Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

American Philosophical Society

The Jefferson biography doesn't even mention that Jefferson was a member, and eventually president, of the American Philosophical Society. The society was very impressed with Jefferson's Notes'. The topic should have its own section, or at least a short paragraph under the Election of 1804 and second term section, which is when he became president (of the APS). The APS was very influential in getting Congress to provide funds for the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Jefferson had also arranged for Meriwether Lewis (of Lewis & Clark) to become a member. The APS became the repository for many of the objects (fossils, seeds, specimens, etc) and original journals from the expedition. -- Gwillhickers 18:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Best under 'other involvements'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's possible... Looking at that section it seems most of the content belongs in the Election of 1800 and first term section. Also, the last sentence is the only statement that seems to be something that would be cited by the (only) source used in that section (Franklin, 1989, Race and History: Selected Essays 1938-1988). In retrospect, since Jefferson's APS involvements also involve the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and Lewis himself, it seems this topic would instead be a good way to close the that section. Will see if there's anything more that would warrant giving the topic its own sub section. If not the L&C section seems to be a bit more appropriate for it. -- Btw, DYK the American Philosophical Society has an award, i.e. the Jefferson medal, for distinguished achievement in the arts? -- Gwillhickers 18:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There's more than a fair amount of involvement with Jefferson and the APS. He first became a member while Governor of Virginia in 1780, was elected the APS's president while he was VP in 1797 and remained an active member through both terms as POTUS, finally resigning in 1815. As such, it's a little difficult to cover this topic in any one particular section. I would suggest moving the Other involvements sub section from under the Presidency section and placing it after and separate from those subsections. This would allow for adding other lesser items that may or may not have occurred during Jefferson's presidency. Above this section and below the Presidency section (and its sub sections) I would place the American Philosophical Society i.e.in its own section as the topic seems significant enough to have one of its own, as Jefferson was involved there in many capacities including, Lewis, Clark and Expedition along with many other notable scientists, abolitionists, etc. A number of sources give Jefferson's role as an APS member fair coverage: Cogliano, Malone, Hayes, TJF, Helo, Burnstein -- Gwillhickers 23:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is one of many of TJ's pursuits and due weight accords it only a brief mention under "Interests and activities." Except for Hayes, 432-436, your refs only mention the involvement in passing or refer to someone else involved with the APS. Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that's debatable, as Jefferson was involved with the APS during almost his entire political career, and in a number of capacities that centered around science, religion, philosophy, Enlightenment and abolition. Besides Hayes, TJF also gives it good coverage. Historians like Gilbert Chinard claim A complete account of Thomas Jefferson's connection with the Society would constitute one of the capital chapters of this history. In any case, my thoughts were to give a good summary, as it involved many of Jefferson's activities. He was involved with it more and longer than he was with the University of Virginia yet look at how much coverage that section affords that subject. Imo, we need to say a bit more than 'Jefferson was a member and president of the APS, period' .
Btw, isn't sections for Interest and activities and Other involvements sort of redundant? Seems we need to combine the two and go with the former title. -- Gwillhickers 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit snippy; I agree that including a sentence about the APS would improve the article.

TJ was more important to the APS than the APS was to him; possibly they were proud of his celebrity, refusing his resignation three times even though he was able to attend only while he lived in Philadelphia. (Chinard, p. 266, notes, "The fact that the seat of the government was then in New York explains that no mention of Jefferson's name appears in the minutes of the Society until January 7, 1791." Read the last paragraph of the monticello.org page to see he never attended a meeting from 1800-1815.)

No comparison with the U of VA--that was his baby, his pride and joy, one of what he considered his three great achievments. The APS was peripheral.

Interest and activities have to do with TJ's personal life; Other involvements refers specifically to actions during his presidency, i.e., his official life. Yopienso (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that UVA was Jefferson's baby and one of his great achievements. Poor comparison on my part, but in any case, the APS was far more than peripheral and deserves much more than a sentence or two. Perhaps you need to look into the topic more as the APS was involved with many things during Jefferson's political career. This summary covers it well. One good paragraph:

• Founded in 1743 by Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was elected to the American Philosophical Society in January 1780 while Governor of Virginia and the following year was elected a Counsellor. He was elected as the Society's third President on March 10, 1797 only days after he was elected Vice President under Adams. He presided over the Society's meeting for the first time during that same month with the abolishionist Enlightenment leader Comte de Volney sitting to his right. During this time Jefferson was compiling data on his Notes on the State of Virginia of which he shared with the society. Jefferson served as the Society's president for the next eighteen years through both terms of his presidency. Along with topics on science and discovery, Jefferson and Society members often discussed ideas of abolition with other dedicated abolitionists including Tadeusz Kosciuszko. Jefferson had introduced and sponsored both Volney and Kosciuszko into the Society. He also introduced Meriwether Lewis to the society. Under Jefferson's direction the Society was very influential in getting Congress to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Through the Society he connected Meriwether Lewis with Caspar Wistar, the famed botanist Benjamin Smith Barton and mathematics professor Robert Patterson and Dr. Benjamin Rush all of whom offered their expertise to Jefferson and his proposed expedition. At the conclusion of the Lewis and Clark Expedition the Society ultimately became the repository for many of its findings, including seeds, fossils, plant and other specimens along with the original journals and logs. Jefferson offered his letter of resignation on three separate occasions, when the government moved from Philadelphia to Washington, and then when he retired to Monticello a great distance away from the "seat of the meetings" in Philadelphia. The Society refused his offers of resignation each time. Though often separated by distance Jefferson remained an active member through correspondence. Jefferson attended his last Society meeting in person on May 2, 1815. The Society finally accepted his resignation at the meeting of January 20, 1815 "with great reluctance".

-- Gwillhickers 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be appropriate to make a brief mention of TJ's involvement--which wasn't much more than dabbling for long stretches even while he was its president. He was most active from 1791-1799. You may want to mention this paper he presented. But links are sufficient for the Society itself and for Lewis and Clark. Yopienso (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

More detail for botany and Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, the dream agricultural improvements could guarantee American independence can be found in Founding Gardeners by Andrea Wulf. But this level of detail belongs in American Philosophical Society. The entry here should be brief and under Presidency.Other involvements, with a link to APS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Upon further review it seems my above proposal lends itself a bit much to the L&C Expedition, so we could place some of that content in the L&C section and then simply present an overview of TJ's involvement, which btw was extensive as he was the APS president for 18 years. Don't think they would have elected him APS prez and kept him on in that capacity for so long if he just "dabbled", and none of the sources I've seen even hint at such cursory involvement. Re: The Other involvements sub-section: It should cover any other political activities Jefferson was involved with, not just those during his presidency, so we should move this sub-section out from under Presidency and make it a stand alone section that follows. Esp if we're going to place a short summary about TJ's APS involvements there, as he was a member several years before he was prez and for a good number of years thereafter. -- Gwillhickers 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

During the period that his name didn't even appear in the minutes, the involvement was minimal. "Other involvements" is a catch-all for miscellaneous activities as president and should be left there; involvements such as with the APS should go under "Interests and activities." Some mention in the L & C section may well be appropriate; have you seen this? Yopienso (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there were times where TJ's APS involvement was minimal -- but let's not ignore the overall picture. He was its president and involved in many capacities, the likes of which are not always represented in the minutes of meetings. Their activities extended beyond the one room where meetings were held.
Other involvements should cover all other political activities and there's no reason why it shouldn't. Jefferson's involvement with the APS was largely political. The APS and Jefferson was involved with Congress and abolitionist issues many times, for openers, so were talking about things that go beyond the realm of hobbies and interests. -- Gwillhickers 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, "Other involvements" is specifically related to the presidency. It's necessary in that subheading and should not be moved or used for the APS. TJ did use the APS to further at least one of his goals as president (western expansion), but he was drawing from it as his personal network, not as an official government channel. His involvement with the APS was primarily philosophical (note his write-up of the megalonyx), not political. Naturally he would use any legitimate means to further his policies while POTUS. Yopienso (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're simply reasserting the same opinion with no explanation. You still haven't given us any reason why Other involvements shouldn't include all other political involvements. Again, TJ, via the APS, was very politically active. Summarizing this along with interests, hobbies, etc is inappropriate and misleading and is beginning to look like an attempt to marginalize Jefferson's importance in his role with the APS and all that they did. The APS wasn't Jefferson's personal hobby or pastime -- they acted in the national interest, whether it involved science or politics. Agree with TVH, this should be listed under Other involvements. -- Gwillhickers 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained that "Other involvements" is specifically related to the presidency, while his involvement with the APS was primarily philosophical (note his write-up of the megalonyx), not political.

In other words, we shouldn't put a personal interest under his presidential involvements. Yopienso (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

APS edit break

Yopienso, no explanation has been offered as to why this section can't include other political and semi-political involvements during TJ's long career. His years of involvement in APS gives us a definitive reason why it should. Though he may have wrote about fossils and the like this doesn't change the fact that the APS was politically active and influential, with many of their members involved in the government itself. However, we could at the same time mention Jefferson was interested in fossils, etc in the Interest and activities section, but a summary of his role with the APS goes above and beyond any personal fancy he may have had for fossils and bones and doesn't belong in a section devoted to personal hobbies and such. -- Gwillhickers 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm assuming good faith with you.

This section ["Other involvements" under "Presidency"] can't include other political and semi-political involvements during TJ's long career because it's specifically about miscellaneous actions while POTUS.

The APS is not a political organization, even if some of its members have been politicians:

"The first drudgery of settling new colonies is now pretty well over," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1743, "and there are many in every province in circumstances that set them at ease, and afford leisure to cultivate the finer arts, and improve the common stock of knowledge." [. . .] Early members included doctors, lawyers, clergymen, and merchants interested in science, and also many learned artisans and tradesmen like Franklin. Many founders of the republic were members: [a list]. Yopienso (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, aside from your above outline of the APS you're just repeating yourself with the same statement, as if it was one of the Ten Commandments or something. Tell us why we can't have the section include any and all other political involvements. What about 'other' political involvements while he was S.O.S. and V.P.? Shall we make Other involvements sub sections for these sections also? Nonsense. Agree that the APS is not a branch of government, and its members were scientists, politicians, abolitionists and the like, but while Jefferson was a member and its president he was very politically active through this organization. i.e.Politically involved. What is the big deal here anyways? Since you seem to be dead set against covering the APS in this section, while I'm certainly opposed to covering this topic in among Jefferson's interests and hobbies, then I suggest we simply mention the APS where ever it may come up, like in the Lewis and Clark Expedition section, and then give the topic its own section where it can be summarily covered. A number of historians have treated the topic fairly well, as has the TJF, while another says it would constitute one of the capital chapters in Jefferson's history. He was a member of this org for 35 years -- its president for 18. That easily puts the topic on the map. -- Gwillhickers 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Tell us why we can't have the section include any and all other political involvements."

BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT HIS PRESIDENCY. BECAUSE THE APS IS NOT POLITICAL.

If you can't hear that, I quit. Please refer to WP:COMPETENCE. Yopienso (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It could easily be done if we moved the Other involvements section out from under the Presidency section, lest we put create Other involvement sub-sections in the several other sections also. (Now please stop your shouting.) In any case I'm beginning to wonder if we need to have the Other involvements section at all, as everything that it presently contains, some of it already mentioned elsewhere, should simply be mentioned in the appropriate sections, instead having all these stand alone disjointed statements strung together in this one section. Having said that, I'm leaning more towards making a separate section for the Jefferson-APS topic. As I said, it's significant enough -- and we're not discussing the APS per se but Jefferson's involvement with it, which was also political. Be nice if you would assume a constructive mode for a change instead of attaching a ball and chain to every idea put on the table. Contributions would be nice also. You've known about Jefferson's Paleontology aspirations all along but never saw fit to include the topic in the Interests and activities section. 99% of your edits are on the talk page and almost always in opposition to ideas, and unfortunately you're not alone. -- Gwillhickers 00:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Aside. Meacham says Jefferson turned the White House into a virtual museum of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and would escort guests through the exhibits before and after dinners. that's the only reason I thought that an account of the APS should be under "Presidency". I did not mean the suggestion to be dismissive of Jefferson's involvement, only a) that there should be a hook in this article somewhere, whether or not in its own section, to lead readers to American Philosophical Society for more detail, and b) that the APS article should fully represent the Lewis and Clark Expedition contributions to it that came via Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Didn't take your suggestion to be dismissive. Since Jefferson's involvement with the APS spans some 35 years it's sort of difficult to plug the topic into any one particular section. TJ's membership extended through his terms as VP and President so it seems a short section following the Presidency sub-sections would be the place, as he resigned from the APS in 1815. -- Gwillhickers 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur to go forward, but I guess the remaining question is how concisely can it be written? as short as 'Lawyer and House of Burgesses' or 'West Point'? This would not be an issue if Jefferson were not a polymath.

It might help if the section reflected the belief of the members of the APS that diffusion of knowledge, --- whether Franklin not patenting his stove, or Jefferson introducing varieties of blight-resistant foodstuffs from Europe and Asia ---, would substantially contribute to American economic self-reliance and therefore provide for a future of political independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the opening statements will be along this line, that Jefferson believed that knowledge of science strengthened and extended freedom: Some of the content in the above proposal has been added to the L&C Expedition section. In the new version I also included a statement Jefferson made upon his acceptance of becoming APS president. As I said, a short section following the Presidency sub sections seems to be the best place as he resigned some years after he was POTUS. Re: Section length. I've included most if not all pertinent and definitive information with a dab of context here and there. Btw, both the West Point and Lawyer and House of Burgesses sections are very short -- they certainly could use more work and better context. In fact the latter section is little better than an entry found in a dictionary. Jefferson was a member of the APS for 35 years, and its president to boot, and was involved with it in many capacities. To adequately cover the topic we'll need a good paragraph, esp since the dedicated APS page only mentions Jefferson a couple of times in a sentence along with several other names and has nothing to say about Jefferson himself. The article doesn't even mention that he was once the APS president. -- Gwillhickers 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Slaves and slavery section

This is meant to be an open discussion on the neutrality of the Slaves and slavery section. Currently the Thomas Jefferson article has been viewed 131473 times in the last 30 days. The Slaves and slavery section needs to be neutral in order for the article to get the Thomas Jefferson article to GA status. Can editors work together to remove the neutrality tag again? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest one method would be to find out what editors agree on and what editors disagree on. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources should be used to advance editor opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why there has yet to be any discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what needs to be discussed. He had slaves, he slept with at least one of them, and he fathered children. Historical facts as far as I'm concerned. Not sure what the controversy might be as far as the section is concerned.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Cm, is there an offensive sentence to edit, or is there an alternate conclusion to add? For several iterations above here at Talk, it appears to me that the discussion has followed the general outline:

Side A would keep the language the same at "blah blah A" with modern sources.

Side B tags the section, at Talk observes "blah blah B", with modern sources.

Side A answers, The critique B is already in there at "blah blah C", remove the tag.

Side B replies, There is not enough critique B in enough places, leave the tag until someone figures it out.

So, I would ask, What in particular may be the sentence(s) that give offense in the current narrative? -- But if all statements are properly sourced, Is there an additional statement in summary at the end of the section which could put it all in a) proper historical context and/or b) modern scholarly perspective? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian. I am not sure there is a perfect historical context on Jefferson and slavery. That implies that editors need to understand that historians have different views on Jefferson, slavery, and anti-slavery. The goal is to get Jefferson to GA status. I would hope other editors would want to get Jefferson to GA status. If all editors had this as the goal then I believe editors can work together, cooperate, get the section to neutral status, and keep the section at neutral status. I believe the central issue behind the neutrality issue concerns whether Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner. This seems to be Gwillhickers contention. My view is to let the reader decide. Jefferson's enslavement of children at his nailery is not mentioned in the article nor the fact he calculated how much profit he made from slavery. That was deleted from the article section. Nor is Jefferson's view that blacks and whites could not live together freely in the same country. The sections only views Jefferson as a benevolent slave owner. There needs to be given information that Jefferson may not have been so benevolent towards African Americans. In my opinion, this does not make Jefferson any less great of a Founder. This only makes Jefferson human. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson proved and publicly observed that African-Americans -- though enslaved -- were still capable of skilled artisan work, shopwork manufacturing and more sophisticated mechanical farming required for wheat. In his view they were competent to live free lives of liberty in a self-governing republic, and he sought private subscriptions and state aid to that end.

All this seems to point to the meaning of 'benevolent' to describe Jefferson, since editors are reluctant to imply any condition of slavery can be 'humane' to the modern sensibility, --- regardless of how Jefferson might be judged relative to his peers in the literature. But Jefferson's judgement of a) how oppressed free blacks were in the Virginia society of his day, and b) whether there could be an outcome from precipitous broad emancipation for Virginia other than the Haitian tragedy where whites and freed slaves lived in proximity in numbers, and slaughtered one another --- Jefferson's judgement in those matters does not bear on his day to day treatment of slaves while at Monticello and for years in retirement.

Gwhillhickers may feel he has already conceded Jefferson's treatment from 'humane' as sourced in the literature to 'benevolent' to accommodate Jefferson's modern critics from alternate sources. Can we sidestep the humane/benevolent statement by using "relatively mild", as in, "Sources describe Jefferson as administering a relatively mild plantation regime, encouraging a wide range of independent skills and commercial exchange among his slaves." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cm' there are simply too many sources, many of them contemporary, that say Jefferson was kind and benevolent to his slaves, for you to go on ignoring. At this late date you still haven't produced a source that says in no uncertain terms that Jefferson treated his slaves in a manner that even approaches inhumane treatment. The section already says some historians have expressed doubt -- on two counts. One for Jefferson's abolition pursuits, the other for his benevolent treatment. GA status? That will never occur as long as you continue to come back here with the same complaints, in a different package, you have yet to support with sources. Could you show us a reliable source that presents us facts that 'reveals' Jefferson's treatment of slaves was less than humane -- by any standard? If not then you really should give it a rest. Yes, Jefferson was indeed human. That seems to be a consideration you've largely ignored when it comes to his treatment of slaves. Meanwhile, if there are no objections for adding more details to the section, we can also say that Jefferson believed that freed blacks and whites could not live freely in the same country so long as we make clear why he felt that way. i.e.past resentments between slaves and masters culminating in racial conflict -- and during a time when racial differences, or 'racism' if you prefer, was commonplace. Easy math. If there is consensus, I'll add this context as soon as I secure a couple of sources that support it. Shouldn't be difficult. -- Gwillhickers 20:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is ample sources that state Jefferson was humane. There are other historians and scholars who maintain that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. To be neutral would be to allow at least one source that is critical of Jefferson not being benevolent. That is why there is a neutrality tag. Why such opposition to any critical assessment? To present a one sided historical view of a historical figure is not neutral. Was Jefferson's hiearchy of slaves and calculating their worth benevolent? (Weincek) Was using African American slave children in a dangerous nailery benevolent when white children received education? Was forcing a slave to pay for his freedom benevolent? (Finkelman) Was threatening to send slaves to the West Indies benevolent? One or more of these issues should be addressed in the article in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me take your objections one by one. “Being anti-slavery” is a notion, it does not apply to Jefferson’s practice of slavery. So that is not a reason for a neutrality tag regarding his practice of slavery.

If one is in the business of slavery, one calculates values and losses as a matter of minding one’s own business. It is not untoward regarding the practice of the business to know whether (a) one is succeeding at good living conditions, so free of engaging in the international slave trade, or whether (b) one is failing to keep slaves alive, and so required by the business to import kidnapped victims from their native soil to replace those worked to death --- as in the Spanish and Portuguese slavery regimes.

White children were apprenticed at dangerous machinery in blacksmith shops at age 12, Jefferson demonstrated black children equally capable of apprenticeship at dangerous machinery. Modern child labor laws would not allow it for whites or blacks. But using modern law to judge 1700s practice is called ‘presentism’ in historiography.

Allowing an artisan slave to contribute his wages towards his own manumission was a privilege allowed a master, one of the few remaining allowing a master to free a slave on his own accord, though the General Assembly required the master to post bond to support the freedman if he became indigent for any reason in the future. That made the decision harder to free a slave, even if the master knew the slave could make it on his own, because the bond counted against the master's credit for the life of the freedman.

Securing a free republic in Africa (Liberia, like Britain’s abolitionist-sponsored Sierra Leone) or the West Indies, --- for volunteers who would be freed at state expense --- was not a “threat to send slaves to the West Indies”. Jefferson championed laws that made international slave trade piracy, punishable by death. And they were in force at the time of his promotion of state-sponsored colonization by free blacks in their own free and independent republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TVH, you stole most of my thunder -- and I have addressed these points with Cm' time and again. Children of free farmers worked before the age of ten, etc. The neutrality tag was originally put there out of spite, because I simply made clear what sources were saying what. When it was reverted and I fixed it again, the editor not only tagged the section again but also tagged the entire article. i.e.Personal and peevish.
Cm', you removed the tag when there was no mention in the section of the nailry or 'calculation' of profit from slaves, as if this detail is supposed to add definitive meaning to the idea that Jefferson owned slaves. Now this. IOW, you keep coming back with one (non) issue after another and then we have to listen to your 'concern' about GA status. Seems if that was actually a genuine concern you would have been fixing issues throughout the entire page all along -- all you've done is hover over this one section. You still have not provided an actual source that says Jefferson was less than humane to his slaves. In fact, until we do we ought to remove the comment, which I added, that says some historians have expressed doubts about Jefferson's humane treatment. Is there one besides Wiencek's one lone web page narrative which arrogantly ignores all other sources and accounts? We know there are some historians who have expressed doubts (mostly ad hom) about Jefferson's sincerity about abolition -- but none that I know of that addresses actual treatment. Also, please don't confuse neutrality with a truthful account supported by many sources, new, old and primary. -- Gwillhickers 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

VirginiaHistorian & Gwillhickers. We could keep this discussion going forever, however, the goal, in my opinion, is to remove the neutrality tag on the Slaves and slavery section and get Jefferson to GA status. We do not know exactly why the neutrality tag was put there. Jefferson was not cruel to his slaves. No one is stating that. We are speaking of the word benevolence. I will respond to the responces. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not being anti-slavery would imply that Jefferson accepted the practice of slavery. Why? Jefferson did not believe blacks were ready for freedom due their "condition". How is that benevolence? According to Jefferson whites were to be blacks "caretakers". That is rationalization of slavery rather then benevolence. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• The fact that Jefferson was calculating the profits from his human property would demonstrate that Jefferson was a calculating business man rather then a benevolent slave holder. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• White children were not slaves. White children like Jefferson were educated. Apprentenceship is not the same as perpetual slavery. The issue is benevolence. Is forcing African American children to work in a nail factory for profit considered benevolent by 18th and 19th Century standards. The practice may have been accepted, but was this practice benevolent? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Insert : No one said white children were slaves so let's not regress to that sort of tact', once again. Mention of white children working at a young age, often at less than ten, was obviously made simply to demonstrate that working at the nailry wasn't cruel and unusual as you seem to want us to believe. It seems you're trying to paint a picture where the entire factory was worked by ten year olds kept in chains. I suspect most were well above that age. We know some (most?) were in their teens, simply because Jefferson wanted higher production rates. You're sniping at out of context ideas, using skewed, twisted and out of context wording, all over again. -- Gwillhickers 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Freeing slaves and transporting slaves to Africa could be considered benevolence by the standards of Jefferson's times. Jefferson, as far as I know, did not transport any freed slaves to Africa. Jefferson was against blacks and whites living together freely in the same country. His reluctance to free slaves is not benevolence? Is paying for freedom benevolent? Finkelman does not think so. Other slave holders during Jefferson's times free their slaves out right, including George Washington in his will. Jefferson's slaves were sold at auction to pay off his massive debts. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We've addressed your ad'hom comments several times now. You're trying to say that simply because Jefferson kept track of profits he was not benevolent, period, which flies in the face of all the other context surrounding your skewed wording. i.e. "The fact that Jefferson was calculating the profits from his human property would demonstrate that Jefferson was a calculating business man rather then a benevolent slave holder". This is the cheapest form of ad'hom. You're obviously more concerned with appealing to a naive and presentist readership rather than with giving them the complete picture. The sources say Jefferson was benevolent and treated his slaves humanely and there are plenty of established facts that support this. It's like you're trying to say, POW's can't be treated humanely or with benevolence simply because they're prisoners. Nonsense. This was pointed out before. You're repeating failed arguments. At this point you need to provide sources that clearly reveals Jefferson to be less than benevolent in manner, and less than humane in his treatment of slaves. Several other editors have said we don't need the pov tag. The editor who originally put it there never actually explained why he/she did. You even removed it when there was no mention of the nailry or "calculation" of profits. This is getting to be another BS session. The out of context ad'hom isn't cutting it. Providing sources will. -- Gwillhickers 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ad Hominem? Not true. Weincek (October 2012) was the source. The article directly stated that the historical view that Jefferson was a benevolent slave holder has been challenged. Weincek was directly inferring that Jefferson's calculation of slaves was evidence that Jefferson was not a benevolent slaveholder. This was Weincek's view. The very title of the article states that Jefferson had a dark side: The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson. Weincek's view is that Jefferson was an industrious slave owner who wanted profits, rather then a benevolent slave owner. Weincek brings up the nailery on page 2. Jefferson apparently terrified the children by selling a slave child south after one of the slaves was bashed in the head over a missing nail rod bundle:

"The archaeologists also found a bundle of raw nail rod—a lost measure of iron handed out to a nail boy one dawn. Why was this bundle found in the dirt, unworked, instead of forged, cut and hammered the way the boss had told them? Once, a missing bundle of rod had started a fight in the nailery that got one boy’s skull bashed in and another sold south to terrify the rest of the children—“in terrorem” were Jefferson’s words—“as if he were put out of the way by death.” Perhaps this very bundle was the cause of the fight." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The section already relates the idea that harsh punishment was resorted to in cases of fighting, etc. i.e.A boy's skull was bashed in here. Seems to me this was one of those extreme cases. You're also trying to smooth over the idea that everyone was punished in those days -- yet when it should involve a slave, 'poof !', you seem to think you've stumbled across some sort of revelation with which you can nail Jefferson to the cross with. It's not working Cm', and I, and I'm sure others, would appreciate it if you not talk to us like we're a bunch of grade school children that you can wooo with one isolated comment. It's getting old. So is your '2+2=100' approach. You have yet to even come close to showing that Jefferson was not humane and benevolent to 99% of the slaves 99% of the time. All you do is peck at this sort of thing. You're going to have to do better than Wiencek's web-cite ad'hom narrative if you're going to challenge all of those other sources and all the very many facts that have long since established Jefferson's state of mind, and heart, regarding slavery. Once again, the section already expresses reservations regarding abolition and treatment, and once again, you recently removed the pov tag when the section mentioned TJ's benevolence, and when it didn't mention the nailry or calculations of profit, so again, you'll have to pardon me if I see this as just another attempt to perpetually dominate the talk page with the subject of slavery, per your track record. Apparently you have no concern for GA status. You say you do, but your actions tell us a different story. -- Gwillhickers 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Cm', the Jefferson Foundation, a source you embraced when it came to supporting the "most historians" notion, gives us a more accurate account of the nailry. It even mentions Jefferson calculating profit like any other businessman, but no mention of inhumane treatment, or even over worked children. In fact there is nothing in this account that even suggests this.
Excerpt: Up to fourteen young male slaves, aged ten to twenty-one, worked at the forges of the nailery. From 1794 to 1796, when he was retired to Monticello, Jefferson calculated the efficiency of the nailers, each day weighing their nail rod and the nails they produced. Most of the slaves who began their working lives in the nailery became tradesmen. -- Gwillhickers 21:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The Weincek "website" is actually the Smithsonian Magazine website part of the Smithsonian Institute. If information is allowed from the Jefferson Foundation then to be neutral information needs to be allowed from the Smithsonian. I don't object to the Jefferson Foundation. We can't favor one website over another on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Already you've forgotten that I very recently included the comment about 'doubt' and used the Wiencek source as a cite. Sometimes I gotta wonder, Cm'. You come back and carry on like we've never had a discussion before yesterday. Has anyone said we should remove the Wiencek citation?? You're complaining about something that hasn't occurred -- this on top of the fact that you've recently removed the pov tag when there was/is mention of benevolence and no mention of the nailry and calculation of profits. Do you have medical issues? If so, I won't hold that against you be you need to explain your apparent lapses of memory and your definite inconsistent manner. Perhaps if you reviewed the section each time before starting in here on the talk page. Trying to be patient.-- Gwillhickers 17:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

But Cm, the one or two sources you cite are not the WP:preponderance of sources. But their sensibility should be noted to qualify "benevolent" in a footnote, certainly. "Jefferson was a benevolent slaveholder.[n]" Note contents: "Source A has challenged the use of "benevolent" due to Jefferson's apprenticeship of young slaves in a nailery in the same manner as free white children were at the time." Or whatever fairly represents Source A. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Aside. To correct an earlier misunderstanding above, common laborer's children were not educated in the South, education of most children to "literacy" -- defined at the time as signing your own name -- was a unique characteristic of 1700s New England. We have public education now nationally because we want a republic to succeed, and our republic cannot succeed without a widely educated, well read public.

And we feel so strongly about it, we make it mandatory to age 18 for all, as a property right of the children even when they misbehave, removing children from their parents if the parents will not comply in some cases, --- allowing others conscientious exception at the end of eighth grade (age 14) in the case of Mennonites in Virginia and elsewhere. Think of the modern high school as a kind of contemporary nailery, where murderers can now be sent away from their families for life at age 16, just as Jefferson believed social order required on his plantation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Indentured servitude was another evil that survived colonial times and was also outlawed with the 13th amendment. What is the point of your discussion? There were opponents of slavery at the time, Hamilton for example, who did not believe that it was necessary to transport freed slaves to Africa. That Jefferson did not realize that cannot be excused by saying that he was a man of his time. TFD (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is meant as an aside to correct the error assuming all white children in the South were educated. They were not. The main point above the large indent is, --- that the preponderance of evidence holds Jefferson was a benevolent master, and the outlier sources should be footnoted out of respect to their scholarship.

While Jefferson championed the end of the international slave trade with Africa, Hamilton had the benefit of seeing a more integrated society work in New York City. But Hamilton was not elected governor of New York, nor was he elected president. Nor was his party chosen to govern six consecutive presidential terms. You may misunderstand the times in this and in other respects. The way gradual emancipation worked in the north was slave removal, not freeing volunteers for relocation at state expense as Jefferson proposed. Statutes called for emancipation of children on their 14th or 16th birthday. Northern slaveholders simply separated children a year or so before the date and sold them south into permanent slavery.

Those who opposed slave trafficking such as Jefferson, did not want to repeat the northern practice in Virginia. In fact he went to some lengths to keep slave families together, sometimes making purchases to unite families, and when he had to sell slaves, he sold them locally so that ties could remain. These are benevolent aspects of Jefferson's practice of slavery, maintaining families when most slaveowners did not consider their humanity in that way.

• The preponderance of evidence holds Jefferson was a benevolent master, and the outlier sources should be footnoted out of respect to their scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The section already mentions that "some historians have expressed doubts" about the idea of benevolence, with a dedicated citation for that point, so we really don't need a redundant foot note to that effect. Esp when the claim is based on ad hom speculation. i.e.Jefferson had children ages 10 to 21 working in the nailry -- therefore he was not benevolent. i.e.Jefferson calculated profits made on the plantation -- therefore he was not benevolent. i.e.Jefferson sent a slave boy away for bashing in the head of another -- therefore he was not benevolent. Cm's assertions are ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers 17:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is 'benevolence' without qualification, and the section mentions "some historians have expressed doubts", then the tag can be removed per the discussion here, can it not. Whose turn is it to remove the drive-by tag to bring the article forward on the way to GA status? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

POV tag removal

I suggest to add one or more of the following statements sourced by Weincek then remove the POV tag .

• Slave children worked at the nailry.
• Jefferson had developed a hierarchy of slaves.
• Jefferson viewed slavery as a business to make profits. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with "Jefferson had developed a hierarchy of slaves distinguished by their set of labor skills." and the tag removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The hierarchy of slaves seems interesting but doesn't reflect much on Jefferson as a person where slavery is concerned, imo. The idea of profits is an obvious given, I would think even to grade school children. -- So I added a statement about children working. I mentioned the nailry, but I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning because it was only in operation for two years and employed a wide age group. I don't think Jefferson had ten year olds swinging an iron mallet pounding red hot steel. No doubt they did the lighter maintenance and other routine work there. Still I added mention of the nailry, which was one out of many of the shops there. Let's bear in mind also, that last month there was a lot of talk about trimming the section down. This is what the section looked like about a month ago. Here were are today with a section quite large and we're still talking about adding more details. Let's hope this is the last detail we're going to add. -- Gwillhickers 20:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Working in the nailry was probably dangerous for both adults and children. Jefferson's only concern was productivity. Two years is a long time for any child to work. Mentioning the nailry is good for the article section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian for your input on this subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(insert - edit conflict) I'm sure there were things to be careful of, just like many work places. But it's only your speculation that Jefferson's only concern was productivity. By what account are you assuming the nailry was this hellish or inhumane place to be working? Children were placed where they were suited, so I suspect there was no ten year olds working there -- esp if, as you say, Jefferson was concerned about productivity. Don't see kids 10+ years old swinging iron mallets and producing like fellas who were 16 and older. In any case, the section is more than neutral with or without mention of this nailry. You've been trying to read far too much into the nailry for reasons that, in case you didn't know by now, have been sorta obvious. -- Gwillhickers 02:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I thought you were going to add information on slave children working in the nailry and then remove the POV tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A general statement about all children beginning work at ten was made, with special mention of the nailry, which actually raises undue weight issues, as it was only one shop that was in operation for only two years. And you're still not happy. -- Gwillhickers 02:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Good job. I approve. Source references for the sentences would be good. This information might be best in the second paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's something that might help to dispel some of the notions you've been harboring about the nailery. The boys who worked there were better off than if sent to the fields to work, according to Wiencek's book, Master of the Mountain, p.93 -- Gwillhickers 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The section is neutral. Thanks for your fine work. I think mentioning that children worked in the nailry is important. I believe that the reader can decide if Jefferson was benevolent. I am sure that children working in both the nailry and fields was tough. Even if better off in the fields, these children were conditioned to be perpetual slaves, they could not leave the plantation unless Jefferson freed them and even then there were severe travel restrictions, that Jefferson may have approved. If the condition of Virginia slaves was so good, why was there Gabriel's Rebellion in 1800 when Jefferson was running for President? Jefferson himself lived in fear of a slave rebellion. I know that this is another subject and does not directly relate to Jefferson, however, I believe Gabriel's Rebellion might be a good representation of slave conditions and the condition of free blacks in the South during Jefferson's times. Source: Douglas R. Egerton (1993) Gabriel's Rebellion: The Virginia Slave Conspiracies of 1800 and 1802 Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazing, Gwillhickers, how you cherry-pick Weincek. Read pp. 96-112. Yopienso (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're making a vague reference to 16 entire pages -- with nothing but what seems to be a sniping remark. Why didn't you specifically point out to whatever it is you're referring to in terms of the nailery? Are you saying the boys who worked there were not better off? Are you also saying my last edits about children working is inadequate and that the section is still not neutral, and that we should put the pov tag back? What are you trying to accomplish this time? Are you here to improve the page, as always? -- Gwillhickers 02:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated, I thought the section was neutral. I think the reader needs to decide whether Jefferson was a humane slaveowner. I believe there is enough information for the reader to decide. I hope that the goal of editors is to get Jefferson to GA status. I believe that editors need to have some concensus on the Slaves and slavery section to get GA status for Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And Jefferson's interventions to stop the indiscriminate revenge murders of blacks slave and free following Gabriel's Rebellion reflects well on Jefferson and his sense of humanity for all. And Jefferson's observation that whites and blacks might have difficulty at instantaneous universal emancipation is descriptive of the Gabriel Rebellion and Haitian Revolution aftermath experience, rather than some sort of abstraction of prescriptive racist sentiment.

In Meacham 2012, p.635, Jefferson would save the lives of 20-30 conspirators in the Gabriel Rebellion who did not actively participate in the violence from execution. They would be saved from execution by being freed and transported to a home of freedom at Sierra Leone, and Jefferson lent his help to that plan, rather than make them "victims of the law" in the Virginia of that time and place. -- It is natural, in our nature, to want to be free in every time and place; we shouldn't have to die for wanting it.

Is the POV tag now removed, then this string can be closed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

To Gwillickers and TheVirginiaHistorian:

I have given up editing the article because it has proven to be a waste of my time; too many of my contributions are rejected. Yet I dipped back in here to protest gross misrepresentation that militates against your hopes of producing a GA. I realize you are well-meaning, but it is apparent there is a lack of competence in this field. I am doing my best to be respectful and helpful here, but don't know how to couch my criticisms more gently.

GW: It is not acceptable to cite to an author in a way that misrepresents his argument. Weincek argues that Jefferson was a dreadful master. If 16 pages are too much for you to read, I suggest you should not be editing the article.

TVH: Meacham, 635-36, does not say TJ saved the lives of 20-30 conspirators nor that he helped any go to Sierra Leone. Meacham's footnote says 20-30 conspirators were executed. Meacham says on pp. 326-27, "An approach was made to the Sierra Leone Company, but negotiations lapsed for various reasons." TJ did suggest clemency for the remaining convicted conspirators. The Encyclopedia Virginia mentions financial reasons as a factor in stopping the executions since the state had to reimburse the masters for their executed slaves. The page I have linked to has links to TJ's and Monroe's correspondence on the matter.

Wrt an African settlement, TJ wrote, "Exclusive of motives of humanity, the commercial advantages to be derived from it might repay all its expenses."

Best wishes to you as you reexamine these issues. Yopienso (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yp', I've never had any issues that I can remember with your editing. There have been a number of times when yours was the edit that was acceptable to all and served to resolve disputes -- so your time has not been wasted. I used Wiencek to support a point about the nailry -- even if his opinions of Jefferson and slavery conclude differently than mine, he did in fact say the boys where better off there regardless. I indeed read the 16 pages, which is why I asked what specifically you were referring to.
There are one set of facts and unfortunately there are dozens of opinions for each. Equally unfortunate is that many of them are inspired by political, social and sometimes even racial considerations -- that ignores other facts -- which too often results in a lot of ad hom and peer inspired prose which as some sources have pointed out, is typical in some of the modern literature. Much of it is flagrantly obvious. I have always maintained that the facts speak louder than the opinions. With Jefferson there are too many, over an entire life time, that very little of the isolated conjecture can stand up to. I believe this has been demonstrated time and again. Overall, yours has been a tempering presence here on the talk page. Please don't let our latest joust spoil that.
The section mentions most historians, whippings, freeing of only a few slaves, silence during Presidency, views of an inferior race, historical views that differ regarding benevolence and abolition, buying selling of slaves, and in language that is neutral and in context. After the smoke clears please give the section another read. -- Gwillhickers 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gwillhickers, for your kind words. Yopienso (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian. What could be missing is the underlying cause of the Rebellion specifically that whites believed blacks were inferior and were unqualified to be citizens. Jefferson held these values. Blacks were not allowed to freely roam from state to state as white people could. In fact, blacks had no representation in Congress until Ulysses S. Grant and Reconstruction. And even during Jim Crow, as far as I know no blacks lynched whites, rather whites lynched blacks. This was after blacks had gained citizenship. Jefferson and Monroe deserve credit for curailing the lynchings, however, they did not stop all the hangings. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The section already mentions that Jefferson felt that blacks were an inferior race, and you're spilling over into a time period that was long after Jefferson. Regarding your notion that blacks never lynched whites -- well, I'm not sure about lynchings per se, but you can't be serious that whites were never killed at the hands of blacks. Jefferson was only one man who only occupied one place at a time. You need to stop holding him up to the standards of some far reaching god who is supposed to stop all these things from happening. You seem to only want to discredit him for what he didn't do, rather than give him credit for all the things that he did do. For example -- he spearheaded the abolitionist movement in the US with a momentum that culminated in a civil war. (!) A slave owner no less. -- Gwillhickers 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. First my comments were meant for TheVirginiaHistorian. Second I prefer to speak for myself. I was only stating a fact that blacks were hanged or lynched after Grabriel's Rebellion. My concern was not so much Gabriel's rebellion, but rather the condition of slaves during Jefferson's times. Why was there a rebellion if the slaves were treated benevolently. I never stated Jefferson had the power of a god to stop the hangings. I want a neutral article that presents Jefferson neutrally to get to GA status. That is all. This is a discussion page. Yes. I presume whites were killed by blacks during Gabriel's rebellion. Again, why was there such a rebellion? I believe the answer to that is that blacks were treated as slaves and free blacks were not allowed to roam the country side. I cited a book that goes over Gabriel's Rebellion. That was my issue. I have no intention in any way of denegrating Jefferson as a Founder of America. My initial question was if slaves were treated benevolently then why was there a rebellion? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. The reason I brought up Reconstruction Era was to show that blacks had to contend for their freedoms even after citizenship, not apply modern values to the 18th and 19th centuries. I personally believe the history of America would have been vastly different if Jefferson's anti-slavery law that prohibited slavery in the West had passed Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The history of the world would have been vastly different if there was no slave trade that has existed long before slaves were brought over to this side of the globe. Jefferson and others like him were among the first to publicly speak out and take political action against this blight on humanity. To the complete amazement of some, he did this while owning slaves. The British and the American navies (starting with Jefferson) were the first navies to attack that blight at the source. Yet all we seem to hear about from snooty academic/agenda types is what they didn't do and in the process manage to ignore all that they did do -- which was considerable. Today the only place on earth where slavery is practiced on a large scale and out in the open is in Africa, and at the hand of Muslim Africans mostly. They're among the same lot that was selling them to the slavers 200 years ago. Historians like William Du Bois have written about the efforts of Jefferson and others like him and what they were up against. Unfortunately trying to enforce the ban on the slave trade, i.e.using the navy, was an uphill battle as Du Bois points out -- but hey, at least we get to rant about another one of "Jefferson's failures". -- Gwillhickers 11:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The British outlawed the slavetrade on March 25, 1807 Slave Trade Act 1807. Jefferson's March 2, 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves did not abolish the slavetrade, rather the imporation of slaves. The British outlawed slavery in 1833 without a Civil War. Slavery Abolition Act 1833 The United States outlawed slavery in 1865 after a costly Civil War. Thirteenth Amendment. Britain historically was the leading country to actually abolish the slavetrade and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Yopienso, I stand corrected at Yopienso’s guidance on the Prosser Rebellion execution count, and I appreciate his links for additional reading. Take a break if you must, but please do not quit this page altogether.

It was reasonable of Jefferson to believe a colony of freed American slaves would trade with the U.S. just as freed British slaves traded with G.B. from Sierra Leone. I still cannot see how that makes the proposal of a free life for freedmen in their own independent republic in any way pernicious, given the legislated alternatives in Virginia that Jefferson had previously failed to alter. He was looking for "work-arounds" to the legislative blocks to emancipation of his day with the votes available to him then.

(He did not have the votes available to Lincoln after 600,000 deaths; they gave the nation the backbone to do the previously impossible -- Americans as a nation chose to punish the rebels by freeing the slaves, but the preponderance of the white populace were not persuaded to the principles of color-blind Abolitionism, as the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction demonstrated.)

Treaty of Ghent 1814, Article the Tenth declares, "Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object."

This is essentially a military alliance between G.B. and U.S. governments to make war on the international slave trade, the “traffic in slaves” referred to in the treaty. Constitutionally, the federal government was not yet competent to regulate the internal affairs of the states. But the U.S. Navy did join the British Navy in anti-slaver patrols off the Bight of Africa, delivering freed captives to the free black British colony of Sierra Leone on the African continent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Cm', when I mentioned 'slave trade' in the context I had presented it here it should have been obvious reference was being made to the international slave trade. And after all I pointed out, all you seem to want to do is continue pounding the drum of "Jefferson's failures". Yes, the British outlawed slavery without a civil war, (but continued to enjoy the fruits of slavery while they funded and supplied/shipped arms to the Confederacy) which only exemplifies the opposition behind abolition and why it was virtually impossible for Jefferson to end it, even when he was president, as even then, the political division and the unstable government was such that to pursue it would likely have brought on that civil war, perhaps even while he was president. If that ever had happened, Jefferson no doubt would have been our first 'Lincoln'. -- TVH, thanks once again for offering your depth of knowledge and for bringing added perspective to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. I did not state Jefferson failed at anything. The reader can decide that. Jefferson spoke to Congress once while he commanded the entire United States as President. This apparently was Jefferson's choice in the manner. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The term was written figuratively. Had nothing to do with you personally but I think your words have overall amounted to that idea specifically more than once. The simple idea of 'failing' has been the basis for much of the criticisms levied at Jefferson typically. Regarding your apparent issue with Congress. Wasn't it Congress who blocked Jefferson's abolition initiatives more than twice? The abolition movement Jefferson was instrumental in putting into motion I don't think is diminished in importance by anything you may think involved Congress. Btw, you should know that Jefferson spoke directly with Congress a little more than once. He spoke directly to them before the the Lewis and Clark expedition and once after the expedition returned to justify its funding. In his 1806 annual message to Congress he denounced the international slave trade, calling on the newly elected Congress to criminalize it immediately. Which they did, in 1807. Later that year he called for a special session of Congress to prepare for war or pass his embargo act. Which they did. That's meeting with Congress more than once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Jefferson only spoke once to Congress concerning the outlawing the importation of slaves. That was all. Nothing more on slavery was spoken. The abiguity of Jefferson and slavery is that Jefferson would not permit blacks to be U.S. Citizens. Freed slaves had to be shipped overseas. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that as a lawyer Jefferson sought the immediate freedom of a slave against his master's will in the Samuel Howell v. Wade Netherland case on the basis of natural law and he lost. When he tried to get a master-discretion manumission bill through the Assembly it failed. Jefferson failed in several efforts of various kinds, towards a more just society, succeeded in others, then he really did go into a retirement and worked on the University of Virginia, and even there he failed at sponsoring state-wide public education as a feeder system to promote the brightest to university.

There is no evidence Jefferson sought to remove free blacks from Virginia. Although Joseph Jenkins Roberts was a free black Virginian who became the first president of Liberia. Virginia the mother of presidents, and Sam Houston too, whose second wife was Native-American. --- Jefferson proposed to remove African-Americans from slavery to freedom at state expense for volunteers of willing masters in the colonization movement versus perpetual slavery for themselves and their children. Or in the case of the Prosser Rebellion conspirators, freedom in the British African colony of freedmen versus the gallows in Virginia. ---

It is not clear when the choice of U.S. citizenship for slaves was ever in Jefferson's hands. Made U.S. citizens by the 13th amendment, Southern courts held they were not state citizens so could not serve on juries or vote, until the 14th and 15th Amendments, and even then it was not really so... can that really be Jefferson's failing? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

edit break2

Cm', you're changing your tune again. This is your original statement: Jefferson spoke to Congress once while he commanded the entire United States as President. This is false. Jefferson met with Congress on numerous occasions as was just pointed out. Since Congress went ahead and outlawed the foreign slave trade anyways, it doesn't really matter how many times they met over that, or anything else. Re: Your claim that Jefferson would not allow slaves to be citizens. Wouldn't slaves have to become manumitted first, which means that abolition laws would have to be in place, first?? Jefferson's regard for slaves and slavery is well documented. Unfortunately some so called modern thinkers can't see that far, largely because they refuse to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cm'. This last exchange between the lot of us has made it clear -- there will always be issues here. But for purposes of the biography as a whole we have a relatively stable section, largely with your help. If there are other issues still it seems at this point they would be better addressed on the Thomas Jefferson and slavery talk page. Once matters are worked out there, one can proceed to bring the matter to this page if it's warranted. The Jefferson biography, its various sections and the talk page, should not be treated like a sandbox for the Thomas Jefferson and slavery page by forever repeating the same issues here, seriously compromising progress on general page improvement. Points were made about GA status, several times. Yet there remains these issues, mostly perceived, often petty, serving only to keep the page forever at B class. It would be my advice to take any lingering issues regarding slavery in Jeffersonian history and work it out on the dedicated page for this subject. Since we have a more stable section we should now proceed in the GA direction and discuss general page improvement. With the issue of slavery always dominating the talk page it makes it very difficult for other editors to join and discuss other topics, only to find their attempts at discussion lost in a swamp of ever emerging sections talking about the same old hat. You expressed concern for GA status. Have any thoughts on general page improvement? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am correct that Jefferson spoke before Congress only once concerning the outlawing of the importation of slaves into the United States. That was what I meant to state. Of course he spoke before Congress more then once on other subjects. Jefferson in all his writings had not stated that blacks should be citizens of the United States. He always wanted to free them and then ship them oversees somewhere else other then the United States. This is a truth that modern readers need to take at face value. There should be no rationalization. What source states that Jefferson favored black citizenship? His Notes specifically state that whites workers should replace freed black slaves. Freed blacks were to be trained and shipped overseas. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your original statement was something of a bluster, but I can accept your clarification here, which still doesn't amount to anything more than the ad'hom you may be able to attach to it. i.e. Jefferson met with Congress, as a whole, in session, once, on the slave trade issue, which they passed, 'therefore' -- what?? Looks like they wrapped up the deal without a lot of haggling and knuckle dragging. You should also know that mention of deportation is already covered in the section, in the last paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Wrapped up the deal" @ Gwillhickers. Jefferson as President enforced the Fugitive slave law. He did not speak out against this law nor did he speak on domestic slavery. The Lousiana Purchased spread slavery in the country. This adds to the abiguity of Jefferson since he previously tried to outlaw slavery in the 18th Century. Jefferson had tremendous power as President and he did not seem to use any of this power to curb domestic slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting notion, and I've come across it before on WP, that Jefferson introduced slavery into Louisiana. Could you tell me where your source is? It seems to me that slavery was preexisting by the French in modern day Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana, preexisting by the Spanish in Louisiana. Jefferson was trying to persuade the French and Spanish nationals in the new territory to become U.S. citizens so as to incorporate the territory as quickly as possible and achieve statehood for Louisiana to secure the trans-Mississippi southwestern border against the Spanish (British allies against the French).

He was not going to begin by summarily confiscating the French and Spanish slaves. The motive according to Meacham was to expand the U.S. so as to displace European colonies and their possible entanglements with European wars, the Louisiana Purchase from France bought off France. Again, I am truly interested, is there a counter source which supposes no slavery in the Louisiana Purchase at the time of purchase before Jefferson "allows" its introduction? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian I might need to be corrected somewhat. Jefferson and Congress did restrict slave migration into the Louisiana Territory to only American settlers in 1804. The result, in part due to Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, was that slavery spread into the Lower South from 1810-1860, over 1,000,000 blacks were enslaved in the Lower South. Source: Encyclopedia of African American History (2010), pages 453, 527 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag of "Slaves and slavery" section

I have noticed there still is a Neutrality dispute tag on the Slaves and slavery section. I believe the wording could be different and more neutral. In my opinion, the current section reads defensive in tone, such as Jefferson owned slaves, but he was a kind slave owner. The reader is left with the impression that although Jefferson was "bad" for owning slaves, at least he "treated" them "nicely". I suggest more direct wording in the section. I would get rid of the word "Regardless". I started this discussion only to find a way to remove the Neutrality dispute tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"regardless" expresses the fact that even though Jefferson had opinions about race it wasn't something that altered his views about the institution of slavery, treatment, etc. It's important that we make clear that point. Regarding neutrality. If we were to write a biography about someone who was basically good all of their life -- someone who did 100 good deeds but failed to do 5 good deeds -- would it be less than neutral if we listed the good and not so good in proportion? Is your idea of neutrality listing five good and five not so good deeds, ignoring the other 95 good deeds? Jefferson's overall treatment of slaves and their interaction with one another at Monticello, et al, says more about the man than anything else. Btw, the statement about Jefferson's views of race is very blunt and unqualified and almost seems to be written in a way as to play on the fears and modern day stigmas of the young and/or naive reader. The POV tag needs to be kept in place until all such issues are resolved. Neutrality includes the idea of presenting the person's life clearly. -- Gwillhickers 18:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, several prominent historians have argued that his racist views exactly motivated his reluctance to manumit his slaves whom he considered incapable of living outside of his care, and his refusal of the idea that Whites could live side by side with free Africans.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

My idea of neutrality is to present Jefferson and slavery in a neutral manner without stating any good deeds to bad deed ratios. I would describe the condition of his slaves at Monitcello versus being a field slave. There is also the condition of the slaves at the nail factor, very dangerous work. Did Jefferson treat all his slaves equally? Did Jefferson use his slaves as collateral for debt? This discussion's goal is to find a way or method to get rid of the neutrality tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is generally described that he did not treat his slaves equally but particularly the Hemings family with housework, and other kinds of assistance (such as letting some escape without repercussions, and manumitting two others).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't state any ratio per se, but we don't ignore the '95 good deeds' either. Btw, farm work was and is also dangerous and the children of free farmers began working long before the age of ten so it would seem Jefferson's treatment of slave children was more than equal, as boys didn't begin working at the nailry until that age. Many if not most of the boys there were well over the age of ten, so let's not make it sound like there were a bunch of 3rd graders chained to an anvil. If you want to introduce the nail factory, then this opens the door to all the other work that occurred, and not just field workers, but also the gun smithing, metal smiths, master carpenters, chefs, house keepers, furniture makers, leather crafters, slaves who were overseers, etc. Also the section already mentions that Jefferson bought and sold slaves -- it's understood that he did so for business reasons. -- Gwillhickers 18:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't make any claim to be a historian, though I am a lay student of history, I've visited Monticello and shirttail relatives have worked there for many years. What I would hope is that we editors keep in mind that a person's behavior needs to be judged in the context of their own contemporaries, not ours. Jefferson was a late-Enlightenment shining star. I expect that if had he been born a few decades later he would likely have been a model for abolitionists such as Thoreau, Garrison and Wendell Phillips. Activist (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a neutrality dispute tag if the section is neutral? There is no need to mention every slave activity, but to establish there were slaves who did different types of work. Telling the reader that there was a diversity of slave labor would help, including household slaves, field slaves, etc. and would let people know the complexity or extent of Jefferson's plantation system. Slavery was intertwined with almost all of Jefferson's activities. There is no need to defend or judge Jefferson in the article. If historians believe Jefferson was a humane slave owner, that is fine. Jefferson ran almost every part of his slave plantation system. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is there because I put it there because the section cannot be neutral untill it summarizes the views of those prominent historians who have argued that Jefferson was not a particularly "humane slave owner" and that the discrepancy between his stated views and his deeds was a contradiction or even a flaw of character.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a view of Jefferson's Southern contemporaries to the article. Bernstein (2004), Thomas Jefferson: The Revolution of Ideas, p 138 states Jefferson was viewed as opposed to slavery by his Southern contemporaries. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly "a view of Jefferson's Southern contemporaries"; it's hostile campaign rhetoric. Yopienso (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This was the view of Jefferson critics, yes, but this was a Southern view and these people were Jefferson's contempories. The whole edit was to show that Jefferson was "critisized" or viewed as being opposed to slavery during his times in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

recap

Maunus tagged the section to allow consideration for three major statements (paraphrased):

1. Jefferson's relation to slavery is a contentious topic in the literature as his liberal ideology and anti-slavery position is frequently considered to be disharmonius with his slave ownership and racist views and reluctance to manumit his own slaves or pass abolitionist legislation.

2. That conflict led Jefferson to treat his slaves as well as possible, providing them certain freedoms that other slaves lacked and considering them part of his family. He worked for a long term strategy of abolition including the repatriation scheme rather than a short term, deeming it necessary for slave owners to free their slaves voluntarily rather than legally requiring them to do so.

3. Some historians argue that his statements on slavery were insincere efforts at creating a legacy as an abolitionist but that legacy is belied by his personal reluctance to manumit his own slaves. Others consider that he was sincere, only reacting pragmatically to the complex challenge of reconciling a humanitarian liberalism with a society based on slave labor. --

Gwhillickers answered: The Jefferson page already has plenty of commentary from historians regarding slavery in several sections, including the lede (paraphrased).

• Lede : has been criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery...

• Slaves and slavery : historians are divided on whether he truly opposed the institution because he was generally silent about it during his presidency and only freed a few slaves.

The idea that there is not enough representation from historians in the article seems to be little more than an ill inspired notion. –-

Cmguy777 seeking to address possible concerns added to the article: Jefferson's Southern contemporaries viewed Jefferson was opposed to slavery for his Notes on the State of Virginia, his letter to Benjamin Banneker in 1791, and his reference to St. George Tucker's federal plan to purchase and free slaves.

My view is that Maunus wrote a balanced, coherent paragraph on historiography, but portions are redundant as Gwhillickers notes, and Cmguy provided specifics that are otherwise lacking. I think Maunus point #3 is a useful addition, perhaps into the last paragraph, then the tag can be removed, as I understand it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and 3 somewhat with 2. More could be put in the article concerning apparent discrepancies between Jefferson's rhetoric, his massive debts, and his reluctance to free his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What more might be added in a suggested text? Debts are addressed in ‘Marriage and family’ and ‘Final days’.

The ‘Slaves and slavery’ section makes the 'reluctance to free his slaves' point already. The discrepancy between idealism and achievement is also noted. Maunus Point 3. Recaps the same elements in a summary fashion, which might be used for emphasis in the last paragraph.

Should we add Jefferson’s personal intervention to stop revenge lynching following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion and other examples of Jefferson's advocating for freed blacks and slaves from Meacham? Or more of the slavepower's pushback to manumission advocates socially, politically and in deadly duels? Gwhillickers seems to say the section is long enough as it relates to Jefferson in the article focus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know Jefferson did not stop the revenge lynchings, however, he kept them from escalating. I am not sure that his debts, reluctance to free slaves, and discrepancies in his rhetoric versus him running every faucet of his slave plantations has been adequately addressed. I would keep the section three paragraphs for now. The focus now is neutrality. I believe the primary focus needs to be what Jefferson did rather then what he advocated by words. Jefferson was President for 8 years and had every opportunity to start his gradual emancipation and deportation plan. Nothing was done. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Every opportunity? Those most opposed to slavery were the Federalists, and their party was shrinking into a narrow New England-only minority, while Jefferson was building a national coalition with majorities in every state. What do you sources say would be the basis for "every opportunity" to abolish slavery via the Federalist party in Massachusetts and New Hampshire as a Republican president from Virginia? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Cm's edits look okay thus far. Re:discrepancy between idealism and achievement. (Well put) Most of the "contradiction" conjecture is centered around Jefferson's general silence on slavery during his presidency, and as I've pointed out several times now, this was because there was a dangerous rift in the government during his terms and at a most precarious time, the likes of which led up to the War of 1812 -- and even then there was major disagreement over that war, ala the Blue light federalists, et al. Jefferson it seems had the common sense to put government and national survival before idealism. He also addressed his silence on slavery in a letter to James Heaton (See letter content below image) to the effect that there was a time and place to be pushing a policy. -- Gwillhickers 16:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, most of the scholars who see a contradiction (I don't see how the word "conjecture" applies to an evaluation like this in any meaningful way) base it both of his lack of initiative as president and on his personal reluctance to manumit his own slaves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There were and are many "evaluations". You can evaluate a given set of facts and say Jefferson was silent. When one goes beyond that and theorizes about motivation behind the silence it's becomes conjecture because it theorizes about those facts. It would be a "contradiction" if Jefferson didn't have to answer to the world around him and was silent simply because he didn't care after all. No one has come close to establishing that. All they do typically is recite the "contradiction" chant and are unable to carry the ball any further. Anytime you read an account that espouses (e.g.peer inspired) "contradiction" theory they always skirt the surrounding circumstances, understandably. I'd like to see one that hasn't. -- Gwillhickers 11:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to Jefferson's position as President. Yes he would have opposition to the plan but he failed to bring the subject up nor did he write any legislation to pass. I used the word "start". According the Merrill Peterson, during Jefferson's time the President "was not only chief magistrate but chief legislator." The opposition to the Federalist Party began during Jefferson's second term. Jefferson during his first term did not have allot of Federalist opposition. The other issue is that Jefferson was popular President and he had influence. He was a founding father. Jefferson abolished the slave trade during his second term. "Every opportunity" is in reference to Jefferson having been President of the United States and the executive priviledge and power to sign legislation into law. What better time and place to push policy then while President, the highest held office in the land. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A President still has to answer to a Congress and a Judicial branch. Jefferson was involved in other matters during his first term, including a war and a government that was still recovering from the division that occurred under Adams. That was not a good time to begin a national campaign for emancipation as there were still major slave holding interests in Congress and elsewhere. As Jefferson related in his letter to Heaton, there's a time and place to "push" policy. There was a general consensus to end the slave trade, but there was a major division in government over ending slavery which worsened all the way through Jefferson's terms and continued thereafter -- all the way up to the Civil War. -- Gwillhickers 11:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. The letter referred to was written in 1826. Whatever Jefferson's reasons for being silent over gradual emancipation at a time when he held the highest office of the land are his own. Jefferson had allot of clout and was able abolish the slave trade during his second term at a time when he had the most opposition from the Federalist. He spoke of nothing of his gradual emancipation plan while President. We can put whatever reasons or excuses historians give Jefferson in the article. The founders ultimately failed to keep the nation together and the rift between North and South was beginning even at the Constitutional Convention. Regardless. My whole concern of this discussion is to remove the neutral tag. Let's get Jefferson to the GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Presidents can also work behind the scenes on controversial issues. Is there any source that states he tried to implement his gradual emanicipation plan while President? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ready to remove neutral dispute tag from section

I am ready to remove the neutral dispute tag from the section. I have added references and information that balance and neutralize the section. The narration has been improved that uses neutral and direct wording. Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we can remove the tag since a couple of qualifying comments, hiterto missing, have been added. Since the section has grown once again, I think we can forgo adding some of Jefferson's quotes about slavery, as the section seems balanced enough at this point. -- Gwillhickers 17:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apart from the wording "humane slaveowner" which is not supported by sources and which seems to be at odds with the RfC Consensus, the current version seems reasonably neutral. I do think it should mention the fact that he manumitted a mere handful of slaves through his life, less than even many slaveowners who were pro-slavery.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Favor. I believe the section is neutral enough to remove the neutral dispute tag. In order of Jefferson to get to GA status the article needs to not have any neutrality disputes. There is criticism of Jefferson for not speaking out on emanicipation during his Presidency, his reluctance to free his slaves, his reliance on slavery to support his aristocratice lifestyle, his rhetoric contradicting his slave ownership, and the Louisiana Purchase treaty increased slavery in the West. Positive statements on Jefferson was that he was a humane slaveowner, mentioning his proposal to stop slavery in the West after 1800, and he banned the United States slave trade. Editors can address any other issues without the neutrality dispute tag. The article does state he manummitted only a few slaves. As far as "humane" that is a matter of subjection. A reference that did state "humane" would be helpful for the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

His manumissions are only mentioned in the Hemings controversy section and not in a way that shows that these were in fact his only manumissions, but rather suggests that he could have manumitted others. It also does not describe what many sources mention, namely that these manumissions were exceptions, and demonstrated his general favoritism towards the Hemings family.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The article section states directly that he freed only a few slaves. This is why historians are divided over Jefferson. More could be added, however, this section needs to be kept minimal since there is a whole article that addresses Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Gwillhickers made more edits. My concern is having run on sentencing that in my opinion is somewhat defensive in tone and unneccessarily increases the size of the section. My source did not state "Some modern historian". My source stated "Modern historians". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't use one source to cite completely one sided statements -- esp since it can easily be demonstrated that historians are divided on this account. I added content and citation to this effect, which refutes that "modern historians" i.e.all of them, hold such a one sided view. And while you may see this as defensive, I see it as balancing. One could easily say that describing Jefferson's famous quote "All men are created equal", as "rhetoric" is offensive, esp since this statement stands on its own, regardless of any notions of "apparent contradiction" any individuals may chose to harbor. -- Gwillhickers 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, this statement is questionable: Jefferson would not have been able to live an aristocratic lifestyle without the labor of his slaves.[209] cited by the same source used for the previous one sided statement. I'll have to search for it again, but a critic of Jefferson said he didn't have to use slaves to support his lifestyle, that he could have hired on cheap labor and used indentured servants, many of whom he wouldn't have to provide food, housing, clothing etc., which costed Jefferson a considerable sum. I'm not contesting the statement at this point -- not until I can find sources for the other view, which may take some time. -- Gwillhickers 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I am for the edits you added but prefer to keep edits linked to their original references. Run on sentences have the appearance of being defensive. I also prefer to use the word "view" rather then "maintain" as this is more neutral, in my opinion. Readers do not have to agree or disagree with any views by historians modern or in the past. This section needs to be stabalized in order for Jefferson to get to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is obviously in error. We can't say "modern historians" view ..., which is the same as saying all of them hold such a view. How can you make a statement like that when the sourced statement that follows says otherwise?? We have one statement saying one thing, with the following statement saying another. Any intelligent reader is going to wonder if we're brain dead here. Also your edit here "another historical perspective views..." more than suggests that there is only one such perspective. Since it can be demonstrated that other historians hold other views your edit needs to be qualified and we need to pick a different and more neutral source. From what I have gathered this author is not very neutral. Regarding 'stability' it would seem that the best way to maintain this is not make erroneous and one sided statements while using a singular cherry picked source to support it. -- Gwillhickers 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the source states "modern researchers". This is not in error. There is no "some researchers" or "all researchers". Editors can't mix the opinions of different references. We can only link the sentences with their original links, not the links of other references. My reference was page 453 in the Encyclopedia of African American History (2010). I did not make any erroneous one sided statements. Editors nor readers are required to agree with references, rather, to state their quotations accurately. Any run on sentences to be honest complicate the narration and are defensive toned. I would accept keeping the references within each sentence. This will stabalize the section and get Jefferson to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit was completely satisfactory! And accurate!! Thanks Cm'. -- Gwillhickers 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, "one encyclopedia source states" is poor writing, the source is unequivocal and reliable. This point is much better sourced than the statement about Jefferson being Humane ever was. For example there isnt a single source availoable that states that "Historians consider Jefferson to have been a Humane slaveowner" in fact there isnt a single source that says so.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, Gwillhickers. Thanks. As I stated editors and readers do not have to agree with any references or statements in the article. I recommend keeping the Slaves and slavery stablized and neutral in order to get Jefferson to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your last edit: Another good one. "Philosophy" is a better term than "statement". Presents the idea with more depth, appropriately, if I may. -- Gwillhickers 04:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern researchers

Have just restored Cm's edit. As I said in edit history, it places the sweeping and unqualified claim that "modern researchers" (i.e.all of them?) in context with one source. "Defensive" is a personal opinion. Is this the new word we're going to use for clarity, neutrality or balance? -- Gwillhickers 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I will then proceed to restore the Neutrality tag. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarity and accuracy doesn't effect the neutrality of the article, so I'll go ahead and remove it and we'll see if there is any consensus to have the tag there on such questionable grounds. The section is neutral overall. Being clear about one item doesn't change that. -- Gwillhickers 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not clarity or accurcy, but blatant attempt at making a common viewpoint look as if it is a minority one which is POV pushing in the extreme. Do you really want to edit war over a neutrality tag here?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is another opinion not substantiated. Nothing to edit war over since neutrality hasn't been effected, so please do not provoke one. Cm's edit was fine. Why didn't you chime in then instead of waiting and then taking this approach? -- Gwillhickers 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is tha neutrality hasnt been affected. Mine is that it has. Untill there is a consensus either way the tag stays. I have been "chiming in" all along. You have just chosen to ignore it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on both accounts. You didn't chime in when Cm' made his last edit and objected for the removal of the POV tag. And your points have been addressed, all the while you've failed to explain how your last few edits have effected neutrality, either way. Nor have you explained how being clear about one source making the "historical researchers" claim has effected neutrality. On top of tagging the section you've gone ahead and tagged the entire article also. Your actions here seem to be simply vindictive and hostile and a form of venting. -- Gwillhickers 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on both accounts. You can read my comments to CMs edits in the section above as well as my explanation of why the "one encyclopedic source" statement is non-neutral. I can promise you this, as long as you continue trying to turn this article into a hagiography by selectiively misrepresenting sources instead of genuinely trying to summarize the literature in both is critical and laudatory aspects, this article is never going to be a GA. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Where have I misrepresented any source? Where is your objection about Cm' removing the POV tag? Where is your explanation that being clear about the encyclopedia source is 'not neutral'? Where is your explanation for tagging the entire article? You also forget that I'm the one who included statements about Jefferson's silence, whippings, that he bought and sold slaves -- all the while you ran around and did nothing but entertain your own notions about what the majority of sources say, something you've never substantiated, at all, so it would seem your "hagiography" notion is also a product of your own misgivings. -- Gwillhickers 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented the sources repeatedly and tendentiously to state that Jefferson was "humane" which so far not a single source has claimed. I did not onbject to his removing the tag, but to your trying to marginalize the view stated in the encyclopedia by singling it out for mention as "one encyclopedia source" (when the view is obviously found in a shitload of other sources). You have consistently twisted the article towards your personal extremely favorable view of Jefferson, and you have done so based on what seems like a very scant acquaintance with the sources (for example relying almost exclusively on the Jefferson Foundation website) and biographies that are over 100 years old. I on the other hand am the one who have found a handful of other recent sources, and I am the one wo started the entire debate about this section and wrote several drafts all of which were reverted or rejected by yourself with no valid reason.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence is a complete distortion. "Not a single source"?? The idea of humane treatment was discussed at length, where several current sources were presented to support the idea. In fact it was another editor who wanted to use the word "humane" while I opted for different wording, so once again it would seem you're merely shooting into the dark chasing after your own notions. There are plenty of current sources that support the idea of humane treatment which is why the current versions reads: historians have generally described Jefferson as a relatively benevolent slaveowner, which is well sourced. While I sometimes use older sources in conjunction with modern ones to demonstrate that views regarding TJ's treatment of slaves has remained unchanged, you have yet to produce one source, new or old, that says in no uncertain terms that TJ did not treat his slaves well, or humanely.

Sources for treatment

• Malone, 1962, p.209, In his Farm Book he drew careful and detailed lists, showing the distribution of blankets, food, and clothing in successive years. These are not merely the records of an unusually systematic man, but of a notably just and humane master who, in the absence of a wife, was trying to take care of all the colored members of his large family. They were not merely his workers but his dependents.
• Shuffelton, 2012, p.97 By all accounts, the humane modifications Jefferson made to slavery at Monticello made the lot of slaves comparitvely lighter than anywhere else in Virginia.
• Peterson, 1985, p.535: There were limits to his own superintendence, but within them he would not allow his laves to be over-driven, or whipped unless at the last resort, preferring rather to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious. ...he cared about their health and welfare.
• Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm. ... Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed.
• J. Bear, 1967, p.99: Jefferson had a large number of servants that were treated just as well as could be.
• Pierson, 1862, p.103: Mr. Jefferson was always very kind and indulgent to his servants. He would not allow them to be overworked, and he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped.
• Crawford, 2008, p. 87 Jefferson rarely punished slaves this severely and, by the standards of his time and place, he was a humane master. He regarded black people as individuals -- less intellectually advanced than whites, but individuals all the same -- and, in his persoanl dealings with slaves he treated them with respect.
• Ellis, 1898, p.47; No more humane slave owner ever lived, and his servants regarded him with almost idolatrous affection ...
• Randolph, (1871/2001) p.24, The process of farming was then so simple that the labor and cultivation of an estate were easily and most profitably carried on by an overseer and the slaves, the master only riding by occasionally over his plantation to see that his general orders were executed.
• Burstein, 2006, p. 126 I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever". Jefferson wrote with regard to race enslavement. Notes on the State of Virginia was hailed as bold in the mid 1780s, not because of its racial science. but rather because it embarrassed his white brethern; it did not shy away from irratating those southern leaders who refused to recognize a God that would not rest until slavery was eliminated. Jefferson did after all say in no uncertain terms that slavery was "unremitting despotism". The justice-seeking on both sides of the Atlantic prodded Jefferson to work harder at finding a humane solution, but they did not question his motives. John Adams wrote admiringly to the author (Jefferson) in 1785: "The passages upon slavery, are worth diamonds."
• Bober, 2008, p.229 He hoped to convince his overseer that more could be accomplished through a congenial relationship than through fear. He wanted his slaves managed "on a rational and humane plan."
• Mclaughlin, 2011 He cared for sick slaves, provided for old blacks unable to work, admonished his overseers not to mistreat slaves, and did his best to keep slave families from being separated through sale or hire.
• Morse, 1885, p.96 On October 23, 1789, Mr. Jefferson sailed from Cowes, and on December 23 he was welcomed by his slaves at Monticello.
• Miller, John Chester, 1963, The Wolf by the Ears, p.104: Jefferson prided himself as being a "good" master; kindly, compassionate, and considerate of his servitors' well being. (last update) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is not only one cite in the Slavery section that is more than 100 years old. Hello? You need to get a handle on these visionary assertions you've been slinging around. Btw, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation was once used at length to support other statements including the idea that "most historians" believe Jefferson was the father of Hemimgs' children, and you've yet to provide any explanation as to why we can't use this source now. In any case these sources have nothing to do with why you tagged the slavery section today. Again I was the one who mentioned Jefferson's silence, whippings, selling slaves, so once again, your "hagiography" notion and entire account here has and remains sort of bogus. If you can't give us a truthful explanation as to why the tags should be in place you need to remove the tags. -- Gwillhickers 00:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. This neutrality issue needs to be settled before Jefferson can get to GA article. In my opinion, editors need to allow edits that any individual editor may are may not agree with as long as there is a reliable source and reference. Editors need to allow other editors to make edits. Right now Jefferson is not even close to GA status. If one really wants to honor Jefferson, then let's try to get the Jefferson article to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A new convention?

Apparently the editor who has tagged both the section and the entire article and who has yet to offer valid reasons why, has introduced a new convention i.e.the adding, in the text, of the name and/or year for each citation. -- Gwillhickers 20:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback needed on POV tagging

Still waiting for an explanation as to why the entire article has been tagged. IMO, this was done in a fit of anger after a minor edit war occurred between Maunus and myself. He has yet to offer a valid reason why being clear about which sources are saying what has altered the neutrality of the section -- much less the entire page -- just a lot of personal accusations that folded in the face of scrutiny and edit history. To avoid an all out edit war I have not removed the tag a second time. Do we need the POV tags? -- Gwillhickers 20:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we do not need the POV tags. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to work out the neutrality issue in the Slaves and slavery section. Editors need to cooperate and work neutrality issues out. The goal is to get Jefferson to GA status. That would be best for this article and would be a great accomplishment. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that changed after your last edit and prior to the POV tagging was some clarity about which sources said what. Do you see anything that has changed the neutrality of the section since you first removed the POV tag? -- Gwillhickers 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Yes. I believe the sentence concerning Jefferson's philosophy of "All men are created equal" as being inconsistent with Jefferson being a slave holder is the cause of the neutrality dispute. The best solution in my opinion is to state that "Some historians" view that Jefferson's slave ownership contradicted his philosophy that "All men are created equal". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All men are created equal is a "philosophy"?? Anyways, go ahead and edit accordingly but I still think the section is overall neural. I have no qualms about using some historians (or researchers if you prefer) since the following statement puts this allegation into perspective. -- Gwillhickers 04:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I agree. There needs to be reasons stated why the neutrality tag was put on again after the work we did to get the article neutral. I would hope that all editors would want to get Jefferson to GA status and work together. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I made changes. My other concern would be the term "relatively benevolent slave owner". I am not sure what that means. In my opinion the term reads defensively and unclear in definition. Is there another way to rephrase this? What is the actual wording of the sources? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would state that the traditional view of Jefferson as benevolent slaveowner has been challanged by modern research. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A good number of sources touch on Jefferson's humane treatment of slaves, outlined above. Finding more would be easy. Unless there are other facts to the contrary which provides a basis for challenging Jefferson's treatment we need to do more than hunt around for a source that may only offer conjecture about TJ's overall and consistent treatment of slaves. Do you know of a particular source that makes such a challenge? -- Gwillhickers 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To be neutral, I believe the article needs to state that the assumption that Jefferson treated his slaves humanely has been challanged by some modern researchers The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson Henry Wiencek (October 2012) Smithsonian magazine. Quote: "A New Portrait of the Founding Father challenges the long held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slave holder." Paul Finkleman (1994) also challenges Jefferson as a benevolent slaver holder. Thomas Jefferson and antislavery PDF Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In the light of overwhelming evidence and testimony from slaves and others Jefferson's overall and consistent treatment of slaves is not exactly an assumption, esp since there is no evidence to the contrary. All we have is typical modern day conjecture from afar with no new evidence to support it -- none that has been mentioned here anyways. The article should mention any evidence on which these 'challenges' have been made. If we can't produce any such evidence we should mention that the challenges are speculation. Also, can you find a more objective source than Finkleman, someone who once referred to Jefferson as a "Monster" in a New York Times Op'Ed? Using this individual as a source to challenge Jefferson's treatment is like using a book written by a KKK member to source criticism of the civil rights movement. Have you ever examined Finkleman's approach? He'll typically take one item, typically out of context, and pile on ad'hom, trigger words and conjecture in the hopes that modern day naivety will carry the ball for him. Please try to find a more objective source than that, along with any definitive evidence. Also, Wiencek's essay is 8 pages long. Is there a page number that specifically mentions Jefferson's treatment of slaves that points to any new evidence? If we can't come up with a page number that covers TJ's treatment and any evidence then we should edit accordingly. I can also provide at least two modern sources that says such idel challenges are nothing more than modern day speculations and are too often politically and socially motivated and peer driven. i.e. Boles, Hall, (2010). Seeing Jefferson Anew: In His Time and Ours; Hyland, (2009). In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal. -- Gwillhickers 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

None of what you added says anything about treatment. Jefferson's 4% profit only suffices to say that he made a profit from births. Hardly a "bonanza", as Wiencek puts it. Jefferson could have made more profits if he didn't pay slaves for much of their work. He could have made huge profits if he didn't build log cabins with fire places. He could have made further profits if he just fed slaves slop. He could have made even more profits if he didn't provide them with living items, and clothing twice a year. He could have made huge profits if he didn't give them Sunday's and holidays off i.e.52+ extra work days a year. If we're going to open the door to profit making then we'll have to mention this perspective -- or you simply can get rid of that peckish 4% detail that doesn't amount to anything in terms of treatment, much less anything else. There is doubt about whether Jefferson was sincere about abolition, which is already mentioned in the section. Your last edits however have not provided anything in terms of doubt regarding treatment. Wiencek only babbles about profit on page two, and in ad'hom language that is presentist and divisive. Does he, or Finkleman, speak in specific terms regarding poor treatment and offers definitive evidence that supports this idea? If not then we need to roll back your recent edits. The section once again is becoming bloated with selective and out of context details, all the while no case has been made for doubts regarding humane treatment. -- Gwillhickers 00:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This started off with a critique of all men created equal, and the colonization plan proved Jefferson believed all, including those held in slavery, have an inborn, inalienable right to liberty and self-government in a republic. But in practice here, slavery was the wolf-by-the-ears, how to let go? Broad emancipation for soldiering service, manumission at master discretion, freedom for master-sired children, state-supported settlement in a free republic.

Each initiative was subsequently blocked or restricted. That story should be reflected in the article, not an indiscriminate charge of hypocrisy because intent and proposals did not achieve what only 600,000 deaths could accomplish, a readiness in the country to abolish slavery. The country was barely capable of a general emancipation even then, and few even dreamed it was possible when the war started. How is Jefferson to be charged?

I thought that Jefferson's enterprises had variable profitability with a net loss. For instance, the nailery did well until the Philadelphia and Pittsburg nail manufacturers figured out the local market and flooded the entire Great Valley region with cheaper, better nails linked to exclusive supply contracts, and Jefferson lost his wholesale nail market.

So we know Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, and trained them up in the higher skilled wheat industry including related machinery manufacturing and maintenance. --- and some few outlying modern scholars --- attacking slavery broadly --- include him in their critique using guilt by association? Then let the outliers be included along along with their critique in a note, because that is where they belong. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

pov tag2

TVH, excellent points. Jefferson was one man, and expecting him to accomplish what took an all out war to do is academic lunacy. He made numerous attempts at abolition and was blocked at every turn, yet we still see the conjecture that e.g.Jefferson "allowed" slavery to spread in the Louisiana Territory where slavery already existed at the hands of the French and Spanish, because he didn't march in with an army and police this vast and largely unexplored territory, a virtual impossibility at the time. -- Gwillhickers 12:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Cm', Finkelman p.201-202 says nothing regarding Jefferson's actual treatment of slaves. These two pages are largely committed to arrogant and narrow ad' hom attacks on Jefferson biographers, as if he knows better than the lot of them. The Slavery' section already mentions doubt among some modern historians regarding Jefferson's sincerity about abolitionist pursuits. Unless we can find sources that specifically deals with Jefferson's treatment of slaves, expresses doubt about that treatment, based on evidence, then we need to remove the claim. Meanwhile, I'm going to remove the 4% statement -- it's isolated, out of context and pointless. Jefferson calculated the costs of everything, even lamp oil. Why would he not keep track of the costs of slaves and any profits they made for the estate?? Add : I just realized you removed the three sources used to cite humane treatment. How did that happen? They've been restored. I'll assume good faith and believe that this was just a huge oversight. -- -- Gwillhickers 12:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I have tried to make the section neutral. Finkelman does talk about treatment of slaves. Finkleman lists all the historians who do not believe Jefferson was anti slavery. One slave had to pay for his freedom and the other slave had to find a replacement. Are other editors allowed to edit in this article? Challenges have been made to Jefferson's treatment of slaves and to Jefferson being anti slavery. Wiencek stated that Jefferson calculated he made a 4% profit on slavery. If we do not allow this information Wikipedia will read more like a blog then a neutral article. I went to allot of work on those edits only to be removed. If we can't allow edits from the Smithsonian Magazine online, I don't know what sources we can use. Are you suggesting editors can only use pro Jefferson sources? There is no concensus on how slaves were treated. For historians to speak for slaves who were forced to labor in the fields and to state that they were fairly treated is a bit of a stretch. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Cm' you thought the section was neutral when you originally removed the POV tags a week or so ago. Now this. The section already expresses doubt regarding Jefferson's "philosophy" that all men are created equal. Now you're adding a redundant statement that expresses the same idea only with different wording. As for the idea of humane treatment, there are simply too many sources, quotes, testimony that have long since established this idea, even among many present day historians, so again, unless you can find a source that deals with treatment directly you will just have to be happy with the section stating there is doubt over Jefferson's abolitionist ideals. Finkelman nor Wiencek speak about humane or benevolent treatment, at all -- they only cast aspersions about Jefferson's anti-slavery ambitions by criticizing other historians. Please find sources that express doubt about Jefferson's actual treatment based on definitive evidence and you will have every right to make such a statement in the section, but not until. If there is doubt regarding treatment then you shouldn't have a problem finding a source. You're asserting a POV and embarking on original research by advancing a position not expressed by the sources you've provided. Last, it's less than sincere of you to be waving the idea of a GA around when you've originally removed the POV tag and then turn around and embark on this sort of highly questionable endeavor, yet again. -- Gwillhickers 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Who are historians to speak for slaves? What about Madison Hemings' 1873 testimony where he claims he's a descendent of Jefferson? Should historians ignore that? Does this mean you want to get rid of any reference to 'oral history' made by historians? -- Gwillhickers 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I am not "embarking on original research by advancing a position not expressed by the sources". In my opinion, your real issue is not with me but rather Weincek and Finkelman. Finkelman describes Jefferson as not being benovolent because Jefferson forced on Hemings to pay for his freedom and another Hemings to find a replacement slave cook. Wiencek describes that Jefferson viewed his slaves as profits and that he believed slavery was a good investment. That does not show benevolence. Wiencek also states that Jefferson had a hiearchy of slaves. Not all slaves were treated equally on Jefferson's plantation only those who performed the best. Obviously the term benevolent slave owner directly implies that Jefferson was a nice guy who really did not like slavery, but made that best out of slavery. That is POV. I would appreciate if you would stop accusing me of POV or original research. By the way, your edits were the ones that caused the POV tag to be reinstated. I was the one who got the POV tag removed. I am trying to get Jefferson to GA. To be neutral you have to allow other authors opinions into the article whether you disagree or agree with those opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You're embarking on OR by claiming that since Jefferson sold slaves i.e.calculated a profit, that he did not treat them humanely. Regarding my edits after your pov tag removal. All I did was make clear which source was saying what. That's not a pov issue but a personal peeve.-- Gwillhickers 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I may not agree with all historians Gwillhickers and they can make any assessements whether "orally" or "written". We are discussing the Slaves and slavery section not the Jefferson Hemings controversy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's not okay to cite testimony here, but it's okay in the Controversy section?? -- Gwillhickers 20:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I kept the three sources in the orginal edit. I have tried my best to work on this section in good faith. In fact I had to replace the sources I had previously used because these were deleted. Editing on this article is becoming increasingly difficult. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this. To avoid 'difficulty' don't make redundant statements and simply find a source that challenges Jefferson's treatment of slaves directly. No ad' hom. e.g.Jefferson sold slaves there fore he didn't treat them humanely. He also bought slaves to unite families. It would also help if you found objective sources, not one's with a history of acute bias who write web page articles. You're cherry picking again. Is there a large body of modern historians that challenge TJ's treatment of slaves 'directly', based on definitive evidence? i.e.Over worked, under fed, poorly clothed, poor housing, not paid for extra work, etc, etc.-- Gwillhickers 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not state that in the article Gwillhickers. Wiencek has implied that in his article. Weincek has implied that because Jefferson was into slavery for the profits, therefore, he was not a benevolent slaveowner. We are not talking about only the physical treatment of slaves, rather, "benevolence". All of my edits had source references. No POV. Wiencek on the first page says that Jefferson's image as a benevolent slave owner is being challenged. All I put in the article was that Jeffersons reputation as a benevolent slave owner has been challenged. Here is a direct quote from Weincek's article: "A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder". This is what I edited into the article. Finkelman believes historians are protectionists concerning Jefferson's reputation and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't cloud the issue. We are discussing actual treatment of slaves. None of your sources challenge Jefferson's treatment -- all they do is attempt to cast aspersions on Jefferson's mindset, that he was not benevolent at heart because he made a profit, which is sort of ridiculous considering all the established evidence and sources to the contrary regarding that mindset. If you're intent on adding this sort of conjecture to the section then I'll begin adding content that puts it all into perspective. Or we can just keep things simple and be content with the section which clearly conveys the idea that some historians doubt Jefferson's anti-slavery aspirations. -- Gwillhickers 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a phrase that relates the doubt regarding Jefferson's benevolence as a slaveowner, cited with Wiencek, as it doesn't negate the facts about how Jefferson treated and provided for slaves. Put the Wiencek source in the bibliography, linked to with ref link citation. -- Gwillhickers 01:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That is fine Gwillhickers. Thanks. We all agree Jefferson was a slave owner. Whether he was benevolent or not is a matter of opinion between historians. Finkelman, I believe, correctly stated that scholars are protectionist concerning Jefferson and slavery. Nothing in the section states or implies Jefferson was a cruel taskmaster. That is neutral. I believe mentioning how his slaves were freed, i.e. through payment and substitution are relevent for the article and could be added. Profit was a motivation for Jefferson and slavery as Weincek rediscovered. That is neutral. The readers need a certain amount of leeway to make their own assessments of Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiencek "rediscovered" that Jefferson made a profit?? Come on Cm', this has been a given, obvious, all along. Jefferson didn't have slaves because he wanted to party-hearty with them. In any case, don't mind opinions so long as they're not redundant, piled high and worded as such where they overshadow the facts, actions, deeds, which otherwise speak louder than opinion. That's why I went along with including the phrase. Next to the all the (very) many facts, such narrow and rigid assessments look sort of silly, out of touch and academic. -- Gwillhickers 02:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

GA status

As was pointed out several times before, the only way this article will achieve GA status is for it to be stable. There has to be just as much 'enthusiasm' and interest for the entire biography as there has been for the slavery and controversy sections.
Re: Sources and the bibliography. This is the next big hurdle to get over. Little by little there have been improvements, with the removal of templates from the text and making citations that employ one convention. We can't have citations that employ several different ones. There are quite a few website sources also. Many of them will be dead links in a matter of time. Whenever possible we should replace website sources when the information can be found in published (hard) text. We should also try to eliminate 'one-time-use' citation/sources when the info' can be found in sources that are more frequently used. Once we get a better handle on that then we can concentrate more on content and writing style, making an effort not to get too lengthy, while at the same time avoiding a truncated writing style that reads like a police report. -- Gwillhickers 18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. I would say that the only potentially unstable section is the Slaves and slavery section. I would say that editor input would be needed to find out if the section is stable enough for GA status. We also would want the help of Yopensio, in my opinion. We want the article to be viewed where all constructive edits are wanted and needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the topic of slavery, I fear that section will never be stable for very long. There will always be someone with an issue, perceived or real. Too often the former. The bottom line is that we have presented the facts, supported by sources, new and old. 200 years from now slavery in America will be about as much of an issue as slavery is in Egypt today. i.e.Today we don't see hoards of naive peer-driven academics calling for the destruction of the pyramids -- monuments to slavery. While we don't want to ignore history, we still need to put it into perspective and not permit it to consume us as a nation. Btw, I also expressed similar thoughts regarding Yopienso. -- Gwillhickers 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Areas that need work

Other sections that still need work include:

• Early life
• Marriage and family
• Lawyer and House of Burgesses
• West Point
• Other involvements
• Political philosophy and views
• Democracy.

Re:Page length. Since this is the Jefferson biography, writing one that is well written and exceeds guidelines is almost unavoidable, as Jefferson was involved in so many things that are subjects unto themselves. However page length guidelines have been waved for a fair number of GA's and FA's so as not to compromise the idea of a well written article with good coverage, which are GA and FA requirements. -- Gwillhickers 18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

15,480 words which is higher than the last time this was dealt with. Brad (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did expand on Lawyer and House of Burgesses, thinking that the considerable interest in the slaves and slavery section merited some supportive development in the appropriate chronological section, especially Jefferson's taking a case to free a slave against his master's will based on natural law. And recently there was some interest among editors as to whether Jefferson had much skin in the science game, so his inoculation and defense of inoculators in court has some resonance. Something more on A Summary View needs to be added, as it propelled Jefferson to inter-colonial celebrity and led to his selection on the Declaration committee. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject of Jefferson is exceptional, given his many and often landmark involvements. With so many sections, all important, I don't see how we can be so rigid with our adherence to page length guidelines, without turning the biography into something that looks like a dictionary for the various and many subjects that are pivotal to Jefferson. It would seem the Jefferson biography would be an exception to the rule guideline for page length. Is that at all possible? i.e.How many 'words' are in the Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama (Featured) articles? -- Gwillhickers 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

13184 and 8844 respectively. Brad (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Will see what I can do to trim or condense some of the text. The Political philosophy and views section is almost completely redundant -- filled with a string of stand alone statements that are covered in the other sections. Seems we can get rid of it and just let the subsections below it stand on their own titles. Maria Cosway it would seem can be mentioned elsewhere, while the ' Controversy section should be a sub section to slavery, as we don't know for sure if Hemings was part of Jefferson's personal life. Having it listed there suggests that this idea is fact. Have been going over the bibliography looking for chances to trim it down where other existing sources can be used. Have already removed a couple of single-use citation/sources. Help would be nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Page length

That's interesting. The Reagan page has 202k of markup for 13,184 words -- while Jefferson has 192k for 15,480. Well, we're still faced with the same situations. Lots of topics/sections to cover without turning the page into a glorified dictionary for Jefferson. I'm hoping the 'powers that be' will make allowances along page length guide lines. We should hear other thoughts about this before we further build or deplete the article. I'm hoping page length guide lines can be waved, to a point, when there is a good reason, or lots of good reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Marriage and family

Almost half of 'marriage and family' -- that concerning Martha -- is found at Martha Jefferson. Is it proper to delete it here? On the other hand, I still think that enumerating the children and their nicknames is especially useful here, even though it is duplicated in the 'Martha Jefferson' article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather small section, and only the most basic of facts lend them self to Martha, so I'm hoping you were kidding when you mentioned any deletions involving her. Going over her biography I came across an item that could be included here -- not only because of Martha, but moreover for Jefferson. Martha brewed beer, in appreciable quantities apparently. Beer is not mentioned once in this biography. Did Monticello have a bar? We know Jefferson loved to entertain. This is where the biography is supposed to cover Jefferson the family man, the friendly neighbor, while most of what is included here is the stuff reports are made of. i.e.Name, Date of Birth, Date of Marriage, names of children, etc. The section to its credit mentions that the couple played music together, but that's about it. When Jefferson retired in 1809 he built his own brewery at Monticello and resumed the family tradition. I think it's safe to assume that his retirement undertakings, which included growing hops, was inspired by Martha's memory. The topic of 'brewing beer' as a family staple would bring a little character to the family side of the biography. They made their own root beer too. I would not mind if we gave three cheers for beer somewhere in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --- I beat up Political philosophy and views a second time for a few characters. Should it be consolidated with 'Democracy' in some fashion? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary of American Biography source

This article on Jefferson in Dictionary of American Biography might help unify the Jefferson article. I believe the article would help get Jefferson to GA status. Understanding that this is a dated source and does not respresent modern research, however, the article is well written and would help understanding Jefferson more. The article was written by Dumas Malone (1933). The article is full of dates concerning Jefferson's activities. Here is the link: Jefferson, Thomas Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A quick read-through offers this outline, with apologies, Dumas Malone summary of his article “Thomas Jefferson” in the Dictionary of American Biography.

Jefferson was a statesman, diplomat, author, scientist, architect, apostle of freedom and enlightenment.

1. Early life and marriage. Early career surveyor, legislator
2. Continental Congress and Revolution: anti-aristocrat, education, governorship
3. Retirement, Notes on Virginia. Homelife and wife’s death.
4. Congress, 31 state papers, design Va state capitol, Minister to France, touring Europe
5. Leave of absence, not a federalist, but much farther from the anti-federalists. establishment of Republican party.
6. Washington Administration and opposition to Hamilton. State Department.
7. Second retirement. Kentucky Resolutions. First presidential campaign
8. Presidency. Laying out DC. Impeachments. Louisiana. Barbary Pirates, Aaron Burr, Chesapeake Affair, Embargo.
9. Personal assessments of personal life, sexuality, drunkenness, “Morals of Jesus”, the Jefferson Bible.
10. 17 years of retirement. Public education. University of Virginia.
11. Life accomplishments, French, American Philosophical Society, an American pioneer in numerous branches of science. Patents, inventions, multilingual, patron of the arts, architectural design, political thought, contemporary assessments, Henry Adams, “Almost every other American statesman might be described in a parenthesis.”
12. Last years.

It is interesting how much detail and specific examples this article already reflects Malones selections. I wonder if our FIRST SECTION "The private Jefferson" could consolidate all the personal description including Early life and marriage, first retirement Notes on Virginia to Death of wife, Second retirement--Kentucky Resolutions, Final retirement--UVA, personal assessments and Last years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian Yes. The DOAB could be used as the guideline to get Jefferson to GA status and of course infused with modern research. I believe the Malone (1933) article gives better understanding of the early life of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the lede needs to state "apostle of freedom and enlightenment", however, there needs to be a statement that some historians view that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. This is Finkleman's contention. This would be an infusion of modern research. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Meacham in his Jefferson:study of power, describes Jefferson as the political representative of slavery interest in the context of his elective career, --- so another take might be to see three aspects -- instead of questions of "whether" or "how much", answer

1. How Jefferson opposed slavery, domestically and internationally
2. how he advanced free-soil interests, and
3. how he represented slavery interests in his expression, practice and policy.

All three elements are represented in the article as it now stands... It would be well to keep in view, or address all three elements to ensure a balance --- whenever bringing up any changes or emphasis concerning any one element. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian Possibly Jefferson's view on the spread of slavery changed. Jefferson seemed to fluctuate between the forces of anti-slavery and the forces of pro-slavery. I would need to check if there was a source that stated Jeffersons views on the spread of slavery changed. Ferling (2000) discusses Jefferson's early political career. Jefferson's laws apparently restricted the travel of free blacks in Virginia. Jefferson signed legislation that allowed the spread of slavery into the Louisana Territory in 1804 by American citizens. Did Jefferson become more conservative in the 19th century and was he more liberal in the 18th Century? What is clear is that Jefferson supported emancipation and expatriation. That probably should be emphasized in the article because Jefferson was consistent on this view. In the 1780's he was against the spread of slavery. After he was elected President he only outlawed the imporation of slaves. Jeffersron was completely opposed to the Missouri Compromise, however, he was out of office at the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. the sensibility that Jefferson reacted differently under different circumstances and both circumstances and his reactions changed over time, is an important insight to inform the writing here.

I wonder if his purposes in emancipation and expatriation changed, from a) saving Prosser Rebellion conspirators from the gallows, to b) voluntary freedom and removal of those who were otherwise prepared to die fighting for their freedom in rebellion? --- Is there evidence for a third later motive, c) he wanted to reduce the numbers of free blacks in Virginia per se -- for their own good (personal liberty)? --- I believe the process was always to be voluntary in Jefferson's proposals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian. Jefferson and Monroe prevented further hangings at the Prosser Rebellion. But the message was sent, if you rebel you will be hanged. Did the British ever hang Americans during the Rebellion? Jefferson did not believe whites and blacks could live together. I think that is the reason why there is ambiguity in Jefferson's view on slavery. According to Malone (1933) Jefferson did not believe in the full equality of the human race. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Cm', haven't these issues have been explained to you by several editors time and again? Jun.2012, Jul.2012, Oct.2012, Jan.2013, etc, etc.... Sorry to be frank, but you obviously have memory issues. I'm assuming good faith and hoping your actions are due to medical issues, not the product of political/social malice. Unless there is an actual issue in the section, my advice would be to move on to other topics, because you're always forgetting past, even recent, discussions, and sooner or later are back here, compromising GA efforts once again and carrying on about your pet topic making the same isolated statements, as if no one has ever given their time and attention to you. Btw, you also forgot to log in.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers "Medical issues?" "political/social malice?" I do not understand how discussing Jefferson and slavery approaches any of these problems. As far as I know I do not have any memory issues. I did move onto another topic Dictionary of American Biography and Dumas Malone (1933). I do not view slavery as my "pet topic", although I take an interest on the Founders and slavery. Jefferson is set apart because of his statement that "All men are created equal." All I want is that the Slaves and slavery section be stabalized enough to get Jefferson to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The section is already stable, more so than ever. You've been hovering over this section for the last few years, forcing participation among other editors trying to do long needed work on the rest of the biography, coming back with the same truncated distorted statements every time (i.e.malice), and after explanations have been offered, repeatedly. (i.e.memory issues) The section is not big enough to include all the different details that we all, including me, would like to see. Try to get used to the idea this section is not going to include everything you want either. The section is once again on the bloated side and you're still discussing additions for the section, even after your several appeals to remove the POV tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. I believe that getting the POV tag removed twice is an act of peace not malice. I took a break from editing the section allowing others including yourself to reduce the section. I only rejoined the section to remove the POV tags. I do not expect that the section to include everything. This is the discussion page. This section is on the Dictionary of American Biography Malone (1933) as all encompassing and was to be used as a guideline for getting Jefferson to GA article. My last edit was not on slavery but on Jefferson and Rebecca Burwell, a matter far from slavery. I desire that the article move forward, not backwards, nor stall. There is no need to make accusations that are unproductive to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The section was reduced considerably during your short absence. This is what the section looked like before you resumed editing the section on Dec.24, 2013. This is what the section looked like several days later. Between Dec.24 and 26 you made a good number of additions to this section. After a lot of guff, the pov tag was removed and is now long gone. Finally the section is stable and if anything needs to be trimmed down. If you want to further delve into and expand on this topic please go to the Thomas Jefferson and slavery page and while you're there make an honest effort to include context to anything you have a mind to introduce to that article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. My intent was not to expand the section, but to remove the POV tag. I believe the section remains at three paragraphs and I believe that is appropriate for the article. The addition of children working in the nailry was done in order to remove the POV tag, yes, although this expanded the section. I have no intention or desire to expand the section any further. Possibly the section narration could be trimmed without removing the neutrality content. The wording in the section possibly could be tightened up. My focus has been to get the Jefferson article to GA status. Additional information on slavery could be added the Thomas Jefferson and slavery main article. I have been reading Malone (1933), Dictionary of American Biography article on Jefferson. So far the Slaves and slavery section has remainded neutral. That is good. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The section would have been neutral with or without mention of the nailery, a place you are assuming was a cruel and unusual place to work. No RS's that I know of describes it so. The nailery was added to appease you mostly. Yes, we can try to condense some of the prose but this will have little effect on the overall section size -- and I don't like to see truncated text that reads like a police report if it can be helped. If anything we can remove one or two of the political involvements that touch on slavery where it's already (or should be) mentioned in an appropriate section. e.g.Slavery is already covered in the Louisiana Purchase section. Jefferson's dealings with the acquisition of this territory had more to do with agreements made with France than it did with slavery. Jefferson acquired the territory for purposes of national security and expansion foremost -- the issue of slavery was only incidental to this affair and reflects little if at all on Jefferson in terms of slavery. As was mentioned before, trying to police this vast territory would have threatened relations with France and would have required great amounts of much needed resources, both military and financial. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Slavery was incidental? Jefferson of the 1780's wanted to stop slavery from spreading. The Louisiana Purchase allowed millions of slaves into the territory. Slaves were moved from the South to the Lower South. This information can be put in the Lousianna Purchase section. I believe in 1804 Jefferson signed into law the legal ability for Americans to bring their slaves into the territory. That goes beyond the original slaves brought in by the French or Spanish. We had to do something to remove the POV tag. The nailery was signifigant enough to mention in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

In terms of doubling the size of the country, national security, natural resources, etc, slavery was indeed incidental to the Louisiana Purchase. Once again, Cm', the terms of the Purchase were such that slavery was to be left alone. This is how "Jefferson allowed" slavery to spread -- which is only superficial. i.e.The Purchase didn't actually increase the number of slaves in the country, did it? And once again, trying to police this vast territory would have been futile, next to impossible, and would have strained relations with France, our much needed ally at the time. The sun did not revolve around slavery. Btw, the nailery is no more significant than the barn in which they kept mules really. Both managed by young slave boys. Do you have a RS that says the boys who worked in the nailery were worse off than those who worked the fields, etc? I've already presented one, Wiencek, who specifically says otherwise. I have no intention of removing mention of the nailry, but try not to build it into some Cathedral of wrong doing with which you can 'woo' naive college students. You seem to have this habit of reading more into things than were actually there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. Woo college students? I have no intention of that. This is a discussion page and meant to improve the article. Cathedral of wrongdoing? I did not ever state the nailry was a cathedral of wrongdoing. People will have their own views of Jefferson. Do any of our opinions matter? Jefferson lived the way he wanted to. The nailry is interesting because this was Jefferson the industrialist, not just the yeoman farmer. Please don't take me out of context. All I want is Jefferson to get to GA status. What is said in discussion does not have to go into the article. Discussion should be to bring about areas that will improve the article. The Louisiana Purchase is signifigant because American slaves were brought into the territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nailery

Nonsense. All along you've held the nailery up so you could hang statements like these on it. (Your past quotes made here on the talk page.)

• 16 June 2012: How can one be a foe of slavery and force 10-year-old children to work in nail factory for profit?
• 17 June 2012: Jefferson was Virginia slave power, part of the planter elite, forcing children to work in his nailery for profit.
• 3 December 2012: In other words, life in the nailry was cruel, but Jefferson's intention was not to see that they died, rather, only produce nails.
• 7 February 2013: ..then I believe the article could state Jefferson profited on child slave labor.
• 12 March 2013: Having black boys whipped at the nailery to increase profits does not sound like a nice guy.
• 16 January 2014: Jefferson's enslavement of children at his nailery is not mentioned in the article nor the fact he calculated how much profit he made from slavery.

-- You never claimed that you wanted to use the nailery to show "Jefferson the industrialist", ever. Not even close. In fact, you're the only individual around here that has ever tried to use the nailery to demonize Jefferson. Once again you demonstrate that your words to fellow editors are less than sincere. Disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. I am not sure why you continue to attack my motives for editing. The discussion should have some leeway. Were African American boys whipped at the nailry? Wikipedia is suppose to deal with facts not only opinions. Jefferson was not a demon. My boldest statement dared question whether Jefferson was a nice guy. Life at the nailry was cruel does not make Jefferson a demon. Jefferson did not hate blacks. The system of slavery could be considered a cruel process not Jefferson. Some of my statements have been tough but there was no ill intention. There is no need to make any further accussations or putting words in my talk edits. I did not ever state Jefferson was a demon. Jefferson was an industrialist. Weincek (2012) I believe supports this. There is not one place in the article that states Jefferson was a cruel task master. Weincek (2012) was the one who stated Jefferson had a dark side. Not me. I would hope we could all focus on improving the article to GA status rather then attack another editors motives. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that the nailery was to show "Jefferson the industrialist" seemed a bit insincere and sorta ridiculous given your numerous referrals to it. You used Wiencek to challenge the idea of 'benevolent slave owner', still viewable above. No one can say if the nailery was more "cruel" than working the fields. This has all been your assumption. The "system of slavery" was not cruel under Jefferson, by far, and there are numerous sources, new, old and primary that have said so. Your motives were brought into question for reasons that have been a little obvious. Sorry about the hard line. Just don't like being BS'ed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. My only motivation is to get Jefferson to GA status. I have not ever stated that Jefferson was a cruel task master. We might have differing opinions on Jefferson, but our opinions should not be in the article. Whether the sytem of slavery was cruel is a matter of debate. I was only speaking on the system of slavery, not the system of slavery under Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

But the "system of slavery" at the time of Jefferson was not solely up to Jefferson. In Jefferson's first term, --- when he had been elected in the House of Representatives, not by electoral mandate ---, among the four principle factions of the national Republican party, "southern agrarian slaveholder ideologues" included not only John Randolph of Roanoke in his own home state, but the Speaker of the House, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina. Even in New England "Federalists, even those who considered slavery an evil, were no abolitionists." -- (Wilentz 2005, p.103, 114)

It is true, in 1802 virtually all northern Republicans broke ranks and joined Federalists in defeating a bill to fine $500 anyone abetting or employing escaped slaves in the North (Wilentz 2005, p.106). Sectionalism remained alive and well. But that is not the same as restricting slavery from Louisiana, southern territory adjacent to slave-holding states. What source says the slavery regime in Jefferson's time belonged to Jefferson alone, or where any majority support for abolition of slavery might be supplied in the United States at the time of his administrations with Nathaniel Macon as Speaker of the House? Jefferson believed with Solon, "no more good must be attempted than the nation can bear." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase is significant only because it doubled the size of the country, helped national security and provided natural resources and the biggest tract of fertile land on the planet. Since slaves are already mentioned in the Louisiana Purchase section we ought to remove the statement in the slavery section as it's redundant -- esp since it doesn't reflect on Jefferson in terms of slavery. There were many prevailing circumstances that had to be dealt with. Had he insisted that France and everyone else keep slaves out of the territory the Purchase would never have occurred. Though Jefferson opposed slavery all his life he was wise enough to know when to leave the issue alone. Amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. The Lousiana Purchase overall was the greatest land deal of the 19th Century. Jefferson was able to double the size of the United States peacefully without war. The question is not whether the French and Spanish could keep their slaves. The question is whether Jefferson could have prevented Americans from importing slaves into the territory. In fact, and my source is Malone (1933), Jefferson signed a bill into law in 1804 that allowed the importation of slaves owned by American citizens into the territory. During the 1780's Jefferson was trying to stop the importation of slaves into Western territories. From a biographical view, did Jefferson change his view on the spread of slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the numerous French and Spanish slave holding interests had already existed in the territory it would have been ridiculous to let foreign interests have slaves while outlawing slavery for American slave owners in an American territory. Just image the black market (no pun) that would emerge, for openers. Imagine trying to police this territory while trying to distinguish foreign owned slaves from American owned. As I recall Jefferson also hoped that when various parts of the territory became states they would deal with slavery on a per state basis. Also, Jefferson believed that allowing slavery for American slave owners in the territory would diffuse the overall slave population. The purchase didn't magically produce more slaves. Last, the purchase was made in 1803, right in the middle of the First Barbary War (1801–1805) and during the French Revolution, while we were still dealing with the British who had not gotten over the fact that the colonies were now independent. Congress had already defeated Jefferson's proposal to ban slavery in all Western Territories after 1800. Do you think this would have been the right time to advance legislation outlawing slavery for Americans while allowing it for the French? It's a wonder slavery in the remote territory was given any attention. The L.P. regarding slavery is already covered in the L.P. section, and given the overall circumstances the purchase doesn't amount to anything that would suggest Jefferson had a change of heart about slavery that particular year, or any other year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwilhickers. Diffusing slavery is spreading slavery. What is the difference? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot speculate on what Jefferson could or should have done. The fact is he allowed Americans to bring slaves into the territory. Meanwhile in the British Empire, Upper Canada had passed the Act Against Slavery 1793 which said "nor shall any Negro or other person who shall come or be brought into this Province after the passing of this Act, be subject to the condition of a Slave." While it may be that Jefferson could not have policed slavery out of existence, the effect was that the force of the federal courts and executive would be used to protect slavery, eventually arresting escaped slaves in free states and returning them to servitude. TFD (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Cm', your issue was that "Jefferson allowed" slavery to spread as if this was his ambition -- while slavery already existed in the territory. Jefferson pursed matters one step at a time, and there were times when he waited. You continue to ignore the fact that Jefferson was not in much of a position to call the shots when the Purchase was made -- not unless he wanted to blow the deal by insisting France remove their slaves. If he had chose to outlaw slavery it would have required enforcement, and again, with foreign slaves already in the territory it would have been one diplomatic mess. You've been trying to assess Jefferson's motives and state of mind while wearing the blinders of 20th century idealism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• TFD, the demand for slaves in Canada was not nearly as great as it was in the states, where agriculture was a giant industry whose interests involved foreign countries and the banks who funded the slave trade from the start. And remember, the British continued to enjoy the fruits of slavery all the way through the Civil War while they supported and supplied the Confederacy -- all the while they held their progressive pinky in the air and pretended they were above it all. And let's not forget it was the British crown who brought slaves to the colonies in the first place. Were they ready to ship slaves back to Africa or take them into their own homes? Hardly. I wouldn't be using the British as any sort of moral yard-stick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TFD and Gwillhickers. I appreciate your responses. I am not trying to project anything negative toward Jefferson. My question was did his view change on the spread or diffusion of slavery. Was there a different more liberal Jefferson of the 1780's compared to Jefferson the early 19th Century President? I will agree that enforcement is an issue, yet, Jefferson did outlaw the importion of slaves to the United States, and enforcement did not appear to be any issue. Jefferson does deserve credit for containing slavery within the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TFD and Gwillhickers. Here is another question that might raise an issue concerning enforcement. There was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. If the federal government could enforce states and territories to return slaves, couldn't the federal government support the enforcement of keeping slaves out of the states or territories? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to mix apples with elephants. We are only talking about the time of the Purchase, that "Jefferson allowed" slavery during that purchase, the conditions of the purchase with France and the idea of allowing foreign slavery while trying to outlaw it for Americans. We are also talking about a remote territory, one largely unexplored. While the Federal gov and the established states in the east were in a position to enforce laws, the remote territory barely had even a provincial government, let alone any sort of state infrastructure. And once again, the Purchase occurred during the middle of a war and a very unstable time. Yet you seem to think it was some 'change of heart' that was dictating all of Jefferson's decisions at this time. 'But of course. There's no other explanation!' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Nothing is set in stone. You have brought up some good explanations concerning Jefferson and the diffusion of slavery. Why then did Jefferson propose excluding slavery in all Western Territories during the 1780s. This resulted in the exclusion of slaves in the NorthWest Territory Act of 1787. Yet when Jefferson is President he apparently is in favor of the diffusion of slavery. The President at this time controlled much of the legislation started in Congress. There was not one bill from Jefferson or his party to limit slavery in any state or territory. Jefferson never spoke on limiting domestic slavery. Jefferson had allot of pull on people. He was popular most of his Presidency. Why the silence on the spread of domestic slavery in the newly acquired territories? Here is a link for Jefferson's 8 State of the Union address: Presidential State of the Union Addresses Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson only spoke once concerning stopping the importation of slaves in his 1806 State of the Union Address. Nothing was stated on the domestic slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Once was not enough? Why repeat the message? There were other issues and people alive at the time besides slavery and slaves. As was pointed out to you several times before pushing abolition during his presidency would have further aggravated political division during a very unstable time and likely would have instigated an early civil war. If that had occurred during Jefferson's time there would probably be no United States today. Maintaining political stability and national security and the welfare of the nation took precedence, by far. Why do you think he was publicly silent? All you've done is cast aspersions, typically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Jefferson called enslaving Africans a violation of human rights. That is strong language. But did this apply to African American slaves in the United States? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We were discussing the L.P.. Now you've backed away from that and are on to something else. Jefferson was silent during his presidency for reasons that have been articulated to you over and again. Yet you continue to see Jefferson in some vacuum where the only issue he should have been concerned with was slavery. From here on, please talk in terms of actual page improvement on a per item basis. All you're doing here is dragging your feet, and rhetorically repeating the same out of context statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Slavery in the territory

Jefferson did talk about the LP in his 1803 State of the Union address. There was no mention of slavery in the territory. I thought that Jefferson's term "violation of human rights" was very strong and I suppose showed that Jefferson could speak out on slavery strongly. I believe Jefferson signed into law allowing Americans to brings their slaves into the territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cmguy is correct in his surmise. Federal anti-slavery bans in territories were attempted. The proposal in the first congress for gradual emancipation nationwide was lost. In 1798, the effort to prohibit slavery in the newly formed Mississippi Territory failed. Federalist James Hillhouse of CT proposed to ban slavery in the Louisiana Territory, and it failed. The 1804 proposal by a NJ Republican James Sloan for the gradual emancipation of slavery in DC failed. (Wilentz 2005 p. 218.)

Unlike the ambivalence of Jeffersonian slaveholders, Deep South legislators, Republican and Federalist alike, showed a “powerful commitment” to slavery. Also, “Through Jefferson’s first administration, the pro-slavery southerners could usually count on the support of conservative northern Federalists.” (Wilentz 2005 p. 219.)

“Virginian [Jeffersonian] Republicans, by contrast, sometimes aligned with northern Federalists and northern Republicans against the Deep South on matters related to slavery, at least through 1800.” More Virginian slaves were freed between the Revolution and the War of 1812 than at any time again until the end of the Civil War. Tobacco was failing, and wheat was replacing it. The assumption prevailed among Virginians that slavery was “a moribund abomination.”

But when pushed hard in 1890 1790 by slaveholders who opposed giving Congress wide powers over slavery, they “chose expedience over idealism”. And then came the cotton gin, one of four elements which changed the economic landscape of the Deep South and ending hopes of an end of slavery. (Wilentz 2005 p. 220). Not sure what part of this goes into the article, but there seems to be continuing interest in this aspect of the Louisiana Territory... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

See response below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwilhickers, the Crown did not introduce slavery into America, the colonists did. By the time of Pitt the Younger, government policy was to limit and then end slavery. Although only about 5% of the population of Upper Canada were slaves, the growth of slavery was a real possibility as most of the elite were slave-owners. Jefferson could have introduced an equivalent of the Canadian legislation - that inhabitants could keep their slaves, while no new slaves could be imported. And there is no reason why the federal government should decide to enforce the property rights of slave-owners, as they did in the Fugitive Laws. In fact, the UK parliament in 1797 ended the practice of courts seizing slaves for the unpaid debts of their owners. While it may be wrong to judge people by modern standards, we can compare them with the standards of their time. Hence his actions against the slave trade are mentioned, even though in the end they were ineffective in ending slavery in the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Democracy

In Sean Wilentz' The rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln, (2005 p.97), it is noted that Jefferson's "moderation, in leading this democratic revolution, consisted mainly of his recognition of Solon's ancient wisdom, that (as he put it) 'no more good must be attempted than the nation can bear'." As to Jefferson's policy related to abolishing slavery in the 1800s, the same moderation might apply, to attempt no more than the nation could bear. It seems time to reread the volume.

As to finding a neutral point of view for the article, WP:WEIGHT, and balancing aspects of Jefferson's life, WP:BALASPS --- more should be devoted to Jefferson as an exponent of democracy than Jefferson as a slaveholder, the balance we can find in Dumas Malone article referenced above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

TVH, you are correct, more weight should be given to how Jefferson was fundamental in forging Democracy. i.e.Revolution, DOI, Presidency, etc. His convictions regarding Democracy were such that he even sought to free slaves. Ever notice how most of the 20th-21st century ad'hom is piled on one side of the fence? i.e."Jefferson allowed..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think democracy should discussed in the article, however, slavery, I believe, was part of this American democracy, particularly the 3/4 3/5 rule in the U.S. Constitution that gave Southerners increased representation in Congress. Slaves were considered human property. The United States seemed to be a Republic more then a Democracy. Women, Slaves, and Indians were excluded from voting in elections. Indians might be an exception if the tribe was considered civilized those Indians could vote. Freed blacks could be enslaved by slave hunters, i.e. Frederick Douglas. This does not in any way reduce Jefferson's contribution to Democracy, including the freedom of Religion. Jefferson's "all men are created equal" inspired African Americans to gain their freedoms and citizenship. What would the country have been like if Jefferson had been at the Constitutional convention? We can't say for sure. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It was 3/5's not 3/4's -- and such a compromise should at least give you a clue about the power of the various slave holding interests and what people like Jefferson were up against. Slavery itself was not part of democracy. In fact it was the one institution that defied democracy, and people like Jefferson were among the first to articulate this. TVH brought up the issue of weight. More attention should be given the forging of democracy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I agree. Did Jefferson make any statements on the 3/5 clause? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, as he was the beneficiary of it. Without it, John Adams would have won the presidency in 1800. Gary Wills used the Adams quote in his Negro President: Jefferson and the slave power. Jefferson could not trifle with those slave power folks, they were critical for the coalition of the Burr faction, Madison moderates, John Randolph radical republican quids, and the northern city democrats. And he lost the northern Burr faction right off the bat in 1800.

He then expanded his base in the northern cities based on labor 'kitchen table' issues, not abolition for far away slaves. And he had to hold onto the South for a second term...Virginia went from the district plan to the unit rule in the electoral college, taking away the western-most congressional district votes for Adams in 1800 from the Federalists in 1804. And was slavery allowed to expand into the Gulf Coast territory of Louisiana with pre-existing slavery during Jefferson's first term? yes, it was; only attempt as much good as the country will bear, and still be re-elected. There were still foreign affairs to tend to ... would the Republican Party mantle fall on Madison or Clinton of New York for the 1808 election? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian. That would answer why Jefferson did not speak out against domestic slavery as a "crime against humanity". Jefferson was a polititian. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson could do what a politician could do, including his Jeffersonian Republicans collaborating with northern Republicans and northern Federalists against southern slave-holding interests...and failing against those southern slave-holding interests and their northern Federalist (conservative) allies. See the paraphrasing of Wilentz in the LP section above. At some point, the great experiment is whether a nation will be governed by votes.

Wilentz posits (p.62) that the great divide was between the seaboard and the interior at first, not north and south. Moving west and incorporating territory as states (Ohio in Jefferson's first term, Louisiana in Madison's first term) is a way of cementing the nation over the east-west divide that faced the first generation of politicians. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We might want to mention that Jefferson and the enlightenment movement were the driving moral and religious force behind abolition which had a great influence in the northern states as Wilentz mentions on page 220. He also mentions that Jefferson nor any of the "first rank southern political leaders took up the antislavery cause too publicly or to vociferously" at this time, as the more they pushed the more slaveholding interests in the south "recoiled, and the more proslavery views hardened". By 1815 the idea of abolition had backfired in the south and hardened into an "entirely different political charge", as Wilentz points out. It would be exceedingly naive to assume Jefferson didn't see this situation worsening, a situation that helps to explain Jefferson's silence during his presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My reading of that passage is that Wilentz is criticizing TJ for not putting words to action. ("Jefferson would never tremble enough to free more than a handful of his own slaves.") It wasn't "Jefferson and the Enlightenment," but "Jefferson contrasted with the Enlightenment." TJ was part of the recoiling South that "chose expediency over idealism." Yet, with his basically humane nature, he did hope to see a convergence of the two; he just wasn't willing to sacrificing expediency for idealism. Yopienso (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(Insert, edit-conflict:) Wilentz doesn't say he didn't put words into action, only that he didn't tremble enough. At the top of p.220 Wilentz says: Virginia Reoublicans, by contrast, sometimes aligned with moderate northern Federalists and northern Republicans against the deep south on matters relating to slavery. I think this would include Jefferson, of all people. Where does it say that Jefferson, one of the most prominent icons of the Enlightenment, "contrasted with the enlightenment"? -- We also have to remember that Jefferson couldn't have freed his slaves as he had hoped as they were part of his estate and were seized by his creditors. Further, Virginia law forbade the freeing of slaves. (Reiss, 1997, p.126 Jefferson planned to free his slaves in his will, but his estate was in arrears, and so his creditors seized his valuable chattel property to satisfy his debts., Curtis, 2012, p.207 Virginia law declared slaves to be considered real estate for purposes of descent, but they retained certain exemptions and were still treated as personal property in cases involving slave-traders, merchants, recovery procedures, and seizure for debts.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Jon Meacham in his study on "the art of power" would agree with both Gwhillhickers and Yopienso's analysis. Though the description of a politician not putting words into action after failed attempts to expand manumission personally as a lawyer, state legislator, congressman and national party leader -- is not necessarily a personal "criticism" for failing comprehensive emancipation by 1808. Wilentz spends a good deal of time explaining the practical political obstacles to immediate emancipation. I believe even some of the radical city democrats of Philadelphia and Boston wanted to bar black tradesmen from competition with whites. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with many southern common farmers who were denied the opportunity of farming because they couldn't compete with the big plantations and slave labor. Seems we never hear about them, as many modern historians tend to lump the entire southern population into one little ball they can bounce around in front of their naive and often goaded modern day readership. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yopensio and Gwillhickers. Yopensio is correct concerning that Jefferson didn't "tremble enough" concerning slavery. Gwillhickers is correct that there was a correction or reassertation of Slave power after the Revolution. I am not so sure the Enlightenment was agaisnt slavery. Many people in Europe and American during the Elightenment had ties with slavery. Even, Newton invested a substantial amount of money in the slave trade. Virginia made freeing slaves more difficult. Wilentz stated that Jefferson planned to free his slaves. Is there another source or letter from Jefferson that confirms Jefferson was planning to free his slaves. Jefferson was President for 8 years. He spoke out on the African slave trade as "crimes against humanity". This meant that Jefferson did have the ablity to speak out on the African slave trade. The fact remains however that Jefferson said publically was silent on the domestic slave trade nor on the subject of domestic slavery in his State of the Union Addresses. There may be no clear answers why Jefferson was silent. TheVirgniaHistorian mentioned that Jefferson politically took advantage of the 3/5 clause and this is why he was elected to the Presidency. That seems to be the best answer why Jefferson was silent on domestic slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources, new and old, including primary sources, show Jefferson in opposition to slavery his entire life, so the question should be, is there a source or a letter that says that Jefferson did not want to free his slaves? We know Jefferson was heavily in debt, and we know there was a Virginia law that allowed the confiscation of slaves to satisfy that debt. i.e.Jefferson had no choice. The assumption that Jefferson 'did not' want to free his slaves is typical modern day ad'hom, with nothing concrete to support it it would seem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the 3/5ths compromise help slave holding interests ala the southern states more so than the northern states with whom Jefferson was more in line with? Esp since states like South Carolina and Georgia had blocked Jefferson's efforts at abolition time and again? The 3/5ths compromise doesn't seem like anything that would cause Jefferson to be silent. Otoh, a political body and states edging ever closer to civil war seems like the most viable explanation for his silence. As I mentioned before, Jefferson expressed this sentiment in a letter to James Heaton, that there was a time to push issues and a time not to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. What better time to push the issue when you are popular President, the most powerful man in America? Jefferson was President for 8 years. Jefferson had the ability of tough talk, "crimes against humanity", the strongest words I have read from Jefferson against slavery, but this was directed at the African slave trade. Don't worry. I am not judging Jefferson's Presidency, rather, I am only trying to understand his silence on domestic slavery better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In the first term TJ was elected by a narrow margin in the House, but there was boldness a) to secure the nation's peace by removing the most aggressive European nation from the North American continent, and b) to secure the nation's western prosperity by securing the permanent free access to the Mississippi River -- both by the Louisiana Purchase.

This was to be done with a coalition of a) trans-Appalachian northerners trading on the Mississippi, with b) slave-interests seeking to gain Senate seats-- LA, MS then AL to balance IN, IL then ME --- over the objections of c) New England who were against diminishing their place in the Union by westward expansion, and d) Quid Republicans who were against executive treaty making power.

The Senate was still elected by state legislatures, and most Presidential Electors were chosen by state legislatures. Philip Freneau was chosen to edit the National Gazette as a national voice of Jeffersonian Republicanism to boost the administration popularity at the grass roots. Then there was the split between the country radical democrats who did not want to see anything out of the national government, and the city radical democrats who did not want to see anything taking away from Atlantic coastal commerce.

And now you expected Jefferson to come out strong to abolish slavery, now? It seems from a reading of Wilentz to be as Jon Meacham asserts, that Jefferson was foremost a nationalist, advancing the international peace, internal prosperity and democracy of the nation, a pragmatic politician wielding power. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian. I have not expected Jefferson to do anything as President. My question in this discussion was why was Jefferson silent on domestic slavery while President the highest held office and when Jefferson had tremendous influence over the nation. Jefferson called the African slave trade "crimes against humanity", very strong and bold words. There is no mention of domestic slavery or for that matter African Americans in any of his state of the Union Addresses. Your reasons for the silence stated above are valid. One could state that Jefferson was placing the national interest over slavery. Does that fully explain Jefferson's silence on domestic slavery while President of the United States? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have to find a source addressing the question of "silence on domestic slavery" in a more pointed fashion before I could make an answer more fully...otherwise we are seeking an answer relying on our own speculation without the grounds to contribute to the article on this question. I think it is fair to say Jefferson placed national interest of international peace and multi-regional prosperity over his desire to limit slavery by any federal action. That would be a consideration apart from his anti-slavery actions in Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's silence

Other considerations: Wasn't it up to the States to decide if slavery was to be allowed in any given state? Wouldn't it have been considered an encroachment of the federal gov if it advocated, even hinted at, sweeping legislation for all the states? Wouldn't such an act have been seen as hostile to some states while favoring others -- instigating further political division? It would seem to me that a man like Jefferson, who said virtually nothing about domestic slavery during his two terms, only exemplifies the fact that he was sitting on a powder keg. Jefferson knew, as he expressed in at least one letter, that he would not see an end to slavery in his life time, in spite of all his past efforts. Considering the unstable and tremulous situation that existed, he knew to leave well enough alone. Unfortunate. Yes, Jefferson put the "national interest", i.e.national survival, before slavery, considering the volatile situation that existed. It took a war to bring slavery to an end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. Although I do not disagree with what you stated, except that the States were represented in the Federal Government. If the Federal government could capture "fugitive slaves", then the Federal government could regulate slavery. I will admit that the 1789 Constitution protected and recognized slavery legally since slaves owners could "capture" their "runaway" slaves. States did have the power to outlaw slavery on their own. A constitutional amendment would have been needed to outlaw slavery in all of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution stated that the right of slavery remained within the States power, i.e. State Rights. Prior to the 1789 Constitution under the Articles of Confederation the Continental Congress prohibited the importation of slaves in the North West Territory and Jefferson himself wrote federal legislation to prohibit slavery in the Western Territories. However, all of this does not explain why Jefferson never spoke out against domestic slavery in his eight years in office or at least called for an amendment to end slavery. Was Jefferson's Presidency under the control of the slave power states? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In what capacity do you think the Federal gov captured fugitive slaves -- esp since virtually all slaves were owned by people residing in the several states? A Federal slave task force? A good number of viable reasons have been offered to explain Jefferson's silence. It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand them. Quite a stretch to assume it was anything else. e.g. "Jefferson the monster"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I never stated Jefferson was a "monster" Gwillhickers. I had asked if Jefferson's Presidency was under the control of the slave power states. Why could Jefferson call the African slave trade "crimes against humanity" but say nothing on "domestic" slavery? I believe the reader needs enouth information to decide on their own. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply this was your quote. As you must know, it was Finkleman's quote. Typical presentist ad'hom. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the slave power states 'controlled' Jefferson, but they were indeed a factor, and again, Jefferson found himself in a precarious situation -- definitively outlined for you by more than one editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson thought slaves could not be freed because they could not assimilate. The only way to end slavery was ending their importation or repatriation. TFD (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense TFD. Why did not Jefferson mention a federal public Emancipation and Repatriation plan while President? Admittedly Jefferson privately tried to repatriate free African Americans while President although this was a failure. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course to end slavery the nation would have to ban the importation of slaves first. Jefferson took the first (giant) step towards this end. However promoting emancipation and repatriation, e.g.during a state of the union address, would have amounted to the same thing -- i.e.promoting abolition at a time when the nation was dangerously divided and with Britain waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces, which it almost did during the War of 1812 where British forces even managed to put a torch to the White House shortly after Jefferson's 2nd term. Again, these were very unstable times, both on the domestic front as well as the foreign. Social reforms are usually pursued during times of national stability and peace -- not while the nation is at the verge of coming apart or when it's fighting a war and standing at the brink of another war. Once you rise above the ad'hom the math should be quite easy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. Jefferson does deserve credit for banning the International Slave Trade. The question is could Jefferson have done more as President on domestic slavery, emancipation, and expatriation. Yes. The nation was unstable. Are you saying one statement on emancipation and expatriation from President Jefferson would have caused a Civil War? That seems unlikely. Jefferson called the African slave trade a "violation of human rights". Ending the African slave trade did not cause a Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is 'no, very unlikely'. Jefferson had made several attempts at outright abolition and was defeated at every turn. By the time he was president it seems he was wise enough to know that he was beating a dead horse, and to bring the issue up during State of the Union addresses would have been counter productive given the (very) unstable situation he was faced with. Banning the slave trade, like you've always maintained, did not end domestic slavery, and as we all know, slaves were still smuggled into the country, so the slave powers were not so concerned. Several viable reasons have been offered to explain Jefferson's silence. All you've done is roundly express doubt about them all without offering any viable reasons of your own. Do you know of any other reasons why Jefferson didn't speak out publicly against abolition? Did Jefferson turn into a 'monster' when he became president? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. I have yet to find a source that adequately explains Jefferson's silence on domestic slavery while President. No. Jefferson not a monster. I believe there should be some explanation why he was silent on domestic slavery in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an interesting assessment of Jefferson and silence on slavery: Kennedy (1999) Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The account you link to really doesn't nail anything down and typically asks a lot of questions rather than providing any definitive explanations -- along with making the usual speculations about what Jefferson 'didn't do'. e.g.Did not press for Federalist's concept of a wall at the Appalachians against slavery, which btw occurred in 1784 -- 16 years before he was President. We are discussing Jefferson's public silence during his presidency. So far, the best explanations for his silence have been offered here. i.e.Prior failed attempts at abolition, political instability, wars, etc. And there's a letter to Heaton articulating his sentiment about pushing an issue too much or at the wrong time, and that he realized that abolition would not occur during his life time. These ideas are by no means wild or unusual. Nothing else definitive and factual has been offered to explain the silence, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Kennedy (1999) assessment is admittedly tough on Jefferson. Kennedy (1999) does speak of Jefferson's prior political career and his Presidency. Kennedy (1999) states that Jefferson was silent on slavery while Congress debated slavery in the Louisiana Territory in 1805 and 1806. Jefferson while in France was silent on the Fugitive Slave Clause debated at the 1789 Constitutional Convention. Kennedy (1999) is particularly critical of Jefferson's silence while Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi entered the Union as slave states. Jefferson did not lend his support to anti-slavery advocates listed by Kennedy (1999). Kennedy (1999) stated that Jefferson "failed in every test of his professed principles". This goes along with the question whether Jefferson could have done more to curb slavery during his political career. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy's claim is obviously a gross distortion given Jefferson's extensive legacy. There's yet another consideration: i.e.Federal powers not granted by the states specifically, per the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. IOW, the Federal gov did not have the authority to dictate slavery laws to the states. Cunningham, 2001, p.113 ...he (Jefferson) regarded slavery as subject to the authority of the states, which had the power to prohibit or to protect slavery. ...Jefferson as president offered no national leadership toward dealing with the future of slavery in the United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Consideration other than slavery are at hand for Kentucky made out of Virginia and Tennessee out of North Carolina. The trans-Appalachian radical "country democrats" had had enough of the 20:1 malapportionment in the VA and NC state legislatures. They were variously attempting independent nationhood, alliance with Spain, and statehood. --- Jefferson's earlier proposal to make territory free-soil west of the Appalachians in Virginia failed in the General Assembly. --- Making them states, expanding the "republic of liberty" west was a two-fer. It nationalistically expanded the union and cemented western settlement population. It politically increased Jeffersonian Republican votes in the Senate and it kept the radical states-rights ideologues, the followers of Randolph, in the Republican fold at least until his 1800 election.

Louisiana in Madison's first term comes in to secure the western boundary against Spanish claims, brings sectional balance to Jefferson's push for western free soil Ohio in his first administration. Mississippi enters during Monroe's term to balance free soil Indiana in Madison's. By that time the slave power was insistent on a free-soil and slave-holding balance in the Senate, as they had failed to find an economy which could support population expansion comparable to the successful free soil mechanized family farm with international markets in wheat. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe Jefferson signed legislation in 1804 that restricted slavery into the Louisiana Territory to American settlers. If so does this make Jefferson pro slavery and go beyond the silence, since he allowed slavery to increase in the LT? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there was to be no international slave trade, there was to be no slaves brought by foreigners. There was to be no immigration of French and Spanish nationals "returning" to Louisiana with slaves along as their "property" to circumvent the intent of the law against international slave trade. Unfortunately, those with Spanish connections continued the trade, Jim Bowie and his brothers perhaps most famously smuggling enslaved Africans with false papers of origin into Louisiana after the prohibition went into effect...see Three Roads to the Alamo by William C. Davis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the google link, somewhat searchable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Cm', how does signing legislation restricting slavery make anyone 'pro slavery'? In any case, that Jefferson secured the Louisiana Territory and agreed not to interfere with France's slave interests doesn't make him "pro slavery" And again, how does Jefferson outlaw slavery for Americans while permitting it for France and others? Then comes the issue of enforcement. Again, Jefferson took matters one step at a time. He didn't jump into an idealistic bulldozer and 'plough' his way through matters. This has been brought to your attention at least twice now. Also, Jefferson, by himself, could not advance a law prohibiting slavery in the territory. Such a prohibition would have to come through Congress, the states, first, and as you of course remember, Congress blocked Jefferson's attempts to advance abolition legislation several times before. Yet you're all set to hang the "Pro slavery" tag on Jefferson over this singular issue where he had no choice. Your wording here is reckless and sophomoric. Please make an effort to remember past discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. Thanks for the information. If I understand the 1804 law non US citizens could not bring in their slaves but US citizens could bring in slaves. Jefferson did infact use the US military to stop a slave rebellion in New Orleans in 1806. That is far from being silent on slavery. Isn't that proslavery to put down a slave rebellion? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian. Thanks for the information. That seems to clarify the 1804 law that Jefferson signed. The question is could Jefferson have signed a law the prohibited US citizens from importing their own slaves into the LT? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For the article, --- As to putting down the 1806 slave rebellion, the greatest fear of a slave holder would have been a French-like Haitian slave revolt. That is explicit in the contemporary literature. It would be interesting to find out what the intent of the revolt was, --- closing the port, independent nationhood, privileges held under Spanish and French governance which were to be taken away under U.S. territorial administration? I recall the substantial numbers in the free black community, and the use of free African-American troops by the Spanish in their Indian wars, both in Florida and Louisiana. Any rising with their cooperation would have been serious indeed, which way did free black militia companies in New Orleans align in the slave revolt?

As to restricting American settlers slaves while allowing slaveholding by previously Spanish and French nationals, it might have been a question of equity among whites. And there was no precedent for federal government summarily stripping a slave-based agricultural territory of its slaves -- and expelling them to Haiti, Africa? Creating a North American free black republic in the strategic New Orleans? But as always with Jefferson the politician, where would he have gotten the votes for such a utopian scheme? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to page improvement

While the information presented here is intriguing and offers excellent historical context it seems we need to return our focus on actual page improvement. Do we still have issues with the slavery section? Is there something that is missing or needs to be added or corrected? If anything we should mention that Jefferson's slaves were seized by his creditors, that he had planned to set them free but was unable to per Virginia law, as he was heavily in debt before he died. Here is a transcript of his will, written in March of 1826, four months before he died.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources:

• Brodie, 1974, p.466 - His overseer Bacon tells us that he wanted devoutly to free all his slaves but could not.

• Reiss, 1997, p.126 - Jefferson planned to free his slaves in his will, but his estate was in arrears, and so his creditors seized his valuable chattel property to satisfy his debts.

• Curtis, 2012, p.207 - Virginia law declared slaves to be considered real estate for purposes of descent, but they retained certain exemptions and were still treated as personal property in cases involving slave-traders, merchants, recovery procedures, and seizure for debts.
• Cramer, 1997, p.21 - Even after the liberalization of Virginia's manumission laws in 1782, a master who was in debt could not free his slaves.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. The Oscar Reiss (1997) source does not give any reference for information that Jefferson planned to free his slaves. Also Reiss (1997) mentions that Jefferson had a concubine named Lucy. No reference was given for that information either. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No reference or source was ever given, by anyone, that Jefferson never wanted to free his slaves -- only that he didn't. When it is mentioned many modern sources rarely qualify the claim that Jefferson didn't have any choice, per Virginia law. And since when are we requiring reliable source to provide other sources for each and every statement made? Few if any sources provides an inline citation for each statement made. What they do provide is a bibliography, and Reiss' bibliography is quite extensive -- several dozen pages. When TJF and the Smithsonian claimed that "most historians" believe Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children they never provided a reference -- not even an explanation. The biography has many dozens of citations that gives no further references for claims. Is it now your intention to purge them all? Btw, the Brodie source gives Edmond Bacon, Jefferson's overseer, as a reference. Sorry. We're going to need more than the usual foot dragging and attempts at employing double standards to oppose this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers "foot dragging" "double standards". I appreciate your sincerity in protecting the legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Maybe you need to apply the same critical standards you have towards me to the Thomas Jefferson article. I was the one who started the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article when no other editor seemed to care. I started that article on July 4, 2009 almost 5 years ago. You notice how the article was started on July 4. Maybe I have more respect for Jefferson then you think I have. I agree with you that the TJF and Smithsonian need to supply references and that makes their claims less reliable. There has been no foot dragging either. I want Jefferson to get to GA. That is why getting the slavery section neutral and stable is essential. I also mentioned using Dumas Malones article as a guideline for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

But earlier --- Cmguy questions whether Reiss says at the citation Gwillhickers gave, "“Jefferson planned to manumit his slaves in his will, but his estate was in arrears, and so his creditors seized his valuable chattel property to satisfy his debts." -- but Reiss does say that was Jefferson's plan. -- On Cmguy's second point, it seems "Lucy" was confused with Sally Hemings, who was not sold away, and though not freed, was protected by family to live out her life independently.

The point that Cmguy seems reluctant to come to is that unlike Washington's successful manumission by will, as Reiss puts it, "In some situations this benevolence [manumission by will] went awry." In some cases intent and effort cannot make events conform, they veer awry -- "away from the planned, or expected course"; things in life go "amiss" from the best of intentions. That does not take away from the veracity of the intent. Jefferson intended to free his slaves in the same way Washington had done. It was reasonable to believe that Jefferson's western land speculations might have satisfied all his debts, and allowed freeing all of his slaves, but at the time of his death, the land was not accepted by the creditors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian. Is there some letter that Jefferson wrote that even mentioned freeing his slaves or even a draft will of manumission from Jefferson? Washington left his last will and testament to confirm he freed all of his slaves. We apparently only have Reiss's view that Jefferson planned to free his slaves. And did Riess mix up Lucy with Sally Hemings? Or is Lucy a second concubine Jefferson had in addition to Sally Hemings? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Cm', we have the Brodie source, at the top of the list above, already brought to your attention personally, and you still claim we only have Reiss' view. Unbelievable. Btw, I only defend Jefferson's legacy from those who come to this page with an apparent or obvious racial or political axe to grind. Considering this page's history, I believe my 'defense' is quite warranted. I wouldn't defend anyone unless there was a good reason to do so. Keeping Wikipedia as an accurate source of information is another good reason. Thank you. After searching far and wide, I have located a good number of primary sources for Jefferson -- many of them available in E'books. We should also search through these to see what else we can find in terms of Jefferson and his desire to free slaves being mindful of not embarking on Original research. Many of these publications were not available to the general public a few years ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• TVH, as I'm sure you're well aware, there are some modern accounts on Jefferson that are typically skewed, often with key pieces of information missing, and often with language that only appeals to the young and/or naive. As another editor pointed out not too long ago, ...Andrew Jackson was an unrepentant slave owner who did not free any of his slaves and suffers none of the criticism that Jefferson does about slavery. Why? Because Jefferson wrote the world famous DOI and represents God given inalienable rights and limited government, which flies in the face of secular and petty dictator types who prefer a bloated centralized government and limited rights for the common man. They feel if they can topple Jefferson's legacy, their job is half done and the historically illiterate will follow along. Since most young people these days were raised in front of a tv set with the likes of Hollywood giving them their social and world view, they are ripe for the picking. In any case, the biography needs to be clear about why Jefferson's didn't, and couldn't, free all of his slaves. Well aware of his legal predicament, he was worried that the five slaves which he did free in his will would be subject to Virginia's law, he made this special appeal in his last will:

and I humbly and earnestly request of the legislature of Virginia a confirmation of the bequest of freedom
to these servants, with permission to remain in this state where their families and connections....

Speaking of Jefferson's will, there is no mention in the biography that Jefferson bequeathed most of his books to the UVA. Should we include a Last will subsection under Later years? Here we could mention many of these things. One short paragraph should do it. As it is, the biography only mentions his last will briefly in passing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, will provisions look good for "Later years" section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Brodie did say, "His overseer Bacon tells us that he wanted devoutly to free all his slaves but could not," but that may not be so. Her reference on p. 530 (n43) is to "Jefferson to Martha Jefferson Randolph, January 14, 1793, Family Letters, 109." I don't have that book, but the letter is held by the National Archives, and says nothing about slaves. If TJ did write to Martha about freeing slaves, Brodie has the ref. wrong. I have been unable to locate such a letter. In any case, Brodie is not highly reliable. ("The book contains many errors of fact or of judgment involving a wide historical spectrum." From a review by Holman Hamilton.)

Also, Oscar Reiss is not an historian, not even getting Sally's name or fate correct. See the editorial review at Amazon. This page says, "Oscar Reiss is a former Assistant Professor at the Yale University School of Medicine and a retired Physician." His book is not a RS. Melvin Urofsky, who is an historian, makes clear in The Levy Family and Monticello, 1834-1923, p. 40, that the creditors didn't directly seize the slaves; the family sold them. Same diff, almost, but sometimes the devil's in the details. Yopienso (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Does Hamilton give a number (more than one) of definitive examples of Brodie's errors, or is he just passing on an opinion? Also, since Reiss is referring to someone (Lucy) that doesn't bear Hemings' name, or her fate, chances are he's referring to someone else entirely. Also, a RS is determined by its content and its accuracy. You can't claim it's not a reliable source simply because the author doesn't happen to have a degree in history any more than you can say someone is not a musician or artist because they didn't graduate from a music or art school. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Re: The Amazon review. (i.e.one) There are some minor criticisms that don't amount to anything in terms of what is a reliable source, and the last sentence of that review does in fact say: This is a competent and readable book, however. Recommended for academic libraries.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Re: Sale of slaves. yes, the family sold the slaves -- to pay off debts --, but the fact remains, Virgina law states that they could not be freed if the master was in debt, which Jefferson was. i.e.He had no choice but to (have his family) sell his slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the whole paragraph:

The book contains many errors of fact or of judgment involving a wide historical spectrum. These range from an unsupportable statement-which would be important if true-about Abraham Lincoln (p. 23) to giving Jefferson Davis a strange name, "Thomas Jefferson Davis" (p. 469). Mrs. Brodie confuses "Light Horse Harry" Lee with Richard Henry Lee (p. 125) and with "Black Horse Harry" Lee (p. 444). She calls Edward M. House the "president-maker" of Woodrow Wilson(p. 301). And so forth. Perhaps the worst error is the supposition that Jefferson's unproved Sally Hemings relationship affected his attitudes toward emancipation in general.

He does praise Brodie's writing style. She, of course, was a writer, not an historian, catapulted into a professorship at UCLA by the success of her book in the Book of the Month.

Here's who Hamilton was. I would quibble with him about Col. House.

Here's a review of Brodie's book that doesn't require a subscription.

For good measure and balance, here's another, more recent one, that reviews the initial attacks on Brodie and attempts to vindicate her after DNA evidence came out.

I agree with you about the slaves. His only other choice would have been utter bankruptcy and ruin, not only for himself, but for his dependents. Many people today see that as the better option, but I don't believe TJ could have been expected to choose it in his context. Yopienso (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good leg work, Yp'. Regarding the Hemings family. As they were very close to the Jefferson family it would seem that they would help to point Jefferson in the direction of manumission, regardless if Jefferson was the father of Sally's children. Re: Brodie. She's made some unsupportable statements and referred to Jefferson Davis with a strange name. Okay... But these seem like minor criticisms and don't seem to amount to anything that would impeach her as a reliable source outright. I would bet there is not one historian/author who didn't get everything right 100% of the time. In any case, you have made the point that we should secure at least one more source before we can say Jefferson had 'intended' to free his slaves. However, we can say that he didn't have any choice, per Virginia law. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. First. Dumas Malone was not particularly a Brodie fan. A primary source such as Jeffersons overseer is not the same as a letter from Jefferson or a draft will from Jefferson. Second, why is there a need to prove Jefferson had desired to free his slaves? That is not history. Wikipedia is about facts concerning Jefferson and slavery. You do not allow myself to give input into discussions and make or imply false accusations against me. You failed to understand I started the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article almost five years ago. We need to stick with Dumas Malone not Brodie or Reiss. Dumas Malone was Jefferson's primary biographer and in my opinion has more clout then Brodie and Riess put together. Brodie and Reiss seem to both be inaccurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Pew! You're all over the map. Okay, first, no one is using a primary source here, which btw, is allowed if there is no original research or no new position being advanced. Please familiarize yourself with policy regarding primary sources. An editor with your experience should know better. Regarding this "need to prove Jefferson had desired to free his slaves". This is the Jefferson biography, an article about the man. It is supposed to present more than just the name, address, occupation, accomplishments, etc. And if we are going to list facts only, then we should begin by removing all the opinion and commentary about Sally Hemings, and "most historians" -- for openers. We are trying to determine with RS's if Jefferson's feelings opposing slavery overall is fact. Thanks for your help. Regarding Dumas Malone -- is there something he wrote that contradicts what Reiss and Brodie have said? You didn't say. Yes, you chose to launch the Thomas Jefferson and slavery page on July 4th -- Independence Day and the anniversary of Jefferson's death. Was that a coincidence or were you feeling particularly patriotic that day? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. There are historians who believe Jefferson was anti-slavery and historians who believe Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Wikipedia editors even disagree on this issue. In my opinion the best for the article is to allow the readers to make their own decisions. We need to give the readers more "evidence" that Jefferson was going to free his slaves, other then the word of one overseer of Jeffersons. Was there a draft will? Did Jefferson have a witnessed conversation with an abolitionist that he was going to free his slaves? Something solid. All this is speculation. Washington's will that freed his slaves is no speculation. I must have been feeling partriotic on July 4. All I want is a neutral assessment of Jefferson and slavery. Personally I have been using Dumas Malone as a guide for the Jefferson article. Jefferson signed the 1804 law that allowed American slave holders into the LT. Jefferson put down a slave rebellion in 1806. These are facts. Quite possibly Jefferson was both anti and pro slavery depending on the situtation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Cmguy. "Jefferson put down a slave rebellion in 1806." -- is there a reference, I'm having trouble placing it. was this connected to the Burr conspiracy in 1806, or the great slave revolt of 1811? Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Cm', I agree with you about Malone, he is among the best authorities on Jefferson and has shown him to be a humane slave owner, as I outlined above some time ago with a quote from Malone's book Jefferson and The Ordeal Of Liberty. As I already mentioned to Yopienso, before you chimed in on this topic, we should secure another source before we say that Jefferson had intended to free his slaves. But all things considered, it's certainly no stretch to assume Jefferson ultimately wanted to free his slaves. Again, we can say Jefferson had no choice but to sell off his slaves, per Virginia law. I'm in the process of searching through primary and secondary sources in the hopes that more light can be shed on Jefferson's desire to free his slaves. We do know he had practical (not moral) reservations about simply releasing slaves into freedom, in terms of their general welfare and livelihood, also articulated by Malone.

To have emancipated the whole body of his slaves, depriving him self thereby of his entire labor force and a large part of his property while turning them loose in an inhospitable world, would have been neither practicable nor kind. When he freed a particular slave, that individual was prepared for freedom in his opinion, and had a good place to go to. -- Malone, 1962, p.208

• Yopienso, Malone makes reference to a Lucy. She was a cook at Monticello:

James Hemings was different. Jefferson had had him with him in Paris and Philadelphia and had had him taught "the art of cookery" at great expense. Before leaving Philadelphia, where James probably wanted to stay, Jefferson signed an agreement to free him after he had returned to Monticello and stayed there long enough to teach some body else how to cook — presumably in the French manner. In due course, when James reached the age of thirty, Jefferson freed him and gave him $30 to bear his expenses to Philadelphia, undoubtedly hoping that he would live happily ever afterward. His culinary duties seem to have been taken over by his brother Peter, though there was another cook, named Lucy. -- Malone, 1962, p.209.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian Here is the source on the slave revolt in 1806 in New Orleans Parish. McCaslin (2010) Encyclopedia of African American History Louisiana Purchase p 469 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I searched on 1806 and New Orleans Parish, and could not find it. rats. But 1806 did bring up Jefferson's entry, “Thomas Jefferson”, Encyclopedia of African American History. p. 453 ... including:

“Jefferson stated that his quest to bring about an end to slavery was even more difficult than he had imagined…he had given up on the abolition of slavery in 1805…he did continue to encourage others to end it. Jefferson’s writings [were] instrumental in providing foundation for future abolitionists to justify their causes…John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. …After 1800…Congress defeated Jefferson’s proposal for the abolishment of the expansion of slavery into the territories.

“Jefferson had placed a lien against some of his slaves, which made it difficult to free them upon his death. At that time, Jefferson had arranged for some of his slaves to be emancipated. Although not without criticism from modern historians, Edmund Bacon, who had worked for Jefferson at Monticello from 1806 to 1822, stated…Jefferson would have freed all of them. Much of the public clearly supported slave trafficking, nevertheless, Jefferson continued to vocalize his beliefs.“ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian That would explain Jefferson's public silence on slavery after 1805. The criticism of Jefferson I believe is that modern historians believe he could have done more to either free his own slaves or to publically implement some sort of slave policy while President. We could put in the article that Jefferson gave up on the abolition of slavery in 1805 and that Bacon stated that Jefferson desired to free his slaves. I personally would keep in mind that Bacon is not exactly a neutral observer since I take he was being paid by Jefferson to be a slave overseer. We could also mention that Jefferson put a lien on his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Again, given the circumstances of the time, Jefferson was wary of oulawing slavery while he agreed with France not to interfere with their interests -- nor could he pass laws outlawing slavery without the approval of Congress. Btw, your above statement should read some modern historians believe he could have done more. Fortunately other modern historians are able, and willing, to look at the entire picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to note that Jefferson did not leave manumission to chance for some with family connections or best prepared for an independent life of freedom, but he selected others specifically to be security. Even in the event that sales of his western lands did not cover all his debts, those free of any encumberance could be freed or otherwise provided for at his death, as Sally Hemings seems to have been. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Freeing of slaves

• Cm', thanks for providing another source (Alexander, 2010) -- TVH, thanks for digging deep into it. Actually, according to another source, Cramer, 1997, the spirit of emancipating slaves was not unique to Jefferson and his contemporaries and grew rapidly after the Revolution, esp after emancipation laws were "liberalized" in Virginia in 1782.

Cramer, 1997, p.20 - In response to this liberalization of manumission laws, hundreds of individual slave owners freed thousands of slaves in the years after the Revolution. The motives were sometimes Christian principles, sometimes revolutionary principles, and sometimes a combination of the two.

Evidently Jefferson was one of the forerunners of this advent.

• Here's yet another source for Bacon, by Rev. Hamilton Pierson, the only author to ever interview Bacon -- years after Jefferson had died btw, so Bacon was not under any pressure from Jefferson to not say anything negative.

Pierson, 1862, p.110 I think he would have freed all of them, if his affairs had not been so much involved that he could not do it. -- Edmond Bacon.

We now have two three sources for Bacon and several others for Virginia's debtor's law, not to mention a lifetime of evidence that supports Jefferson's overall feelings about emancipation. We don't have to make the statement read as fact, but we certainly can say -- according to Jefferson's primary overseer, Edmund Bacon, Jefferson always wanted to free his slaves and would have if he was not in debt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• While Jefferson did place liens (sign bonds) on his slaves to pay debts he did so with the idea that he wouldn't have to forfeit them.

Malone, 1962, p. 178: In the debt-ridden Virginia economy of this time virtually all transactions of any size were on a credit basis and payments were slow and uncertain. Bonds were signed and passed from hand to hand in a vicious circle. Jefferson himself was a large creditor. Besides the bonds he got for his slaves, he had others from debtors to the Wayles estate and from various friends and relatives of the best social standing. This paper he passed on to his own creditors, insofar as they were willing to accept it, and his own troubles were compounded when collections failed or were deferred. On paper, he provided adequately for his major debts by or during the period of his retirement, but for one reason or another he fell behind on some of his own bonds, none of which were backed by any security. Before the period ended, in order to cover these, along with a loan from a Dutch banking house which apparently was necessitated by building operations at Monticello, he mortgaged a very large number of slaves. That is, he assigned them as security, believing that they need not be delivered to his creditors in the foreseeable future.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Thanks. Even if Jefferson intended to free his slaves and did not intend to mortgage or put any liens on his slaves, the reality is that Jefferson was bankrupt and his family had to sell his slaves. I ask this respectfully. What would be the purpose of putting this information in the article for the reader? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't intend to put all of these details into the biography. Just presenting them here to show any one who might object when we say that Jefferson had wanted to free his slaves but couldn't because of debt. I believe you know as well as I that Jefferson has often been criticized for not freeing all of his slaves. Often times an account will merely say, in so many words, "...yet Jefferson didn't free his slaves, period." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson may have had intentions to free his slaves. I would have liked to read this from Jefferson's own letters or a draft will. There is no record of Jefferson stating he desired to free his slaves. I believe the reader will detect this in the article. For whatever reasons, Jefferson went broke and his family had to sell his slaves. That is the bold truth and in some sense a Jeffersonian tragedy. I am not for an ubrupt statement that Jefferson did not free his slaves in the article. I would state simply that Jefferson could not pay his debts and his family was encumbered to sell his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any objective student of Jefferson can deny that he always wanted to free his slaves on moral grounds but had reservations along practical lines, wanting to assure their general welfare once released into 'freedom'. As I said, we can say that Jefferson had no choice but to have his slaves sold, as he was in debt and Virginia law didn't allow such masters to manumit their slaves. I am in no fired hurry to add any qualifying statements to the slavery section as of yet, as I still want to search through more (and find other) sources. It's sort of a painstaking task. Some sources don't use the word 'manumit', or 'freedom', but other wording, such as 'released', etc., so any prospective source has to be searched several times and as you know not all sources are entirely viewable. Currently I only have about a dozen hard texts for Jefferson, including Malone (only 2), Gordon-Reed, Meacham, Miller, Kennedy, Wheelan, Bower, Hale, Wood, etc and so far as I've read they only refer to Jefferson's feelings about his slave's freedom in a round about fashion, making reference to his attempts at abolition, or mentioning quotes, none of which I have seen thus far say he wanted or intended to release his own slaves verbatim -- however we do have Brodie's and Reiss' accounts. There are many publications for Jefferson's thousands of letters, a fair number of which I've added to the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson in the Primary sources section, however, there are many many more. Finding new primary sources is also sort of a chore as most of them don't surface in standard Google searches, even though many of them exist in Google E'books. You have to come about them sort of sideways, finding them in other bibliographies or listings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My own view is to be cautious concerning Jefferson desiring to free his slaves. Reiss contends Lucy was Jefferson's concubine. Brodie could be faulty in her research. Bacon is a primary source. Jefferson was in debt. He used his slaves as collateral. The Virginia law was restrictive. Then that brings in another question. Why was the law so liberal prior to 1806 then restrictive while Jefferson was President of the United States? In my opinion there needs to be something from Jefferson's own writings and his desire to free his own slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)