Talk:Varina Davis

Varina Davis

for some reason Varina Anne Banks Davis is redirected to Varina Howell but they ain't the same person! Varina Anne Banks Davis is the daughter of Varina Howell and Jefferson Davis. anonymous edit by "62.214.251.240" as of 21:12, 29 December 2006

solved - we have articles for mother and daughter. Enyavar (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Black

Take a look at that wedding photograph and tell me she's not part black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.147.152 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. It's a striking picture. However there seem to be two versions of this wedding photo in circulation. Here's the other one. This looks more like her painting, so I think Wikipedia has been trolled by some skilled photoshopper. DancesWithGrues (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the two pictures so they almost line up: [1][2]. I see this is in the NYPL archives, so it's a very old "photoshop", possibly dating right back to the Civil War era. DancesWithGrues (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

STOP pretending this is a real photo. Varina Davis was at the White House. We have a historical record of photos. We know how she wore her hair and what she looked like. These are not photos of Varina who was married to President Davis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.138.234 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

She and other young southern women wore that hairstyle in those years.Parkwells (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is very curious. DancesWithGrues alters a historical photo from the NYPL Archives, in the belief that he/she knows better today what Howell looked like in 1845? or to make it conform to a painting, thinking that is somehow more accurate than a daguerrotype? This is based on personal opinion. Editors should not be altering primary historical images. Why does anyone think a painted portrait was more accurate - painters were paid to be complimentary. The 2013 links above by DancesWithGrues do not work, by the way. There is discussion in numerous forums online of people's perceptions of Howell according to her appearance in daguerrotypes and photographs, including those of her as an older woman. Many people think she looks of mixed race and partial African descent. Trying to change it here by mostly anonymous editors will not affect that. Why is this an issue anyway, if she was of mixed race. Many Southerners were. Parkwells (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the links in my last post above. I cropped the images so that the faces are in alignment. By alternating between them you can clearly see the difference between the pictures. DancesWithGrues (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Husband's affairs?

Opening summary says she 'ignored her husband's affairs'. Does this mean his business affairs or romantic affairs? 109.157.233.148 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

At least one romantic affair, but this is explained further down. I removed that opening statement. Enyavar (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I take offense at the non-announced revert of January 27th 2011, reverting more than 20 versions, deleting both the articles structure, linkage to other articles, and, seemingly, months of efforts (my 3 small edits are only a part of that). I recognize that most of the deleted content was edited into the article by an unknown IP, but you could just delete those sentences which you think are POV instead of undoing others work. Surgery instead of bombing.
(This restores an earlier entry. The article had become politicised; the edits restore balance and depth.) The article is about a political woman who - afaik - was sympathetic to both the Union and the Confederation. If the reverter please elaborates which part of the complete reverted versions was unbalanced?
If there is no reply, I will revert the revert and figure out how to establish a NPOV version - the entrance statements made in April 2010 by Rjensen is an example which I will remove then. Enyavar (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The only really POV statement I could find was this opening summary. I cite: «She held contradictory attitudes on gender, race, region, wealth, and the Confederacy itself. A dutiful obedient wife, she ignored her husband's affairs. She had accepted slavery but never was enthusiastic about secession or the Confederacy, and was not highly visible during the war. She shocked "Lost Cause" sensibilities by moving to New York after her husband's death and associating with the hated Yankees.» While this opening seems correct in all cases, it reflects POV - and also is redundant.

I deleted it, but restored the previous article version. Enyavar (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Varina comments on Jefferson

There's a quote from Varina Howell Davis that I always liked, but I'm missing the source:

"Mr. Davis was the first Democrat I ever met who was a gentleman."

This reflected the common perception among Whigs (North and South) that Democrats were radical and slightly unsavory, perhaps irreligious, like Thomas Jefferson. I'll try to relocate the source. 36hourblock (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Needs citations

The article has been marked since 2009 for its lack of sources and citations.Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the pictures in the article appears to be a forgery. Can someone with access to a reputable biography of her confirm this? DancesWithGrues (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Use encyclopedic tone

The content suffers in tone, sounding like a magazine essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Please use academic sources and cites.Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Marriage photo of Jeff Davis and Varina Howell

The photo that is in the Wikipedia commons is doctored or photoshopped. This has been complained about once before, it should not have been going for so long and should not happen again. This is the actual photo: http://civilwardailygazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/davis.jpg In sociology they call this type of phenomenon social desirability bias. It's sad that this has to happen to a woman, blue or gray.72.170.224.43 (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I added the ACTUAL photo...if you click it and read the text, the original writer (not I) sums up this debacle succinctly.72.170.224.43 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I also think it is sad that someone pasted a different nose into her photo. I'm not sure it was done by photoshop (could even pre-date photoshop), but it's easy to tell and I approve of your action. Your replacement however is heavily cropped. Can't you replace it with a non-cropped version, like the one you linked to? Or like that one: [3] ? --Enyavar (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's really curious to have two anonymous editors attest to having posted purportedly "a more accurate" image, in their personal opinions, than the digital image of the daguerrotype owned by Howell Davis' granddaughter and given to the NYPL, with documented provenance. One editor discusses editing the second version even from the Civil War site. The digital image of the daguerrotype is the primary source from the NYPL, satisfying requirements for Reliable Source. By what authority did you change it? There is a discussion several entries above suggesting that a 19th-century copy held by the NYPL was altered. That is speculation and Original Research. Just use the original image from the NYPL as it is found in Wikimedia.Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd for an editor to suggest that social desirability bias causes some viewers to think Varina Howell may have been of mixed race; it could as easily play a part in those who do not think she is. Painted portraits may easily reflect other kinds of biases; they are painted to please the person paying for it and are not necessarily accurate. If she were of mixed race, Howell would simply be one of the many multi-racial persons in American history, some of whom did not know their full ancestry. According to the Encyclopedia of VA, some people in Richmond were known to have said that Howell Davis "looked like a mulatto or Indian," so that perception did not start recently. Paul Heinegg in his Free African Americans in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware (also available on the Internet), has documented there were many families of free people of color established in Virginia before the Rev. War - and most were descended from white mothers. That was how they gained their freedom, because under colonial law, children born to white mothers were born free. As Cashin notes in her biography of Howell, her grandmother Margaret Graham was considered illegitimate because her parents didn't marry. Her great-grandmother Susan McAllister could have been of mixed race, which would have prohibited the marriage. Parkwells (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The provenance of the daguerrotype in the NYPL (two images are accessible on Wikimedia Commons) is known; it is documented as being donated by the named granddaughter of Varina Howell Davis. This establishes its authenticity. It is better to use such primary materials, rather than assume another, unsourced version which an editor admits altering (see above) is better because of the personal opinions of a couple of editors.Parkwells (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the image of the daguerrotype from the NYPL, which is fully documented, with provenance. It also shows a fuller view of Davis and Howell, and their clothing.Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

PBS uses the actual photo...not my opinion. Stop being ethnocentric.67.45.96.88 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism (as claimed in the change of this photo) or ethnocentric to use the photo from the New York Public Library that has documented provenance from Davis' family. This photo is more complete than the one the above editor keeps trying to substitute in this and the Jefferson Davis article. The above anonymous editor has provided no cite to demonstrate that PBS has a better or more accurate photo than that of the NYPL, and is alleging incorrect intention to my changes.Parkwells (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop being obscurantist. http://civilwardailygazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/davis.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.96.55 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to use a well-documented source, the New York Public Library, which has provenance for its image, donated by a descendant of Varina Howell. The Civil War Daily Gazette, an online interest group, has no basis for claiming a more accurate image.Parkwells (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ron Jones for fixing the Photoshopped picture...was beginning to feel like Houstatlantavegas in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.96.16 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Per discussion on Talk page of Jefferson Davis article, have replaced image with version submitted by Crutchfield and added to Wikimedia - this is a documented image made from an original daguerrotype preserved and donated to the New York Public Library by Varina's granddaughter. This has documented provenance from the family of Varina Howell Davis, who preserved the original. Please stop edit warring, name calling, and changing this to substitute altered images. Editors who claim to dislike this image have offered no documentation to support their claims that it is "photoshopped."Parkwells (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not namecalling anyone, and I won't start an edit war about it. The "documented provenance" picture has still been heavily altered long before it made its way into the archives of the NYPL. Image-tampering didn't start with photoshop. I don't know what has all been altered and why - the background is obvious, and Varina's nose seems obvious as well. Comparing this photograph with the Getty's version that claims to be more accurate in this detail while not having spotless provenance, I can at least see that her right nose alar in the NYPL is altered - maybe an entire nose was copied into the picture. While in the Getty's version her nose seems more aligned with her mouth. So the guessing game on intention is on. Simply reproduction error(s)? Was there some damage in the copy, and someone tried to fix it by copying a matching nose onto her face, then that copy was lost for decades until donated to NYPL? Was there even malicious intent when altering the photo (it seems there are claims based on this photograph (!) that she wasn't 100% white, something that was a serious insinuation in a certain period)? Looking at all portraits we have of Varina Davis, I don't see her with a nose like in the NYPL-picture anywhere.

Crutchfield has asked Getty's how they came to their image, but until the matter is resolved, why not keeping the disputed picture out of the article(s) entirely? It may turn out that every single reproduction of the original daguerrotype has been intentionally tampered with. --Enyavar (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The NYPL daguerrotype is consistent with photos of Varina Davis as an older woman, which may be found on the Internet. Editors who are unhappy about this image have no evidence other than their "feelings" that it was altered. There is every reason to think the daguerrotype is more accurate than an idealized painting of Varina as a young woman, but the image now used in this article is not the one held by the NYPL.Parkwells (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Confederate first lady

This section includes a supposed quotation from a source, of which half at least is within square breackets, that is, it's been added by someone. Since it is not longer a quotation, unless anyone objects in the next week or so, I will re-do it, deleting the added material. If that material does indeed exist in the cited source, then either have a lengthier quotation, or summarize the materials and label it as such, and provide page references for the summary. Theonemacduff (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Error?

Davis greeted the war with dread, supporting the Union but not slavery.

Do you mean 'supporting the Union and not slavery' or 'supporting the Confederacy but not slavery'? Either of these would make sense, but the present entry doesn't. Valetude (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. I just changed "Union" to "Confederacy". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)