Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Lede

Cmguy, I've reverted your good faith addition of "statesman, diplomat." It weakens the introduction with redundant detail. The fact that he was a Founding Father and "the third President of the United States . . . a spokesman for democracy and the rights of man with worldwide influence" implies he was a statesman. The lede already says "Jefferson served as a diplomat." Yopienso (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Yopensio. I respectfully disagree. Can we assume all readers know Jefferson was a statesman and a diplomat? Jefferson had many occupations and in my opinion the current lede does not have enough of his occupations. Maybe other editors can comment on this issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The lede already says he was a diplomat. With all the leadership roles it does name, if a reader can't tell he was a statesman, they probably don't know what the word means, so adding it wouldn't help. (We don't specify he was a man, either, but that seems obvious.) "Stateman" is at the top of the list of occupations in the infobox. One editor did thank me privately for the revert, but, like you, I welcome further comments. Yopienso (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Difference of views of Binksternet and Gwillhickers wrt to TJ's anti-slavery initiatives

Hi, I see a disagreement between Binksternet and Gwillhickers as to whether TJ was anti-slavery. The sources--Alexander and Onuf--do not support Gw's text.

Alexander, under "Almagamation," p. 132, says, "After the American Revolution, racial prejudice against blacks began to harden. The universal rejection of black emancipation by Thomas Jefferson, for example, was sustained by the belief that, if blacks were freed, an unacceptable blurring of racial definitions would occur in a society of superior and inferior people. In 1787, Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia that these differences were a complete obstacle to the black slave's emancipation unless they were "removed beyond the reach of mixture" so as not to pollute the purity of the Anglo-Saxon origins of the American people."

Onuf, p. 214, shows TJ resisting "antislavery agitation." Yopienso (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Finkelman discusses the complex views of Jefferson's manumission initiatives which were aimed at protecting whiteness, to resist the mixing of races. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote above seems garbled. Did it say, Jefferson's rejection of universal black emancipation in the United States. Because it seems he favored a) free lives of liberty for every human being, hence his support of colonization. To continue along a little thought experiment,

but liberty was to be lived out in large communities as an obtainable objective, -- b) along some sort of color line --- c) in which he admitted whites and ---- d) Native-Americans and ----- e) 1/16 African on one side, versus west of the Mississippi, or in the Caribbean or in Africa, f) African and ------- g) mulatto on the other, especially after events in Haiti and Santo Domingo,-- but in every case, each life to be lived in political and economic liberty and safety, black and white. But now I feel like the train of thought is stretching beyond what can be directly attributed to Jefferson, only speculated, at e), f) and g), especially in his presidency and in his retirement.

And again we come to the problem of chronology and context. It is obvious that the degree of Jefferson's involvement in schemes of manumission changed, -- waned -- over time, as he failed in successive attempts in various arenas to end slavery for individuals, or to mitigate the institution of slavery as it was practiced in Virginia or the United States. But Jefferson was consistently and uncompromisingly opposed to the continued kidnapping and transporting of native Africans from their home into hereditary chattel slavery as it was advocated for and practiced in the U.S. of his time. He wanted that practice to stop for the sake of those individuals and their children, even though it still left the U.S. holding a proverbial wolf by the ears as a society. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The disputed passage is Jefferson attempted to legislate the emancipation of slaves on three occasions; once in 1769 at the Virginia General Assembly, another in 1784 at the Continental Congress and once when he proposed to ban slavery in all Western Territories after 1800 where he was defeated by Congress by one vote.. The passage is sourced, it explains chronology and context over a lifetime of public service.

As I say, it is obvious that the degree of Jefferson's involvement in schemes of manumission changed, -- waned -- over time, as he failed in successive attempts in various arenas to end slavery for individuals, or to mitigate the institution of slavery as it was practiced in Virginia or the United States. Surely this is one side of the equation to be included in the article, it is not misleading.

There was not one unchanging society 1760-1820, Jefferson did not have only one proposal for all occasions the whole time, he was a politician who attempted to legislate the emancipation of slaves on three occasions, and that count leaves out the fourth politician's half-a-loaf example, his compromise to prohibit slavery in Virginia west of the Blue Ridge Mountains in today's Kentucky and West Virginia, which also failed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The passage may be true, but that's not what the sources cited--Alexander and Onuf--say. If it is true, sources must be supplied, as well as a date for the last noted attempt. Yopienso (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. seems to be a clerical mistake that can be corrected.

Scanning through some of the online Onuf at p. 9, I was pleased to see my previous reasoning confirmed on the separation of republics of liberty among the varieties of mankind, and “Of course, there is no reason on good Jeffersonian grounds not to extricate race and nation, even if this was inconceivable to Jefferson himself (emphasis added), convinced as he was of the eternal enmity of the captive black nation and fearful of the genocidal bloodbath that emancipation without expatriation would unleash.” [Always scenes of Haiti lie before Jefferson, considering the oppressive nature of slavery clear to the natural light of reason in mankind. And Onuf also concedes the thought experiment of his speculation.]

“Jefferson wanted to keep whites and blacks apart…but he was not nearly as obsessed with race purity as with the purity of republican principles.” p.9. I take it that as he objected to slavery in the U.S., he would object to slavery in an African republic. I suppose the important thing for the article is to focus more on what Jefferson was about and less on speculative constructs. The WP article should not be about carving out an idiocentric thesis for a publishing niche, it should be about neutral description and interpretation wherever it can be found, including portions of Onuf. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson attempted to advance anti-slavery legislation at least three times. These are facts and if Bink' 'feels' that this gives the reader the wrong impression that is his perogative. Finklemen is one author, and many of his views are outlandish and fringe. e.g. "Jefferson hated the negro", "Jefferson the monster", etc. Other authors expressing reservations about Jefferson have never made such extreme and divisive claims. There are far more qualified and objective sources we can use for any challenges to these facts. His ad'hom claim that Jefferson was only trying to promote "whiteness" is rather a narrow opinion, typical race baiting, and by no means any sort of a reason to be removing these important facts from the article. The original statement that was expanded, claiming that Jefferson's attempt at abolition was overturned by one vote, has been in the article, sourced, for months and was never challenged. I added two more examples at TJ's abolition attempts to this statement and used Onuf as the source. If anyone feels there are better sources to cite this, fine. Bink's undiscussed revert was blatantly provocative and disruptive, typically, and said nothing about inadequate sources, therefore the statement should be restored. If there is a citation issue, we can simply add a citation needed tag and look for better sources for the two additional events. Btw, there is plenty of balance in the section already, as was discussed at length by editors here where the reverting editor had every chance to chime in. This drive by revert was uncalled for and seems like an intentional attempt to throw the section back into a state of instability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Other sources : Have just added another source, William G. Merkel, 2011, for Jefferson's Failed Anti-Slavery Priviso of 1784. It's a 'quick-find', 'cite web' source, hopefully temporary, so I'll be looking for others from an existing published (hard text) source in the bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I don't see my revert + discussion here as "drive-by" activity. I have not called out the sources, as you note, because the many sources discussing Jefferson are in contradiction on this point. Of course sources can be found to support your idea, but just as easily sources can be found to show that Jefferson's attempts to legislate against slavery were not all they appear. My reason for deleting your rah-rah addition was WP:UNDUE; it gave the reader the false impression that Jefferson's attempts at legislation were intended to help the African American, that he was a friend to the slave. Jefferson's actions are hotly debated by scholars as to his motives. We should avoid giving the reader the sense that Jefferson was more altruistic than he really was. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If the article is going to put in that Jefferson advanced anti-slavery legislation, and the 1769 one is in dispute, then the article needs to state that these legislative efforts failed or were unsuccessful, as Kennedy (1999) has discussed. With the exception of the slave trade Jefferson often was silent and all his legislative efforts to reduce slavery failed. The North West Ordinance of 1787 was passed I believe when Jefferson was out of office, although Jefferson's North West Ordinance of 1784 did indirectly influence the 1787 legislation. Not having slaves in the North would benefit the Southern slave owners who depended on slavery for representation. Let's assume that Jefferson had good intentions to education, emancipate, and expatriate slaves. He never practiced this at Monticello. The reader needs to decide if Jefferson was pro or anti slavery and at times Jefferson appears to have been both. His ending the slave trade was anti-slavery while President. His putting down a slave rebellion could be considered pro slavery. Some of Jefferson's statements and his actions concerning slavery are abigious, in my opinion. The slavery section needs to be stablized and hopefully all editors can work together to maintain stablization of the Slaves and slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bink', Overall the sources only contradict each other where opinion is concerned, esp among sources that have paragraphs of ad'hom opinion for every fact they happen to offer. We can't hold key facts back because they happen to undermine some of your favorite opinions. This is dishonest, to say the least. You or anyone else are free to interpret these facts as "rah-rah", as indeed you have. Nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Cm', Adding the two missing (key) facts isn't anything that makes the section unstable. Unreasonable editor activity is responsible for that. The section already mentions that historians have expressed doubt on several counts. We can mention that Jefferson's attempts at abolition failed, but this wasn't Jefferson's fault. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet makes two points, a) sources can be found to show that Jefferson's attempts to legislate against slavery were not all they appear… --- but they do appear to be motivated by devotion to the cardinal principle of republicanism according to Onuf. To “disappear” the events themselves is to assume that WP editors must protect readers from the verifiable truth.

b) it gave the reader the false impression that Jefferson's attempts at legislation were intended to help the African American, that he was a friend to the slave. --- but Jefferson’s attempts at * anti-slavery, * manumission. * slavery-mitigation and * colonization legislation were all intended to advance the integrity of republicanism, rationale behavior and rule of law.

Jefferson was a friend of humanity, for their liberty in self-governing republics and independent personal economy --- including Africans and African-Americans. He was not a friend of racial integration --- in at least one regard, as a matter of expedience for fear of the historical consequences from the accumulated injustice visited on the slave and free black, always Haiti and Santo Domingo and Gabriel Prosser's conspiracy --- and the narrative already makes that clear. We can take additional pains to avoid any misunderstanding on that point. But the answer is not to suppress any mention of this topic as sourced -- especially since the impulse has many manifestations life-long and across public venues as well as privately. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well said. The approach has been that since there are so many historians and opinions for and about Jefferson, the best thing to do is simply include the basic facts, mention differences of opinions, and let the readers make their own judgements if they are so inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• One key item is still missing. Somewhere along the line the statement about Jefferson only freeing a few slaves was removed from the section. (Of all facts!) As was discussed before this latest tiff, we need to mention that Jefferson only freed a few slaves but was unable to free all of them because he was in debt. Here also, we can let the readers decide if this is something he wanted/intended to do or not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Are Jefferson's words and actions concerning slavery always consistent? That is what historians are disputing such as Finkelman (1994) Thomas Jefferson and Anti-Slavery; the Myth Goes On and Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze. Jefferson was always against the international slave trade. Was he ever against domestic slavery? His Notes on the State of Virginia appear to be his rational for keeping his slaves. Slaves were Jefferson's family and he was their caretaker. Jefferson doubted that Benjamin Banneker, a black man, was intelligent enough to be a scientist and that he had to have had help from another white scientist. TVH has brought up that Jefferson was not a friend of racial segregation. Jefferson called Africans victims of the slave trade humanity, but did he ever call the millions of slaves in the United States humanity? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's words about slavery are consistent. His actions? As you know, they were largely if not completely subject to prevailing circumstances, and during his time there were many to reckon with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson did call the millions enslaved humanity. “Quotatons on slavery and emancipation”

• 1776 June. (Draft of Declaration of Independence). "He [George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery ... Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, … he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, … thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against lives of another."

• 1809 February 25. (to Henri Gregoire). Received Gregoire's volume on Literature of Negroes]. "Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, … to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. … but whatever be their degree of talent, it is no measure of their rights.... On [that degree of talent] subject, they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-€‘establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family."

• 1814 August 25. (to Edward Coles). "Mine on the subject of the slavery of negroes have long since been in possession of the public, and time has only served to give them strong root. The love of justice & the love of country plead equally the cause of these people, and it is a mortal reproach to us that they should have pleaded it so long in vain…”

• 1824 February 4. (to Jared Sparks). "In the disposition of these unfortunate people, there are two rational objects to be distinctly kept in view... The second object, … is to provide an asylum to which we can, by degrees, … establish them under our patronage and protection, as a separate, free and independent people, in some country and climate friendly to human life and happiness."

So there are four examples of Jefferson’s view of African-Americans as humanity with rights to life and happiness. In the time of 19th century slavery injustice, he did not imagine how the American 21st century racial integration might be achieved, believing northern states would not finance compensated emancipation -- but which they did in fact during the Civil War when Lincoln offered compensated emancipation and the Confederacy refused, the war was pursued to abolition at an even greater cost. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Jefferson had sympathy for African American slaves apparently but then why did he keep them enslaved on his Monticello plantation? Jefferson never referred to the U.S. domestic slave trade of African Americans as "violations of human rights". Jefferson also stated that the United States constitution was "derived from the will of the people, directly expressed by their free suffrages" How could this be true when women and African American slaves could not vote? When Jefferson stated this there were between 800,000 to 1,100,000 slaves in the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Voters in a republic were to be independent minded to sustain public virtue, so 19th century dependents by law, such as women and children and slaves, and free white males under the age of 21 were not to vote. And owning at least a subsistence farm or the taxable tools of a trade was a sign of economic independence, hence the prejudice against unpropertied wage earners in the corrupt cities where employees voted the way their bosses or their labor guilds told them to vote viva voce.

The modern answer to the philosophical consideration for the republic's welfare is to a) require compulsory education for all children, boys and girls, rich and poor, until eighteen years of age, --- whether they want to vote or not, and b) to institute the secret ballot so your boss does not know how you voted, so you can say you believe in the secret ballot, or you can say whatever you need to say to keep your job.

In the time, Virginia would be one of the last three states to allow universal white male suffrage, holding onto property requirements as a proof of Independent voting judgement into the 1830s, after Jefferson's death. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree TVH concerning the modern answer for a republic's welfare. Then who was Jefferson refering to when he stated people? Only white males? Did the word people have a different meaning in the 18th and 19th centuries? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As we see in the quotes above, and unlike many of his contemporaries, to Jefferson all Africans and African-Americans are MEN, human family, people with rights to liberty and safety regardless of their suppressed talent or enslaved condition. But he did not imagine peaceable racial integration following the injustices of slavery in the U.S., he imagined violence as in Haiti, Santo Domingo and Gabriel Prosser. As an alternative he sought yet another unattainable proposal, separate nations in self-governing republics formed gradually without violence. We may see Jefferson as an 18th-19th century enlightenment humanitarian, but not a 21st century racial integrationist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cm', if Jefferson (and many thousands of people like him) didn't think Africans were people he wouldn't have spent most of his adult life trying to advance abolitionist initiatives and ideas, or provide for them to the extraordinary extent that he did. He wouldn't have written about slavery and the plight of Africans to the extent that he did. Your questions seem to beg speculative answers. e.g.Since Africans weren't allowed to vote -- they were therefore not regarded as people. Once again, Jefferson approached the idea of abolition one step at a time, and there were times where he had to back away from the issue -- allowing individuals like Finkleman who lie in wait to snipe from the gutter at this sort of thing. These things have been explained, to you more than any one else by far it seems, so these endless and generic questions seem both rhetorical and sophomoric, aimed at both the naive and historically ignorant reader. Since it seems there will always be those who harbor such notions we should include a list of Jefferson quotes where he speaks about slavery. Since there are many dozens of them we could put the quotes in a collapsible box and place it at the end of the slavery section. (Add:) Below is a small selections of some of the more definitive quotes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• "To prevent more effectually the practice of holding persons in Slavery and importing them into this State Be it enacted by the General Assembly that all persons who shall be hereafter imported into this Commonwealth by Sea of by Land...shall from thenceforth become free and absolutely exempted from all Slavery or Bondage."
• "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal."
• ""My opinion has ever been that until more can be done for them, we should endeavor with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands to feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them and our duties to them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Coles, 1814.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Those are great statements from Jefferson. Historians review Jefferson's actions and his inactions and his silence. The reader in a neutral article needs to be presented with all three aspects, in my opinion. Kennedy (1999) gives a list of Jefferson's silences. Inactions included not implementing the emancipation and expatriation policy even in any limited form. His anti-slavery or anti-racist actions include banning the importation of slaves into the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

General readers will be interested in Jefferson’s thinking and intentions. Jefferson intended for humanity of all colors to live in self-governing liberty. Circumstances of his time did not seem to admit integration (Haiti, Santo Domingo, Gabriel Prosser). General readers will be interested in Jefferson’s proposals, whether public or private, and whether they succeeded and failed. While Jefferson repeatedly objects to slavery and produces numerous proposals against it privately, his public silence generally means there were not the votes in the legislature.

• His intentions are clear. Jefferson quotations. 1814 September 10. (to Thomas Cooper). But do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people, ... On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.". 1825 August 7. (to Frances Wright).The abolition of the evil is not impossible: it ought never therefore to be despaired of. Every plan should be adopted, every experiment tried, which may do something towards the ultimate object."

• He repeatedly says, based on his personal experience in the legislature, 1821. (Autobiography). "But it was found the public mind would not yet bear the proposition [emancipation bill, in Virginia legislature, late 1770s], nor will it bear it even at this day.”

1826 May 20. (to James Heaton). "The subject ... is one on which I do not permit myself to express an opinion, but when time, place, and occasion may give it some favorable effect. A good cause [in the legislature] is often injured more by ill-timed efforts of its friends than by the arguments of its enemies. Persuasion, perseverance, and patience are the best advocates on questions depending on the will of others. The revolution in public opinion which this cause requires, is not to be expected in a day, or perhaps in an age; but time, which outlives all things, will outlive this evil also.”

--- note: The "revolution in public opinion" followed the loss of 600,000 lives in the American Civil War, and only then, not before. When Jefferson predicted " or worse things to follow", he did not imagine a "white man's war" to do the killing. But by then, the Abolitionists had done their public opinion job in the North and in the legislatures, a majority in the states and Congress.

Slavery is an evil, the African people have been injured, and something needs to be done about it. But the public is not yet ready, they must be persuaded, the climate of public opinion must be ready before their legislature is ready to implement a public proposal. And Jefferson believes he has some experience in the practical affairs of legislature on which he can rely to make a judgment in these matters, having engineered the "Virginia Dynasty" of six consecutive presidential terms for his party. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(Insert -- edit conflict)

• TVH, yes I would think any open minded reader will be interested in the facts, and as we know, there is a long list of the them where Jefferson is concerned. He addressed the idea that slavery was an evil time and again, referring to it as "contrary to the laws of nature", a "moral depravity" and a "hideous blot", for openers, and has on numerous occasions throughout his life taken and further articulated this idea. Here are some other Jefferson quotes on slavery:
• Cm', anyone can make a list of things one 'didn't do'. e.g. Jefferson enjoyed a lobster dinner occasionally, yet he never provided lobster for his slaves. Think of all the ad'hom we could attach to that if we were so inclined. e.g. Obviously Jefferson though lobster was for whites only, etc, Jefferson attempted to advance abolitionist legislation at least three times and was roundly defeated, often instigating political division and discord within government in the process. By the time he was President he knew to leave well enough alone and didn't use his presidential podium, speeches, for what would have been seen as partisan purposes. Esp since there were many other things that demanded his attention more. Like war, the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark, the Burr conspiracy, the French Revolution, Britain, etc. Btw, Jefferson was not completely silent on slavery while President. He discussed these matters with, among others, James Monroe, who also shared his ideas of emancipation and repatriation to Liberia, so it's not like he had this change of heart about slavery as some academics would have you believe. The issue of slavery was to remain an "inflammatory" issue even into Monroe's term, and beyond. Jefferson should be noted for spearheading the abolitionist movement in the United States during a time when he was surrounded by powerful slaveholding interests, domestic and foreign. Instead, he is often criticized for what he "didn't do", typically with little to no acknowledgement of all the things he did do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

edit break

Some of Jefferson's statements could be interpreted anti-slavery while others could be interpreted at pro-slavery such as his view that blacks were inferior and needed caretakers. However that is not the only issue. His intentions, beliefs, actions, silence, and words need to be taken into consideration. The public was not ready? Maybe Jefferson was not ready for African Americans to be citizens. And that sounds as if Jefferson is giving an excuse. Jefferson believed that allowing slavery to spread would weaken the bonds of slavery. This was not the case as slavery became entrenched in the Louisian Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't Jefferson's intention to have slavery become "entrenched in the Louisiana Territory". This was something that occurred because of Jefferson's agreement with France, without which the purchase would have not been possible. This wasn't something that increased the number of slaves, so your above conjecture is, once again, ignoring what has already been explained to you, and lately. "Maybe Jefferson was not ready for African Americans to become citizens"? Maybe? i.e.Maybe 'Jefferson hated the negro'? -- Try not to be so obvious with the race baiting, Cm'. IMO, this is what you've been doing lately.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy, …his view that blacks were inferior and needed caretakers. --- yes, due to the condition of slavery, not by the nature of their humanity --- instruction was needed in independent living before either individual manumission or general emancipation could be successful for the freed individual, either for here or for Africa. – the goal for Jefferson is ever the successful republic: liberty and safety for all humanity.

Excuse, why yes, that is the explanation Jefferson gives for public silence before an issue is ripe for a winning politician. This is a time when presidential electors are still chosen by legislatures, direct public opinion is not what it will be in the Jacksonian era --- after Jefferson’s death. 1826 May 20. (to James Heaton). "The subject … is one on which I do not permit myself to express an opinion, but when time, place, and occasion may give it some favorable effect. A good cause is often injured more by ill-timed efforts of its friends [in the legislature] than by the arguments of its enemies.”

There you have his reason. What source of the time with his experience differed with him? Were does the modern scholar count the votes in which legislature of the time for universal emancipation to full resident citizenship for the African-American? When does the historian count those votes, by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, by the Voting Rights Act of 1965? So where, when are we to fault Jefferson for giving that excuse, specifically in the context of what chronology -- after his death?

Jefferson believed that allowing slavery to spread would weaken the bonds of slavery. --- which it did. In places with less dense black populations forming a minority in Virginia counties emancipation of slaves was more easily comprehensible, and that is where the votes came for gradual in-place emancipation in the 1830-32 Virginia debates. Passed in the House of Delegates, lost in the Virginia senate by one vote. Though Madison was present as an anti-slavery man in the Virginia constitutional convention, it was after Jefferson's death, so we have no public statement from Jefferson at the time of legislative action as you require, although the anti-slavery men quoted him in speeches and in the press as though he were living among them. But isn't that outside the scope of this article, unless it belongs in a "legacy" section?

In the counties where a majority of the population were slaves, less support in the legislature or the Virginia constitutional convention for universal gradual emanicipation in place. But the invention of the cotton gin gave rise to increased demand for slaves where they had not been profitable before during Jefferson’s lifetime, not just spreading out but residing in concentrations of majorities of slaves in upland counties in GA, TN, AL, MS -- and Louisiana -– after Jefferson’s death.

How can a source fault Jefferson for something after his death? He was a mere polymath, not an omniscient psychic and seer. Faulting Jefferson for a what-if imaginary circumstance after his death is speculation or fantasy, not history or biography, and unsuitable for the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Jefferson's initially Ordinance of 1784 was an anti-slavery legislation. Jefferson allowed slaves to "diffuse" into the LP, yes, the intentions of weakening the bonds of slavery. Maybe this did work in Virginia if slave owners left for Louisiana and the number of slaves decreased in Virginia. The LP was not an anti-slavery legislation and possibly not pro-slavery either. I am not race baiting either. Jefferson himself in his Notes on the State of Virginia wrote concerning his view on what he believed were inferior and superior qualities between the black and white races. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@TVH. Quite possibly the LP did weaken the bonds of slavery in a few Virginia counties as Jefferson had intended. The LP however became extensively involved in "king cotton" and the slave trade. This is what led up to the Civil War. No one is faulting Jefferson for slavery in the LP. The question was whether Jeffersons slavery diffusion theory was successful. One could state there was limited success in Virginia, however, in the LP the theory failed. The cotton gin did have an affect on the spread of slavery, something Jefferson had no control of apparently. Jefferson believed that blacks were inherently inferior to whites, not a condition of slavery. Jefferson writes this in his Notes on the State of Virginia. That is why expatriation was always a policy with Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you requote the passage about blacks being inherently inferior? i do not remember it as being about natural rights, it was about light-skinned girls being inherently prettier than darker-skinned girls. In the 1700s he also thought black men of his acquaintance thought so too. I'm not so sure Jefferson's reputation hangs on his speculative anthropological writings in private (Notes) concerning what flavor of girls he and his correspondent preferred, no matter however all scientifical he and his running buddy were sounding at the time. Jefferson thought extrapolated into the modern era may have been wrong again in his anthropology, but his thought on natural rights for humanity is still current.

The expatriation, the sources show, was always about Haiti, Santo Domingo and Gabriel Prosser, the fear of inevitable violence born of justified revenge on one side from the wrongs borne under slavery, and blind racism on the other as in the executions after the Gabriel uprising. While Jefferson saw and approved of individual manumission of prepared artisans succeeding in free black communities, yet after 1790, they were increasingly oppressed by the white majority by racist law and societal practice. That was a condition which Jefferson did not desire as a general outcome for emancipated individuals. He sought liberty and safety in a self-governing republic of majority rule for all colors of the human family. That seemed first attainable in a new colony, rather than waiting for racism to be banished from the white majority in the American republic. Since racism was not abolished in the United States until after Jefferson's death, he was correct in at least that assessment of whites. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We have to remember that we are often trying to appeal to readers (and some talk page participants) who have been fed and goaded with a lot of 20th century revisionism which notably began in the 1960s. Typically the rhetorical and presentist and loaded question asked was and is:

How could the man who wrote that "All men are created equal" own slaves?

Instead the question should be:

How did a man who was born into a slave holding society, whose family and friends owned slaves, who inherited a fortune that was dependent on slave labor, decide at a very early age that slavery was morally wrong and spent much of his adult life trying to abolish it?

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TVH Jefferson's belief that blacks were inherently inferior is found in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1961) on page 137. "It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced this distinction." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Jefferson observed what he thought nature had done -- therefore? What was your point? Did this stop him from trying to advance abolition? Is this something that made him 'hate the negro'? You forget that on page 155 he also says this was a "suspicion only" and was not sure if their apparent condition was that of a "distinct race" or from "time and circumstances". Since the section already covers this why are you dragging this unrelated statement into this particular thread? Almost seems like you're falling back on your horn blowing routine again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. Here is a good article: William Cohen (1969) Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Slavery PDF Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cohen's article, right out of the 1960s mold, starts off and asks the first of the two question I presented above. Thanks for demonstrating the point. Does he ever ask, how does a slave owner speak out against slavery and spearhead the abolitionist movement in the United States? I suppose he would have to abandon his flat-earth 60s theories to answer that. More importantly, he would have to want to. East to see, Cm. Most of this article lends itself to ad'hom comments criticizing other historians, typically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We should get back to actual page improvement. We still need to have the section say Jefferson was unable to free his slaves because he was in debt, per Virginia law. We should also mention that his overseer also felt Jefferson had always wanted to free them. After all Jefferson said and done, it takes no leap of the imagination to see that. I suppose if one can embrace "oral history" from the Hemings family we can mention this also and let the readers decide.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1960s critique is for 'historical reputation' section, it does not need to redundantly pad 'Jefferson and slavery' section. However, that Virginians almost succeed in gradual in-place comprehensive emancipation within six years of Jefferson's death is worth a paragraph or two in a 'legacy' subsection of 'Jefferson and slavery', since the participants, who knew Jefferson personally, who quoted him in debate, and who used his memory as a rallying cry, sought to gradually abolish slavery and to institute a racially integrated society in Virginia. They failed.

The Virginia emancipation bill passed in the House of Delegates. Only the gross malapportionment 10:1 -- apportionment was by wealth plus voters -- favoring eastern counties with high slave concentrations in the constitutional convention and in the state senate -- led to the failure by only one vote in the senate. Support for emancipation came from counties west of the Blue Ridge, few piedmont, and in the east, the Northern Neck and Norfolk, a port city with a thriving free black community. The politics had interesting cross currents, but they would have to go into a new article, since Consitution of 1830 does not treat convention debates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's thoughts and words were not only a rallying cry for the abolition movement but were also used in other revolutions around the world that were inspired by the American Revolution, ala Jefferson and his contemporaries. These ideas would indeed be a nice addition to the legacy section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Freeing of slaves2

@Gwillhickers. To improve the article I would add information that Jefferson's family had to sell his slaves because Jefferson was encumbered with debt. In my opinion that is most accurate. A possible sentence could read:

Jefferson, whose Monticello estate was encumbered by debt, only was able to free a small number of slaves in his will, while his surviving family sold the remaining slaves to pay his creditors. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@TVH. Mentioning Jefferson's diffusion theory would be good for the article and may add to neutrality. Maybe this was Jefferson's "silent" way of attempting to reduce the stronghold of slavery, although this failed in the LT as cotton farmers increased the amount of slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea of freeing slaves but having to sell them is an important point about Jefferson, something he has been often criticized for, so we don't want to simply give the readers a statement that will leave much to their imagination, and as this sensitive and controversial topic goes, the imaginations of various historians have gotten the best of them. Others write with different objectives in mind, socially, politically, etc. We should give the readers more historical context, which will provide more accuracy.

According to Jefferson's main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon, freeing his slaves was something Jefferson had always wanted to do. However, since Virginia law didn't allow slave owners who were in debt to free their slaves, allowing creditors to seize them, Jefferson who was heavily in debt was forced to have his slaves sold after his death.

This statement is completely factual yet doesn't draw any conclusion per Jefferson's intent, while at the same time reflects the sentiment about emancipation and abolition Jefferson expressed almost his entire life. Since this is one of the more important points, yet will further expand the slavery section, we should perhaps look for some of the lesser items to remove. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. The 1806 law only stated that slaves had to leave Virginia in within 12 months or be reinslaved. George William Van Cleve (2010)A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic p 98 Relying on one primary source that Jefferson intended to free his slaves does not follow Wikipedia standards. In my opinion the statement does draw conclusion or at least a great suggestion to the reader that Jefferson intended to free his slaves. There is not one record of Jefferson ever stating he himself intended to free his slaves, only the word of one overseer who had previously been under Jefferson partronage. My above statement implies that Jefferson intended to free his slaves but he did not have the money to free his slaves because he was in debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How about demoting TJs intention to a conditional subordinate clause and giving a little context at the same time.

Though Jefferson may have intended to free more slaves at his death, he was only able to do so for a small number including the children of Sally Hemings. On their manumission, they settled outside of Virginia as required by statute. Virginia law also allowed Jefferson's creditors to seize slaves to satisfy their claims; they did not accept his western lands held in speculation. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining slaves to settle the debt on Monticello.

What will the sources we have in hand support? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Cm' my above draft only mentions creditors and masters in debt not being able to free slaves, supported by sources. [1], The draft makes no mention of freed slaves having to leaving the state as a reason why Jefferson's couldn't free his slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• TVH, the details concerning Hemings are already covered in the Jefferson–Hemings controversy section. We should make it clear that Jefferson had no choice but to sell his slaves, per Virginia law regarding debt. We should also mention Bacon, not a passing or inconsequential acquaintance, but someone who worked with Jefferson and who supervised his slaves for many years. Bacon is referred to by a number of other prominent sources, esp Gordon-Reed, whose index refers to Bacon on 15 separate pages. Again, we don't have to make a conclusive statement, only that Bacon maintained Jefferson's hopes regarding the emancipation of his slaves. Since Jefferson worked to free slaves much of his life, it's not like were introducing some radical idea here, but one that's likely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not mention specifically Jefferson intended to free his slaves or may have intended, but rather imply he did in the sentence phrasing. Finkleman could support the information.

Modification:

• Jefferson, whose Monticello estate was encumbered by debt, was only able to free a small number of slaves, including the children of Sally Hemings. On their manumission, most settled outside of Virginia as required by an 1806 Virginia statute. Jefferson requested and received permission from the Virginia legislature for a few slaves to remain in Virginia. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining slaves to settle the debt on Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, details about Hemongs are already covered in the 'controversy, section and Finkleman whose stated opinion of Jefferson is extreme and fringe is definitely out as a source for such a controversial topic. We need to use objective sources here. Again, we need to be clear about the fact that Jefferson had no choice but to sell his slaves and we can't sweep someone like Bacon under the rug. As Jefferson's main overseer, his role is definitive to the topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. No one is sweeping Bacon under the rug. Jefferson could have freed his slaves under the 1806 law. I would not say Finkleman is an extreme fringe. I admit he is not entirely fair or neutral concerning Jefferson and seems to have some sort of grudge, however, he is an established historian. Jefferson kept his slaves because he was in debt. That is what the article should state. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson was in debt and as such could not free his slaves anymore than he could have sold Monticello and pocketed the money. The 1806 law only pertains to freed slaves having one year to leave the state. -- Bacon was close to Jefferson in his final years and was in charge of and supervised his slaves and was probably in the best position to see how Jefferson acted towards and felt about his slaves. Bacon needs to be mentioned. Don't see any reason why we shouldn't. He has always been and continues to be referred to by many Jefferson historians frequently. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How did Bacon know that Jefferson wanted to free Jefferson's slaves? That has yet to be explained and the reader make ask the same question. Did Bacon say that Jefferson told him face to face that he wanted to free his slaves? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to explain any such thing to the reader, just as we don't have to explain any other sourced statement other than to present it in the context in which it's found. In this case, given Jefferson's writings, numerous attempts to free individual slaves as a lawyer, attempts at abolition legislation, treatment, etc ... etc, the idea here is the logical progression. Again, we are not making a conclusive statement (e.g.like "most historians"), only that a key person in Jefferson's later life said he wanted to free his slaves and would have if he could have. Your question really should be, 'how could someone like Bacon not know'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK Gwillhickers. Let's say you are correct. Bacon is an indisputable source. Jefferson desired to free his slaves. Why then is this important for the article? The truth is Jefferson only freed a small number of his slaves because he was broke. Jefferson liked the finer things in life and he spent money. The other issue is that Jefferson in fact did free slaves, two while alive, and five upon his death in his will. That makes a total of seven slaves freed by Jefferson. I am not sure what the point is to specifically mention that Jefferson desired to free his slaves. The reader needs to know that Jefferson did infact free a total of seven slaves. Please bare with me on this one. This is only an opinion. Putting that Jefferson desired to free his slaves may have a reverse negative affect on the reader since this would make Jefferson a failure for not freeing all his slaves. That would make Jefferson seem as if he had only good intentions rather then a man such as George Washington another founder who actually did free all his slaves in his 1799 will. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the western land speculation did not pan out for Jefferson in time... people who lost IRA account value in the last crash are not the failures. Other founding fathers died penniless, such as Robert Morris. He is not remembered as a failure, rather as successfully financing the American Revolution--before his personal demise.

The point of mentioning that TJ wanted to free his slaves at his death is an indication of how he regarded he injustice of slavery and how he regarded the potential of his workforce as independent freedmen even in a racist society. If he could not look after his 'family' he did not trust others to do so under the slavery regime of Virginia at the time. Without him, better they disperse in freedom and take their chances.

Jefferson had the successful example of Edward Coles, his anti-slavery neighbor, friend and political ally who freed all his slaves on a raft in the middle of the Ohio River. About half travelled with him to Illinois where Coles became the second Governor and thwarted pro-slavery forces after Illinois statehood, --- the rest of Coles' freed slaves stayed behind to homestead in Ohio.

Yes, that is the same Edward Coles who Jefferson earlier wrote recommending Coles not free his slaves in Virginia. Coles' answer was to take them all together with him to freedom in Ohio and Illinois. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Washington's western land speculations did not pan out either, but he freed all his slaves anyway in his 1799 will. Washington, however, was in better finincial condition to free his slaves then Jefferson. Was Jefferson intending to free all his slaves? How many? This gets into more speculation in the article. What historians agree on is that Jefferson was in debt and this was why he could not free all his slaves, only five in his will. Whether Jefferson intended to free some or all of his slaves does not seem neccessary for the article. As I mentioned before, if the article states Jefferson intended to free his slaves then the article would need to state that he failed or was unsuccessful to free his slaves. And this intention would be sourced by Bacon, who did not mention when he had a conversation with Jefferson that Jefferson wanted to free his slaves. More speculation. These are only my opinions as far as editing the article. I would put in the article that Jefferson was unable to free more slaves because his Monticello estate was encumbered in debt. That implies that Jefferson intended to free more slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cm', once again you're going over issues that have been explained to you while you attempt to make other issues. Bacon is an important figure in Jefferson's later life since he was his main overseer of slaves and a friend who managed Jefferson's estate all the way up until his death. He has often been referred to by historians, past and contemporary, as a witness who saw Jefferson promise his dying wife he would never marry again, and for many other things.

Meacham, 2012 -- Onuf, 1993 -- Gordon-Reed, 1999 -- Malone, 1981 -- Hyland, 2009 -- Burstein, 2003., Merwin, 1901, Schachner, 1957, Pierson, 1862

Bacon wasn't some passing acquaintance or someone who had occasional dealings with Jefferson. Once again we will not be making a conclusive statement, only that Bacon said Jefferson had hoped he could free his slaves. This idea is consistent with Jefferson's life long and established feelings, treatment and political aspirations about slavery. This is the Jefferson biography, an account about the man. Jefferson has been criticized by some for not freeing all of his slaves, usually done so out of context and by historians who have more bark than teeth in their choice of words. It is "necessary" to give the readers as many facts as possible so they can get the clear picture on this important point, for a change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft statements

Potential edit:

• During his lifetime Jefferson freed two of his Hemings male slaves. Jefferson freed five slaves in his will after his death including the children of Sally Hemings. On their manumission, most settled outside of Virginia as required by an 1806 Virginia statute. Jefferson requested and received permission from the Virginia legislature for a few slaves to remain in Virginia. Jefferson, whose Monticello estate was encumbered by great debt, was unable to free more of his slaves. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining 130 slaves at auction to settle the debt on Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hemings and related details are already covered in the 'Controversy section. Too many other details about permission, etc, while you continue to skirt the important idea here. i.e.Jefferson and his feelings about freeing his slaves. You are also not being clear about the fact that Jefferson had no choice but to sell his slaves, per Virginia's debtor's law. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK Gwillhickers. I hope we are trying to get an edit we can all agree on. Jefferson was not forced to sell his slaves. His family sold his slaves. As far as I know Jefferson's will did not stripulate that his family sell his slaves to pay debts. Are there any other sources other then Bacon as a primary source that states Jefferson planned to free his slaves? Nothing is set in stone. We can work together. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson didn't plan to release his slave in his will, this is something he had hoped he could do, and Virginia law was clear about debt and property, which slaves were considered as.

Here's perhaps a more qualified version of my above draft:

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. However, since Virginia law didn't allow slave owners in debt to free their slaves, allowing creditors to seize them, Jefferson, who was heavily in debt, was forced to have his slaves sold after his death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is my version:

• During his lifetime Jefferson freed two male slaves and five slaves in his will upon his death. Although Jefferson desired to free more slaves he could not due to debts that were encumbered against his Monticello estate. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining 130 slaves at auction to pay creditors and avoid the consfication of slaves per Virginia debtor's law.

That's better, but my latest draft is more clear, esp in light of the sources:

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. My draft, in my opinion is straightfoward enycyclopedic style. We do not need to go into details of Virginia debt law. My draft stated that Jefferson could not free more slaves because of debt. Jefferson's family sold the slaves to pay creditors and avoid slave consfication, not Jefferson. Will you allow any of my edits in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of your edits have been fine, and as such still stand today, so let's not turn this into anything more than it is. My draft is straight forward and encyclopedic also. Moreover, it's clear about some important points without getting lengthy. Why do you opt to be less clear about Jefferson not having a choice and about his hopes for his slaves? Bacon's account about Jefferson's promise to his dying wife is the only account and is widely embraced by historians. So far as I know, it appears his is the only account that says Jefferson always wanted to free his slaves, which again, requires no stretch of the imagination to believe, at all, given Jefferson's feelings about slavery. Again, we are not making any factual statement on what Jefferson intended to do, only reporting what his close associate had said, and in the same manner Bacon's account is used to relate Jefferson's promise to Martha, his account about Jefferson forgiving a slave for stealing nails, not to mention his account of the Hemings family, etc. So why not in this case?? It would seem your reasons for not being clear are hardly based on a concern for encyclopedic style. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. I just felt that you wanted to put your edit in without any modifications. Would you consider combining the two edits somehow? Bacon may have been trying to save Jefferson's legacy concerning slavery. That is my issue with Bacon. We do not know the motivation of Bacon and his statements that were made after Jefferson had died. That sounds like legacy building. There is no record of Jefferson stating himself he wanted to free his slaves. I am not here to stop editing. If you want to put in your edit the way your edit is go ahead. That is fine. I don't understand why Bacon, a primary source, is getting so much historical signifigance in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a try at combining the two paragraph proposals on the table. Using template {{quotation|...}} versus bold font.

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom, at least one source explains it was something he had always wanted to do. During his lifetime Jefferson freed two male slaves and five slaves in his will upon his death. But at that time Jefferson had debts encumbered against his Monticello estate. Virginia law forbade indebted slave owners to free their slaves, permitting creditors to seize them. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining 130 slaves locally at auction to pay creditors and to avoid their confiscation by law.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cm', Jefferson's legacy didn't need saving, and if anyone was in a position to know it was Bacon, someone who saw first hand how Jefferson felt about and treated his slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• TVH, your draft looks good, but I would specify 'Bacon', not "one source", esp since we have Pierson, Brodie and Reiss who have accounted for him. We only have 'one source', Bacon, to account for Jefferson's promise to Martha, which is widely if not completely accepted by historians, et al. At the moment I am looking into other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. We do agree on one thing. Jefferson's legacy does not need saving. I am not opposed to putting Bacon in the paragraph, but Bacon does not state the time that Jefferson told him he planned to free his slaves. In my opinion, the fact that Jefferson freed slaves goes beyond intent and that is why I believe his freeing of seven slaves is signifigant in light of he was in tremendous debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@TVH. I approve the draft. I personally would just state that Jefferson intended to free his slaves and then put Bacon as a reference source or whatever work Bacon is sourced in. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Mar. 3 rev.

Rev. Mar 3. While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom, he had always wanted to free all of his own slaves at his death.[n] During his lifetime Jefferson freed two male slaves and five slaves in his will upon his death. But at that time Jefferson had debts encumbered against his Monticello estate. Virginia law forbade indebted slave owners to free their slaves, permitting creditors to seize them. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining 130 slaves locally at auction to pay creditors and to avoid their confiscation by law.[n]

Gwillhickers? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The revision may need to be revised again. Here is a source: Stanton (2012) Those who Labor for My Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello Rather then free more slaves some of Jefferson's money went into the University of Virginia at $1,000 a year. Also more information could be added that there was an agricultural deppression and that Jefferson was $100,000 in debt. Whatever Jefferson's intentions were and that could be speculation he did not have the money to release more slaves. I believe there needs to be a direct statement that Jefferson's encumbered debt and spending prevented him from releasing his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First sentence revision:

• While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom his spending lifestyle, encumbered $100,000 debt, and an agricultural deppression prevented him from freeing all of his slaves upon his death. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Stanton (2012) also stated that Jefferson's intention of freeing all his slaves is not supported by the record. Although Bacon and Fossett both stated that Jefferson did want to free his slaves. 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Take three.

revision iii. While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom, he had always wanted to free all of his own slaves at his death.[n1] However, Jefferson’s spending lifestyle, subscription investment to the University of Virginia, and an agricultural depression prevented his wish.[n2] During his lifetime Jefferson freed two male slaves and five slaves in his will upon his death. But at that time Jefferson still had $100,000 in debts encumbered against his Monticello estate. Virginia law forbade indebted slave owners to free their slaves, permitting creditors to seize them. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining 130 slaves locally at auction to pay creditors and to avoid their confiscation by law.[n3]

Note 1. [cite]. Three historians, Pierson, Brodie and Reiss credit the testimony of Jefferson’s lead manager, Edmond Bacon, to the effect that Jefferson always intended to free all of his slaves at his death. Stanton takes exception, concluding that Jefferson’s intention is not supported by the record. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cm', the reference to Jefferson wanting to free his slaves refers to what he wanted to do along moral lines. As stated in the first sentence of the draft, he had reservations along practical lines. Jefferson could not release his slaves because he was in debt. Stanton's concern for Jefferson's donation to the UVA has no bearing on the fact that Jefferson was bound by Virginia law.

Stanton: Nothing suggests Jefferson intended to free more than a handful of the almost two hundred slaves...

"Nothing suggests"?? First, she's referring to what Jefferson intended -- we are not. Secondly, her assertion "nothing suggests" is a gross error. We have a life time of writing and political attempts about freeing slaves, which more than suggests this is what he wanted to do with his own slaves. We also have Bacon's account, which again, is someone who is widely recognized and routinely referred to by historians.

• TVH, The draft statement should only lend itself to what Jefferson's hopes and feelings were about freeing his slaves, his debt, Virginia law. We don't need to get into all these details (actual monetary amount, spending lifestyle, subscription investment, agricultural depression, four different historians) to make the point, just that Jefferson had wanted to free slaves, had some reservations, but couldn't because of his debt, per Virginia law. Your last draft revision looks okay but doesn't mention debt or Virginia law or Bacon. The following draft is short and to the point:

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. However, since Virginia law didn't allow slave owners in debt to free their slaves, allowing creditors to seize them, Jefferson, who was heavily in debt, was forced to have his slaves sold after his death.

i.e.Two definitive sentences which assert no conclusion about Jefferson's actual intentions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Jefferson's spending lifestyle was one reason why he was in debt. The agriculture deppression is signifigant enough to mention. We can't ignore Stanton (2012) as a reliable source and Stanton (2012) needs to be put in as a reference in my opinion. How can one state that Jefferson planned to free his slaves and not draw the inclusion that Jefferson intended to free his slaves. I prefer TVH version although the wording and detail could be trimmed. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Jefferson was not forced to sell his slaves. Jefferson's family was forced to sell his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative edit:

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. Jefferson's encumbered $100,000 debt against his Monticello estate, subscription investment to the University of Virginia, and an agricultural depression allowed him to free five slaves in his will while the remaining 130 slaves had to be auctioned locally by his surviving family to pay creditors and to avoid their confiscation by Virginia debt law.

Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems you're playing with words. i.e.'Jefferson wasn't forced to sell his slaves, his family was.'?? Virgina law would not let Jefferson free slaves because they were considered property. His subscription to UVA, nor anything else, didn't change that. I think Jefferson had more than a clue that his family would be forced to sell his slaves if he didn't do so before he died. It would be incredibly naive to assume Jefferson didn't instruct his family to do so. Stanton is reaching and offers us nothing in terms of what Jefferson wanted to do with his slaves along moral lines. Again, details about the debt are not needed, i.e.the actual monetary amount, to make the point that Jefferson wanted to free his slaves, nor will mentioning his "spending style". If you want to mention spending style then of course we should couple it with a statement that Jefferson would have saved large amounts of money on an annual basis if he also worked his slaves on Sundays (i.e.52 extra workdays a year), didn't pay them for the eggs and produce and other work they offered and simply built them shacks to live in.

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. However, since Virginia law didn't allow slave owners in debt to free their slaves, allowing creditors to seize them, Jefferson, who was heavily in debt, was forced to have his slaves sold after his death.

i.e.Again, two definitive sentences which assert no conclusion about Jefferson's actual intentions and mentions his reservations -- and you're still not happy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. There appears to be no room for compromise. Jefferson's family auctioned off the slaves. That is a historical fact. Jefferson could have auctioned the slaves off while he was alive. He did not. I have tried to be cooperative and have went out of my way to get in a good edit. Seems like you are determined to put your version into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is to be crafted collaboratively, could a note be admitted following the citation to the Gwillhickers proposal?

Gw proposed text. Note. citation. add: Despite Jefferson's intentions, his spending lifestyle, subscription investment to the University of Virginia, and an agricultural depression prevented his wish. Stanton in "Those who Labor for My Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello observes that during his lifetime Jefferson freed two male slaves and then five slaves in his will upon his death. Jefferson's surviving family sold the remaining 130 slaves locally at auction to pay creditors $100,000 to avoid their confiscation by law.

Is the detail appropriately placed in a note? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The detail is appropriately placed in the note. Thanks TVH. I agree that detail on Jefferson's encumbered debt, his subscription investment, and the agriculture deppression contributed to Jefferson not to free all or more of his slaves. I would hope we all could collaberate on this as editors of the Thomas Jefferson article. I believe this gives better understanding of why Jefferson did not free all his slaves. All of this took away from Jefferson's income. Nothing in Jefferson's will stated that his family was forced to sell his slaves at auction. The article also needs to state that Jefferson's family auctioned his slaves due to inherited debt from Jefferson. Also what can be noted is that Jefferson gave one freed slave money and he gave other freed slaves tools to work as apprentices. This would contribute to the neutrality of the article. Source: Thomas Jefferson's Last Will and Testament Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft statements2

• Cm, yes, Jefferson's family auctioned off his slaves. A historical fact. You say this like someone has denied it. The only thing that prevented Jefferson from freeing his slaves by law was his debt. That his family were given the task of selling his slaves is only a technicality and doesn't change the fact that he could not free them, so again, kindly not play word games. His debtor's held the bonds on his slaves. By law they were not his to manumit or sell for his own profit. Got it this time? The most important concern here is presenting an accurate statement, free of non essential details -- not whether editor A and B both get to say something, so you need to stop pushing that number also. The UVA was not why Jefferson was in debt. You may as well say his family intake of food over a life time also contributed to his debt. He would still of had a tremendous debt even if there was no UVA. The important thing is Jefferson's hopes of freedom for his slaves and the debt that forced him to have them sold after his death. Last, the article is neutral and will be so with the proposed draft, so let's not kick up dust there also -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• TVH, I am open to adding a footnote about the things that contributed, or may have contributed, to Jefferson's debt, like the agricultural depression. As for the UVA, does Stanton say how much he spent. i.e.Was it more than he spent on living expenses over a life time? Does Stanton qualify how Jefferson's subscription was supposed to be a major factor in his debt compared to the agricultural depression, something that actually impacted productivity? We already know he was in debt before the UVA. In any case let's not start naming sources in the actual text again. We should just use Stanton for a cite in the footnote if you feel these details ares important to the main idea.

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. However, since Virginia law didn't allow slave owners in debt to free their slaves, allowing creditors to seize them, Jefferson, who was heavily in debt, was forced to have his slaves sold after his death.

i.e.Once again, we have two definitive sentences which assert no conclusion about Jefferson's actual intentions while also mentioning the reservations he had along practical lines--

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers. Wikipedia is suppose to be an open source reference online encyclopedia open to editor input. Stanton states that rather then free his slaves Jefferson subscribed to the University of Virginia $1,000 per year. That money according to Stanton could have gone into freeing his slaves. Your edit has not changed nor reflected any concerns brought by Cmguy or TheVirginiaHistorian. The article can not state that Jefferson was forced to free his slaves after his death. Nothing in Jefferson's will said that his family had to auction his slaves. Actually his will can make Jefferson look generous giving one freed slave money and other freed slave tools for their trade apprentenships. The debt, Jefferson's subscription, and the agriculture deppression need to be mentioned in my opinion. I believe too much emphasis is being place on Jefferson's intentions and Virginia law rather then what Jefferson did or the reasons why he could not free all his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To be quite honest Gwillhickers and I am a little surprised in my opinion your orginal edit makes Jefferson look stingy when in fact he was quite generous in his will towards the slaves that he freed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The UVA was founded in 1819, only a few years before Jefferson's death. Its doors didn't open to students until 1825. The $1000 a year he gave to the university (which translates to about 19 dollars a week) would have only alleviated a (very) tiny fraction of his debt, which as you say amounted to $100,000 (!). He would still have been heavily in debt. And when did he begin donations? When the University opened in '25? Stanton is reaching with her ad'hom assertion that this small amount could have enabled Jefferson to free his slaves. Again, Jefferson could not free his slaves because he was in debt. As I have already said in full view of your response, we can mention the agricultural depression in a foot note, per TVH's suggestion, because it more than anything else by far is what caused Jefferson's massive debt. His small annual donation to the UVA during the last couple of years of his life has little to no bearing on this and doesn't even deserve mentioning in terms of Jefferson's hopes in freeing his slaves. You should have looked into this more before you rushed in and piled all of your eggs into Stanton's basket. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Stanton is an established source. I don't understand. Are you saying if a source is critical of Jefferson then automatically that source is dismissed? I respectfully disagree. Of course Jefferson's $100,000 dollar debt was by far the most signifigant reason why he could not free all his slaves. Putting the agriculture deppression in a footnote is not the same as an article. TVH appears to be in favor of putting three in the article, not just the one. Also, I don't know why you don't want to add Jefferson's generosity of his will to his free slaves. You don't want Jefferon appear to be generous? Your edit is good. Why not just add the subscription and agriculture deppression along with the debt. And mention Jefferson's generosity in his will, especially him going to the Virgninia legislature allowing his slaves to remain in Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit incorporates Jeffesron generosity in freeing his slaves:

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. Jefferson freed five slaves in his will providing a monetary endowment and trade tools to aid in making a living. Jefferson also successfully petitioned the Virginia legislature to allow freed slaves to remain in Virginia. However, Jefferson's encumbered debt, University subscription investment, and an agricultural depression prevented him from freeing the remaining slaves who were later auctioned locally by his surviving family to pay Jefferson's creditors and avoid their confiscation by Virginia debt law.

08:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside, reality check: A capable field hand was worth approximately $1000 at auction in 1830? ($2,000 in 1860?) If Jefferson's family followed his habit of purchasing slaves to unite families, the local auction certainly resulted in significantly less proceeds than selling their slaves south via the Washington/Alexandria market would have obtained.

Some of the speculation reflecting on Jefferson concerning events after his death seems misplaced, since he ran his plantations as ongoing operations while maintaining families. Jefferson was not managing his affairs as a hostile takeover liquidating prime assets to net maximum profit, he frowned on speculative profiteering -- that would be more like Jim Bowie, a different kind of slaveholder. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• TVH, I agree and this latest version looks good, with one exception. Jefferson's donations to the UVA isn't worth mentioning here. The few donations he made during the last few years of his life didn't amount to anything that would have made any difference to the overall fate of his 130+ slaves, and doesn't reflect on the main point of the statement. i.e.Jefferson's hopes for his slaves. I still feel we're adding too many details (further increasing the size of the slavery section we worked at reducing) but I can live with this latest version with the following omission:

While Jefferson on occasion had expressed reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom it was something he had always wanted to do according to his main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon. Jefferson freed five slaves in his will providing a monetary endowment and trade tools to aid in making a living. Jefferson also successfully petitioned the Virginia legislature to allow freed slaves to remain in Virginia. However, Jefferson's encumbered debt University subscription investment, from an agricultural depression prevented him from freeing the remaining slaves who were later auctioned locally by his surviving family to pay his creditors and avoid their confiscation by Virginia debt law.

We have sources for Bacon, but what source(s) would you like to use for the statements about, 'monetary endowment', 'successfully petitioned...' and 'agriculture depression'? Hopefully one source will cover these extra items. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The language following the Bacon reference is taken primarily from Cm's drafts. Are all the points in Stanton? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe we can use Stanton and the Monticello.org for references. That is where I got Jefferson's will. Finkleman may discuss Jefferson requesting the Virginia legislature for having his slaves remain in Virginia. I think all of this adds neutrality to the article. Jefferson intended to free his slaves and he did, even if only five slaves were freed. That would be a neutral statement also bearing in mind that the rest had to be actioned off by his family due to Jefferson's $100,000 debt. I think we are finally making some progress. 184.12.241.137 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is neutral and will be after inclusion of the above draft as modified by TVH. I have no objections for using TJF as a source for the added items but would prefer we use one other than a website source if possible. Since there are many dozens of objective and neutral sources we should first look to them before we employ yet another web site source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for draft statement

Here is a Stanton (2012) sourced that tells the generosity of Jefferson: Those who Labor for My Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

In Malone, 1962, p. 178, he mentions "the debt-ridden Virginia economy of this time". Would prefer to use Malone rather than Stanton, who tries to write off the testimony of Jefferson's slave Joseph Fossett who also maintained that Jefferson was a kind master and had intended to free all of his slaves. Again, Stanton has a less than objective POV and in at least two incidents makes reaching and ambiguous statements about Jefferson, one of them a sweeping and a gross error i.e."nothing suggests", as pointed out above. Still looking into other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Malone (1962) is a great source on Jefferson. I believe Stanton (2012) compared to Finkleman (1994) is a somewhat moderate critic of Jefferson. I don't have any issues with Stanton (2012). All historians in my opinion have a certain amount of POV in their writings some more then others. Stanton (2012) is a modern source. I believe keeping Stanton in the arcticle would help add reliability and add to neutrality. Why not use both Malone and Stanton? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We should use Malone to cite agricultural depression. I'm not saying 'no' to using Stanton on that note, but given her trackrecord, and sweeping comment I would recommend using other sources. Stanton is not as bad as Finkelman, for sure. To be fair she defended Jefferson from some of Wiencek's remarks, but I still have my reservations. She was on the TJF committee in 1998 that evaluated evidence about Jefferson's alleged paternity which was criticized by Dr. Wallenborn, a committee member himself at the time, for asserting and maintaining an opinion before the evidence was even evaluated. She once referred to Jefferson as a "slippery character". Her book, entitled Those who labor for my happiness is a divisive and derogatory title. Hardly neutral. She may as well have entitled the book Those who labor for my happiness while I sip lemonade. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Are you suggesting that there be no critical opinion of Thomas Jefferson in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Added draft

Have just added draft statement. Instead of using Stanton, Brodie, who refers to various slaves as Jefferson's children, including Sally Hemings and Joseph Fossett, was used. Have also used Malone, 1962, to support the idea of argricultural depression. Added mention of Fossett, after Bacon, to support the idea of Jefferson's hopes for his slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The draft edit is good. I would take out the word "legally" since Jefferson could have freed his slaves however this would have created and excessive financial hardship on his family. Monticello would have been most likely immediately taken over by his creditors. Not freeing his slaves allowed his family to remain on Monticello for three more years. Jefferson legally could have free his slaves since there was nothing in the 1782 or 1806 law that prevented slave owners from freeing slaves who were in debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources used say he could not free his slaves if he was in debt but are not specific as to exact year dates. If this is true, and supported by sources, I have no problem with removing 'legally'. From what sources are you getting this? TVH, what say you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Stanton (2012) mentioned financially Jefferson could not free his slaves. Finkelman in one of his books I believe states that Jefferson legally could have freed his slaves even under the 1806 law. I think that obviously by not freeing his remaining slaves Jefferson was helping his family by preventing his creditors from immediately seizing Monticello. In that sense Jefferson was being generous. His family was allowed to remain on Monticello for three more years. Auctioning the slaves prevented them from being confiscated by his creditors. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Would like to see sources that says debtors were allowed to free their slaves in 1782 and 1806, as you claim, and more importantly, in the few years leading up to 1826, the year Jefferson left the planet. Otherwise, we should specify 'legally' per Curtis, 2012, p.207, Cramer, 1997, p.21 and Malone, 1962, p. 178, who says Jefferson mortgaged a very large number of slaves. IOW, he could not legally free them, as they were not legally his to manumit. It would be like taking a mortgage out on a house, then giving it to someone else, or selling it and putting the money in your pocket. i.e.See you in court. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers. Not all of Jefferson's slaves were "mortgaged" or "owned" by creditors. Jefferson freed five slaves, therefore, he legally could free slaves and he did this under the 1806 slave law. Slaves not "mortgaged" by creditors Jefferson could have set free. We need to be accurate in this statement in the article. "Financially" is the best statement until all the legalities can be addressed properly. We need to be careful before mentioning what is legal or illegal. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if each slave was mortgaged, Jefferson was still in debt. You mentioned 1782 and 1806, as if you were citing actual sources, while not mentioning the few years leading up to 1826. Are you able to come up with the sources to back up your specific claim? If not we need to restore the edit, per sources, which were speaking about Jefferson and his time, saying it was illegal for a debtor to free his slaves. This will be the third time you've been asked. I should have just restored my edit and made you put your cart behind the horse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Legalities

The legalities of Jefferson freeing his slaves possbibly could be addressed in the article. There may be a source reference that states how many of Jeffersons slaves were "mortgaged" by his creditors. These slaves he could not legally free. The remaining slaves who were not "mortgaged" by creditors could be free. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources say slaves could not be legally freed. We don't have to come up with an exact number of mortgaged slaves as overall Jefferson was in debt and could not free them, per sources. You've been asked to provide sources for your specific claims, three times, and now this. Until you can provide a source that says otherwise the edit will be restored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Have left the word 'financially' in place, as a context to 'legally'. There is a consideration that we should perhaps look into further. Jefferson did free various members of the Hemings family and we know he had to consult the Virginia legislature to do so. Malone says he mortgaged "a large number of slaves". Perhaps he was referring to everyone except the Hemingses and related. In any case he was still heavily in debt and subject to Virginia's debt laws, so until we can find any sources that would cut it any finer than that the original edit reflects the sources and needs to stand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Finkelman in one of his books might have mentioned the exact number slaves Jefferson "mortgaged". I think this is signifigant for the article. There were 130 slaves at auction. Five slaves were freed. Regardless, Jefferson was protecting his family financially by not freeing his slaves, even though he could not legally free the mortgaged slaves. Even if he freed all his slaves his creditors would have immediately seized Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Finkelman...might have mentioned"? If he did it would be interesting to look into how much ad'hom he piled on to it, just for the academic exercise. In any case, you're trying to cut the line much finer than it needs to be in terms of Jefferson's hopes and wishes. Jefferson always wanted to free slaves and end slavery. Amazingly for some people, he had the same aspirations for his own slaves. He mortgaged a "large number" and was heavily in debt. He managed to free a few slaves after consulting with the Virginia legislature. It's doubtful you'll come up with anything else so significant it will change the light that's cast on Jefferson on this particular topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources:

• Alex Storozynski (2009) The Peasant Prince: and the Age of Revolution
• Merrill D. Peterson (1970) Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography p 534
• Henry Wiencek (2012) Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves p 272
• Paul Ronan (2010) Heroes, Villains and Dupes: How the Antebellum Presidents Allowed Slavery to Drive the Country to the Civil War
• Gary L. McDowell & Sharon L. Noble (1997) Reason and Republicanism: Thomas Jefferson's Legacy of Liberty p 98

Ronan (2010) states that Jefferson mortgaged all his slaves. Some of these sources are critical of Jefferson, but I believe have interesting insights on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see anything that changes the picture here. Wiencek typically has a lot of conjecture to offer about the views of other historians while Ronan as you say claims Jefferson mortgaged all his slaves. While McDowell mentions that Jefferson mortgaged his slaves his view is very narrow, steeped in the exasperations of the 60's mindset, racially charged and unforgiving, referring to Jefferson as a mere opportunist, as if this was some sort of unusual and evil condition in of itself. Peterson however reinforces many of the things we've discussed here. i.e.Jefferson was a kind and generous master and worked his slaves no more than free farmers.

• Peterson, p.154 In his management of slaves Jefferson encouraged diligence but was instinctively too lenient to demand it. By all accounts he was a kind and generous master. His conviction of the injustice of the institution strengthened his sense of obligation toward its victims. It was chiefly with a view to placing his slaves "on the comfortable footing of the laborers of other countries"...

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I added to the article that Jeffesron mortgaged his slaves. This adds context why Jefferson could not legally free his remaining slaves. Many sources apparently agree that Jefferson mortgaged his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Good edit. There's no question that Jefferson mortgaged nearly all his slaves to pay off debts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert:Thanks Gwillhickers. I believe neutrality has been expanded in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Legality quibble: nearly all slaves were mortgaged to secure most of his debt. He was able to stay afloat during his lifetime, but at his death those debts were settled by the sale of the encumbered slaves. The slaves could be "converted to cash" more readily than western land holdings, that's why they were a more ready security for the loans, not the undeveloped lands susceptible to claim jumping, etc.

Then on Jefferson's death, the family --- daughters, or males-only executors, maybe the sons-in-law? --- had the remaining task of choosing where to sell them, locally with friends and family, or away for more money. It's my understanding that they were sold at local auction out of consideration of the existing slave families. Has scholarship run the story to ground?

Was the actual sale in conformance with Jefferson's wishes? Disposal of a subject's property after death is not generally considered in the scope of most biographies. In this case there would be an interest in Monticello. Were the other farms sold off as well to enable the family to keep the home place? What was the slave population at Monticello following Jefferson's death? I'm not trying to start trouble here, I'm just asking.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We know Jefferson on many occasions bought slaves to unite families and was very mindful about ever breaking them up. On a few occasions he bought slaves at the request of various slaves who hoped to be united with other family members. Sometime back I read that he gave instructions to make all efforts not to separate mothers from children. Will look for a specific source. On Christmas he allowed some slaves to travel to other towns to see family members.

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

This perspective has often been 'run to the ground' by much of the so called modern scholarship who largely writes for the young and naive and whose estimation extends no further than 'Jefferson bought and sold slaves like property', period. A view that's narrow, ignorant and often goaded by racial politics and the small circle of peers they associate with. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Consolidated references

Previously there was about ten different 'cite web' listings in the Bibliography for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. I have consolidated them into one 'cite web' listing. I have rendered the individual citations so they refer to this one listing, where the cite simply lists the title of the article being referred to. In the process a great deal of text and markup has been removed. Cites using this source will simply list the title where it can be accessed at the TJF site. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lafayette reunion

The biography is missing an important episode in Jefferson's life -- the reunion with Lafayette in 1824. It was a historically notable event which also involved Madison, Monroe, the University of Virginia and Jefferson's grandson, Randolph and Jefferson's last public speech. Will come up with a good paragraph to cover this event. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias comment in article must be fixed.

"Although he has been criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery, Jefferson remains rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents."

1. This is an oxymoronic statement which, for the purpuses of accurate accounts of past figures, would not achieve the aim of this Encyclopedia.

2. By Whom is he rated as one of the greatest U.S. presendents? Dare you say the American people, not only is this a strong generalisation but it is a fabricated truth which you can not provide sources for.

3. If your going to write opinions in the article, write the truth (and by the truth i mean a widely shared opinion by many present-day scholars ). He lead a lifestyle which was a complete contradiction to the very propaganda he used to campaign for presidency and, as such, was not only a horrible human being but a horrible president. This is of course an opinion, but it is a more accurate fact-based opinion than the one provided by the article.

4. If you say that his personal life had nothing to do with his presedency, then where are the reasons for why he has be regarded as one of the greatest Presidents? What reforms did he introduce? If the article does explicitly express why he has been regarded with such a title, than please have some sort of reference to it in the same sentence

Thank you for reading my idea for improvement. I only do this because i am tired of seeing propaganda instead of truth based off of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Master Sage (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is I believe what is called trolling. The sentence at issue is in the introduction, meant to pique the interest of the reader to explore the article.

It reads, Although he has been criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery, Jefferson remains rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents., with two inline links, one to 'slavery': "Thomas Jefferson and slavery", the other to 'greatest U.S. presidents': "Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States".

The information you seek is of course found explicated at some length in the article itself, but a quick click on two links available in the very sentence you object to, can lead you to many of the answers you seek, were you to be up to something other than trolling. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

Thomas Jefferson was the third out of six children. 68.15.213.237 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Pocahontas

Should there not be a reference to the fact that he was the greatx6 grandson of Pocahontas?--85.74.125.119 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because he wasn't. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Concurring alternative response: Most descendants of Pocahontas are of course descendant of her son Thomas Rolfe, well established in the genealogies because of his membership on Governor's Royal Council, and the wide gentry family interconnections of the time. Jefferson's mother was a Randolph...and therein may lie a family connection.

"Virginia cousin" claims relation by male and female lines, out to the second, third and fourth remove and beyond. I used to joke, only Grandmother knew for sure, now I miss her. I think that I heard Jefferson was related to Pocahontas. Jefferson is not listed among her notable descendants in the Pocahontas article, although Randolphs have a mention.

Check your references and present them for a fair hearing here, but there will not be much of a general interest if its just another "Virginia cousin" connection. Others here will object to the maternal connection through the Randolphs, directly descended or not --- that would be a part of a systematic bias well documented in Wikipedia; you have to make a case in the context of gentry family interconnectedness in the early 18th century of Jefferson's time or maybe start with a contribution at 'Pocahontas'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Kentucky Resolutions - Bias

The section 1796 and Vice Presidency, the 3rd paragraph concerning the Kentucky Resolutions presents TJ as a radical, violent usurper when in fact he was opposing the FACTUALLY unconstitutional power grab by the federalists. As Jefferson said to Elbridge Gerry 26 Jan, 1799: "I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the Union, and to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; I am not for transferring all the powers of the states to the general government, and all those of that government to the executive branch."

The Kentucky Resolution's opening lines: "Resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government....[and the Constitution & its amendments] delegated to that government certain definite (i.e. Limited, finite) powers.... and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

The Kentucky Resolutions weren't a call for blood - they were a call for a constitutional, State-based CHECK on the unconstitutional supreme authority of a central government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessviking (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph is sourced to Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton 2004. If the resolutions were NOT a call for defense of freedoms including violence against the perpetrators of injustice, --- were the violations of free speech to be continued,--- another scholar should be found which says the threat was not present as Businessviking proposes.

Then the article can present a balanced view that scholars interpret the meaning of the Kentucky Resolution at the time in two different ways. But the mere assertion by an editor that there may be more than one interpretation of the Kentucky Resolution is not sufficient as a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE for altering the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TVH. We need to see at least one more reliable source, though I'm inclined to have the wording relate the idea with words other than "violent usurper". Almost sounds like activist hyper speak. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Were Jefferson or Madison actually opposed to the use of federal power? Remember, the Constitution (Section 2, Clause 3) stated the federal government had the power to capture runaway slaves. As Presidents both supported and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 signed into law by Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Kentucky Resolution was not about whether the national government had a proper sphere, but that in some things it had no proper authority to regulate whatever, where “Congress shall make no law”, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

In the Alien Sedition Acts, the Adams administration jailed publishers to shut down opposition newspapers which had unlawfully attacked the dignity of the U.S. government. Jefferson saw that as a violation of the freedom of press. If one government (national) attacked the people in their rights, then another government (state) could defend the people in their rights, since all legitimate government protects the rights of the individual.

But Jefferson's interposition to keep publishers out of jail in the name of personal liberty --- a) is not the same as John Calhoun's anti-majority nullification of any and all Acts of Congress, including tax legislation which is Constitutionally allowed, --- b) nor is it Jefferson Davis' undemocratic justification for secession and civil war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of official titles

@Yopienso, GoodDay, and TheVirginiaHistorian: In the lede various official titles are all capitalized except one, president of the United States which was just reverted to this form by Yopienso. In the lede (and elsewhere) we have United States Minister to France, Governor of Virginia and Secretary of State, all capitalized -- even American Founding Father is capitalized, which is not an official title, like POTUS and SOS. If we were to say Jefferson was once a president, in such instances we don't capitalize president. When we make reference to 'the' official title itself however I believe we do and need to capitalize POTUS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The convention of not capitalizing President as an official office is a new one to me at WP, sort of like not capitalizing all words in a book title, or the one space after a period. Sorry if I over-corrected. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, Gwillhickers, but the MoS doesn't. User: GoodDay ran through a bunch (all?) of the presidential biographies "fixing" this perceived error. (See his contributions ending at 01:38, 3 June 2014, when he agreed to revert at Talk: John Adams. Well, he didn't agree there, but he did revert.)

His "fixes" are all labeled "per MOS:CAP," but when you actually go to MOS:JOBTITLES at MOS:CAP, you find the model sentence I used in my edit summary: "In 1974 Vice President Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States by Chief Justice Warren Burger." Note that president is NOT capitalized.

Happy June! We finally have sunshine after rain and wind and hail. Yopienso (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It says in MOS we use capitalization in instances... When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king) How is this different than saying Jefferson ... was the third President of the United States? We are using proper nouns in both cases here. Referring to the "third" (or the 38th, in the case of Ford) POTUS doesn't change the fact that we are referring to the proper noun. If we said that Jefferson was the third American president, period, that would be different. We are referring to the official title, the pronoun, which is also linked to the POTUS page that covers this official office. It's not linked to president, nor should it be. On the Ford page POTUS is capitalized in the lede. Ford ... was the 38th President of the United States, serving from 1974 to 1977... On the George Washington page the lede reads: Washington ... was the first President of the United States (1789–1797)... We need to restore the title to its original configuration. I'll wait for further comment before doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I personally agree with you. However, we are required to follow the MoS.

The model sentence given in the MoS does NOT capitalize the word "president." In 1974 Vice President Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States by Chief Justice Warren Burger.

The bolded portions of the first sentence of this article form an exact parallel. Thomas Jefferson (April 13 [O.S. April 2] 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third president of the United States (1801–1809).

Your argument doesn't belong here, but with whoever writes the WP:MOS. If you're willing to do that, more power to you! It's ironic, or at least amusing, that the Gerald Ford article doesn't follow the MoS.

For the record, this is from Newsweek in 2007: ". . . he said them to himself the night before he was sworn in as president of the United States."

Encyclopedia Britannica: "Gerald Ford, in full Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., original name Leslie Lynch King, Jr. (born July 14, 1913, Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.—died December 26, 2006, Rancho Mirage, California), 38th president of the United States . . ."

Ford Library: "FORD, GERALD R. (b. 1913), thirty-eighth President of the United States (1974-1977).

You'll notice the Geo. Washington article was just "fixed" today by GoodDay.

This is a minor issue I won't be spending more time on. Yopienso (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As used in President of the United States, the term 'President' is a proper noun and an official title, and MoS says to capitalize in such instances as it does in James Monroe, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln -- almost all Presidents articles. I'm not going to deliberate with the few editors who hover over MOS issues. Let them come to the all the different president's pages and make the change over if they feel like going against what MoS policy says. i.e. Louis XVI was King of France, Jefferson was the third President of the United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I hope it'll be applied consistantly across all US Presidential & Vice Presidential bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC) I

Thanks, GoodDay, for your good faith efforts at making the presidential bios consistent.

Gwillhickers, it's a shame you can't quit being feisty; you work great ill will and cause much disruption thereby.

• "I'm not going to deliberate with the few editors who hover over MOS issues. Let them come to the all the different president's pages and make the change over if they feel like going against what MoS policy says."

• GoodDay and I were trying to follow the MoS. GoodDay did go to many of the pages attempting to fix them.
• You, on the other hand, are cavalierly disregarding the MoS and insisting on your own way. Yopienso (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso: My simple comments about any editors who might make issue is one thing, but you otoh are only aggravating matters, on three counts, by making direct personal comments about me. -- MOS says pronouns per official titles need to be capitalized, just as it says for the King of France. I believe I outlined, with examples, this point more than adequately. I am not "disregarding MOS", I have referred to it in point. Don't appreciate you saying otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The term President of the United States is capitalized in almost all president's articles and has been this way for some time, save a few exceptions. If you have a mind to correct those pages that still need it you will at least have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede section

I made some narration fixes to the lede section in an effort to improve narration and context. I combined paragraphs to reduce the number of paragraphs in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Pike expedition

I believe the article needs to discuss the Pike Expedition. Jefferson's vision was an American Empire to the Pacific Ocean. I propose renaming the "Lewis and Clark Expedition" section to the "Western expeditions and explorations" section and adding information on the Pike Expedition. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is significant that Jefferson sponsors probing/exploration both northwest into British claimed territory and southwest into Spanish claimed territory. It adds dimension to Jefferson's phrase "Empire of Liberty" which is sometimes dismissed as merely a rhetorical flourish. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that Jefferson wanted and American Empire. Whether this included slavery, in my opinion, is a matter of debate. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are at least three elements in Jefferson's thought regarding slavery, and each should be treated separately. It is a mistake to analytically conflate territorial expansion for the sake of U.S. continental security and agricultural prosperity with the theory that lessening concentrations of slaves would bring about more free blacks by the natural progression of manumission by wills, etc.

• Before the advent of the cotton gin, when private manumissions and state emancipation of Revolutionary veterans were on the rise --- containing slavery seemed a way to bring about the inevitable end of slavery in the U.S.
• In Virginia' internal debates, counties with large proportions of slave population had whites reluctant to (a) tolerate free black communities in their midst, (b) entertain policies allowing private manumission, or (c) consider plans of state gradual emancipation, whereas counties with small proportions of slave population were willing to do all three --- diluting slave population concentrations seemed to promote the end of slavery in the U.S. This is a consideration independent of a United States spanning the continent.
• In states with large slave populations, fear of race war following any general emancipation was fueled by reports from French Haitian emigres settling in Charleston, SC describing the change from L'Ouverture's revolutionary ideal of a multi-racial society to Dessalines slaughter to make a non-white society --- emancipation of surplus slave population held on plantations of exhausted soils a) for the sake of individual freedom and b) for resettlement opportunity in a Caribbean or African colony, free from racist restrictions --- seemed a way to voluntarily end of slavery in the U.S. with compensation to the owners. --- This, rather than the historical options of continued black population export as slaves into new Territories or provinces still practicing slavery, such as Cuba where sugar plantations were administered as virtual death camps.

I regret it is difficult here to explicate all three in a balanced way across the course of Jefferson's career, but his goal was always to morally oppose or politically mitigate, slavery and slave holding, regardless of which theory of action he was embracing at the time as attainable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say the extreme reluctance of white persons in both the North and South to have blacks share citizenship with whites was the primary reason for the continuation of slavery. We have to go by history. The diffusion of slavery failed, polititians refuse to compromise, and then you get the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. The diffusion out of the border states let to reconcentrations in the Deep South, the "Southwest territories" of Jefferson's time, due to cotton gin's success, --- which led to defense of slavery, a peculiarly immoral and unjust labor system, as Jefferson acknowledged. During Jefferson's time, the "defense" was innovation in American thought to justify slavery in the midst of a democratic republic for the first time. Then at civil war came "defense" of slavery by force of arms to overthrow the Union in rebellion against the democratically elected president to advance slavery into the territories. ---

Or at least that is what rebels said they were doing when they were doing it, now confused by the Lost Cause tradition, which is what they said they had done following their defeat with loss of 25% of the South's men and 60% of its prewar wealth. Lincoln's proposals for compensated emancipation was attained in the District of Columbia, but in the states, even in Delaware with the smallest slave population, they were unacceptable until accomplished nationally at once with the Thirteenth Amendment. And then, sent to the states just before his assassination, it passed in part to free slaves, in part in memoriam to Lincoln, in part to punish the rebels who had cost the country 600,000 dead. While some whites sought "to have blacks share citizenship with whites", that alone is not how the majorities were attained for Thirteenth (Lincoln administration), Fourteenth (over Johnson objection), and Fifteenth (Grant administration) Amendments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say the diffusion of slavery alleviated the vestiges of slavery in Virginia. Lincoln created West Virginia (December 1861), where Lincoln had the state legislature put gradual emancipation of slaves in the West Virginia constitution in order to be admitted to the Union. West Virginia succeeded from Virginia on April 17, 1861. That is not to say there were West Virginians who supported the Confederacy. However, diffusion, failed over the long run. Robert E. Lee defended Grant while he was President of Washington College. Winfield Scott and George Henry Thomas, both from Virginia, were Union Generals during the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Civil War was a war of brothers, not only famously in Tennessee, but in Virginia and others as well, the Lost Cause tradition idealizes a unified South which never was, even in the Confederacy. --- Interesting, I had not strung four elements of Lincoln's policy together before, Lincoln's policy in DC was immediate compensated emancipation, an element of Jefferson's thinking, in WV it was gradual emancipation, an element of Jefferson's thinking, and after securing a recommendation for immediate emancipation through the Thirteenth Amendment sent out to the states, a national solution not contemplated by Jefferson, Lincoln proposed black veterans and educated blacks receive the vote in Louisiana as a part of presidential reconstruction. On hearing that Booth assassinated him. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Cmguy777: -- Some content regarding the Pike and other expeditions is welcomed, however, we should keep section focus on Lewis and Clark. i.e.The Pike Expedition article doesn't even mention Jefferson. I renamed the section accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Cmguy777: That is a shortcoming of the Pike Expedition article. Perhaps because it does not fit into the narrative as Jefferson the anti-nationalist for the Lost Cause advocates. Nevertheless, additional information is to be had by reading the online sources referenced at the Pike Expedition article and their links.

"By 1800 Jefferson had developed a deep-seated anxiety over the many threats, both foreign and domestic, to the spirit of liberty and the ideals of republicanism he treasured. To provide for the future security and success of the American experiment he looked evermore intently to the latent potential of the West.” at Envisioning the west.

During the time of Burr’s filibuster plans put in motion, Jefferson's Pike Expedition is launched under the auspices of Spanish double agent General Wilkerson, whom Jefferson made Governor of the Louisiana Territory. The Spanish “suspected rightly…that the expedition would also attempt to turn the Indian tribes they encountered against the Spanish and make them friendly toward the United States for both military and trading purposes.” Trailing Lewis and Clark, by John Buescher at Teachinghistory.org.

The Spanish somehow found and arrested Pike as a spy, with or without their double-agent Wilkerson's help. This chapter in Jefferson’s career should not be overshadowed by the Burr affair, nor totally eclipsed by the relative success of Lewis and Clark Expedition, it is a part of the same continental vision Jefferson had to extend the U.S. by latitudes through existing English and Spanish-claimed territory to the Pacific. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The new research emphasizes that Jefferson had four expeditions sent out. The Lewis and Clark expedition was the most ambitious. I support the renaming of the section to "Lewis and Clark and other expeditions". Jefferson wanted access to the Pacific Ocean to find trade with China and the Far East. Additionally Jefferson wanted to push the British and Spanish out of the American continent. He was able by treaty and purchase to stop French control of the Louisiana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Jefferson is suppose to be anti-federalist, but these federal expeditions seem to imply that Jefferson supported federal funding and control of Western expeditions. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Cmguy777: -- All very interesting. It almost seems you want to cover this topic as much as L&C, which I'm guessing you don't, but let's be careful about how the Pike and any other expeditions are covered in the section. A short summary paragraph appended, as Cm' did, to the end of the L&C section seems appropriate. We could mention some key points about the Pike (and perhaps other) expeditions, but I would recommend we incorporate these into the section inasmuch as they fit in with coverage of Jefferson's overall aspirations about exploring the west, which seems to be expounded upon well enough with coverage of Lewis and Clark. Yes, I was a little surprised that the Pike article didn't even mention Jefferson but still in all, when it comes to expeditions, it's Lewis and Clark that Jefferson is noted for, almost as much as the DOI and his presidency. Also, what has the "new research" uncovered about the Pike expedition that the 100's of other historians somehow 'didn't get'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I am not demphasizing the importance of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The "new research" is on the Dunbar and Hunter expedition. My source: Trey Berry, Pam Beasley, and Jeanne Clements (editors) (2006), The Forgotten Expedition, 1804-1805: The Louisiana Purchase Journals of Dunbar and Hunter, Editors Introduction page xi ... The new research emphasizes that there were four expeditions sent out by Jefferson not just the Lewis and Clark expedition. The Dunbar Hunter expedition had been rediscovered by historians i.e. "The Forgotten Expedition". As stated before the Lewis and Clark expedition was the most ambitious of the four expeditions sent out by Jefferson. I approve your title change to the section. I also mentioned Jefferson in the Pike Expedition article and supplied a reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: All well and good, and what you've mentioned here can also be mentioned (+ -) at the end of the section, but again, these expeditions came after the L&C'exp and were only a continuation of the sort of things that began, spearheaded, by L&C ala Jefferson, who personally hand picked and tutored Lewis, giving him fill access to his library, etc. Seems the Pike exp is due a few sentences of coverage. Btw, thanks for your edits on the Pike page. Can't believe they didn't mention Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: In my opinion the other expeditions positively add to Jefferson's legacy. Jefferson envisioned the U.S. from coast to coast, possibly the first President to do so. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes they "add" to his legacy, but not near as much as L&C. How much coverage are you hoping to put into the section? So much so that we need to make a sub section for Pike, et al? -- Btw, Jefferson is also not mentioned once in the Zebulon Pike article {add : to my disappointment). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I have no intention of adding anything but the paragraph and I was brief in mentioning the other expeditions. Of course the Louis and Clark expedition was of primary importance. One paragraph for the other expeditions will suffice. I will check the Zebulon Pike article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I think historians are catching up with Jefferson! Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Jefferson is mentioned in the Zebulon Pike article. I added references. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Article size

The current Thomas Jefferson article size is 188,014 bytes ([2]) 17:36. I believe that some of the sections need to be turned into their own articles in order for the main Thomas Jefferson article to be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On the left column of the article, Tools.Page size, it reports, --- Prose size (text only): 107 kB (17392 words) "readable prose size". --- What criteria are you using for determining that the article is too long, and what is the desired size range stated in your source? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIZE has recommendations, with "less than 40 kb" not supporting a split, and "more than 100 kb" indicating than an article "almost certainly should be divided". They base it less on technical issues (download speed was a concern in years past, and may still apply to readers in less developed countries with low-bandwidth connection), but on reader concentration time and reading comprehension. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick survey of some prominent presidents shows prose size (text only) as George Washington: 66 kB (10712 words); Abraham Lincoln: 81 kB (13147 words); Theodore Roosevelt: 77 kB (12581 words); Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 83 kB (13631 words).

To reduce the Thomas Jefferson article to the size of FDR, would require a reduction of approximately 20% in either kB or word count.

The one area of distinction for Jefferson that sets him apart from the other presidents is "Political philosophy and views”. As a contributor to that section I would not be opposed to transferring most of that information to a subsidiary article whether its own or combining it into another existing, and so make a substantial reduction to the main Thomas Jefferson article size overall. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see Political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson as a viable article. I also checked Jeffersonianism, which currently is a disambiguation page. We already have Jeffersonian democracy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Insert : While we're discussing making a new article for Political philosophy and reducing coverage here, I just noticed that the Democracy subsection is woefully short, considering that Jefferson was one of few forefathers who advanced and developed the idea of Democracy and Republicanism to a degree unmatched by virtually any other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was going by the byte size. Apparently article size is measured by Kb and words. I am for starting an article on Jefferson's political philosophy and views. That would reduce this article size and in my opinion improve narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Before we do any reduction of text, if any, (the length of this article hasn't posed a problem for anyone except a couple of editors, Jefferson being an exceptional president in terms of all the history he was involved in) that we make sure the dedicated articles and any new article cover a given topic just as well, if not better. Let's get the dedicated articles up to speed, just as well sourced, with bibliographies, first, before we get 'delete happy' on this page. Let's also be reminded that the Slavery' and Hemings' sections together are long and that both have dedicated articles. Are these articles just as objective and neutral and cover all the things Jefferson did for slaves? Before any text is removed here we should make sure the text/topic is covered just as well, or how and where it will be covered, just as well, first. We don't want to be trashing information, neutrality, objectivity, etc just for the sake of some word count. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting off all but a passing reference to slavery and Hemmings, as that topic is related to the Political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Removing that material will contribute to the article's stability. I agree with Gwillhickers insert above that the Democracy section is too short; it too is related to the 'Political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson'.

But it seems like Gwillhickers is thinking of the Thomas Jefferson article as biography of a polymath rather than as political life of a president. Are there biographies as long as this with higher article ratings? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not including caption text, tables/charts, TOC, etc, the Barak Obama article, a FA, is more than 11,500 words, while overall markup is at 256,813 bytes, while the markup for the Jefferson article is at 189,245 bytes with 19,000+ words. Also, the B.O. page has a reference section that is very long and is filled with notes, words, so if we were to include this information in the word count it would increases significantly, unlike the 'Notes' section for Jefferson, which is only about a dozen or so separate sentences, most of them short. The Ronald Reagan article, another FA, has about 14,900 words, with markup at 204,131 bytes -- not including the very long reference section, filled with much text/notes. In any case there are other GA's and FA's that are exceptions to page size guidelines, and if ever there was an exception to page length guidelines it would have to be the Jefferson page, as anyone half familiar with Jefferson must know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I don't mind comparing Ronald Reagan with Thomas Jefferson, however, Reagan was a 20th Century President in charge of nuclear weapons in a nuclear age. Jefferson was an early 19th Century President, without any modern technology. The cost of Reagan's White House staff is no comparison to Jefferson's White House staff probably only around 20 people. Obama today spends around $700,000,000 each year in running his White House staff in the 21 Century. With this said, I believe the Jefferson article should coincide with other 19th Century Presidents. His Philosophical views would make a great article and enable this article to reduce context. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: These are superficial comparisons. The main consideration is how much significant history a president was involved in. In Jefferson's case he was involved with (very) much of it. i.e. DOI, American Revolution, Louisiana Purchase, Louis and Clark, Virginia legislation/laws, Democracy, Burr, Lawyer, SOS, VP, two term President, slavery/Hemings-et al, anti-slavery initiatives, University of Virginia, A.P.S. president, etc, etc. We can't say we should cover Jefferson less than e.g.Reagan, Obama, simply because he didn't have nuclear weapons and "modern technology" at his disposal, or because he lived during a different era. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Jefferson's philosophical/political views would make a great article. Let's see how that turns out before we decided to remove such content from this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the new article should be fashioned and copy edited and rated before deletion of any material here.

The Political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson article proposed could include a "Legacy" section to include influences on Jacksonian Democracy and Lincoln's philosophy -- I'm looking for a volume on intellectual political history. More should be written about Jefferson on Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: No one is denying Jefferson's great contributions and statecraft to America especially the Louisiana Purchase. I believe the article however needs to focus on Jefferson the 19th Century President. How much did Jefferson apply the principles in the Declaration of Independance while he was President? His democratic ideals have remained with us throughout the centuries. Jefferson's aristocratic lifestyle was derived from the work and capital investment of his slaves and he lived in an 18th and 19th century slave society. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777:, this is the Jefferson biography and your desire to see it focus on the 19th century seems to be overlooking the American Revolution, et al. Jefferson lived approximately 2/3rds of his life in the 18th century. Though Jefferson's presidency occurred in the 19th century he was just involved politically in the 18th, perhaps more so, given the DOI, term as SOS, VP and the Revolution itself. In any case, you seem to be switching tracks here. How does your concern for focus on the 19th century translate into article size? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• @TheVirginiaHistorian: It would be nice to see such an article also cover how Jefferson's philosophical and political ideals were adapted in many of the other revolutions for independence that followed in his wake around the world. Mention also about how Jefferson has been attacked by the political left/marxists, etc for his concept of god given inalienable rights, which have fundamentally served to buttress revolutions while undermining oppressive monarchies and communist/facist ideology, would also be a welcomed sub-topic it seems, putting his philosophy in perspective with much of the western world at that time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: This is a presidential biography. Expanding on Jefferson's philosophy in another article would reduce the size of this article. I am for keeping a philosphy section in this article, but expand on his philosophy in an independant article. I believe his philosophy should be put after the end of his life chronology. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@CMGuy777--This is the biography of the human being, Thomas Jefferson, whose greatest achievement so far as mainstream historians are concerned, was the presidency of the United States. Only in that sense is this a "presidential biography." We have a separate article on his presidency. Yopienso (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Political philosophy and views section is near the end of the article already, along with the Slaves and slavery, Religion and Interests and activities sections. All of Jefferson's history, the actual events, (e.g.marriage, lawyer, S.O.S. ... President) comes beforehand and is in chronological order. As I said, if we create a Philosophy/Politics article beforehand then we can discuss what content we should remove from the biography in the respective subsections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• The Later years section and subsections, actual history and events, has been moved and placed before the Political philosophy and views and other sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another related start-class article is Jeffersonian democracy. I made a couple additions to further. and see also. in article sections, --- I'd appreciate an editor review of them. I'm not sure of what convention to apply here, can the links to articles in the main body to be repeated in the See also section?

In part because of the article's length, it seems to me that a recap of all links embedded in the main body would be useful to the general reader, and that there might be a division in See also between articles which are directly related to Jefferson and those of tangential interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The new links/topics are okay, imo. The idea behind See also is to introduce topics that are not directly related to the subject (like First Party System is with Jefferson himself, but still have enough relevance such that it adds perspective to the article/section. The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Of course, there are a lot of opinions about what a See also section should include. Some feel a See also section is not needed if the article is "comprehensive and well written", yet there are 100s of well written GA and FA articles that have 'See also' sections, or employ a see also template here and there as you have done, inviting the reader to explore related articles that might otherwise never get read. See also is synonymous with Further. In any case discretion should be used. As sections go, I wouldn't add more than two other topics, whether they're presented with a See also or Further template.
As dedicated and other articles go, we don't want the Jefferson biography to simply serve as a glorified table of contents for other articles. Some subjects should be well covered here, regardless if there are dedicated articles for them, like, the DOI, Presidency, etc. A healthy amount of textual overlap is good in some cases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

edit break 01

@Gwillhickers:Thanks for moving the philosophy section out of the life chronology. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso:. Respectfully. Yes. I agree Jefferson was a human being. Every bio is about the life of someone. Jefferson was President of the United States, the highest office held in the United States. The infobox is an office holder info box. I am all for focusing on other aspects of Jefferson's life, but I believe would best be served in individual articles (if excessive in length), such as Jefferson's political philosophy. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You missed my point. This article is about the man, Thomas Jefferson. Wikipedia would have an article on TJ even if he had never been the POTUS. It would be about the author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, the Father of the University of Virginia, and all that. "Presidency of Thomas Jefferson" is about TJ as president. Therefore, this is not a presidential bio; it's the biography of a man who, among many activities and achievements, was also the 3rd POTUS.

My point: I disagree with your belief that "the article however needs to focus on Jefferson the 19th Century President." Yopienso (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)