery after 1785 (especially in personal letters), but he didn't make any public statements after that time.--Other Choices (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

'Public' or 'private' is incidental to the idea that Jefferson opposed slavery after 1785 and 1820. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Cm' once again, the Monticello sources says nothing about Jefferson being silent on slavery after 1785 or about Jefferson privately struggling with the idea. Was giving you the chance to write it up correctly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ferling stated that Jefferson's actions concerning slavery were mostly "hyperbole". How can going publically silent on slavery be consistent with Jefferson supposedly being a life long advocate against slavery. So when Jefferson was forcing children to work in a dangerous nailery, he was was actually being a consistent opponent of slavery. That does not make sense. Jefferson became more conservative and told Coles to keep his slaves. I believe that Monticello organization is inconsistant in their statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's like you're trying to say that because someone stops going to church they no longer support the religion involved. And "life long advocate against slavery" are your words. TJF simply claims he was a consistent opponent of slavery. This can be true whether or not Jefferson made political cart-wheels against slavery in public after a given date. This is not a two-dimensional issue. Is it that difficult to figure that one can go along with the system while still being largely opposed to it? Seems once again you are reaching for something. As for Monticello, are we going to cherry pick what we use from them? Are they a RS or not? When I objected to TJF for use in the controversy I was told in so many words 'no, we must report what the RS's say'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source regarding Jefferson's involvement in the 'Compromise. The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery & the Meaning of America, Robert Pierce Forbes, 2007, p.103. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If Monticello is inconsistent, Wikipedia editors do not have to be inconsistent. That is why the Ferling quote was neccessary to give balance to the article. His quote was deleted. Telling Coles to keep his slaves for his country, i.e. Virginia, sounds as if Jefferson was writing as a Virginia slave owner rather then a consistant foe of slavery. Jefferson was adamately against the freedom of slaves in Haiti even encouraging Napoleon to put down the rebellion. Is Monticello reliable? I would say yes, for the most part. However, Monticello in my opinion is being inconsistent with Jefferson and slavery. Oh yeah. If someone stops going to Church, yes, they are being inconsistent with church attendance, if they had previously been a regular attendant. Being inconsistent not neccessarily good or bad, only inconsistent. Martin Luther stopped going to Catholic Mass because he was a reformer. Martin Luther was inconsistent with going to Catholic Mass. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Conjecture. It is entirely possible for one to stop going to a church while still embracing the faith. In Jefferson's case I believe we are not the first to note that Jefferson opposed slavery on a moral and political level and did what he could to end it at various points in history. Because he didn't make 'public' acknowledgements opposing slavery all through his life you are now trying to make the assertion that this sort of 'cancels out' all that Jefferson did, and has written about, opposing slavery. As for the Haitian rebellion, Jefferson's only concern was that a French presence, friendly ports, be maintained in that area. Perhaps he didn't trust a character like Toussaint Louverture, leader of the Haitian revolution, who later conspired with the British to restore slavery there. Had Napoleon not sent in troops to capture Louverture Jefferson would have been faced with a tyrant, allied with Britain, as head of a not so friendly country with slavery in place all over again. It seems Jefferson's recommendation to Napoleon was well founded. i.e.The sun does not revolve around slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In terms of slavery, Jefferson was a conservative. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In terms of slavery, Louverture was a liberal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental reason why TJ "went silent" on the issue of slavery is due to his being removed from the legislative branch of government. After 1785 he was minister, SS, VP and finally President. The executive branch of government does not make the laws; this is what the legislative branch does. Therefore it would have been out of TJ's realm to try and introduce new legislation on anything, let alone slavery. This is the entire point that Annette Oprah-Reed and Cmguy's hero Ferling use to show that his silence was because of Sally Hemings. Brad (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States for two terms. There was nothing on ending slavery in the United States in the March 1807 law to end the imporation of slaves. Jefferson had eight years in the White House to speak against slavery in the United States. Is there any record that he spoke out against slavery while President? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What you need is a source that says Jefferson never publicly spoke about slavery while president.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would consider the 1807 law to have shown that TJ was still an opponent to slavery by signing it. I know it doesn't meet your standards for total emancipation. The issues surrounding that law and how it came to fruition I'm not aware of. Please research it. It is common for a sitting President to request of Congress legislation but what the President requests and what Congress presents are always two different things. Brad (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that most importantly the US Constitution prohibited any laws to be passed on slavery for 20 years after its inception. Therefore 1808 was the first possible year this could be done. The 1807 law went into effect in 1808. This was a constitutional issue. Brad (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede work

Cm' your inclusion of the idea that 'Jefferson struggled' is well received, at least by me, however I don't quite see where the TJF article as a source pegs this idea, assuming you are referring to this passage:

While slavery remained the law of the land, Jefferson struggled to make ownership of humans compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions. By creating a moral and social distance between himself and enslaved people, by pushing them down the "scale of beings," he could consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection.

Yes. That is the passage. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this is what Stanton is trying to say? Look at the stuff she follows with: e.g."creating a moral and social distance" -- "pushing them down the "scale of beings," -- "consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection." That's a whole lot of speculation piled into one sentence. Her account at this juncture is skewed and overlooks much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"...compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions"? Aside from Stanton's highly opinionated rhetoric, this phrase is vague. What is this supposed to mean exactly?
Peterson-1960, pp.188-189 notes that Jefferson battled politically with the institution. Maybe it's best to run with that idea. It's easily cited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson opposed slavery because he felt slavery was detrimental to white persons, not blacks. Jefferson believed slavery was good for blacks because he believed blacks were inferior to whites and like children needed to be taken care of. Jefferson democracy includes that blacks are inferior and not able to be citizens of the United States. Jefferson was not silent on the slave trade, yet the slave trade and slavery are not the same thing. Jefferson spoke out against the slave trade in December 1806. That was it. He said nothing publically concerning freeing blacks, giving them representation in Congress, and citizenship. Why, because he believed slavery was the best for blacks and blacks were not smart enough for citizenship. He privately told Coles to keep his slaves and not to set them free for the good of his country and state Virginia. Gwillhickers, going to Church or being around other believers is consistant with a Christian belief system. As far as I know Martin Luther continued to attend Protestant churches after he stopped going to the Catholic Churches. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

edit mark1

Not so. Jefferson saw slavery as detrimental to everyone as well to the ideals of Republicanism. He had reservations about freeing Africans, most of whom were illiterate and/or unskillled, into a white-western civilization, fearing that their release into 'freedom' would result in wide spread racial confrontation, to say the least. In that sense he felt they needed protection . As I said, Jefferson combated the institution of slavery peripherally first. Your apparent attempt to minimalize this landmark fight against slavery with claims about what Jefferson 'didn't do' doesn't stand. Not only did he oppose and speak on slavery publicly, even during his presidency, his entire biography bears numerous examples where he did in fact oppose slavery. Again, what you need is a source that says Jefferson was not a consistent opponent of slavery all his life and spells out, in no uncertain terms, why. Trying to construct this theory with what you've brought to the table (i.e.Haitian Rev, a nail factory, and statements that you apparently thought TJ didn't make during his presidency, doesn't seem to do this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cogliano, 2008, p.207 covers Jefferson's feelings about freeing slaves in 18th century Virginia. As I recall, Jefferson speaks of this in one or more of his letters but I'm having difficulty locating one. Anyone? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, any private letters are not the same as the Presidential podium. Here are two of Thomas Jefferson links: State of the Union Addresses and Messages and Inaugural Addresses. Please feel free to sift through these documents to find out if Jefferson publically spoke on the slavery issue in the U.S. while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Letters help to show Jefferson opposed slavery all his life. And your writing is getting incoherent -- you're using the basis of two speeches to assert the claim that Jefferson never spoke against slavery while president, even after a definitive example has been shown to you, repeatedly. This is getting quite old. Give us sources, not this skewed and blind-sided conjecture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There were 900,000 slaves in the U.S. in 1801 and President Jefferson said nothing concerning slavery in his Inaugural or State of the Union Address. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That by itself amounts to nothing because, as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly now, Jefferson spoke out strongly against slavery while president. Why do you continue to ignore that -- along with all the other things Jefferson did? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson/Adams feud

We basically ignore this breach of friendship and the later reconciliation. After initial collaboration during the Revolution and in the early days of the Republic, Jefferson and Adams famously became political enemies. In their sunset years, the friendship was renewed, and a trove of correspondence between them remains.

Let's reconsider this in the lede:

Elected Vice-President in 1796, when he came in second to John Adams of the Federalists, Jefferson with Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.

It has recently been changed, first to remove the word "opponent," and then to delicately restore some sense of opposition. I suggest something along this line:

Serving as Vice President under Federalist John Adams after losing to him in his bid for the presidency in 1796, Jefferson colluded with Madison to secretly write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. Yopienso (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well noted, but as President and Vice President they were more in union than in opposition in terms of serving the USA. Referring to Adam's as Jefferson's 'opponent' in the lede seems to overshadow this idea. Seems like this is a distinction, a detail, that would be better placed elsewhere. For purposes of the lede all we need to say is that Jeffewrson was VP under Adams, IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a very important event in the lives of the founding fathers and I've mentioned here several times that the article mentions none of it. Historians have often looked upon the relationship as one of deep friendship but also pride for ones political beliefs. Adam's failure to be reelected led to him appointing the Midnight Judges just before he left office. Adams doesn't seem to have taken his defeat very well. The final nail in the proverbial coffin was a letter sent to TJ by Abigail Adams in 1804 where she let him have it (a very brutal letter for a woman of the era) over several mistaken events; one of which was ousting John Quincy from a government position. I highly recommend reading The Adams-Jefferson Letters by Lester Capon. Brad (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were political opponents for a time. Since the subject of the sentence is 'Jefferson was VP', do we need the detail about Adams being an opponent at this point, i.e.the lede? Since Adams wasn't always an opponent I'd say that detail should be included with the context that (would be) more associated with it. The 'Election of 1796 and Vice Presidency' section covers some of the opposing interests between the two. Seems the term 'political opponent' would do well somewhere in there. The section doesn't have a good opening sentence. Elected VP in 1796, the section starts of with events that occurred in '94 and '95 with several sentences that don't seem to belong in this section. Perhaps the idea of Adams and Jefferson being 'political opponents' would better serve as a good opening sentence, setting the stage for the VP section. In fact, the first few sentences in this section belong in the previous section, at the end, so I will move them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They were political opponents while serving as POTUS and VP; note the date of the penning of the KY and VA Resolutions. They didn't make up for years, but continued sparring.

The simple subject and predicate of Elected Vice-President in 1796, when he came in second to John Adams of the Federalists, Jefferson with Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts, is Jefferson wrote; the elected VP bit is a modifier. Yopienso (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since 'opponent' or 'political opponent' is an integral detail about Adams that can be stated with a word or two, then I suppose referring to Adams as such is okay. We still have to be quite selective about what details we allow in the lede, esp when they pertain to another person. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes; what's pertinent to this article is that Jefferson, arguably treasonously, opposed Adams while serving under him as VP, and then ran against him again while both were in their respective offices, snatching the presidency from Adams. Jefferson's opposition to Adams belongs in a TJ bio, as does the upshot of his dealing with Adams' "midnight appointments," which defined the Supreme Court's power in a manner that affected all subsequent US history. Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - it was because of their opposition that the practice changed to require pres/vp to be of the same party, to avoid such actions as Jefferson's against Adams. Historians suggest TJ could have been convicted of treason for his actions as VP- that's significant.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Adams-Jefferson controversy needs to be mentioned in the article. Was Jefferson a spy for the French while he was Vice President of the United States? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Supported Missouri compromise

Since when did Jefferson support the Missouri Compromise? He said the Missouri Compromise "like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." How is that support for Missouri Compromise? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Monticello source does not say Jefferson supported the Missouri Compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers for fixing the statement on Jefferson and the Missouri Compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, I'm not sure about that edit. My understanding (I'll have to look this up in Freehling's The Road to Disunion) is that Jefferson supported the Missouri Compromise with the specious argument that diffusing slavery would lower the concentration of slaves in core slave areas, thus making it politically possible to abolish slavery at a future date. Of course there are probably other scholars who say other things about this hot-button issue... --Other Choices (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We can debate what Jefferson's reasons were, but Jefferson did indeed speak out against the compromise on that premise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to remember not to impose our own interpretations on what reliable sources say. I know of no reliable source that says that Jefferson OPPOSED the Missouri Compromise, although it is universally acknowledged that Jefferson was ALARMED at the whole issue. Accordingly, I will delete the statement from the lede, with the understanding of course that somebody might actually find a reliable source that states that Jefferson opposed the compromise. However, then the problem arises of the multitude of sources that say no such thing when they discuss this issue.

Please understand that I have no problem with mentioning the Missouri Compromise in the lede; I just think that the sentence which I deleted is inappropriate, not least because it is not supported by the cited sources.--Other Choices (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What filled Jefferson with terror concerning the Missouri Compromise? Was it that he favored the spread of slavery and that he believe the South would fight to keep slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've already cited, what filled Jefferson with terror was the dividing line of the 'Compromise, believing, correctly, that it would eventually serve to divide the nation along geographical lines also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I dug up my copy of Peterson (1970), which says that Jefferson "vehemently disapproved" of the Missouri Compromise, with three pages of analysis. So I went ahead and restored a modified version of the sentence to the lede. I don't insist on the wording; others might be able to improve it.--Other Choices (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction Monticello source

There appears to be a contradiction with the Monticello source stating Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery, then stating he was publically silent after 1785. Is this contradictive? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Simply because Jefferson didn't take any 'concrete' action against slavery after a given date still does not mean he wasn't always against it. And he wasn't publicly silent after 1785, so that needs to be fixed in the lede. In 1820 Jefferson denounced the Missouri Compromise in regards to slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Monticello sources says nothing about Jefferson being silent on slavery after 1785 -- and it says nothing about Jefferson privately struggling with the idea. What it does say is that he struggled to make ownership of humans compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions so this needs fixing as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson made a number of private statements about slavery after 1785 (especially in personal letters), but he didn't make any public statements after that time.--Other Choices (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

'Public' or 'private' is incidental to the idea that Jefferson opposed slavery after 1785 and 1820. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Cm' once again, the Monticello sources says nothing about Jefferson being silent on slavery after 1785 or about Jefferson privately struggling with the idea. Was giving you the chance to write it up correctly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ferling stated that Jefferson's actions concerning slavery were mostly "hyperbole". How can going publically silent on slavery be consistent with Jefferson supposedly being a life long advocate against slavery. So when Jefferson was forcing children to work in a dangerous nailery, he was was actually being a consistent opponent of slavery. That does not make sense. Jefferson became more conservative and told Coles to keep his slaves. I believe that Monticello organization is inconsistant in their statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's like you're trying to say that because someone stops going to church they no longer support the religion involved. And "life long advocate against slavery" are your words. TJF simply claims he was a consistent opponent of slavery. This can be true whether or not Jefferson made political cart-wheels against slavery in public after a given date. This is not a two-dimensional issue. Is it that difficult to figure that one can go along with the system while still being largely opposed to it? Seems once again you are reaching for something. As for Monticello, are we going to cherry pick what we use from them? Are they a RS or not? When I objected to TJF for use in the controversy I was told in so many words 'no, we must report what the RS's say'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source regarding Jefferson's involvement in the 'Compromise. The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery & the Meaning of America, Robert Pierce Forbes, 2007, p.103. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If Monticello is inconsistent, Wikipedia editors do not have to be inconsistent. That is why the Ferling quote was neccessary to give balance to the article. His quote was deleted. Telling Coles to keep his slaves for his country, i.e. Virginia, sounds as if Jefferson was writing as a Virginia slave owner rather then a consistant foe of slavery. Jefferson was adamately against the freedom of slaves in Haiti even encouraging Napoleon to put down the rebellion. Is Monticello reliable? I would say yes, for the most part. However, Monticello in my opinion is being inconsistent with Jefferson and slavery. Oh yeah. If someone stops going to Church, yes, they are being inconsistent with church attendance, if they had previously been a regular attendant. Being inconsistent not neccessarily good or bad, only inconsistent. Martin Luther stopped going to Catholic Mass because he was a reformer. Martin Luther was inconsistent with going to Catholic Mass. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Conjecture. It is entirely possible for one to stop going to a church while still embracing the faith. In Jefferson's case I believe we are not the first to note that Jefferson opposed slavery on a moral and political level and did what he could to end it at various points in history. Because he didn't make 'public' acknowledgements opposing slavery all through his life you are now trying to make the assertion that this sort of 'cancels out' all that Jefferson did, and has written about, opposing slavery. As for the Haitian rebellion, Jefferson's only concern was that a French presence, friendly ports, be maintained in that area. Perhaps he didn't trust a character like Toussaint Louverture, leader of the Haitian revolution, who later conspired with the British to restore slavery there. Had Napoleon not sent in troops to capture Louverture Jefferson would have been faced with a tyrant, allied with Britain, as head of a not so friendly country with slavery in place all over again. It seems Jefferson's recommendation to Napoleon was well founded. i.e.The sun does not revolve around slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In terms of slavery, Jefferson was a conservative. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In terms of slavery, Louverture was a liberal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental reason why TJ "went silent" on the issue of slavery is due to his being removed from the legislative branch of government. After 1785 he was minister, SS, VP and finally President. The executive branch of government does not make the laws; this is what the legislative branch does. Therefore it would have been out of TJ's realm to try and introduce new legislation on anything, let alone slavery. This is the entire point that Annette Oprah-Reed and Cmguy's hero Ferling use to show that his silence was because of Sally Hemings. Brad (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States for two terms. There was nothing on ending slavery in the United States in the March 1807 law to end the imporation of slaves. Jefferson had eight years in the White House to speak against slavery in the United States. Is there any record that he spoke out against slavery while President? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What you need is a source that says Jefferson never publicly spoke about slavery while president.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would consider the 1807 law to have shown that TJ was still an opponent to slavery by signing it. I know it doesn't meet your standards for total emancipation. The issues surrounding that law and how it came to fruition I'm not aware of. Please research it. It is common for a sitting President to request of Congress legislation but what the President requests and what Congress presents are always two different things. Brad (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that most importantly the US Constitution prohibited any laws to be passed on slavery for 20 years after its inception. Therefore 1808 was the first possible year this could be done. The 1807 law went into effect in 1808. This was a constitutional issue. Brad (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede work

Cm' your inclusion of the idea that 'Jefferson struggled' is well received, at least by me, however I don't quite see where the TJF article as a source pegs this idea, assuming you are referring to this passage:

While slavery remained the law of the land, Jefferson struggled to make ownership of humans compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions. By creating a moral and social distance between himself and enslaved people, by pushing them down the "scale of beings," he could consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection.

Yes. That is the passage. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this is what Stanton is trying to say? Look at the stuff she follows with: e.g."creating a moral and social distance" -- "pushing them down the "scale of beings," -- "consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection." That's a whole lot of speculation piled into one sentence. Her account at this juncture is skewed and overlooks much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"...compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions"? Aside from Stanton's highly opinionated rhetoric, this phrase is vague. What is this supposed to mean exactly?
Peterson-1960, pp.188-189 notes that Jefferson battled politically with the institution. Maybe it's best to run with that idea. It's easily cited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson opposed slavery because he felt slavery was detrimental to white persons, not blacks. Jefferson believed slavery was good for blacks because he believed blacks were inferior to whites and like children needed to be taken care of. Jefferson democracy includes that blacks are inferior and not able to be citizens of the United States. Jefferson was not silent on the slave trade, yet the slave trade and slavery are not the same thing. Jefferson spoke out against the slave trade in December 1806. That was it. He said nothing publically concerning freeing blacks, giving them representation in Congress, and citizenship. Why, because he believed slavery was the best for blacks and blacks were not smart enough for citizenship. He privately told Coles to keep his slaves and not to set them free for the good of his country and state Virginia. Gwillhickers, going to Church or being around other believers is consistant with a Christian belief system. As far as I know Martin Luther continued to attend Protestant churches after he stopped going to the Catholic Churches. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

edit mark1

Not so. Jefferson saw slavery as detrimental to everyone as well to the ideals of Republicanism. He had reservations about freeing Africans, most of whom were illiterate and/or unskillled, into a white-western civilization, fearing that their release into 'freedom' would result in wide spread racial confrontation, to say the least. In that sense he felt they needed protection . As I said, Jefferson combated the institution of slavery peripherally first. Your apparent attempt to minimalize this landmark fight against slavery with claims about what Jefferson 'didn't do' doesn't stand. Not only did he oppose and speak on slavery publicly, even during his presidency, his entire biography bears numerous examples where he did in fact oppose slavery. Again, what you need is a source that says Jefferson was not a consistent opponent of slavery all his life and spells out, in no uncertain terms, why. Trying to construct this theory with what you've brought to the table (i.e.Haitian Rev, a nail factory, and statements that you apparently thought TJ didn't make during his presidency, doesn't seem to do this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cogliano, 2008, p.207 covers Jefferson's feelings about freeing slaves in 18th century Virginia. As I recall, Jefferson speaks of this in one or more of his letters but I'm having difficulty locating one. Anyone? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, any private letters are not the same as the Presidential podium. Here are two of Thomas Jefferson links: State of the Union Addresses and Messages and Inaugural Addresses. Please feel free to sift through these documents to find out if Jefferson publically spoke on the slavery issue in the U.S. while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Letters help to show Jefferson opposed slavery all his life. And your writing is getting incoherent -- you're using the basis of two speeches to assert the claim that Jefferson never spoke against slavery while president, even after a definitive example has been shown to you, repeatedly. This is getting quite old. Give us sources, not this skewed and blind-sided conjecture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There were 900,000 slaves in the U.S. in 1801 and President Jefferson said nothing concerning slavery in his Inaugural or State of the Union Address. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That by itself amounts to nothing because, as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly now, Jefferson spoke out strongly against slavery while president. Why do you continue to ignore that -- along with all the other things Jefferson did? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Public statements as President

On December 2, 1806, President Jefferson said [excerpt]:

"I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe. ..." Du Bois, 1904,p.48

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, as President, Jefferson presided over a navy that fought the first Barbary war against the notorious slaver countries of Morocco, Algeria and Libya who used and sold slaves of all colors, including captured sailors. It was Jefferson who first refused to pay 'tribute' to these countries and further engaged them over their pirating and slaving activities in the Mediterranean. The Navy under Jefferson was instructed to enforce the act of 1807. Dubois is not clear about how successful they were at this time however. DuBois, 1904, p.108 Jefferson approached the idea of abolition in steps. This was one of the major ones, occurring in his presidency. In any case I think we can assume at some point that Jefferson spoke in public about these things, if not in an actual public address then in his capacity as president involved with the Congress, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of War, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

President Jefferson was a persistent foe of the slave trade would be more accurate then a persistant foe of slavery. He spoke out against the slave trade, not slavery. That is the difference. At the same time Jefferson was fighting the slave traders in Morocco he was enforcing the fugitive slave law in the United States protecting American slave owners and increasing the value of their slaves by abolishing the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You were asking if Jefferson spoke out against slavery during his presidency. An excerpt where Jefferson calls on "fellow citizens" to "interpose your authority constitutionally" against slavery was just posted. Seems you are ignoring it by only responding to the paragraph below it. -- All his life any action Jefferson took against slavery and the slave trade were based on deep rooted principles he maintained his entire life. As I mentioned, there must have been numerous examples where Jefferson had words not only with the public, but with Congress, cabinet members and other contemporaries. It can easily be asserted that he opposed slavery, in all its forms, his entire life, and there are RS's that say so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Jefferson was speaking on the slave trade, not slavery. To say the slave trade is equal to slavery is tantamount to a lie. Jefferson continued to own slaves, protect and spread slavery, in the United States. A lie told a million times continues to be false. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was one of the few who was born into a slave state and opposed it at the age of six. As I've said above, he spoke publicly against 'slavery' all the way into his presidency and as can easily be sourced, opposed the institution all his life. His fight against the 'slave trade' doesn't change this fact. It is only your opinion that opposing the slave trade is not one step in a process to end slavery. Again, you need a source to back up your opinion that Jefferson was not an opponent of slavery all his life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ferling was the source, Gwillhickers. You deleted this source from the article! Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't recall deleting the 'hyperbole' statement or its source. Please cite when. In any case, Ferling's broad-brush claim of 'hyperbole' is just that, hyperbole, and flies in the face of the many facts that outlines Jefferson's stance against slavery. You need to find a source that says Jefferson was not a consistent opponent of slavery. We have two RS's that say TJ opposed slavery all his life (TJF and Peterson) and another source (DuBois) that mentions his opposition while he was president. All you have is Ferling's "hyperbole" comment and items like the Haitian revolution, the opposition of which is easily justified. Once again, Jefferson spoke publicly against slavery during his presidency, calling on citizens to exercise their constitutional authority, etc. Taken together with all his other attempts, speeches, writings, opposing slavery, the claim that he opposed slavery all his life easily stands. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Once again, I don't recall deleting the 'hyperbole' statement or its source. Please cite when. For some reason you are ignoring that question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers for telling me what source I need to find. That is called ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article. From now on, I guess all editors need to have permission from Gwillhickers for their edits since Gwillhickers is controlling this article. If Gwillhickers doesn't like what a source says, then that is only commentary. Now I get how things work here on Wikipedia. If Ferling was Professor Emeritus at Georgia University and is a respected author, but makes a critical statement on Thomas Jefferson, not to Gwillhickers liking, then that can't be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I told you 'what source' to find? -- What source was that? You forgot to say. Ownership? You mean like when you invented a rule saying I could only source statements from a Jefferson biographer when I wanted to include the idea of treason in the DOI section? Getting tired of your failing memory, hypocrisy and your skewed conjecture as you continue to ignore what you please in these discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson/Adams feud

We basically ignore this breach of friendship and the later reconciliation. After initial collaboration during the Revolution and in the early days of the Republic, Jefferson and Adams famously became political enemies. In their sunset years, the friendship was renewed, and a trove of correspondence between them remains.

Let's reconsider this in the lede:

Elected Vice-President in 1796, when he came in second to John Adams of the Federalists, Jefferson with Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.

It has recently been changed, first to remove the word "opponent," and then to delicately restore some sense of opposition. I suggest something along this line:

Serving as Vice President under Federalist John Adams after losing to him in his bid for the presidency in 1796, Jefferson colluded with Madison to secretly write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. Yopienso (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well noted, but as President and Vice President they were more in union than in opposition in terms of serving the USA. Referring to Adam's as Jefferson's 'opponent' in the lede seems to overshadow this idea. Seems like this is a distinction, a detail, that would be better placed elsewhere. For purposes of the lede all we need to say is that Jeffewrson was VP under Adams, IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a very important event in the lives of the founding fathers and I've mentioned here several times that the article mentions none of it. Historians have often looked upon the relationship as one of deep friendship but also pride for ones political beliefs. Adam's failure to be reelected led to him appointing the Midnight Judges just before he left office. Adams doesn't seem to have taken his defeat very well. The final nail in the proverbial coffin was a letter sent to TJ by Abigail Adams in 1804 where she let him have it (a very brutal letter for a woman of the era) over several mistaken events; one of which was ousting John Quincy from a government position. I highly recommend reading The Adams-Jefferson Letters by Lester Capon. Brad (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were political opponents for a time. Since the subject of the sentence is 'Jefferson was VP', do we need the detail about Adams being an opponent at this point, i.e.the lede? Since Adams wasn't always an opponent I'd say that detail should be included with the context that (would be) more associated with it. The 'Election of 1796 and Vice Presidency' section covers some of the opposing interests between the two. Seems the term 'political opponent' would do well somewhere in there. The section doesn't have a good opening sentence. Elected VP in 1796, the section starts of with events that occurred in '94 and '95 with several sentences that don't seem to belong in this section. Perhaps the idea of Adams and Jefferson being 'political opponents' would better serve as a good opening sentence, setting the stage for the VP section. In fact, the first few sentences in this section belong in the previous section, at the end, so I will move them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They were political opponents while serving as POTUS and VP; note the date of the penning of the KY and VA Resolutions. They didn't make up for years, but continued sparring.

The simple subject and predicate of Elected Vice-President in 1796, when he came in second to John Adams of the Federalists, Jefferson with Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts, is Jefferson wrote; the elected VP bit is a modifier. Yopienso (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since 'opponent' or 'political opponent' is an integral detail about Adams that can be stated with a word or two, then I suppose referring to Adams as such is okay. We still have to be quite selective about what details we allow in the lede, esp when they pertain to another person. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes; what's pertinent to this article is that Jefferson, arguably treasonously, opposed Adams while serving under him as VP, and then ran against him again while both were in their respective offices, snatching the presidency from Adams. Jefferson's opposition to Adams belongs in a TJ bio, as does the upshot of his dealing with Adams' "midnight appointments," which defined the Supreme Court's power in a manner that affected all subsequent US history. Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - it was because of their opposition that the practice changed to require pres/vp to be of the same party, to avoid such actions as Jefferson's against Adams. Historians suggest TJ could have been convicted of treason for his actions as VP- that's significant.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Adams-Jefferson controversy needs to be mentioned in the article. Was Jefferson a spy for the French while he was Vice President of the United States? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many details in lede

Once again, our favorite topic has taken up the most text in the lede. I recommend trimming the details in the paragraph in question thusly (text to be deleted stricken):

Present paragraph:

Although Jefferson owned slaves he was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life and considered it as something that was contrary to the laws of nature. [3] He was a leading American opponent of the international slave trade, and added an anti-slavery clause in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. As President, he signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves on March 2, 1807. Jefferson shared the common view of his times that Africans were racially inferior. As part of the Virginia planter elite and as a tobacco planter, he owned hundreds of slaves.[4][5] In 1820 he strongly disapproved of the Missouri Compromise, seeing it as an ill-considered political maneuver that would ultimately divide and threaten the existence of the Union.[6][4] Jefferson privately struggled with the compatibility of owning slaves and the ideals of the American Revolution.

New paragraph

Although Jefferson owned slaves he was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life and considered it as something that was contrary to the laws of nature. As part of the Virginia planter elite and as a tobacco planter, he owned hundreds of slaves, [4][5] however Jefferson privately struggled with the compatibility of owning slaves and the ideals of the American Revolution.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll second the motion; judicious trimming is a good thing.--Other Choices (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objections the change has been made. I also added another cite with mention of blight on civilization, per Halliday, 2001, used also as a supplement to the TJF reference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is selective research. Ferling stated that Jefferson as a consistant foe of slavery was "hyperbole". The slave trade is not the same as slavery. He told Coles to keep his slaves for the good of his country. I have to keep repeating. Why wouldn't Jefferson tell Coles to free his slaves if he was a consistant foe of slavery? How is spreading slavery in the Louisiana territory being a consistent foe of slavery? Jefferson stated this would end slavery in the U.S.? Spreading slavery was decreasing slavery? I don't understand. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you don't understand, even after it was explained. i.e.diffusing the slave force so as to make it ineffectual. [insert With the slave trade abolished, slaves taken west would not be replaced by natural births of slaves in the east nearly at the same rate.] Your clinging to Ferling's one broad-brush comment is what's in fact selective. And we already addressed why Jefferson was against the idea of releasing slaves into 'freedom' in 18th century Virginia and elsewhere. Do the math yourself. Do you really think freed slaves would have been better off roaming around with no place of their own, largely illiterate and unskilled, no money, food, etc? So much for the two-dimensional analysis coming from some of academia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are corrupting history. I certainly believe the slaves would have loved to be free to roam America. In fact your arguement is the same racial view as Jefferson, that slavery is good and that the slaves are better off under slavery. That is not a foe of slavery that is Jefferson the advocate of slavery. Gwillhickers, you are protecting Jefferson. Lying to Wikipedia readers is historically unethical and immoral. 74.38.8.161 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither Jefferson, nor I believe(d) slavery was good. This also was explained for you. "slaves would have loved to be free to roam America"? I'm sure many would. Most would have been put in a most precarious position with no place of their own, etc. That was the reality in those days and that was just one of Jefferson's concerns. Now, if you have a claim you'd like to make then cite it -- and please stop using the talk page to vent personal frustrations and make slanderous statements. You don't own the talk page so you should use it accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that it really matters here but TJ's son-in-law Thomas Mann Randolph and his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph both introduced legislation in Virginia to end slavery in that state. Both were rejected. Brad (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

TJF 'unreliable'?

Cm', I had issues with TJF's handling of 'most historians' and 'all six children' and you were opposed to the idea of it not being a RS. Now here were are today. Just let me say, if you're going to try and disqualify TJF as a RS you'll have to deal with about 18 ref's that currently use the TJF website as sources. I wanted it disqualified TJF for use in the 'Controversy -- you seem to want to remove it entirely. Lots'o luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the TJF is not fringe. I believe some of their statements on Jefferson have been inconsistent. I am not in any way for disqualifying TFJ as a source, however, any percieved inconsistent statements need to be corrected, countered, or modified by other sources, preferably books or articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to challenge TJF's statement (consistent with Peterson and Haliday) you'll need specifics. e.g.Halliday, notes that The more he pondered slavery the more he was sure that this blight on civilization must ultimately be wiped out. p.36 Halliday is a TJ paternity believer, btw. If it's still your intention to claim Jefferson was not an opponent of slavery all his life you'll need to do it without constructs. i.e...because he was silent during presidency. You'll need sources that make this claim specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that you try to keep the paternity question and the slavery stance separate? About the only possible connection is if you see this as a "pro Jefferson" vs. "contra Jefferson" WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's not. One can admire Jefferson as a polymath, a great writer, and even ahead of his time, and still notice that even by his standards, he was inconsistent (at least when setting words vs. actions), and by our standards he was a racist. I, for one, do not hold the fact that he had children with Hemings automatically against him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Halliday as a paternity believer only to show I'm using run of the mill "current scholarship" as sources. Nothing more per your assumption. Yes, apparently, and I stress apparently, Jefferson was inconsistent in his actions from a political perspective, but not with his convictions. These were evident throughout his life. Btw, 'TJ paternity' is not a fact but I suppose it was gracious of you to say it's nothing to hold against a person. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, you can't accept a source when it meets your pov and reject it when it doesn't. You and Parkwells campaigned for TJF as a reliable source and I even agreed after looking closely at it. Now you're backpedaling by claiming that TJF should be checked on each individual statement it makes against other sources. Well, TJF already uses sources and they're usually listed at the bottom of each page. Brad (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Brad, as I mentioned before, TJF is not fringe. I believe their generalized statement that Jefferson was a life long foe of slavery without listing any of his supposed acts against slavery is irresponsible. TJF then contradicts their own statement by having a historian state that Jefferson was silent on slavery after 1785. TJF was irresponsible for not initially giving the dissenting opinion of the 2000 Jefferson-Hemings commission. If a source stated that "Jefferson was a nice guy all of his life.", then the question is what nice things did he do that is evidence Jefferson was a nice guy? Well everyone else says Jefferson was a nice guy, so that makes it so. Settled. There is no need to give any evidence. Jefferson statement that "All men are created equal" is contradicted by his ownership of slaves at Monticello. I believe that it is appropriate to check TJF sources and find alternative book or article sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson opposed slavery

After a five minute search finding sources and information for this (what should be) common knowledge was easy. Almost all note Jefferson's opposition while at the same time owning slaves with varying interpretations.

• Jefferson opposed slavery ..., -- Thomas Jefferson and the politics of nature, Thomas S. Engwman, 2000, p.111

• Jefferson opposed slavery. His commitment to natural rights and to the moral equality of all human beings—given expression in the Declaration of Independence—was unyielding. He believed that slavery was against natural law. -- Light and Liberty: Thomas Jefferson and the Power of Knowledge, Robert M. S. McDonald - 2012

• It appears that while Jefferson opposed slavery in principle, he saw no obvious way to end it once it became established. If the slaves were freed all at once, Jefferson feared that white prejudice and black bitterness would result in a war of extermination that the whites would win. He fretted that if slaves were individually emancipated they would have nowhere to go and no means to survive on their own.

• Jefferson opposed slavery, calling it “an execrable trade” (Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History 121). He charged that George III perpetuated slavery by blocking colonial efforts to end the slave trade. The charge was deleted from the “Declaration”, over Jefferson’s protest, when some Congressional delegates objected (Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx 36).

Will add more sources as I find them.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Why wasn't Ferling's hyperbole quote mentioned, because that is counter to what Gwillhickers is attempting to prove by all of these generalized sources. Jefferson wanted to keep blacks slaves because he believed they were inferior. Jefferson democracy did not include blacks and he wanted to ship them out of the country. However, Jefferson told Coles to keep his slaves for the good of his country. Gwillhickers, it is a lie to perpetuate that the slave trade and slavery are the same issue. Gwillhickers, the Wikipedia Jefferson biography is not the place to endorse the racist white supremacists beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan. Once again, Gwillhickers you have proved that the writing of history is one of the most corrupted of all professions. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Cmguy you've gone far enough now. Claiming that Gwill is endorsing the KKK and insinuating that he's a white supremacist racist is uncalled for. You owe Gwill an apology or I expect him to pursue this further. You enjoy making claims but won't produce the necessary sources. Brad (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What is true, however, is that Gwillhickers, for the nth time, is using the dragnet-and-discard technique of "research". In other words, his search method is only turning up occurrences of a phase that supports his position, not any other information. If I cast a net with a 10-inch mesh, I cannot deduce from my catch that the ocean has only big fish. This is not research, it's confirmation bias in action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Back up a bit Schulz. Take a look at the sources I've used. i.e. TJF, purported to be the de'facto authority on Jefferson, used over and over to assert TJ paternity, all six children, etc. Ellis, Mr. Sphinx. Fawn Brodie, the one who got the Easton's to change their story from Uncle Randolph being the father to TJ being the dad. Du Bois, of African heritage, a crusader against slavery. Notice also that I did not look for sources among the Scholars Commission, Barger, Turner, et al. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This might be so but it's up to the editor making claims to produce sources that back up those claims. Cmguy has not done this and instead resorts to attacks. Brad (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert` : Can't quite figure why Cm' has painted a bull's eye on Jefferson back. Agenda? No, Cm' shoots from the hip. A White apologist who writes history to appease feelings of guilt, induced by various academia? I dunno. It takes years for some people to grow out of college. (Hi there Pete.) I grew out of it in the middle of American History 101. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I never stated Gwillhickers was embracing White Supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan. Gwillhickers, I thought from Gwillhicker's statements, was agreeing with Jefferson's view that blacks would not be able to take care of themselves if free. I have no doubt that Gwillhickers intentions for the article are good and noble. What I stated was I don't want the Jefferson article to go in any racist, KKK, or white supremacist direction. I did not want the article in any way to endorse Jeffersons' views on blacks. If Gwillhickers wants an apology I will give Gwillhickers an apology. Further actions are unneccessary. Gwillhickers took out Ferlings 2004 comment that Jefferson's actions were "hyperbole" and as Stephan Schulz stated Gwillhickers seems to punch in a Google search to get results Gwillhickers wants. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"to go in any racist, KKK, or white supremacist direction"?? That's like saying since Hitler was a firm believer in law and order that any such prose asserting law an order is to promote the 3rd Reich. This is intellectual delinquency. Sources please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaving out any academic criticism (i.e. Ferling 2004) or analysis and painting a one sided view of Thomas Jefferson is dangerous. I suppose I do "shoot from the hip" and if Gwillhickers wants an apology, I will give one. If this article is attempting to justify Jefferson as a slave owner then the article would be a defacto endorsement of Jefferson's white supremacist views that blacks are children and needed to be slaves. Ferlings view that Jefferson wanted to be known as foe on slavery and that his words and action were "hyperbole" adds a critical analysis of Jefferson and gives balance to the article. Jefferson as a foe of slavery is a very general term without specifics. A foe of slavery who enslaved hundreds of people during his lifetime, who viewed the birth of more slaves as profit. To equate the slave trade with slavery is irresponsible history. I am not a white apologetic in terms of the Jefferson article. Ferling adds balance and reason to this article. Why can't his view that Jefferson was "hyperbole" be in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all races then, even today, thought they were the greatest race, etc, so trying to label Jefferson's view as "white supremiscist" is a cheap distortion typical of many activist types who are often themselves racist to the core. Jefferson's views of Africans, given the stark differences in appearance, culture, etc, doesn't change the fact that he opposed slavery all of his life, even through his presidency. The claim of 'consistent opponent' pertains more to his state of mind and heart than it does his actions or any "failure" to end slavery during his presidency. This state of mind never changed throughout his life. The article already relates the idea that Jefferson has been criticized for not ending slavery during his presidency. There are plenty of "specifics" throughout Jefferson's life that say he was a consistent opponent all of his life and that has always been the general consensus. If you want to mention Ferling's view then I believe the slavery section is the place to do it. Btw, how does Ferling qualify his 'hyperbole' claim? His is a general comment directed at the idea that 'Jefferson attempted to establish himself as a foe of slavery during the Revolution'. It is not a comment directed at the idea of TJ being an opponent all his life, so it would seem you need more than Ferling's comment to get your particular ball rolling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of ending the slave trade during his Presidency, Jefferson did nothing or said nothing for the eight years he was President concerning slavery. Zero. The slave trade is not the same as slavery. If Monticello.org is equating the slave trade and slavery, that is historically inaccurate and tantamount to a lie. Monitcello.org was the same institute who botched not printing the opposing opinion of the 2000 Jefferson-Hemings study having misled the readers there was no opposing opinion. They got caught and had to backtrack by publishing the opposing opinion. Jefferson was a maticulous slave owner who viewed forced labor as a profitable enterprise. Sources: Wilstatch (1925), Thomas Jefferson and Monticello, pp. 124,128; Malone (2002), Jefferson, A Reference Biography, p. 13 ; Fehn (Winter 2000), The Early Republic Thomas Jefferson and Slave: Teaching an American Paradox; Ira Berlin 1998, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America pp. 126, 127. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm So the Monticello site was ok to support the "many/most" argument about historians agreeing that TJ fathered children with Hemings but it's not ok to use it for supporting that TJ was a foe of slavery? Make up your mind. Brad (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Monticello.org site an unstable site. With that said, I will apologize for supporting the Monticello cite on the most historians statement. They have been proven to be an unreliable source on Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion. Monticello is not fringe, but upon further examination, the sight has made inconsistent statements concerning Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

editbreak

You are repeating the same lie and conjecture and once again are ignoring his 1806 speech while President, per Du Bois. This is incoherent. This makes at least the fourth time you've just talked right around this. And I asked you to cite when I removed the hyperbole comment and source. You're not being very responsive. -- Yes, Jefferson knew the profits slavery produced. This still doesn't mean he didn't opposed the institution and took various actions and spoke against it all the way into his presidency. -- Ferling's "hyperbole" comment was in reference to Jefferson's Revolutionary war image, not about Jefferson being a consistent opponent of slavery all his life, per TJF, Peterson, Du Bois and others. If Ferling is all you have you're not going to accomplish much here. If you have any other ideas that you can actually cite with sources, and page numbers, you should present them. That's about all I have to say to you at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The 1806 has speech nothing to do with slavery, rather the slave trade. Jefferson's two Inauguration speeches and eight State of the Union speeches contain nothing on slavery, as far as I know, nothing on the slave trade. How can one be a foe of slavery and force 10-year-old children to work in nail factory for profit? According to Ferling (2000), Jefferson believed he was a foe against slavery. That does not mean that he was in actuality a foe against slavery. How can one be a foe against slavery then state that slavery is good for blacks? Those are two contradicting terms. I gave four sources that maintain Jefferson owned slaves to be profitable and that he was a meticulous slave master controlling every faucet of the Monticello slave plantation. That goes directly against being a foe of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral article

Because there are so many historians and biographers for Jefferson it is almost impossible to assert any one claim about him, especially where slavery is concerned. It's also sort of unfair to pick the same few biographers over and over and continue to do what we did last time and load up the refs with notes and quotes. We need to adopt strictly neutral language and simply say some historians agree, others don't (in so many words) and then be done with it. 'WE' as editors are supposed to write the article, not merely report what 'Simon sez'. We should report facts and then comment on opposing views, if any, without lining up our favorite list of sources and quoting them one after another. If that is the approach we may as well just write:
For the Thomas Jefferson biography read these books. ...' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillkickers, having different sources makes the article neutral. Editors are to use different sources when available to add balance to the article, not take sides. Defending or justifying Jefferson and slavery is not the purpose of this article or the job of Wikipedia editors. At the same time, I don't believe the article needs to condemn Jefferson for owning slaves. There is division over whether Jefferson was anti-slavery. The reader can decide if Jefferson was for or against slavery. The issue with Jefferson and Sally Hemings has been handled delicately as possible. Jefferson was conservative in his punishment of criminals. I am not sure that is even mentioned in the article. I don't believe this article has been written with a "Simon sez" approach. There has been allot of discussion on Jefferson concerning sources, bias, and neutrality. The lede had originally stated Jefferson was anti-slavery, without mentioning that other scholars disagree. That has been changed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has always had "different sources" but for awhile was far from neutral because of the bloated sections, skewed and unclear language, the cherry picking and the pov parade of web page articles. How soon we forget. As I have already explained, because of so many historians for Jefferson, we can no longer keep quoting a pet author by itself as it only invites others to add other quotes and comments. Before long most of the text is copy cat/quotes with little historical content and authorship from a WP writer, as we've recently experienced in the slavery and controversy sections. We need to simply give the readers as many facts as possible and simply mention historians are divided if that is the case.
Finkleman: He is excessive in his estimation and is grossly mistaken on key points, i.e.That Jefferson thought blacks could not be educated, taught skills, etc, and that "Jefferson hated the Negro" which simply flies in the face of so much of Jefferson's history. Finkleman seems to write for the choir he belongs to and impeaches his own credibility. Use him if you must but it seems that given his (very) narrow estimation of Jefferson we should also provide an alternative source anytime someone decides to use this individual as a stand alone reference, esp on controversial topics. Also please don't refer to historical context as justification of Jefferson and slavery, even if that is the case. The readers need to be given a clear picture, not a two dimensional opinion with no facts to support it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if I read the lede correctly as stated, Wikipedia is agreeing that Jefferson was a life long foe of slavery. Other scholars then are disagreeing with Wikipedia. How is that neutral? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing to the truth, established facts, DOI, emancipation, writings, etc, etc, is neither left or right. Agreeing to opinion and speculations with little to no facts to support them is a different matter. Please do not try to play 'Rubix cube' with me, I'm lousy at it as you can tell. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, articles on Wikipedia are suppose to be a neutrally sourced without any agenda. "Agreeing to the truth", who decides what the truth is to be put in the article? Wikipedia is not suppose to take sides on an issue. Removing that his main biographers believe Jefferson was anti-slavery is bias, in my opinion. There is division among scholars and historians concerning Jefferson's anti-slavery views and actions. What if the article flatly stated, "Thomas Jefferson had six children by a concubine, Sally Hemings, but others disagree."? That would be inappropriate and irresponsible. Yet it is alright to state as fact Thomas Jefferson was a life long foe of slavery. That seems to be a double standard on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, there are several sources that say in no uncertain terms that Jefferson was an opponent to slavery all his life, and these claims are based on facts, things that Jefferson did that specifically opposed slavery. The historians that disagree have only speculations based on what Jefferson didn't do later in his life. That is the difference you seem to be avoiding, all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you seem to be making all the decisions on what sources are speculation and what sources are truth. That is an attempt at ownership of the article that is against Wikipedia policy. How can you dismiss Finkelman and other scholars as speculation and state Jefferson biographers are telling the complete truth? That is not neutrality. Other scholars who believe Jefferson was not anti-slavery believe they are telling the truth. The readers need enough information to make their own decisions on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can dismiss Finkleman, or anyone, who makes highly opinionated 'conclusions' with no specific facts to nail their assertion down. Finkleman and others have attempted to take 2+2 and make it look like 100. i.e.Because Jefferson was generally silent during his Presidency (leap!) he therefore was not an opponent of slavery. And let's just ignore the state of the union at that time, with deep abolitionist division worsening by the year which according to RS's was the reason for Jefferson's silence. These perspectives need to be brought forward for balance given the Finkleman (2+2) school of thought. Now please quit blowing the "ownership" horn. You have no platform there either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Gwillhickers, you can dismiss Finkelman and other sources, however, why do you impose your view on other editors? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Including Jefferson's political environment, i.e.the abolitionist movement, South Carolina, Georgia and the slave power itself, in relation to his silence, shouldn't be an imposition on anyone unless they happen to be an editor who can't sell a certain story in light of various historical facts. (Darn those facts!) Seems you just want to simply say, i.e.'Jefferson was silent and sold his slaves therefore he was no longer opposed to slavery' without any mention of what Jefferson, as one man, was up against. I've pointed you to several RS's that cover these things, yet your approach is to simply add 2 and 2, Finkleman sez, and you're ready to dismiss TJF in the process, a source you were in lock-step with when it suited your interests. The lede now includes a dissenting note on lifelong opponent of slavery. If you have something that can take the ball any further then I would recommend presenting it with a couple of sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, stating that Jefferson was up against the slave power seems to be making an excuse for Jefferson's silence on domestic slavery. Remember President Jefferson was Commander and Chief of the Armed forces and he had the authority as President to sign laws or encourage any laws against slavery. Jefferson enforced the fugitive slave law and did not seek to have the law repealed. Jefferson said nothing on the slave trade actively taking within the United States. He never stated the South Carolinians were practicing the "evil" slave trade; buying and selling slaves; auctioning and breaking up families to the highest bidder. For some reason Jefferson only believed the slave trade took place overseas. Seems we are going around in circles. I am not even sure what a "silent protest" is. If one is silent then how does one know a protest is going on. I guess that's like if a leaf falls in the forest and nobody is around, does the leaf make a noise. We are getting into philosophy. One could say that Jefferson was in principle against slavery because he believed that slavery was bad for white people. But then there is the contradiction since Jefferson believed slavery was good for blacks, since according to him blacks were racially inferior to whites. If the reader understands that Jefferson privately in principle opposed domestic slavery that would be fine. Is keeping silent actually opposing an issue or acquiescence? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No Cm', keeping silent is not "actually opposing an issue or acquiescence", nor is it anything that can stand by itself to buttress the idea that Jefferson was (poof!) 'no longer an opponent of slavery'. And let's not forget, Jefferson wasn't completely silent on slavery during his presidency. Though he alluded to the slave trade, he did indeed call upon the sentiment of citizens who opposed slavery to help bring an end to this barbaric practice. Jefferson hated the Negro. Is that your view too? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What do any of my views I may or may not have concerning Jefferson have to do with the article? Finkelman stated that "Jefferson hated the Negro". That is a generalized term similar to Jefferson "was a foe of slavery". The "barbaric practice" was reference to the African slave trade in Africa, not the U.S. slave traders. Jefferson himself practiced the "barbaric" or "evil" of slave trading within the United States. Jefferson was a man of contradiction concerning slavery. Why is it that King George III is the "bad guy" and African slavetraders are the "bad guys" concerning slavery, yet Jefferson never chastized Southern slave power? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between "opponent of slavery" and "Jefferson hated the Negro" is that the former is based on things Jefferson did that specifically targeted slavery, while Fibkleman's exceptional and uncommon claim is the product of speculation about what Jefferson didn't do -- and I dare say that Finkleman is probably one of the very few, if not the only one, who resorts to such exasperating language. Getting a comment about Jefferson from Finkleman is like using a comment about Israel from Yasser Arafat. And what source says that Jefferson "never chastized Southern slave power"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Finkelman methodically lists why Jefferson was not antislavery.

1. Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves.

2. Jefferson urged Coles to keep his slaves.

3. Jefferson wanted freed blacks out of the country.

4. Jefferson lifestyle depended on slavery.

5. Jefferson viewed slavery as detrimental to whites, not blacks.

6. Jefferson assumed blacks are inferior by race.

7. Jefferson favored slavery to preserve his political office.

Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all superficial, a 2+2 exercise.

1. Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves.

2. Jefferson urged Coles to keep his slaves.

Both of these is easily, and has been, explained. Jefferson had reservations about releasing slaves into 'freedom' given 18-19th century Virginia/America, leaving them mostly unskilled, uneducated, with no shelter, food, etc. Selling them to other slave holders assured them of shelter, food, clothing. Odd that the glaringly obvious manages to escape the minds of some 'scholars'.

3. Jefferson wanted freed blacks out of the country.

Yes, as a humanitarian he felt they were better off in Africa. Getting them out of the country and to Africa as a "free and independent people" was consistent with the idea he was opposing slavery.

4. Jefferson lifestyle depended on slavery.

True, yet he still opposed it, didn't he? Go figure.

5. Jefferson viewed slavery as detrimental to whites, not blacks.

Half true. There are numerous examples where Jefferson is fully conscience of the fact that slavery was wrongful to blacks, Africans.

6. Jefferson assumed blacks are inferior by race.

Yet he still felt their enslavement was wrong. You've said nothing here. His opinion of race did not change his heart about the idea of slavery.

7. Jefferson favored slavery to preserve his political office.

Jefferson was generally silent on slavery because of the worsening division between the various states. He was silent in his 2nd term also. Why? He couldn't run for president for a third term. What "political office" was there to "preserve"? When he included anti-slavery language in the original DOI, was he also trying to "preserve" his political standing, his future as a statesman?

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, everything you have written above seems more like excuses rather then explanations. Jefferson believed slavery was good for blacks because he believed blacks were racially inferior. Shipping them back to Africa was confirmation of this view, in essence, he could not stand to have blacks in his white democracy. Jefferson democracy was only for white people. According to Jefferson blacks could not participate in white society as free persons. Jefferson believed blacks could participate in white society as slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's only your opinion that Jefferson "could not stand to have blacks in his white democracy.", esp since many blacks indeed voted for him and after the election of 1800 Jefferson was often referred to as the "negro president", but there are no tangible facts or RS's that comes close to supporting your notion. Otoh, Jefferson wanted Africans back in Africa as "free and independent people" and there is indeed evidence and RS's for this statement. Once again Cm', Jefferson's feelings about race, largely sympathetic, has nothing to do with his feelings opposing slavery. This is just another construct. i.e.'Jefferson hated the negro', therefore he 'couldn't possibly be against slavery'. No one has even established this idea, so using the one notion ('can't stand') to support yet another notion ('not an opponent') is really reaching and flies in the face of the evidence and RS's. Again, these facts and perspectives need to be better represented in the article, per RS's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Thomas Jefferson throughout his life desired to deport blacks. That is not my opinion. What sources state that blacks voted for Jefferson when only whites could be U.S. Citizens? Were blacks allowed to vote? Jefferson believed slavery was good for blacks because whites could take care of them. The two issues are linked. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hemings syndrome

This arguing over quotes is the same trouble that kept erupting over Hemings. Particular cherry picked quotes are considered more important than a general overview of TJ's positions on slavery. If there were a limited number of authors who have written about TJ then a quote could be appropriate but the number of authors who have written about TJ is realistically in the hundreds. Cherry picking quotes in this case cannot be done to comply with size guidelines. It is quite true that in recent decades authors have been more critical about TJ and slavery which is all that should be noted here. List two or three reasons why, with sources, and leave out the particulars. Brad (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A load of text in the form of a 'note', stuck in the refs, from Finkleman was recently added to the lede by another editor. I also added a fair number of historians from that source for balance. As there are perhaps hundreds of sources for Jefferson, quoting/commenting from the same usual few is indeed an act of pov pushing and raises undue weight issues. That aside, it's possible to simply mention doubt among other historians in the lede with just a page reference to the source without all the lengthy listing of historians (ref 7) stuck in the refs. Besides, no other item in the lede gets this sort of attention. I have no objection to just using page numbers in the lede, per presidential and history articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lead; removing redundancy, argument, and source stacking. Likely it needs more cleaning but using 1000 words to say something when 500 will do should always be the goal. This is turning out just like the Hemings fight. Do people here ever learn anything? Here are some principles of lead sections:

• Citations and notes are not required.
• They're not the place for argument of issues in text or in the infamous notes that have plagued this article for years.

This is what happens when I take my eyes off the article for a week or more. Brad (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Brad, you did a good job cleaning up the lede. I notice the phrase the Jefferson was a lifelong foe of slavery has been taken out. My view is that the the lede needs to mention that there is division among historians whether Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

While the lede doesn't mention this specifically it does give us a fair representation regarding TJ and slavery without a lot of bloat and cherry picking. I guess I can live with that, however the new lede version needs, or could use, some cites on key points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that TJ was a "lifelong foe of slavery" but the wording was a bit of puffery and too close to what the TJF makes claim to. Same with "planter elite". The reader should be left to figure out whether it was true or not. The lead also has a sentence right after the claim of "highly rated president" about modern scholars being more critical about his record on slavery. The subject of slavery needs to be kept in the paragraph addressing slavery; not spread all over the place. Variances on the word "slavery" appear 8 times in the lead; this is excessive and worse than it's ever been. Brad (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, there are several RS's that say Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life, and base this idea on facts, DOI, acts, writings, letters, etc. All the nay-sayers have is the 2+2 perspective that because Jefferson was silent during his presidency his opposition to slavery was an entire "myth" and ignore the reasons why. Transparent to say the least. Yes, as usual, slavery manages to get mentioned the most in the lede. Jefferson has always had a socio-political bull-eye on his back because his idea of individual rights, endowed by a creator, flies in the face of various political thought. It is this heart felt perspective that moved Jefferson to act and speak against slavery as he did. This part of the man needs representation in the article along side the likes of Finkleman's narrow and (very) judgmental assessment.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the lead section is not an area for pro vs con debate and introducing statements that require citations or lengthy notes or source stacking. I would like to see all citations removed from the lead. The pros and cons of TJ's opposition to slavery should be in the slavery section as has been said many times. TJ's "endowed by their creator" referred to the creation of life; meaning that after birth it was society that gives or takes away human rights. Another very commonly misunderstood passage from the DoI. It was a subtle smack against slavery. Brad (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No ref's in lede?

If we're going to make statements in the lede with no citations then of course these lede statements will need corresponding/supporting statements, cited, elsewhere in the article. Meanwhile, it seems we still have some rewriting to do in the lede if 'slaves' or 'slavery' is mentioned eight times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Deportation"...

...take it from the man:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers.
Jefferson, 1821

(emphasis mine)--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Schulz, you have just given us an example where Jefferson speaks out against slavery after 1785.

... It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably
and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly...

As Jefferson's statement was made in 1821, only five years before he died, it supports the idea that Jefferson remained an opponent of slavery all his life.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The above statement was taken from Jefferson's private unfinished biography. Did anyone read this during Jefferson's times? Jefferson previously contradicted himself in his Letter to Edward Coles, August 25, 1814, where he advocates that Coles keep his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"But in the mean time are you right in abandoning this property, and your country with it? I think not. My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, & be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them. The laws do not permit us to turn them loose, if that were for their good: and to commute them for other property is to commit them to those whose usage of them we cannot control. I hope then, my dear sir, you will reconcile yourself to your country and its unfortunate condition; that you will not lessen its stock of sound disposition by withdrawing your portion from the mass."

You miss TJ's point to Coles, Cmguy; he was saying slaveowners had the responsibility to provide for their slaves and that it would be wrong to just turn them out into the cruel white world where they would be unemployable and unable to provide for themselves. This was the terrible dilemma of liberal thinkers: "What happens to the slaves if we free them?" TJ's letter to Coles reflects the highest ethics. Yopienso (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, TJ was advocating that slavery was good for blacks. TJ's reasoning was a rationalization for keeping blacks in bondage. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

People are getting distracted from the main point: it is not up to editors to prove or disprove TJ's position. There are sufficient RS of published historians who argue against TJ's status as an icon of anti-slavery, which is a slightly different thing. Simply refer to them and end the discussion. It has gotten much too literal - an unpublished mention of his approval of emancipation and deportation is hardly the kind of leadership that people might have expected from a president and national statesman of his stature; it would not break the "silence" noted by David Brion Davis after 1785. Agree on the facts, use the RS that express differing views, and get on with it. It is not up to editors here to try to qualify TJ's actions by the power of the slaveowners or anything else. Historians differ on how he should be assessed, that's all, and they do consider the conditions of his times and what his contemporaries did.Parkwells (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The "main point" was that Jefferson spoke against slavery after '85. If what Schulz has posted is in fact Jefferson's words then these words fall into the category of established fact. Jefferson's anti-slavery language in the original DOI is also considered an established fact. Jefferson's many letters are tangible facts also -- and there are numerous RS's that say so. It would be wrong to sweep established historical facts under the rug because a few high visibility professors refuse to count past four. Jefferson is on record for opposing slavery throughout his life, even as a youth. His feelings against it were obviously deep rooted and they remained that way his entire life and there is evidence for this and plenty of modern RS's who agree. The apparent contradictions of Jefferson are easily explained in the light of historical facts, and there are many. It would also help if a few people didn't try to evaluate Jefferson with the lowest possible common denominator. That can happen if your nose is always stuck in the same few sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I agree with Parkwells. Had President Jefferson boldly proclaimed in his Inagural Address in 1805 that "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free!", that would be evidence that Jefferson was anti-slavery. However, Jefferson did not. He wrote this statement 16 years later as an elder statesman in 1821. Nobody but Jefferson knew he made this statement. That statement was unpublished, not even written in a private letter for somebody to read, rather in an unpublished biography. How can Jefferson be anti-slavery if no one knew he wrote this statement? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's 1821 statement is evidence, for those who still need it, that he was still opposed to slavery in his final years. i.e.All his life. Published, or not, this has no bearing on Jefferson's view of slavery. These constructs of yours and the 2+2 evaluation routine is getting a bit ripe. Again, Jefferson's general silence during his presidency and in his later years is easily explained. Making bold statements about abolition during presidential speeches would have been unwise and futile. What does Finkleman say about Jefferson in relation to the state of the union at that time? Does he even mention it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall Finkleman mentioning the state of the Union. However, Gwillhickers, if what you are saying is true then you are describing Jefferson as a timid politician who did not want to rock the boat concerning slavery. I don't believe that is the image that you want of Jefferson. You can believe whatever you want concerning Jefferson, but you are forcing your opinion of Jefferson on other Wikipedia editors. 1821 and 1805 are significant differences in time and publishing a work does matter in order for Jefferson to get his "anti-slavery" message out to be of any influence. That is why Davis stated Jefferson was "thundering" silent on slavery after 1785. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No I am describing a very cautious man and again, the article needs to include background information anytime someone comes along with another 2+2 claim with nothing concrete to support it. Again, there is evidence that supports and RS's that claim Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life. His 1821 statement is yet more evidence of this fact, regardless of "any influence" it may or may not of had. Leaving these important facts out of the article is typical of the misinformation used to rewrite Jefferson's life. Btw, First it was 'ownership', now I am "forcing" my opinion. Please stop the horn blowing and concentrate on how to write the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a debate forum. Please concentrate on improving the article. Brad (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article needs to be neutral whether Jefferson was anti-slavery or not anti-slavery. The readers can make own decisions concerning Jefferson and slavery. I believe that would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Double standard used in article

Including historical facts is a neutral approach. Claiming Jefferson was 'not an opponent of slavery all his life', esp when there is plenty of evidence and RS's that say so, and nothing concrete that says otherwise doesn't sound neutral. TJF, one source, was used to assert the idea of 'most historians' in the controversy section, yet the evidence is sketchy at best. Now we have TJF as a source again, along with others, claiming Jefferson was always an opponent with established evidence at various points of Jefferson's life to support the claim, yet we're expected not to make the statement in the article because of a couple 2+2 constructs that are far from conclusive and ignore qualifying historical facts. Not only is this far from neutral it is hypocritical and employs a double standard as the TJF claim 'most historians' still exists in the article. Unless someone can produce a RS, based on established evidence, that says Jefferson was no longer opposed to slavery in his later life, the claim should be returned to the article, in the lede and in the slavery section. If not, then the TJF/'most historians' claim needs to be removed for the same reason. i.e.Doubt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. There is no double standard. Certain scholars believe Jefferson was anti slavery and certain scholars believe Jefferson was not anti slavery. A neutral article would allow the reader to make up their own decisions concerning Jefferson and anti slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Then we should let the readers decide about what 'most historians' think. Should we also let the readers decide where Jefferson was born, even though there is established evidence and RS's that say specifically where?? Cm', I am sorry, you are all over the map. On principles you flip flop constantly. There are established facts and RS's that say Jefferson was a life long opponent of slavery. We let the readers decide when there are few/no facts and RS's to establish an idea as factual. Are you ready to delete the 'most historians' claim and let the readers decide?? (For openers, let's not stop there.) I thought not. Your idea of neutral is skewed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires us to to include all significant viewpoints. If sources differ, we report both versions with attribution. And you don't seem to know that Jefferson (and others of the founding fathers) were very much aware of the fact that they would become historical figures, and quite carefully crafted their legends. Jefferson cleaned up his letter archive, and he was quite particular about what he would write and to whom. You cannot take primary sources at face value - that requires historical expertise. There is a reason we have universities that teach history and the humanities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, include all significant view points, but view points do not negate established facts, esp when there are RS's that have based claims on them. And a view is only significant if it has concrete evidence to back it up. What concrete evidence were you alluding to? Any?
Jefferson's letters, yes, I've heard the (seemingly canned) explanation for those. i.e.Jefferson's letters are just one big act. Which University teaches this? Have they established a list of Jefferson's letters, i.e.one's that are valid, ones that are not? The idea that Jefferson was not an opponent of slavery all his life has neither established facts, letters, speeches or anything else to back it up other than partisan speculation about what he didn't do. If RS's like TJF and others say Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life then we report it, just as we did when TJF said 'most historians' have concluded. You can't have it both ways. Either TJF (and other RS's) claims stand or we delete them because there is doubt -- 'other' view points. Btw, the idea that Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life is not based just on his letters -- it's based on his life, actions, speeches, etc. The article should state that Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life while other historians have doubts but lack any hard evidence to base their 'view' on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Schulz, remember the doubt and/or criticism levied at Jefferson's letters can also be levied at any president's letters, speeches, etc. i.e.Anyone can say it was just a 'crowd pleasing act'. Got something concrete that nails it, something more than idle doubt or partisan motivated speculation? e.g.Do you know of at least two Jefferson letters that completely contradict the other in terms of slavery? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers -- Thomas Jefferson was not against slavery for his entire life because he owned slaves for a significant portion of his life. Any claims of Jefferson's that he is "against slavery" are just like Obama's claims that he is "against war" -- i.e. meaningless in the face of what he's actually doing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Not so. There are countless examples in history where leaders were against war but ended up fighting war. It's like saying, 'he wasn't really an advocate for clean air because he drove a car.' To better evaluate history we must get past the 2nd dimension as there is always much much more to consider. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I admire your patriotism for America and Thomas Jefferson. Bill Moyer's recently stated, Jefferson "got it right when he wrote about “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As the core of our human aspirations. But he lived it wrong, denying to others the rights he claimed for himself. And that's how Jefferson came to embody the oldest and longest war of all -- the war between the self and the truth, between what we know and how we live." (June 29, 2012) I gave you the list of the reasons by Finkelman why Jefferson was not considered anti-slavery. Jefferson's white supremacy was not anti-slavery and clearly made giving blacks equality and freedom extremely difficult. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Cm'. I am somewhat patriotic like most folks, but not blind. Jefferson's core ideas of freedom and human rights gave precedence and fuel to advocates of freedom around the world -- unfortunately the slave power would not yield and Civil War eventually resulted. Remember, Jefferson made many attempts to end slavery, directly and indirectly. Jefferson was born in the middle of slave holding society, yet early on he spoke out against it, was constantly at odds with the "planter elite" and later made significant efforts in an attempt to end it. Jefferson is due criticism perhaps for his lack of action in his later years, but again, he was surrounded by nay-sayers in important places, in government, and in finance, during a period when the government and the states were deeply divided. There is a very large middle ground here you know. The two dimensional analysis routine is unfair and is often echoed by people who simply don't know the history very well or by those who simply have other things in mind. Nothing new unfortunately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)