Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Tone of discussions

I believe the tone of discussions has been heated at times. The article has made vast improvements on both Sally Hemings and Slavery. In an effort of good faith I will be committed to keeping any vitriolic rhetoric to a minimum. I apoligize for any perceived offensive posturing on my part to any who have been offended. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery speculations

Have just removed names, again, but are using them as sources for the claim. If some editors still insist on quoting the likes of Finkleman, Ferling then we will have to bring in other commentary for balance. Or we can do what we were talking about before and just give the reader facts with a neutral comment about the hundreds of historians for Jefferson. Facts will make the article specific. No one will be 'wandering around'. Also, there was no positive or differing commentary. Just the usual pile up of one sided opinion that fails to acknowledge prevailing circumstances surrounding Jefferson and his presidency, etc..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to ascertain what you refer to with the word "speculations." Please state precisely what you mean. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson never freed all of his slaves, is an 'established historical fact'. Claiming that e.g.Jefferson hated the Negro, because he didn't free all of them is a 'speculation', esp since claims like this have no concrete evidence to get the idea past 1st base. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall the article ever stating or speculating that "Jefferson hated the Negro." Diff, please. Yopienso (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : That was just an example of a speculation, per Finkleman. Finkleman said Jefferson outlawed the slave trade to get a better price on his slaves, posted in the article days ago. That is a speculation with nothing solid to support it. Almost all claims made by Finkleman about Jefferson's character, views of slavery, are speculative. Yes, Finkleman obviously has an axe to grind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Finkelman and Ferling are valid sources. They belong in the article! Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

All you are doing is kicking up dust while you blow your horn. Please pay attention to what is being written and stop with these disruptive tactics.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

More undue weight

In the Historical reputation section the word slave or slavery occurs ten times. The section is about one page long yet the terms occur near the beginning, in the middle and near the end of a section. This section, also, is loaded with largely one sided commentary, some of the comments are tagged for no cites. According to John Chester Miller, 1980 p.142, Jefferson's reputation rests mainly on the DOI, the Louisiana Purchase and the abolition of the slave trade. Currently the Louisiana Purchase is not even mentioned in that section. This section also needs attention.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Louisiana Purchase bought from Napoleon needs to be mentioned. The slavery commentary in the historical reputation section could be written better. I have an issue with Ellis as a reliable source since he stated that Jefferson was "impotent" and then flip flopped having stated Jefferson probably had children by Sally Hemings. I propose that Finkelman and/or Ferling summarize the not anti-slavery point of view and some other historian(s) other then Ellis summarize that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ellis is one of the top people in the field and I think he makes fewer little mistakes than most. His insights into Jefferson are very highly regarded by specialists. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that something like the Louisiana Purchase was left out of the section only serves to emphasize that some writers are here to write a biography -- others are here to make some sort of (peer driven?) statement. Again, it's time to do something about all the cheery picked speculations, comments and opinion. Replacing them with important facts would be a start. There should be an opening statement with a short paragraph for what the DOI did for Jefferson's reputation, another short paragraph for the Louisiana purchase and another for the slave trade. All other items can be summarized in the last paragraph with a neutral comment about hundreds of historians with varying opinions. Again, with enough facts in the section, this is all any intelligent reader will need. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that Ellis "flip-flopped" on Jefferson and impotency, since after the DNA test then this was OK for a historian to come out with that Jefferson was not "impotant" and he probably fathered Sally Heming's children. I do not have anything against Ellis's statement that Jefferson was anti-slavery, my objection was his about face ubrupt change on his Jefferson "impotency" theory. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

a historian changes his mind on an ambiguous issue when new evidence emerges--surely we want our historians to show that degree of flexibility. Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I know Ellis was the one who started this "impotency" theory. No other historians proposed this concerning Jefferson. Yes. Historians need flexibility, however, I believe historians have a certain amount of ownership for any of their proposed theories not supported by research. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not for editors here to determine whether Ellis is an RS - he obviously meets the WP standards. If you have a question, take it to the RS noticeboard. Yes, he developed a theory based on his reading and interpretation of TJ's character; it is to his credit that he paid attention to new evidence.Parkwells (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Ellis, like Finkleman, is a RS, however, we need to get away from quoting speculative comments with nothing concrete to establish the idea. Again, there are simply too many historians, old and new, for Jefferson to be cherry picking quotes from the same few over and over. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The historical reputation section should reflect the work of the last generation (25-30 years) and yes, many of those historians have been more concerned than earlier ones about Jefferson's performance related to slavery. Just put their opinions; editors are supposed to reflect the scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Which "scholarship" are you referring to? There are simply too many historians with varying opinions to speak of them as one unified group. Are we going to start in with the fuzzy unclear language all over again? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Finkelman as a source has apparently been deleted from any commentary in the article. That is convenient. Finkleman views on Thomas Jefferson, critical and representative of modern scholars point of view, has been banned from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

All commentary needs to be neutral and summarized. And Finkelman is not "representative of modern scholars" as a whole simply because there are too many who openly disagree with the sort of speculations Finkelman is know for, moreover, I suspect very few use the sort of presentist peer-driven language Finkleman uses. e.g. "Jefferson hated the Negro". No more unsupported pov claims please.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is that Gwillhickers can attack Finkelman as a source and when I am critical of Ellis I get chastized from other editors? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have criticized both you and he on this point, it is not helpful or good form; as for Finkelman just add an appropriate statement from the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alanscottwalker. I have put in commentary by Finkelman and Gwillhickers has taken out this information. Gwillhickers believes any critisism of Jefferson is "2+2" intelligence; Finkelman is viewed as a child who just doesn't know any better. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please file a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard be specific about what you want and fair about what objections are made to what you want. It will be useful to focus on proposed langauge and policy. Gwill and you have got to stop. You may name him, me, and anyone else here as a party. If Gwill refuses to participate in dispute resoultion, it will likely be taken as a sign his position is without merit, and potentially disruptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with Ellis so long as any claim is backed by established historical fact. As soon as any author embarks into 'adventure land' with ideal speculations with no concrete evidence to back it then we have an issue, regardless if it's Ellis, Malone, Ferling, Peterson, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of facts by sources is usually included becaus readers then know why we have reported these fact; sources shape exactly which facts we report and which we do not, so I would suggest you guys need to work on the major sources and thier conclusions to be presented to the reader and I would strongly suggest you do it at Dispute Resolution. I would also sugeest you both read multiple Featured Article biographies to get some ideas about how you can SETTLE this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Before any potential dispute resolutions, Gwillhickers, are you against any mention of Finkelman or Ferling, two established historians, as historical commentators in the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have made myself quite clear from the beginning. I am against posting speculative comments from Finkelman, and others if they are the only ones quoted. If you insist on quoting these individuals I have a list of ones I will introduce, starting with Herbert Barger, Mayer, Turner, Hyland, Peterson, Rayner, etc, etc, etc. Again, the reader will be fine with as many facts as we can give them with summary comment about the hundreds of historians for Jefferson. You seem to think the reader will be lost without them. I maintained cherry picking commentary will serve to cause the reader to lose site of the facts -- esp when there is more opinion than facts in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no we are not editing in terrorum; the above is the kind of comment that suggests disruption not collegial editing. While it is true there are hundreds of sources, it does not mean it's hopeless, usually when there are hundreds of sources, they can be categorized by expertise in specific sub-topics that academics recognize as topical experts or important to that issue. In addition to wide reading, bibliographies and tertiary sources and google scholar citation count help here. Summary presentation then of these subtopic experts can be made and that is what is useful to our readers. Focus on the most respected secondary and tertiary sources in current scholarship for each sub-topic. . Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

edit break3

Seems we're getting a little aloft here. Commentary in general is called for when it is based on facts, and only when an idea can't be bettered stated without it. The most important element in an encyclopedic article are verifiable facts, backed by RS's. Trying to establish a particular speculation is quite another matter and having to commit this much discussion to it, rather than what facts we are going to include is becoming nonsense. We can comment on opposing historical perspectives at the end which will give the readers all the perspective they need. If we are going to select 'which' sources to base commentary on then it seems we have to play musical chairs all over again. Also, the writing style in some of these sections quite frankly looks like it was written by a sophomore with more attitude than brains. Throughout the article there is 'simon sez' statements from the usual crew with few facts, and surrounding facts, for the readers. Even things like the Louisiana Purchase (' Reputation section) have been left out, all the while we sit here and rehash the same repetitious discussion. -- We can't just include one comment. We should not include three comments from the same camp, so we end up including, how many, six comments? Thanks for your criticism ASW but [in terms of dealing with this problem] you haven't said much about what we should do here. Seems in this case, i.e.the 'Slavery' section, we need to keep it neutral and simple, unless you have a concrete better idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, many of the sort of comments that were made in the 'Slavery' section were repeated, ala Finkelman, Ferling, etc, in the 'Historical reputation' section. Any speculative commentary belongs in that section, if anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Cm' you have supported TJF as a source, then attacked it. You maintain Ellis has issues but have no problem quoting someone like Finkelman, so it seems your issue with any historian is spun from your feelings at any given moment, rather than on any principle that we can hold all historians to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in one thing, Gwillhickers, I was careless in giving support to sources without any signifigant investigation. My question was whether you believe Ferling and Finkelman can be used in the article. You state you are against speculative comments. Sources that give excuses for Jefferson's inactions against slavery are apologetic rather then historical. As my Baptist pastor once said in a sermon, "excuses are like armpits, everyone has two of them and they both stink." Editors can be protective of both historians and Thomas Jefferson. Does this mean you are against Ferling and Finkelman as historical sources in the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, you continually operate on this article disregarding all prior discussions about sourcing and quotes and how these issues were resolved in the past. As I've said multiple times now, there is no room in the article to begin playing quote wars with sources. Why? Because there are literally hundreds of persons that have written about TJ and there is no possible way to present a neutral article by quoting passages from each one. This is a very simple issue: Some hailed TJ as an abolitionist while others consider him to have been completely the opposite. That's all that needs to be said here..without quote wars. No quoting from sources. Should be simple but somehow it never is with this article. Brad (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Quote wars", Brad, I mentioned Finkelman and Ferling as sources, not specifically quoting them. My question was would Gwillhickers block Finkelman and Ferling as sources from the Thomas Jefferson article? I have not gotten a direct answer. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ferling and Finkelman are in the article. Perhaps you should explore with Gwill what sources to contrast them to and where. Again, I would suggest you do so in dispute resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am against filling up any section with speculative commentary, especially when it's not based on anything concrete, and especially when the same point can be made with a neutral and summary comment. We have a 'Historical reputation' section where this sort of thing is better placed. Again, for the 'Slavery' (and Controversy') section(s) we need to do this or we will once again have to put up with more text devoted to speculations than would be committed to historical facts. And Brad makes a good point, this could result in quote wars, or pov parading, all over again. We've been through this already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed comments for end of Slavery section

• While it has been generally recognized by historians that throughout Jefferson life he was morally opposed to slavery making numerous attempts to end it, he has drawn criticism from many who note that he didn't do much with his presidency to help bring the institution of slavery to an end.

This statement acknowledges both Jefferson's life long position on slavery and the criticism for his lack of action during his terms as President. As long as we give the reader as many facts as is permissible this is about all the 'commentary' they will need it would seem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and Slavery sections need clean up

We still have a lot of selected quotes/comments from selected sources in these sections. In the Slavery section Finkleman's 'view' is asserted twice, with nothing to balance it along with his usual tag team source Ferling. Also, this statement Jefferson's views on slavery appeared to change throughout his life. is speculative and unsourced and is not consistent with how the lede reads, that Jefferson was opposed to slavery all his life. Yes, apparently the double standard exists in these sections too. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You people have spent probably over a year on this one issue of slavery, and you still have major problem? To the casual observer this all appears to be agenda driven editing due to the fighting on this talk page. Maybe you two need to give it a rest for a while, and go edit some automobile articles or go outside and play basketball. I'm almost afraid to go read the article to see if it still says that Jefferson was president of the US or had any impact upon this nation beside slavery. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good observation. It would be best to stop now. Gwill and CM, do not see eye to eye at present; perhaps if they dropped it for a good six months their views will evolve where they can come to some understanding. No one else appears to see the deep problems they do. It doesn't help their cases that they seem to tend to pour invective on defenseless sources and scholars and it makes this talk page virtually incomprehensible. Or take it to dispute resolution; at any rate, stop this incessant discussion here as it does not appear to tend to resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : I would much rather be working on Naval articles but the problems here get fixed and then they come creeping back. In the slavery section there is only negative commentary from the usual tag-team of references, Finkleman, Ferling, etc, with no commentary from historians who acknowledge that Jefferson had reasons for doing what he did, esp as president. It's time to clean up the commentary and close the section with a neutral comment that historians have criticized him, some have not. No more lip service for the same few authors. We discussed this. There are simply too many Jefferson historians to be cherry picking the usual few and giving them lip service. All the 2+2 commentary needs to be taken out of the slavery section with a neutral comment at the end regarding historians. This has gone on long enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes slavery an important issue in my opinion is the American Civil War and how slavery divided the nation. The Smithsonian 2012 exhibition on Thomas Jefferson and slavery is testiment how important and popular the issue is. Jefferson grew up and participated in a slave society, so why is it so surprising that slavery is discussed in the article? Jefferson did many things for the United States, however, slavery always seems to be connected with his actions in private and public life. Jefferson is one of the most protected of all Founding Fathers. The article is not judging Jefferson for being a slave owner, rather, examining a relavent and important issue in American history. After the Civil War, the South was highly resistant to accepting blacks as U.S. Citizens or giving them civil rights in terms of public accommodations, voting, and education. Quite possibly the vestiges of slavery continue in the United States even into the 21st Century. Understanding Jefferson and slavery helps to resolve American values on race and liberty. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : If Jefferson is the "most protected" it is only because he is the one who is attacked the most. And no one is "surprised" that slavery is discussed. The issues have been outlined very well, so you need to stop carrying on like you just arrived here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with half a brain knows what values on slavery were. It was wrong and most everyone generally knew it, but it was politically unfeasible at the drafting of the Constitution. It's as plain as the nose on your face. The primary concern at the time, was were we going to have a union or not? So they partially addressed it, and the rest they kicked down the road. All this obsession over Jefferson quotes and Sally Hemings, is nothing more than making a mountain out of a mole hill. We have an entire Hemings article dedicated to that. Are we going to spend another year on the George Washington article, or any other founder who owned slaves, hashing over the metaphysical subtlties and psychological possibilities that went through their minds? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was very aware of the looming political division during his presidency and advocating emancipation during presidential speeches would have only thrown gas on the fire. This is not even mentioned in the slavery section. Just the usual 2+2 partisan baloney we get from the usual sources. I am going to begin clean up shortly but will wait for comments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson has been a focus of this debate because he was one of the deepest thinkers of the revolution, because he did put down one of the first declarations of human rights, and because he still failed to act accordingly on the personal level. Washington was an effective leader, but did not have the philosophical depth of Jefferson. Compared to Jefferson, Washington is boring. Consequently, there has been a lot of debate about the complexity of Jefferson, and relatively little about Washington. And that will be reflected in our articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Schulz, Jefferson was indeed a complex man so I'm a little puzzled with some of these simplistic 'conclusions' some have made. That aside the problem here at WP/TJ is really simple. Jefferson has been the focus of debate because of the same things that have gone on here over the last two-three years. Bloated sections, skewed language, unclear and misleading statements, undue weight, cherry picking, and on and on.. Meanwhile in the slavery section we still have a lot of cherry-picked commentary from a couple of sources who have their heads stuck in the same jar IMO. This sort of commentary needs to go. All we need is summary, neutral commentary at the end of the section. No pov pushing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to TheFoundersIntent, Jefferson is the best Founding father to discuss the slavery issue because he in a sense symbolizes the contradiction between his statement "All men are created equal" and owning hundreds of slaves. Gwillhickers, critical analysis of Jefferson does not equal an attack on Jefferson. I agree with Stephan Schultz that Jefferson's complexity needs to be focused in the article. There are currently now six paragraphs devoted to Jefferson and slavery. How far is that section to be "wittled down"? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson only "symbolizes the contradiction" to those who refuse to count past four. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

According to the MOS, the lead should follow what's in the article. The article body says:

... In 2000, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) assembled a study team of historians whose report concluded that, together with the DNA and historic evidence, there was high probability Jefferson was the father of Eston and likely all of Hemings' children. In 2012, the Smithsonian Institution and the TJF examines, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, at the National Museum of American History and in an online exhibition; it notes that most historians view the DNA and historical evidence as supporting the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.

Since the DNA tests were revealed, most biographers and historians have concluded that the widower Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings. Other scholars, including a study team of professors associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS), maintain that the evidence is insufficient to conclude Thomas Jefferson's paternity, and note the possibility of other Jeffersons, including Thomas's brother Randolph and his five sons.

Right now, the lead says: "Whether these children were fathered by Jefferson himself, or one of his relatives, remains a matter of debate among historians." This is an inaccurate summary of what is in the article.

I am changing it to say: "Although some historians argue that there is insufficient evidence, most have concluded that Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings and fathered her children." FurrySings (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to use TJF as a RS for this statement then we should also add their claim that Jefferson was opposed to slavery all of his life. Esp since there are several other RS's that say so and plenty of evidence to establish the idea. What evidence do we have for 'most historians' besides the claim? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have the TJF as presented by the NPR. These are the words of curator Elizabeth Chew:

Jefferson, over the course of his entire life, wrote about his hatred for slavery. He called it an abominable crime, a deplorable entanglement, yet slavery created the world that Thomas Jefferson knew. Jefferson wrote and said and, as a young man, worked against slavery, but ultimately was someone who did not disentangle himself from this system. Yopienso (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FurrySings, you changed the lead based on the things you added to the Hemings section. The section which grows and grows no matter how many times its reduced. Discuss changes before making them. Brad (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I did not write the text quoted. Please check your facts before throwing accusations like that around. FurrySings (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The important point is that readers know there is debate among historians concerning whether Jefferson was anti-slavery. Wikipedia editors are not suppose to take sides in the article. Wikipedia gives information from both sides of the Jefferson Anti-slavery debate. Elizabeth Chew is not the only source on Thomas Jefferson and in my opinion her statement is confusing. What does "disentagle himself" mean? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

{E/c}"Disentangle himself" refers to Jefferson's difficult situation I unsuccessfully tried to explain to you on your talk page with these and other words: To understand Jefferson, you must first understand he was born into a racist white society based on a slave economy not of his own making that he deplored philosophically but was helpless to remedy. Yopienso (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes the lead should accord with the body and Furry Slings proposal does that better. I don't think the language of the body that FurrySings quotes, initially came from FurrySings, I think it came from the debate we had two or three months ago.

2) Yes Jefferson was opposed to slavery his whole life, is a summary statement that generally accords with history. Yet, sources, view that differently because of the way he still lived his life dependent on slavery. The subtleties of these various arguments from the sources should be well represented in the article body. Jefferson was an idealist. Ideas were important to him. His idealistic opposition was also very important to history of the United States, especially the Civil War generation. Yet, Jefferson was also aware that his ideals and his conduct were at odds. Sometimes he tried to explain it as the fault of others (preceding generations, the british king, the races themselves) sometimes he just threw up his hands (metaphorically) and said there is no way out of the predicament (although other slave holders with similar ideals did end their involvement). A lead which summarizes his ideals and contrasts it with his conduct is a good introduction to this weighty issue. (Currently it seems that the lead is good except something should be said about post 1785, because it leaves it hanging). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson "disentangled himself" with slavery only twice when he reluctantly freed two of Heming's related slaves. One paid for his freedom, the other had to wait until another French cook could be found. Jefferson did not free his family and he ended up committing suicide. Jefferson was completely silent on Domestic slavery and participated in the "evil" of buying and selling slaves he stated others were doing. Jefferson white supremacy more then anything kept blacks in slavery, because racist whites could not stand to have them be citizens. Please understand Yopienso that in American history even into the mid 20th Century, non white people could not be U.S. Citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Cm' you're blowing the 2+2 horn all over again. He was not completely silent on domestic slavery, as we just recently discussed above, for example, and did not free slaves because of the uncertainty of their fate, and, once again Cm', there are RS's that say so. You and individuals like Finkleman can 'overlook' these things if you like and try to stretch it into some sort of 'conclusion', but again, this sort of thing is just ideal speculations from someone who can't back their opinion (not an opponent of slavery) with solid evidence. This discussion has gone around in a circle long enough. So has the double standard involving TJF. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that was no disentanglement; the two slaves were freed, but TJ wasn't. Yopienso (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple. General statements of established historical fact, backed by RS's, belong in the lede. Statements of speculation about these facts, based on sketchy or no evidence, belongs elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break2

The lede states Jefferson offered legislation for gradual emancipation through 1785. What source(s) states this? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a double standard in the lede. Sources are mentioned in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy lede paragraph, but not mentioned in the Jefferson and slavery lede paragraph. There is no mention that other sources disagree that Thomas Jefferson was not Anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No reader of average intelligence could fail to note from "Jefferson was a tobacco planter and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime" and the numerous references to his management and interaction with his slaves that his walk did not match his talk on this issue. It would be an overstatement to assert he was not Anti-slavery just as it would be a cover-up to fail to note his ownership and dilemma. This treats the issue nicely: ". . .some historians have increasingly criticized him for his failure to act against domestic slavery." Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we just go over this? Once again, there are established facts and RS's that support the idea of TJ's opposition to slavery all his life, while there is only speculation over what some historians feel TJ should have done to support the notion of not an opponent', and again, these opinions come from individuals who typically refuse to acknowledge prevailing circumstances and other reasons. Once again, general statements of established fact belong in the lede. Opinions about what these facts are supposed to amount to, with no concrete evidence to support them, belong in a section or dedicated page. If the Slavery or Controversy sections are lacking in criticism over TJ's lack of action in his later life, then include it. Just make sure it's balanced with perspectives and sources from the (very) many sources for Jefferson. This has been gone over several times now. Let's move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Skewed claims

In the Historical reputation we have this claim:

Clarence E. Walker said that Jefferson rationalized being a slave owner and defended slavery since
he believed the inferiority of Africans were "fixed in nature" and they needed supervision. [244]

"Defended slavery"?? Jefferson never defended slavery. Ref 244 is not even from a Walker source, it's from Cogliano 2006, p. 202. Is Walker mentioned on page 202? In any case, the fixed in nature phrase is taken from Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia where it refers to pigmentation, etc.

Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin
and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the color of the blood,
the color of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature,
and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. (bold added)

There is no mention of inferior race. And the "Africans needed supervision" statement is in reference to the idea that in that day, Africans were largely uneducated, unskilled and knew nothing but a simple life, so in that sense Jefferson felt they needed supervision. The existing statement is skewed and unless corrected and sourced should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's own words, from Notes on the State of Virginia:

[3] Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me,
that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one [black] could
scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in
imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
[4] . . .I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a
distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the
endowments both of body and mind.  

Yopienso (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson qualifies the idea of "inferior" as a suspicion only, that Blacks are inferior, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances. Jefferson honestly acknowledges it is a suspicion and is uncertain as to exactly why. In any event, he never used the idea of inferior as a justification of slavery, as he was always opposed to it, regardless of his suspicions about race. I've pointed this out before, recently. Jefferson's view was commonplace, as again, by western and other standards, sub-Sahara Africans were not an advanced people. On a 'Plutonic' level this may sound unfair, but in a 19th century world of little established science, people can only 'conclude' things with what few facts are put before them. Trying to portray Jefferson up as some sort of 'bad guy' on this account (not saying you were) is naive and presentist and ignores the fact that there is no evidence to even approach the idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum on advancing any white supremacist theories or to discuss white supremacy. Controlling this article is against Wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Only Jefferson's views of Africans, per his decisions, are being 'advanced' here. Please quit the 'white supremacist' horn blowing. If you are merely trying to rally support try the intellectual approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

{E/c}:@GWillhickers: The NPOV does not portray the subject of a biography as either a "good guy" or a "bad guy," but tells what he thought/said/wrote/did. I inadvertently left an ellipsis out of the quote box; point [3] goes on and on. Here's another sentence: "The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. . ." (This says much more about his times than about his character.) Here is a site that has the chapter in its entirety; a link at the top takes you to the Table of Contents for the whole book. Notice how he disparages Phyllis Wheatley. (He spells it "Whately.")

Please, you have not responded to my request in the section above this one. Yopienso (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Finkleman and Ferling as sources

This is a discussion on whether Finkleman and Ferling can be used as sources. I am not talking about quoting Finkleman or Ferling, but using them for sources. Both have doctorate degrees. Finkelman's doctorate degree is in American History. Ferling is an expert on Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington. Does any editor object to using Finkleman or Ferling as sources? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not object. Yopienso (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus, as reflected in the article is that they are appropriate sources, I see no reason for changing that consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as no author is given undue weight. A casual reading of these talk pages appears to show that Finkelman may have an axe to grind on the topic of slavery. Nevertheless, he apparently carries enough respect among the constitutional history community. However, respect within a community does not make one always totally right. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Finkelman and Ferling are solid sources and need to be in the article. I do not believe Finkelman has an "axe to grind" on slavery. He pointed out that popular biographers of Jefferson have ignored scholars who view Thomas Jefferson was not anti-slavery. The Wikipedia article needs to be neutral in presenting Jefferson as not anti-slavery or anti-slavery. Since there is consensus that Finkelman and Ferling are appropriate sources, then their views need to be put into the article, free of intimidation from minimalization or deletion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

More horn blowing. No one said Ferling or Finkelman can not be used as sources. The issue was over cherry picking commentary from the same few sources. Remember?? Cm' you need to pay more attention to what is written. You constantly carry on as if you just woke up. Please stop the horn blowing and respond to what is written -- not to what you wish was written. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery section

I boldly made quite a few changes here, including reinserting mention of Kościuszko's will, which I think is too important to exclude. I left in and was constantly at odds with other slaveholders among the "planter elite", but tagged it for citation; I don't think it's true that he was "constantly at odds" with his peers about their slaveholding. Of course I'm willing to have other editors change what I see as fixes. Yopienso (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Have just added two cites for the sentence in question. TJF (again) and Randall, 1994, p.xviii

His early legal studies were often the result of pioneering cases on slavery, divorce and religious freedom that he took on without fee. and ... Jefferson the young lawyer clashed repeatedly with aristocratic Tidewater land speculators and slave owners.. -- Randall.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Gw', and for your answer above. I'm going to change the exaggerated "constantly at odds" to indicate it was when he was a young lawyer that he clashed with the aristocrats. Otherwise, being in the same sentence with "Jefferson remained opposed to slavery throughout his life," the implication is that throughout his life he was constantly at odds with the planter elite. Such wasn't the case; for all practical purposes, he couldn't beat 'em so he joined 'em. Yopienso (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jefferson was opposed to the institution of slavery all his life, so the idea that he was "constantly at odds" with other slave owners is no leap of the imagination. Perhaps 'constantly' is overstated, as this would imply that he was going at it with some slave owner every day or week of his life. We can say he 'often clashed with the planter elite', as I'm sure he did, given the DOI draft with its anti-slavery language, all the emancipation legislation he tried to advance in addition to such activity during his lawyer years. And I'm sure he didn't get invited to a lot of "planter elite" parties when he outlawed the international slave trade. As you point out we have a source that notes Jefferson's involvement when he was a lawyer, yes, but you seem to be suggesting that this is the only time any 'clashing' took place. That would seem far from the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Constantly at odds with other slave owners" is a big leap of the imagination from silently opposing slavery. (There was discussion a while back about his "thunderous silence," or some such expression.) "Constantly at odds" paints a man in the face of his neighbors and fellows, poking and hounding. I don't find any such record. He flamboyantly opposed slavery in his young lawyer years in marked contrast to his later silence. He seems to fit the typical pattern of the young idealist who becomes the middle-aged pragmatist and eventually an old man resigned to the status quo. Outlawing the international slave trade hindered the domestic institution and trade not a whit; it strengthened them.

Finkelman, on p. 125 of Slavery and the Founders, writes, "From the time he returned from France in 1789 until his death in 1826, Jefferson never took a public position in opposition to slavery, while often supporting the institution." Do we have any RSs that contradict that? Yopienso (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're mixing words. "constantly" is consistent with 'opposed all his life'. Regardless if he was "silent" during his eight years as President there is plenty of historical evidence throughout his life that he was at odds with slaveholders in general "elite" or otherwise, including the time during his presidency when he outlawed the slave trade, an institution that remained in operation because of powerful pro-slavery forces who were at odds, i.e.not happy with, Jefferson and his outlawing of the slave trade. In any event I changed the phrase to frequently at odds with other slaveholders, land speculators among the "planter elite" cited, as 'constantly' was perhaps overstating the matter a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've revised it again to be consistent with what Randall says. I've also removed what I considered an awkward phrase: "at the center of economic production"; it was strange to have it in quotation marks when we could just rephrase it. This was a vestige from a discussion about what a "slave society" is, IIRC. I removed the assertion that slaves "managed the entire estate" since, with very few exceptions, slaves were workers, not managers; the owners managed the estates and the slaves who did the work. Plus other copyediting. Yopienso (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well enough. Your edit will do but instead of 'manage', we should chose a term that reflects the fact that slaves at Monticello ran almost everything.
Not sure who added the "at the center of economic production" phrase. I have no problems with its revision as that too was an over statement. Article is rife with pov. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

[Additional : ] Yopienso, you changed 'frequently' to 'repeatedly', yet you had issues with the word 'constantly'. Constantly and repeatedly are virtually identical in meaning. Also, are you expecting a separate citation for each stage of Jefferson's life (DOI language, emancipation legislation, etc, etc) where he was 'at odds' with other slave owners? Instead of picking at these things it would be nice, if you are so inclined, to get help in citing them. I will be doing this later, by myself apparently, as I have to run for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was not at odds with other slave owners. Ending the slave trade increased the value of domestic slaves. There was little opposition to ending the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. So do RS's. Increased vale of slaves is a Finkleman speculation and even if true, wasn't something that materialized anytime soon. Does any one else say this? Is there historical evidence that also confirms this? Also, please give us the RS that says slave owners were all overjoyed with the outlawing of the slave trade and that TJ had no arguments or opposition from other slaveholders and land speculators. Again, the slave trade was widely regarded as a criminal and inhumane activity and to suggest that Jefferson, Congress and everyone else passed the law just to see see an increase in domestic slave value is nonsense. If all they were interested in is profits it would seem to me they wold allow the slave trade to continue. Your notion that Jefferson was not at odds with other slaveholders is not only naive it tells us you don't do much reading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• International v. domestic slave trade

Jenny Bourne Wahl, Professor at Carleton College:

Prices for slaves fluctuated with market conditions as well as with individual characteristics. U.S. slave prices fell around 1800 as the Haitian revolution sparked the movement of slaves into the Southern states. Less than a decade later, slave prices climbed when the international slave trade was banned, cutting off legal external supplies. Interestingly enough, among those who supported the closing of the trans-Atlantic slave trade were several Southern slaveowners. Why this apparent anomaly? Because the resulting reduction in supply drove up the prices of slaves already living in the U.S and, hence, their masters' wealth. . .

• "Constantly" v. "frequently" v. "repeatedly"

These are close, but not exact, synonyms. The first means unceasingly; the second, often; the third, several times. I felt it best to stick with the source, which clearly says he repeatedly clashed with the elite when he was a young lawyer, which is far different from saying he constantly was at odds with them his whole life long. (The source also points out that not only slavery was a source of conflict; adultery and divorce were, too. So we don't really know how many times he clashed with the elite specifically over slavery since many of the records burned up with the Shadwell home. We know about Howell v. Netherland and a few others.

Being at odds with the elite is not the same as opposing slavery. Constantly being at odds with the elite is not the same as opposing slavery his whole life long.

Randall, p. 144:

All his adult life, Thomas Jefferson seems to have tossed and turned in an agony of ambivalence over the dilemma of slavery and freedom. Repeatedly he sought to have public institutions relieve him of the burden of his conscience while he tried to avoid giving offense to his close-knit family and the slaveowning society of his beloved Virginia. He knew slavery was evil, he called it evil and spoke out against it in a series of public forums, but he would only push so far--and then he would fall back on a way of life utterly dependent on slave labor.

• New suggestion for first paragraph of slavery section

We can't have slaves managing Monticello. Not sure if we want all the detail you added since this is about Jefferson and slavery, not about slavery at Monticello.

Over the course of his life, Thomas Jefferson owned about 600 slaves, requiring about 130 at any one time to work at Monticello. Slaves carried out most of the activities on the plantation which included planting, harvesting, cooking, cleaning. Some did highly skilled work as carpenters, blacksmiths, furniture makers, chefs and caretakers. Others worked in the textile factory or sawmill, while others built carriages Jefferson designed or repaired guns and and did other metalwork, some being paid by nearby farmers for work done in Monticello's blacksmith shop.

Yopienso (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso for the validation on price of slaves increasing after banning the importation of slaves. Gwillhickers, we do not know the motivations of early 19th Century slave owners. Jefferson wanted to control the number of slaves coming into the country to prevent slave rebellion. The Haitian rebellion where the slaves revolted was very violent, and Jefferson humanely did not want this to occur in the United States. Source: [Matthewson (1995), p. 211] Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso for pointing out that prices of slaves fluctuated and that slave prices fell in 1800 and for noting things like the Haitian revolution which evidently impacted the market also. Also, while the price of slaves went up (immediately? by how much?) its interesting to note that among those who supported the closing of the trans-Atlantic slave trade were several Southern slaveowners. "Several", certainly not 'all', and to assume Jefferson was not at odds with those slave holders and others who wanted the slave trade to exist is foolishness. Again, there is historical evidence that Jefferson was constantly/frequently/repeatedly at odds (take your pick) over slavery with many, not all, slave holders, almost all his life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, One way that the idea of 'Jefferson and slavery' can be 'demonstrated' is by showing how he managed and treated his slaves and how they lived at Monticello. This will give the reader a more clear insight about Jefferson and slavery than the narrow views and leaps to 'conclusions' we sometimes see around here. Besides, there is already plenty of coverage about Jefferson's views, attempts at abolition, silence, etc in the section already.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

editbreak4

...to assume Jefferson was not at odds with those slave holders and others who wanted the slave trade to exist is foolishness. What is it to assume he was at odds with them? Where is your reliably sourced historical evidence that he was c/f/r at odds with slave holders almost all his life? We've established he fell silent; where's the clashing with slave holders then?

Have already pointed out that there was plenty of reasons why Jefferson was at odds. One RS, Randall, has him at odds as a lawyer. Other RS's show how Jefferson was at odds with pro-slavery forces when they removed his anti-slavery language from the original DOI. When he tried to advance emancipation legislation he was largely opposed there, also, where his bills were defeated. Then there's the slave trade, where you point out that not all slave holders went along with outlawing this. "What is it to assume"? -- Why would you ever not assume? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave the amount of detail about slaves' work up to others. Yopienso (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but at one point there was more speculation and commentary than there were factual details, all the while the section sat there for months with no introduction and zero details about the lives of the actual slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Thomas Jefferson and slavery covers Thomas Jefferson's slaves and slave life on Monticello. Up until 1785 Jefferson was public on the subject of slavery. Ferling argues, however, that he was a conservative in the State legislature and the Manumission Law of 1782 was passed while Jefferson was not part of the State legislature. Ferling states that the law would not have passed had Jefferson been in the State legislature since he was a conservative. In other words, Jefferson was at odds with other more liberal slave owners who desired to set their slaves free. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The current slavery section reads as if Thomas Jefferson were an abolitionist. Jefferson reluctantly freed to slaves in his life time. He bought and sold slaves participating in the domestic slave trade. Here is a suggestion: "When Thomas Jefferson assumed the Presidency he publically denounced southern slave holders. Then through Executive Order he freed all the slaves in the South. There were those who protested, but Jefferson sent in the U.S. miltary to squash the rebellion. Then Southern whites following Jefferson's example made blacks their equals and gave them voting rights and citizenship protecting their civil rights with the Civil Rights Act of 1805. Since then blacks and whites have lived in harmony." Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Jefferson was always opposed to slavery and made many attempts to end it. i.e.He was an abolitionist. You can't just claim he wasn't because he didn't free all of his slaves. There is much much more to consider, but I'm afraid you will have to count past four to understand . And the 'other views' you claim I am not allowing have been and remain in the article. i.e.buying, selling, silence, etc. so please pay attention to what you're saying and stop your childish horn blowing. Getting tired of your false accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Find a good source for the sentence "Jefferson bought and sold slaves" and add it and the cite, as it does seem appropriate info for the section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I added Joyce Appleby reference that Jefferson sold slaves when he needed money and in daily life he was a practical plantation slave owner. Appleby is a solid source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please update the bibliography. We need that info for proper cite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Added Appleby and Betts sources. Added informaton on buying slaves. Jefferson rarely bought slaves since his slave women were reproducing slaves and adding to his "capital". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 FixedAdded context to isolated statements that did not reflect Jefferson's regard for slaves. Cm' your language was blunt and narrow in its perspective, and I think you know that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you are the one that is blunt and narrow in perspective. I resent that you are not allowing differing points of view on slavery in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : I have only included important context that was long missing in this section. And I see the introduction has been striped away and it starts right in with 'Jefferson relied'. You are trying to turn the section into a political hit piece all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert :I have accurately represented an Appleby reference. You contention is what Appleby is stating, not my edit. You have misrepresented Appleby by adding your own hand picked references that represents Jefferson as an abolitionist. You are making the article extremely biased by not allowing other points of view on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have added content long missing in this section. Once again, the 'other views' you claim I am "not allowing" have been and remain in the article, not only in the Slavery section but the 'Controversy and 'Reputation sections as well. This is horn blowing. Again, you need to pay attention to discussions. You have a habit of ignoring almost everything. It's become sort of obvious you've been reaching for ways to bury Jefferson entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the troublesome "repeatedly/frequently/often at odds" up to the lawyer and burgess section, as the source does not focus on cases involving slavery, but on a spectrum of cases on social issues including slavery, divorce, and religious freedom. See pp. xviii and 95 of Randall.

I'm going to go ahead and implement a change I suggested above, because the introduction to the slavery section implies that hundreds of slaves lived at Monticello at the same time. A casual reader would see that opening sentence and the slave list image mentioning 600 slaves and conclude there were always 600 slaves on the plantation, where in actuality there were almost always fewer than 200.

We could almost start the slavery section from scratch to show there were two slaveries TJ and America faced at the turn of the 19th century: the international trade and the domestic trade. (Another two were the legal trade and the illegal trade, but that's not within the scope of a bio on TJ.) TJ's had two opposing responses to slavery in general: a philosophical, humane one, and a pragmatic, plantation-owner one. He was instrumental in stopping the international trade, which did not hurt him or his fellows but made him feel good about himself, while perpetuating the domestic trade. This would make a far better structure than the mish-mash we have now. Yopienso (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Yopienso, you will need to find a RS's that says Jefferson outlawed the slave trade to make himself feel better. I'm sure he did feel better when it was outlawed, as would anyone who made such efforts and succeeded, but this is not something that even approaches the idea that this was Jefferson's only reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you have completely misrepresented Appleby as a source, you twist the wording always to make Jefferson look like an abolitionist, you are in fact extremely biased in your editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was an abolitionist and there is tons of historical evidence that says so with RS's. Since when did trying to end slavery make someone not an abolitionist? Also, please outline what I have "twisted". All I did was added context to your cherry picked and isolated Appleby comments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Appleby does not state Jefferson was an abolitionist. You add words to Appleby's reference that falsely misrepresent Appleby's statements on Jefferson and slavery in order to make Jefferson appear to be an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're just kicking up dust. All I did was add context -- sorry it flew in the face of Appleby's isolated comments. It is important to let the readers know about Jefferson's management of slaves. Yes, he "bought and sold" them, but that is how their placement was handled during his time. It would seem you want to construe this into something that portrays Jefferson as some sort of heartless slave merchant who looked at slaves like they were cattle -- and this is far from what established historical facts tell us. Jefferson was very conscientious about slaves lives and rarely, if every split up families. Nearly all the slaves Jefferson ever 'sold' was after he had died, to settle his estate. As much as he had sympathy for slaves his first alegiance was to his family, and so his slaves were sold to help settle his estate and not leave his family a burden, which btw, also assured slaves of ample placement, shelter, food, etc. Goodness, we've counted past four, haven't we? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

editbreak5

I've made substantial changes to the slavery section again.

• Replaced the topic sentence, which is about TJ and slavery, not about slaves at Monticello.

Insert The topic of Jefferson and slavery revolves around slaves. People. The sentence you stuck at the beginning is statement about what Jefferson relied on, not about slavery, so I will be returning this otherwise isolated comment where it has context. i.e.Not as a lede sentence. Slaves, people, is the topic slavery revolved around -- not what Jefferson "relied on". Is it also your intention to remove how slaves spent their lives? Section needs an intro' that sets the entire scene of Jefferson and slavery. The first isolated comment you stuck in the beginning does not do this. Please pay more mind to composure and writting style. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Paying due heed to composition and writing style, I see the best introduction to the section is a topic sentence that speaks directly to the relationship between TJ and the institution of slavery. You needed to change the title of the section to fit your agenda! The crux of the matter is that Jefferson relied on slavery even though he disliked the idea of human bondage.

• Removed the uncited assertion that slaves didn't do much work during the winter. All activities listed in the intro to the section except agriculture would have continued unabated, and there is a great deal of work involved in storing crops, preparing seed and seedlings, and maintaining equipment in the farming dept.

Insert : That day I read through many sources and for the life of me I can not find that source/page again. It did say "most activities", not all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Changed sentence about Christmas to accurately reflect source; fixed citation.

Insert : There was nothing wrong with the sentence or the citation. What are you doing on your end? --- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by, "What are you doing on your end?"

Your version suggested a picture of a cheery Christmas gathering with all the great-aunts and uncles, etc., during a leisurely winter season devoted to R&R. I apologize for being pointy with "families sundered by bondage"; I didn't really intend to leave that in. The very next sentence after the one from the Monticello site you paraphrased is In 1808, Davy Hern traveled all the way to Washington where his wife Fanny worked at the President’s House to be with her for the holidays. Here we don't see the a reunion of extended family, but of husband and wife separated by work assignments. It is misleading to write in a way that suggests otherwise.

Wrt to the citation, if you go to the diff and check footnote #190, you will see it does not go to Monticello.org but to "Editing Thomas Jefferson (section)."

• Reverted back to "As a young lawyer" as per both sources. 1. . . .Jefferson the young lawyer clashed repeatedly with aristocratic Tidewater land speculators and slaveowners. Randall, p. xviii 2. Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition....if Jefferson had died in 1785, he would be remembered as an antislavery hero, as "one of the first statesmen anywhere to advocate concrete measures for eradicating slavery." After that time, however, there came a "thundering silence." Jefferson made no public statements on American slavery nor did he take any significant public action to change the course of his state or his nation.

Insert : This is just one source, again there are others that have Jefferson opposed to other slave owners during his life. Apparently you want a cite for every stage of his life that he was in opposition and this is not necessary as the other historical facts in the section support the claim. i.e.His DOI experience, attempts at emancipation, etc. Also, you had issues with the idea of 'constantly' yet you used the word 'repeatedly'. Again, what are you doing?? The second source is wrong, Jefferson did not do nothing during his presidency, he outlawed the slave trade hoping to attack slavery in this way and also spoke out against it at this time as Schulz once pointed out. This was discussed, remember? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2 sources are: 1. Randall, 2. Monticello.org. Innumerable more agree, and the citations given clearly say, "Jefferson the young lawyer" and "Early in his political career" and "After that time, there came a thundering silence." You cannot use those sources to say he clashed with the elite throughout his lifetime. (No source I'm aware of agrees with you on this.)

To me, constantly means "without interruption" and repeatedly means "time and again," implying their are lapses between the times.

You are repeating your twisting of Schulz's words. Yes, we discussed this, and the consensus was that TJ spoke out against slavery early in his career but later in his career did not.

• Removed "indulgent" to characterize TJ's attitude and actions toward his slaves and added and cited that he had them flogged as deemed necessary.

Insert : The idea of indulged is backed by the source. Your 'version' is not nearly as accurate and leads the reader into believing that Jefferson did not oppose the use of the whip resorting to it only in exceptional cases and insisted that whipping be only used on arms and legs and there are sources that say so:
He avoided the flogging of slaves, which he believed would “degrade them in their own eyes,” and rarely approved the use of the whip on his plantations. A former Monticello slave, Peter Fossett recalled that “slaves were seldom punished, except for stealing and fighting.” -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

except for stealing and fighting = when he felt punishment was necessary

Also note how TJ's slaves fared when he was not around; that, too, is part of the story and he bore the responsibility for his overseers' actions.

• Restored and condensed final sentence to the end of the section instead of the beginning if the last paragraph. No citation needed, as it recapitulates much of the preceding text.

Insert : Why are you not using this 'policy' in your treatment of Jefferson being at odds all his life?? Again, the idea 'at odds all his life' is supported by the article text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

TJ wasn't at odds with the Tidewater elite all his life. He was their good friend and neighbor. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you refer/linked to doesn't even mention Tidewater. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Also, could you go back to using standard, black, text? the red lettering is very difficult to read. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also made numerous less important edits. Yopienso (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Inert : Yopienso, you actually made a mess out of the section so I am reverting and will make any improvements as needed. If you want to help please discuss before making sweeping reverts to sourced contributions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The record shows Yopienso has discussed a lot. So, the objection has no basis. The edits were neither sweeping nor unhelpful.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ASW, he made statements on the talk page and then numerous reverts before any response or discussion occurred and for openers stuck an isolated out of context statement at the beginning as an introduction. His statement about flogging left out very important context and he fashioned an excuse to leave an unsourced statement in the section, supported by other text, but did not use this approach regarding Jefferson being at odds with slaveholders most of his life, an idea that is well supported by other text. We can deliberate about what is 'sweeping' but the edits were not very helpful and gave a skewed picture of what really occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I do not have an issue with combining references if both sources ideas are held intact and remaining in the author's syntax. The article needs to present Jefferson neutrally as a slave owner without making judgement or attempting to justify slavery. The readers need to be allowed to make their own assessments of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The only way readers can "be allowed to make their own assessments of Jefferson" is to provide them with historical context. For some reason you want to blot out the perspective that in spite of slavery, slaves had a home at Monticello and were treated well. They were rarely whipped and only in extreme cases. Seems if you had your way you would portray Jefferson as a cattle driver who whiped and abused slaves every day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you make slavery sound like a family trip to Disneyland. I have never stated Jefferson was a cattle driver who whipped and abused his slaves everyday. Your protectionism of Jefferson as a slave owner is astounding. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disneyland? This is not only more of your distorted horn-blowing, it's utter crap. I am merely adding long omitted context to the myopic and short-sighted view of slavery we have seen in the past around here. I believe it's called 'balance'. You obviously want to portray Jefferson as a 'slave driver' who had no more regard for his slaves than he did for live-stock. As can easily be demonstrated from numerous RS's, this is far from the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC wrt Slavery section

Can we please build a consensus on this page for or against the changes I made yesterday? I have responded in orange to the "inserts" above. To summarize, do we agree or disagree with the following?:

• The section title should be restored to "Slavery."

That has been its title for ages, and was apparently changed to accommodate one editor's idea of what the scope of the section should be. Note that it links to an article titled "Thomas Jefferson and slavery," not "Slaves and slavery."

Agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wrt to Christmas: During the Christmas season slave families separated by work assignments could take a few days off to reunite and celebrate.

Disagree. Slaves were under slavery 24 hours a day 7 days a week, unless manumitted. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Excuse me, but no one said that slaves were free during Christmas, so once again, this is just horn-blowing. Please respond to what has been written, not to what you wish was written so you can blow a horn. Your activity on this page is becoming less than truthful. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• TJ spoke out against slavery only at the beginning of his career. He never liked it, but he did not agitate against it in his mature years. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: After 1785 Jefferson was publically silent on domestic slavery. He did speak out against the slave trade while President in 1806. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Find a source for that and put it in. The other issues don't matter much to me. I have added context to the christmas thing from the source but I agree the whole sentence could go, as it is minor, and belongs more in the sub article than here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses; I'm hoping for more.
Christmas was, in fact, a holiday for slaves. The source is this page from Monticello.org; see the last 3 paragraphs. This page isn't a RS in itself, but quotes several reliable sources, particularly in the last half. One source it quotes is Booker T. Washington. The entire piece is here, and is invaluable to us. Being published by the NPS makes it a secondary source, I think. Washington writes of the joys of Christmas and also gives examples of families separated by work assignments being united for the holiday.
Yes, TJ signed the bill outlawing the Atlantic slave trade, but continued to participate in the domestic trade. He did not continue to get in the face of his peers about the basic injustice of slavery itself like he had when he was a young lawyer. Yopienso (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes he did. He "got in the face" of those who were opposing legislation to outlaw the slave trade. Jefferson opposed slavery and the slave trade on the same basic set of principles and morals, however he was much more adamant towards the trade because of its inhumane and brutal aspects, and because he detested the sort of people who financed and organized it. His presumed "silence" is largely based on the absence of abolitionist language in his speeches. That's about it. I have already pointed out via RS as to why this occured (i.e.deep political divisions, pro-slavery forces), and also have several times referred to where Jefferson indeed voices his opposition against slavery during his presidency, so it would seem we're just going around in the same circle here. The idea that Jefferson was at odds with other slave owners and land speculators (who needed great numbers of slaves, quickly, they couldn't do this by running around trying to buy them from other planters who needed them), is well established by sources and existing text, also sourced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Row row row your "bloat"

First of all let me say that I'm impressed with the current version.. good work! As usual there are a few things to point out:

• The top paragraph describing slave life at Monticello has no relevancy when the article on Monticello has an entire section devoted to slave life. It's out of place and only adding to the article bloat now at almost 15,000 words. This article is not about Monticello slave life; it's about TJ.

• Correction: A much larger part of slave life at Monticello is already in the main TJ and Slavery article: Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery#Monticello_slave_life. Brad (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• The infamous weasel words are apparent. "Many", "some" "other" "Long admired" etc.
• TJ frequently referred to his slaves as "my/our people" depending on context in addition to calling them servants.
• Please find more than one source to cite this "600" number that keeps kicking around. Cite it directly after "600".
• If TJ sold slaves when he needed money how come he was heavily in debt when he died? So far in my personal reading I've read about TJ taking loans, rolling over notes and selling his books to the LOC; but not slave selling as a source of income. Brad (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(WP:INDENT)Potential answer: 130 slaves were sold off to pay TJ's debts after he died. That means that Jefferson spent allot of money entertaining people at Monticello. Appleby, a respected source, states that Jefferson sold slaves to pay for his debts. He could not sell all of them since he had to keep slaves to run the Monticello plantation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says: He would sell off or reassign uncooperative slaves from Monticello, and when Jefferson needed money, he also sold slaves. This is not the same thing as his slaves being sold after his death. After his death it wasn't TJ that sold slaves to pay debts; it was the executor of his estate in trust to Martha Jefferson. In order for the article to keep the above quoted passage some reference to TJ selling slaves because he needed money before his death should be presented. Brad (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Always can do better

1) aqree, not so much relevancy but as to pertinence/need. Let's make it shorter.

2) meh.

3) not sure it matters

4) More sources are always better

5) He also kept slaves to support himself. So, it would probably just depend on the present need/opportunity. Perhaps, he like GW also had a hard time selling land. His whole planter class was constantly in debt. But I suppose your question is about the source? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the number "600" referencing the number of people that Jefferson held as slaves does not appear as such in the Cohen source text (I found a copy here. The actual number of people that were held in servitude by Jefferson during his lifetime is complicated by the fact that some of them were dower slaves or slaves inherited through other legal means and, as such, Jefferson held these people in trust for other persons. I ran a revisions search for the phrase "600 slaves" to see if the edit summary would give a reason for the number that has since been lost in subsequent edits. What I found is: "The more than 600 slaves who lived at Monticello during Jefferson's lifetime are listed." with "<ref name="Smithsonian"/>" as the reference. The Smithsonian reference has been lost through subsequent edits but it is this link: [:http://si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/Slavery-at-Jefferson%27s-Monticello-Paradox-of-Liberty-4757]. The number of "600" is referenced at the Monticello website: [:http://www.monticello.org/slavery-at-monticello]. Also, the New York Times review of the "Life, Liberty and the Fact of Slavery" exhibit states:

"We enter the show’s 3,000-square-foot space seeing a life-size statue of Jefferson (created by StudioEIS in Brooklyn), standing in front of a red panel on which are inscribed the names (when known) of some 600 slaves who worked on his estates during his lifetime."

Hope this all helps, Shearonink (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks it is helpful. It also highlights another relatively minor detail that maybe slightly misleading in our current text in this section. Jefferson owned other estates besides Monticello. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shearonink for the research on the number given. It's important that we don't allow this number to be used without context. That some of the slaves were held in trust and not all of that number worked at Monticello. The other estates were Poplar Forest and the one sacked by the British whose name escapes me atm. Simply saying that TJ owned 600 slaves during his lifetime is misleading. Brad (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK that slaves actually had lives?

The 'Monticello' section is really about Monticello, yet I think it would be nice if this section briefly mentioned that it was home to Jefferson's slaves. However, brief coverage of the slave's lives and activities reflects how Jefferson treated and managed his slaves and says much more to the reader than any narrow out of context opinion ever will and belongs in the 'Slaves and Slavery' section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unproductive WP:IDHT

Gwillhickers, any "freedoms" allowed under Jefferson were done only at his mercy. These slaves had no rights on their own. There were no laws to protect slaves. The current articles POV is that since Jefferson allowed Christmas celebration for his slaves, therefore, slavery was a good institution. That goes beyond the Jefferson biography attempting to make slavery look like a picnic. By the way, Christ came to earth to give us liberty and freedom (Galatians 5:1). Jefferson's slaves had to celebrate Christmas remaining in bondage. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we all know slaves did not have freedom. Again, your simple 2+2 analysis leaves out so much. If Jefferson did not allow slaves to celebrate Christmas you would be howling about that instead. But since he did, all you can do now it seems is blow the usual horn. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia is suppose to remain neutral on Jefferson and slavery. The article should not in any way condemn Jefferson for owning slaves, however, I believe the current POV is attempting to justify Jefferson's slave ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Presenting missing historical content/context is neutral. All that is being done with the treatment of slaves and slavery is to show how Jefferson's feelings about slaves and slavery went beyond 'theory' and was something he practiced. Don't know why this is something that upsets you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not upset Gwillhickers. However, to present slavery in such a light hearted fashion in this article is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I am being 'Lighthearted'. Slavery needs to be viewed as it was practiced. This is the best way to portray Jefferson and slavery. Pounding the drum that "Jefferson sold slaves" by itself not only is a short-sighted distortion, it deepens racial resentments among the population. Seems this is exactly what some have had in mind in the past -- i.e.keep the masses divided against themselves and too angry to count past four. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwilhickers. Jefferson sold slaves; an uncomfortable truth concerning someone who wrote "All men are created equal". To state Jefferson let his slaves celebrate Christmas, is an attempt to humanize the institution, or trim off the rough edges of slavery. That is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not to divulge the fact that Jefferson let his slaves celebrate Christmas is POV. It would be the deliberate suppression of a fact in order to present slavery as practiced by TJ as an unremitting horror. He was no Simon Legree (even though some of his overseers came close). Yopienso (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that CMguy is quoting bible verses to make a point, his agenda is clear. It's also clear that he continues to derail topics. The question was if Monticello slave life should have mention in the slavery section. Steeringly Brad (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the celebration of Christ's birth was brought into the discussion and the article, I felt the need to quote the Bible. Yes, Monticello slave life needs to be mentioned in the slavery section. The POV in mentioning Christmas, lets the reader falsely assume that the slaves had a day off from being slaves. That is not true. That slaves had a one day out of the year off from forced labor was at the mercy of Thomas Jefferson. The reality is that Jefferson's "family" worked under duress of the whip, their children being taken away to work in a nailry, and were imprisoned on Monticello unable to leave and make something of their own lives. Jefferson only freed two of the hundreds of his slaves during his lifetime. No one is picking on Jefferson. He was not the only Viriginia slave owner. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa--this sounds like WP:IDHT. I can't imagine a reader assuming slaves were not still slaves while celebrating Christmas. This is what the source says:

For African-Americans at Monticello, the holiday season represented a time between - a few days when the winter work halted and mirth became the order of the day. The Christmas season came to represent hours when families reunited through visits and when normal routines were set aside. In 1808, Davy Hern traveled all the way to Washington where his wife Fanny worked at the President’s House to be with her for the holidays. Two days before the Christmas of 1813, Bedford Davy, Bartlet, Nace, and Eve set out for Poplar Forest to visit relatives and friends.

Why do you say "one day"? You seem not to realize that free blacks had little opportunity to "make something of their own lives" at that time, or even until the 1960s. TJ, though flawed as a person and of convoluted thought and action on the matter of slavery, gave his slaves a few days off at Christmas, which they greatly appreciated. I'm not sure if much of the section, as mentioned above, may not be bloat. At the very least, this info should be included in the daughter article.Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: Yopensio, I am sure the slaves greatly appreciated Christmas time off. This article is on Jefferson and slavery, repectfully, not on whether the slaves enjoyed the Christmas holidays. I do not view Jefferson flawed in anyway, he knew exactly what he was doing. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, only a certified whacko would think the article is claiming slaves were freed for the Christmas holidays. They were allowed a few days off from their work routines to visit with family they may have been separated from. Sort of like an employer gives now during the holidays; the only difference is slavery. Like it or not there are a lot of writings that confirm Jefferson treated his slaves well as far as slaveholders went. This does not justify slavery; only that he treated and respected his slaves as human beings. Of course when anyone points out these facts we get accused of bias and justifying slavery. Please stop derailing topics with your extremist and alarmist views. Brad (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: Brad, you justified my statement. "Sort of like an employer gives now during the holidays; the only difference is slavery." You just implied that taking time to celebrate Christmas by a modern day worker, who can quit their job at any time and look for better opportunities, is the same as slaves taking time off for Christmas celebration. That is exactly my point, the Christmas statement is attempting to make Jefferson a modern day business man, therefore, slavery is justified. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My only "agenda" is to ensure that the article is neutral and contains different historical views on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I added information and references to balance the article in the Slaves and slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

After looking at it for a few days I agree that some context on slave life under TJ is appropriate for the section. Brad (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ordinance of 1784

The Ordinance of 1784 passed by Congress does not "outlaw" slavery in the territory by 1800. Thomas Jefferson's draft did make the proposal to prohibit slavery by 1800 in the territory, but this was not adopted by Congress. The language of the Ordinance of 1787 prohibit slavery after 1800 but did not emancipate slaves already in the territory. Southern slave owners did not want to the North to have slaves to compete with Southern agriculture states. The balance of the number of slaves states versus non slave states was not changed by the 1787 Ordinance. [Source:Pohlmann-Whisenhunt (2002), pp. 14-15] Cmguy777 Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson does deserve credit for the 1784 draft to prohibit slavery in the Northwest territories after 1800. However, he was not a Congressman when Congress passed the Ordinance of 1787. Congress had initially rejected Jefferson's 1784 draft ordinance article that prohibited slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede again

An editor has just made changes in the lede, introducing opinion, that replaced the text about Jefferson always being opposed to slavery. The original statement was/is twice sourced and based on established fact. i.e.Lawyer years, DOI language, attempts to advance emancipation legislation, outlawing slave trade, speeches, letters, etc. The claim that Jefferson's views of slavery "changed" is not based on established items like his lawyer years, the DOI language, etc, it is a speculation based on what TJ apparently didn't do. Of course Finkleman was used as the source for this 'opinion'. The other source, Peterson, 1970, pp.300-301 said nothing to this effect. Couldn't view page 298-299. In any event we have been keeping the lede confined to general and established historical facts, not opinions and speculations. We should continue to do so. We've had issues with the lede before, so please discuss any major changes first.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My source says specifically that his views were "complex and changing". The source is a Jefferson biography by a reputable historian. I can easily find, in Jefferson's own writings, countless examples of him expressing support for slavery. When he speaks favorably of it, how can you say he always opposed it? Almost no one of the founding generation "always opposed" slavery, even the non-slaveowners. His own words contradict your claim, and you are in violation of Wikipedia policy by deleting a sourced claim and changing it to a claim that can be easily disproven.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My sources says he was opposed to slavery all his life. Also, provide one Jefferson letter where Jefferson supports slavery on moral grounds. And when you say Jefferson's own words "contradict" my claim, which words were you referring to? You forgot to say. Don't quite know how you accomplished your last edit, but this passage is now repeated twice: Jefferson was a tobacco planter and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime while the statement that TJ was always opposed to slavery is still in the lede. (!) As for "violating" WP policy, this is also something you forgot to delineate. In any event, you are trying to introduce speculation, not established historical fact, reflected by many RS's. I am reverting mostly because your last edit came out buggy, text wise. Please discuss before you engage in an edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's your trouble--your sources and my sources. This indicates you are not collaborating but pressing your own agenda. Wikipedians have reliable sources that we as a team draw from, giving due weight. Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I used the phrase my sources it was italicized to emphasize the same thing you are so quick to make issue with me over. I did not initiate the my sources comment so maybe you should have words with the editor who did, unless of course this conflicts with your "agenda". Your words left to me on my talk page were generally well received. Now you have me wondering. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not take Quark's use of "my sources" to be combative, whereas yours did seem combative to me. I understood Quark to mean, "the sources from which I drew my assertion[s]." Your response seemed divisive, pitting your sources against his. I may have misunderstood either or both of you. You're both right; TJ was anti- and pro-slavery (at least in some sense) at the same time and for his whole life. That's what we must carefully portray: his personal dilemma and the resulting contradictions in his life. Yopienso (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral on Jefferson and slavery. There are scholars who state Jefferson was anti-slavery and ones who state Jefferson was not anti-slavery. One scholar says Jefferson's views were complex and changing. There is no need to have any edit conficts over sources. Let's get the POV out of this article. The lede needs to be as neutral as possible by allowing differing opinions on Jefferson and slavery. To push one view over the other is POV. The readers can make up their own minds. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems we have agreement that the claim that Jefferson was always anti-slavery should be altered. The reason I put in the statement I did (that his views were complex and changed over the course of his life), besides the fact that this is a true statement, was to be as non-POV as possible. Should we change back the lede to say that his views were complex and changing or should we just remove any mention of the topic in the lede?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1. What's confusing this issue is the varying definition of "slavery" and the difference between TJ's theory and his practice. Sometimes wrt to Jefferson "slavery" means the institution itself and the idea of human bondage. Other times it means the economic system under which he labored. Then again, it refers to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The idea of human bondage troubled him, but he could find no remedy for the economy that required it. He could cut England out of their share.

2. Here we have a Monticello.org page beginning, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life. Yet two paragraphs down it says that [After 1785] Jefferson made no public statements on American slavery nor did he take any significant public action to change the course of his state or his nation." The rest of the article attempts to suss out the contradiction.

3. My take is that our article--and therefore the lede--must show that contradiction. Note that the Monticello.org article shows TJ a. Always philosophically opposed the institution of slavery; b. Did not speak out (or write) against domestic slavery after 1785; c. Did not take active steps to abolish slavery in Virginia or the US. We can say he was always anti-slavery so long as we explain in the same section (preferably in the same paragraph) that he owned and worked slaves for his entire adult life. And somewhere we must include that his slaves sometimes suffered brutalities and sometimes enjoyed happy celebrations. Or leave both out in this article since that info's better in "Jefferson and slavery." What we can't do is mention one without the other.

4. Helpful readings that show the contradiction. Poplar Forest site. Paper by a law professor. Yopienso (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : The sources you cite here say nothing about Jefferson changing his views about slavery. Below are some key passages taken from these sources that don't come close to supporting any of the notions you're trying to pass off as historical fact.
Poplar Forest : Jefferson’s views on slavery and blacks are complex. At one time he thought blacks were naturally inferior to other races, but later conceded that servitude may have had an impact on their abilities.
Post : Jefferson was no hypocrite when it came to the slavery question – even his most fervent detractors have to admit as much. He loathed slavery – this “great political and moral evil... also from Post: There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity - Thomas Jefferson letter, 1814. (after 1785)
Again, Jefferson was always opposed to slavery, and you have just provided another source that clearly supports this fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that he always opposed slavery and his views didn't change when you just posted a claim that his views were complex and changing? I could change the lede to reflect this and cite the source you just gave!Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that at times the morality of slavery troubled him, but at other times it didn't. At times he argued that slaves were better off as slaves. The big shift occurred during his time in France, which numerous biographies note shifted his philosophy into a more abstract and ethnocentric set of beliefs (most of his explicitly anti-slavery pronouncements occurred before this point). His statements suggest he became more comfortable with the institution, morally and otherwise, after this point. This is the complexity and contradictory nature you refer to.

So should we go ahead and say in the lede that his views were "complex and changed over the course of his life" or maybe "complex and at times contradictory"?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede needs to give enough information on Jefferson and slavery that the reader can establish their own view on Jefferson and slavery. The talk page is not the place to argue for or against anti-slavery. The readers need to understand their are scholars who disagree that Jefferson was anti-slavery. That needs to be in the lede. Finkelman pointed this out. I believe we need to assume that the reader can make thier own opinion whether Jefferson was anti-slavery. Here is a suggestion: "Traditionally Jefferson has been viewed as a life long opponent of slavery, however, modern scholars have debated the contradiction of Jefferson owning slaves and his statement that "All men are created equal". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : As I've said, the best way to portray Jefferson and slavery is to present the established historical facts. Presenting slave life at e.g.Monticello will give the reader a clear insight not only into the history, but also will expose much of the speculation for what it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My only problem with that suggestion is that he wasn't a life-long opponent of slavery. He certainly was a supporter of it on economic and political grounds. He even seemed to support it on moral grounds (being in the best interests of the slaves) at times after his assignment in France. I think we need to be purposely vague on the issue in the lede because his views were so complex.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Present a RS that says Jefferson 'supported' slavery on any grounds. There are numerous RS's that say he was always opposed. If you find a source that points out that e.g. he did not free all his slaves, that is all you have. Trying to stretch this into something that says that Jefferson no longer opposed, or that he all of the sudden began supportting slavery is speculation at best, with no concrete evidence to support it. There is much historical evidence (i.e.Lawyers years, DOI, emancipation legislation, abolition of slave trade, letters, etc) that clearly outlines Jefferson as an opponent of slavery all his life. I have pointed this out several times now. What do you have that says TJ was not always an opponent of slavery besides someone's speculation? i.e.On what evidence do you base this idea? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can find many RS's from reputable historians that say he supported slavery in different ways at different points of his life (mostly after his time in France). I can also find statements from his own writings where he supports slavery on economic and even moral grounds (he thought slavery was good for the slaves). I can find RS's that are easily validated through primary sources and don't make overly-simplistic claims about his views on this matter. Your source is either so wrong that it can easily be disproven (unlikely) or you are taking your own source out of context because you can't believe that he could have supported slavery in any way (far more likely).Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting claims. I just used two of the very sources that were presented here (Poplar Forest, David Post) that doesn't support your opinion here. Well, at least you acknowledge that RS's support Jefferson's opposition at different points of his life. (i.e.all his life) Any time Jefferson ever 'supported' slavery was in terms of taking care of slaves whom he believed were better off with shelter, clothing, food, etc. This has also been discussed. You are dragging the page through issues we have long talked about before and IMO are moving way too fast and have made numerous oversights (i.e.historical evidence: Jefferson's actions), here on the talk page also, so no doubt there will be more restorations coming up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your citation above said outright that his views were complex and changing! I see here (as elsewhere) that you are excusing his support of slavery when it is indisputable. You did it before when you redefined support for slavery to mean support for the morality of slavery (admitting he supported it in other ways), and you did it here by apparently excusing his support for slavery on the basis that the slaves are better off as slaves. It sounds like here you just said that his support for slavery was justified and so shouldn't count as support. You keep admitting that he supported it!Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is what the sources says: Jefferson’s views on slavery and blacks are complex. At one time he thought blacks were naturally inferior to other races, but later conceded that servitude may have had an impact on their abilities. This is the second time I'm posting this, so evidently you are either incoherent when you encounter opposing views or are just ignoring any evidence that doesn't support your notion. i.e.Evidently there is no talking to you. If you are going to try and replace historical facts backed by RS's with speculation it will be reverted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)