Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Jefferson and slavery over time

This discussion has too many references to primary sources, including Jefferson’s Notes. Too much intellectual history, not enough social history to balance our perception. The times change, and men with them.

- “Men of the time” in Virginia following the Revolution made land grants by the U.S. and Virginia to veterans made freedmen with full citizenship. But by the 1830s, black ship master-owners lost their licenses to trade internationally and were restricted to coastal and river routes. Jefferson was politically active, influential and prominent in both eras. What do actions say about beliefs?

- Jefferson explained to a neighbor that independence was the task of his generation, emancipation would have to be the task of the next. The younger neighbor migrated west with his family and slaves, emancipated the slaves on a raft in the middle of the Ohio River, helped them settle, and became the Governor abolishing slavery in Illinois. When was Jefferson encouraging of emancipation?

- Jefferson saw to it that his daughter’s companion-slave had the same Parisian Enlightenment education as his daughter. Any slave in Paris could report to a justice of the peace and secure their freedom by fiat, but Sally returned with Jefferson. Guests in his house said they could not tell the difference between the voices and elocution of wife Martha and her first cousin Sally from an adjacent room. When did Jefferson believe slaves educable?

- After his wife’s death, he promising her never to remarry, Jefferson took Sally as a common law wife. Monticello visitors report they spoke fluent French together commenting on the English discussion at table as intimates. Those slaves whom scholars presume to have been his children were all freed, and supported by him in a new start in Canada or Pennsylvania. When did a slave-holder have all their children educated and freed?

- As he approached death, Jefferson became more contemplative of an afterlife according to Joseph Ellis in “Faiths of the Founders”. He brooded on the subject of slavery, and trembled for his country at the thought of a just God. History makes sense of events by putting them in chronological sequence, even if an intellectual historian. When did Jefferson believed slavery was unjustified? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Good questions. Yes, the best way to evaluate the man is to consider his actions, all of them, over the course of his life. Jefferson made numerous attempts to end slavery and made many efforts at Monticello, etc to make their lives better. I have been trying to highlight some of this but there are a couple of editors here who have made their pov quite clear and routinely delete anything that will give the reader insights into this area of Jefferson's life, which is sort of understandable as facts have a way of rendering many of the opinions as academic peer-driven dribble. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article besides fewer citations to primary sources? Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know what sources claim Sally Hemings was a Parisian socialite and sat at TJ's table speaking French with him. We already know about the myth of the mistress. Brad (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

- Some of the umbrage surrounding Jefferson's family life occurs when sources do not make it clear that the First Lady Martha was not dead wife-Martha, Jefferson's First Lady was daughter-Martha. The wife-Martha-to-Sally half-sister connection is documented. The "socialite" business, such as it is, comes from the Monticello website, "Sally Hemings" article, note [3], Jefferson to James Maurice, 16 September 1789, Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 15: 433.

- At the time of the 1804 elections, I believe that the Jefferson-mistress business was just a campaign smear by the same editor who had reported in 1800 that Adams had opted for his French mistress and sent his German mistress back home. The result was that clergy everywhere were scandalized sort of blunting charges against Jefferson as Diest=atheist=anti-Christ. In the event, Adams lost important German support in Pennsylvania among voters who were outraged that Adams might have chosen the French companion over the German. The charge against Jefferson was of no account in 1804. Sally Hemings was maintained in accommodations like that of daughter-Martha -- Abigail Adams noted the obvious friendship between the two women -- so our attacking editor seemed to be most put out by the slave's accommodations, being kept in a style as though she were a social equal. The additional dirt seems just to have been dressing, so to speak.

- The sustained relationship with Sally matured after Jefferson's Presidential terms. On your next visit to Monticello, the walking tour now includes both her own apartment in the house, and the bunk where Sally slept in the retired Jefferson's room. That happened only after Jefferson's retirement in 1809.

- The DNA testing derived from a son born in 1808 narrows down the fathering possibilities to Jefferson, an uncle or contemporary cousins, while Sally's first child was born shortly after her return from France where she lived in a boarding school apart from Jefferson. Both Sally Hemings and Jefferson led a life of several chapters. Chronology matters. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The popular myths seem to keep on growing. Daughter Martha only visited the White House once or twice during TJ's presidency; hardly enough to be considered to have fulfilled the duties of First Lady. The Sally page at Monticello makes no claims to her being a Parisian socialite but they leave the door wide open for people that want to reconstruct the past to their own liking. It's not even known if Sally was literate let alone that she was fluent in French. It's true that Abigail Adams wrote "seems fond of the child and appears good naturd." but the article conveniently leaves out the fact that Adams also wrote that Sally appeared to be totally incapable of caring for Polly.

As for the Monticello "tour" there is neither any evidence that Sally had accommodations in the house or that she was TJ's "sleep in servant" during his retirement years. This is all made up like a stage play. We do have record that Burwell Colbert was TJ's personal servant and fiercely protective of him. Whenever it required, Colbert slept on the floor in TJ's room so as to be immediately available. Colbert was at TJ's bedside when he died but popular myth has placed Sally there instead. Brad (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

- So far, I’ve got it that (1) we are agreed that Jefferson was a middle-aged bachelor in the White House who had been a widower for some years. The “Martha” in his White House was his daughter, and her companion-servant was Sally Hemings, who did not perform much service of the kind as might be expected from a household servant, and they were infrequent visitors to the White House. Jefferson did not engage in soirees that might require the hostessing of your "First Lady" job description. He was famously shy: He mostly had intimate dinners at the White House, or he dined alone.

(2) we are agreed that the 1804 election charge against Jefferson, that he had ‘mistress’ in the White House whom he kept as a wife and had children by her, is unsubstantiated.

(3) we are agreed that DNA of a Jefferson-family relation born in 1808 is not compelling evidence to determine the progenitor of earlier children, and it is impossible to make a reasonable conclusion that Jefferson fathered all of Sally’s children.

(4) we are DISagreed as to whether Jefferson and Sally Hemings had a sustained relationship as adults during Jefferson’s Monticello retirement apart from her providing occasional sewing services to the entire household. Some of my understanding of wider interaction as well as her fluent command of French comes from a CNN Booknotes presentation by a resident Jefferson scholar at UVA. --- It may be a while before I track down a WP:RS to craft that last sentence for you.

- But am I correct about our agreement on the first three points? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed to death here already. I'm not looking for agreement but am tired of the myths given to Hemings in order to raise her profile to that of a Josephine Baker only for political and economical reasons. Common sense would dictate that Sally and her brother James learned at least some French only because they needed to. But somehow this gets stretched into Sally receiving a "Parisian Enlightenment education". If she had, it would most definitely have been reported in TJ's account book as were her clothing expenses. My annoyance comes from things that are repeated as fact when they've only been stretched from those facts. That you came here stating some of those myths is surprising. Brad (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

'Reliable Source' wars

As was just pointed out above, on several occasions over the last couple of months there was much discussion about the 100's of sources for Jefferson and the practice of cherry picking commentary from the same usual few. Currently, all the commentary/quotes in the 'Slavery section is negative and written up in the usual stunted, incomplete, out of context fashion -- while items like the DOI get brief cursory mention with no commentary. The DOI was one of Jefferson's landmark contributions, yet look at the way it is handled compared to the various details (often out of context) that are mulled over, as if they compare in significance. There is also no mention of Jefferson's lawyers years, or that he opposed slavery during his youth.
Once again, we need to include only established historical facts, with brief and neutral summary about historians. The section needs another rewrite. We need to include all the important facts about Jefferson's views, and his actions, and let the readers decide for themselves what is what. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, that depends on what is viewed as negative. Making a general statement that the section is negative does not help. The section can be improved, but I do not believe a rewrite is neccessary at this time. We can address any issue. What specifically is "negative" in the Slaves and slavery segment? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing, conversely, how does coverage of slave's lives at Monticello make Jefferson look like a "nice guy"? No one ever said in the article that he was a nice guy, right? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again, please stop with the simpleton routine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Calling me a simpleton repeatedly will not earn you any friendship points Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I asked you to stop with the simpleton routine, as if we were the simpletons. No one called you any names. Again, you need to respond to what is written. This sort of tact is not earning you any 'good faith' points. I have already outlined what is wrong with the section, in plain English, so your question about "where the negative parts are" just seems like more of your foot dragging. Read the opening paragraph to this section again. What part of it are you having trouble understanding? Many things are missing in the ' Slavery section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The DOI is in the very first sentence of the lede and has its own section that accords accolades to TJ for some of "the most potent and consequential words in American history." The second paragraph of the "Slaves and slavery" section begins, "In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson denounced the British government's role in the international slave trade, for which he harbored hostility." This seems like appropriate coverage to me. Yopienso (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the lede mentions the DOI, but the 'slavery' section barely covers it other than to mention he opposed the British imposed slave trade. The greater point however is that the section only uses commentary, or quotes, for minor details, while no commentary is given to the DOI and other items. This is why there have always been issues regarding 'which' commentary/quotes to use. Also there are several key items missing, not to mention that the reader will leave the page with no idea how the actual slaves lived at Monticello, etc. Again, the section should be committed to established facts with brief neutral commentary regarding historians. Otherwise, our little party here is going to last way past midnight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The DOI says nothing against slavery; the Constitution protects it. What else is there to say?

I never understand what you mean with "commentary."

Do we want Howell v. Netherland under "Lawyer and House of Burgesses" or under "Slaves and slavery"? Gordon-Reed is a good source for TJ's early anti-slavery rhetoric and his courtesy to some black people. (See pp. 100, 347, and 477 of The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. Yopienso (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"for which he harbored hostility" seems awkward.--Other Choices (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix it, then. :-) Yopienso (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

aaaah, for what it is worth, the DOI and the Constitution are actually political documents, not philosophical categorical imperatives. There is alot to be said about what they say.

- Frederick Douglass inferred that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document, and he predicted that when the Supreme Court no longer had slave-holders interpreting it, jurists would abolish slavery without recourse to legislation, in precisely the way it had been done in England and in Massachusetts.

- Lincoln believed that the Declaration was the gold center of the democratic republic, and the Constitution its silver frame. All men are created equal in their property right to the bread won by the sweat of their own brow. Economic equality, if not political and social. But the Scottish Enlightenment held that the one led to the next led to the last. Understanding of historical actors follows from reading what they read, and that's what scholars do, our SECONDARY sources. Jefferson was a student of the Scottish Enlightenment all his life.

- Slavers inferred that the Constitution protected slavery, but it did not say so, they feared the anti-slavery Republican majorities might get into power and abolish slavery by statute, hence the proposed Corwin Amendment making slavery a part of the Constitution. Then, under the tutelage of a slaver-led rebellion and 600,000 dead, the actual Thirteenth Amendment ended the ambiguity, abolishing and prohibiting slavery.

- So the historical summary offered above by Yopienso, "The DOI says nothing against slavery; the Constitution protects it. What else is there to say?" is not quite on the mark. The events of U.S. history saw many different kinds of adversaries, who each had a lot to say and who differed about what the DOI and Constitution said on the subject of slavery, and how those words were to be put into effect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers has yet to state what is negative in the article's Slaves and slavery section. Many Americans were practicing the slave trade during the time Jefferson wrote the DOI. If you put the DOI in the article section you need to put that Americans were practicing the slave trade. Jefferson never critisized the American slave trade in the DOI, only the British. Jefferson often sold slaves domestically for money to get out of debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Emancipation

After reading the hatchet job done on the idea of emancipation it's easy to see that the reader would never know that Jefferson strived for emancipation many times. Compare what the current version of the 'Slavery section says to what Monticcello.org says:

• Current section : As chairman of a committee to revise Virginia's laws in the 1780s, Jefferson decided not to adopt legislation suggested by his colleagues allowing slave owners to voluntarily free their slaves.[157] On several other occasions, Jefferson had the option of working on a plan for gradual emancipation through voluntary manumission but declined to do so.[158]

• Monticello.org : Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free."

The current section also fails to mention Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans and the 1784 ordinance. The idea of 'gradual emancipation' is presented in such a way as to make it look like Jefferson was always opposed to the idea. Who is writing this? Also, there is no mention of Jefferon's lawyer years where he took on cases against slavery. Apparently an entire rewrite of this section is in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with you; see the "Finkelstein opinion" section above. This really needs to be fixed.

Where I disagree with you is that TJ was not really a great emancipationist, not in the sense of a John Woolman or Edward Coles. He realized kidnapping Africans and instituting slavery in the Colonies had been a mistake that was detrimental to blacks and whites alike. What he really wanted to do was to rid the US of its slavery problems, i.e., rid the US of blacks. Emancipation was a means to that end. Yopienso (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Chernow shows Alexander Hamilton's manipulations of TJ's brand of emancipation here. Yopienso (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've run out of time to fix the third paragraph of "Slaves and slavery." There's a ref to Peterson that says the opposite of what we're saying. Finkelman disagrees with Peterson, Wilson, and Malone by name. Merkel (Download the PDF.) disagrees with Ellis, Finkelman, and O'Brien, calling them "commentators" rather than "historians." These are treacherous shoals for us to navigate, and I'm going to bed. :-) Yopienso (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The banning of the slave trade in the Viriginia legislature in 1778 needs to be mentioned however this was done more for economic then humanitarian reasons, according to Ferling. The section needs to tie in that slavery was intergal to the economy. The 1784 Ordinance needs to be mentioned as Jefferson's high point of his anti-slavery view. Also needed to be mentioned was Jefferson's fears of slave rebellions caused by the Haitian revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice I pointed out the fear of slave revolts is covered in the "Foreign policy" section? Yopienso (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Slave revolt was not specifically foriegn policy, rather, a domestic prevention. Jefferson did not want the Haiti rebellion to take place in the U.S. The Haiti revolution and domestic southern slavery were entangled with each other. There was a slave revolt plot and mass hangings of slaves in Viriginia. Jefferson did not want the hangings, he wanted the slaves to be deported. Not allowing the import of slaves allowed Jefferson to control the slave population. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to go digging through sources again, but one of the main considerations regarding Haiti was that it was a strategic French port. And remember, as we discussed, the Haitian revolution was led by Toussaint Louverture who later conspired with the British to restore slavery there. Jefferson didn't want this double dealer in power allied with Britain who btw helped to instigate the revolt in the first place, for their own particular interests. An often ignored topic regarding slavery and race relations in the early days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert:Jefferson believed the butcher of slave masters in Haiti would take place in America. Jefferson called the Haitian's cannibals. Outlawing the slave trade enabled Jefferon to control the slave population. Jefferson wanted to deport free slaves in order to stop slave rebellions. The Virginia legislature modified the 1782 manumission law, since free blacks were increasing in Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Colonization as emancipation. Yopienso above on Jefferson and emancipation goes directly to the earlier discussion about views on Africans humanity. Jefferson saw slavery as "detrimental to blacks and whites alike." The Enlightenment would have everyone have the liberty to develop their capacities. Jefferson had practiced law in Norfolk, won acceptance of smallpox inoculation vs. quarantine in close confinement of all immigrants!, and took cases to emancipate slaves. There he saw a free black community which included the largest ropewalk factory owned and managed by a freeman. And one of the six U.S. frigate shipbuilding program included Gosport Shipyard, Portsmouth VA for the USS Chesapeake, where the ship's carpenters were free blacks.

- But then Yopienso goes on to interpret emancipation as a means to "rid the US of blacks", which is not Jefferson's point. Jefferson's point is that all men are capable of self government through democratic citizenship. Racists did not believe blacks were incompetent to do so because they had not the capacity. Racism was so virulent in the U.S. that direct emancipation into full citizen was impossible. So Jefferson and his allies such as Madison, then Clay, then Lincoln, sought an African-American colony in Latin America or Africa to demonstrate to the world that the racists were wrong. In the early 19th Century, Haiti, the only example extant, was not a good argument FOR immediate full citizenship for blacks in the U.S. The notion was complicated because many of the white-flight emigres from Haiti had settled in Charleston SC and become politically influential there and nationally, in a way similar to Cuban emigre influence on U.S. Cold War policy in the 1960s.

- And if the racists could be proven wrong with the example of a functioning democratic republic of their own, skeptics here might be persuaded to be more open to full citizenship for the free blacks here in the U.S. Lest we delude ourselves about the persistence of racist mindset among us today, Virginia, the Mother-of-Presidents, listing those born there even if they did not have political careers there, does not count her sons who were founders and first presidents of democratic republics if tainted by their so-called "mudsill" races. To have bragging rights over Ohio, News Jersey's Wilson is counted, but not African-American Joseph Jenkins Roberts in Liberia, nor Sam Houston in Texas, married to an Amerindian.

- Proposals for Colonization allowed skilled artisans held in slavery to petition the legislature directly for emancipation, at which time the owner would be compensated, the mechanic would receive his freedom at his own initiative, and the African-American colony would gain a valuable citizen. I guess where you stand on this interpretation depends on where you sit. Are you an enslaved self-reliant craftsman who initiates and gains freedom, or are you another minus-count in the decennial county slave census? What exactly was Jefferson's position, for personal liberty or aggregate removal? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1765 "Emancipation" ≠ 1815 "Emancipation" ≠ 1865 13th Amendment

- To discuss Jeffersons views on slavery, his positions on several aspects of African-American not-slavery need to be included. We should survey his positions over time as seen in his writing, his actions, and in light of contemporary observations. This means a survey of influential writing and publishing from 1765 to 1825. We must take care NOT to assume “emancipation” anachronistically means the abolitionist 13th Amendment and only immediate, universal emancipation. It is 50 years from 1765 to 1815, another 50 years 1815 to 1865.

1815 Emancipation for an African-American might have come via:

- an ENTITLEMENT: (a) at birth on U.S. soil of free parents, (b) on turning an age based on recorded birth dates, or (c) fathered by a white man akin to Haitian law, whether or not the mother was an escaped slave;

- an ACT of LEGISLATURE: (d) surviving uniformed combat service 'for the duration', (e) on direct petition from the owner for extraordinary service, or (f) volunteering for expatriation to an African-American colony, the legislature compensating the owner.

- PRIVATE CONTRACT: (g) by master-slave negotiated self-purchase, (h) by owner fiat-declaration and publication, or (i) by will and testament at owner's death or on the beneficiary's death.

- Additionally, the SITUATION of a freed slave made a difference in how liberty was lived out in the early 19th Century, whether (a) a ship’s master owning a port-city townhouse in Norfolk, (b) an independent farmer located among anti-slavery western Rockingham County Scots-Irish neighbors, (c) a day-laborer renting a townhouse basement crawl space in Alexandria, (d) the freed wife of a plantation owner, mother to the future Congressman John Mercer Langston or (e) a physically disabled old man allowed “freedom papers” and his own slave-quarters cabin, because all on the plantation must work while held in slavery … TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As always, we're struggling against size restrictions in this article, so the place to introduce and refine such material is the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article, not the summary section on slavery in this article. I definitely agree that we should be sensitive to changes in Jefferson's position as he got older.--Other Choices (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Were there emancipation laws passed by the Virginia legislature in 1765 and 1815? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there were in all states. Have you read otherwise in a Yankee textbook? Lots of lazy high school publishers took a snap shot of the 1860 Census, since slavery was the cause of the Civil War -- which it was -- they saw 85% of slaves were field hands on cotton plantations in the Deep South, wrote that up -- and in 1860 it was the worst -- and called the Slavery-in-the-South unit done. The best one-volume remedy is U of MD professor Ira Berlin’s “Many Thousands Gone”. I'll try to work up a quick timeline of ups and downs by historical era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BRAGGING RIGHTS. As I remember without referring to notes, Virginia emancipates more Revolution veterans than any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Nationally, I think Rhode Island freed the most, even more than Congress. Anti-slavery Nathanael Greene was Washington's best general.

- on re-reading your comment, it may be you missed my earlier point, unlike the comprehensive emancipation of the 13th Amendment, there were earlier state statutes providing for freeing blacks from hereditary slavery by (1) entitlement, (2) legislative act, and (3) private contract. This includes provisions in every Southern state, see South Carolina's William Ellison.

- I suppose a scholar would have more properly categorized freeing blacks as emancipation (1) and (2) then (3) as manumission. Where would I be without collaboration. and secondary sources. Your question made me think it through. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment on "Slaves and slavery"

Alanscottwalker and I see no reason to include this detail:

He believed they were inferior to whites in reasoning, mathematical comprehension, and imagination. Jefferson thought these "differences" were "fixed in nature" and was not dependent on their freedom or education.[170] He thought such differences created "innate inferiority of Blacks compared to Whites". Jefferson viewed their was a hierarchy of race; he considered whites superior in beauty and intelligence while he considered blacks ugly, deceptive, and unintelligent.[171] Having adopted 18th Century scientific thought, in Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson viewed that blacks had a primal desire for the superior white beauty over their own race. [172][171] In 1809, Jefferson wrote to Abbé Grégoire, whose book argued against Jefferson's claims of black inferiority. Jefferson said blacks had "respectable intelligence", but did not alter his views.[173][174]

I have no motive in suppressing any information, but in helping create a concise summary. This information is appropriately covered in Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Gregoire is nicely written up there, but the orangutan bit needs more work, being only the previous garbled version I dumped off there a week or two ago. Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: As mentioned above. I had removed the Orangutan quote and replace with "primal desire". The current version does not contain the Orangutan quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant the part about the orangutan in the TJ and slavery article needs more work. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please give your opinion here on whether to include or delete the above passage.

• Delete. Yopienso (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Condense and rewrite. The article should note Jefferson's view of Africans but it should also mention that this did not effect his life long desire to end slavery, that he always regarded it as something morally wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This was Jefferson's core belief that blacks were inferior, except for music and for being adventuresome. This is about as condensed as can be. This was his view on blacks both free and slave. Yopensio, there is no "Orangutan" quote in the current segment. To remove Jefferson's core belief in white superiority and hierarchy is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Much too much text for this. The section needs to make clear that Jefferon's view were commonplace for his time period which didn't keep him from making numerous attempts to end slavery and bettering the living conditions of slaves. Trying to suppress this perspective, (along with other context regarding slave's lives) is pov pushing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert: I have reduced the size of the paragraph. Jefferson's letter to Coles is not neccessary. I recommend deleting Jefferson's letter to Coles. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Chop out and edit Sorry this doesn't exactly answer the question. The text that comes after the first footnote [171] should be eliminated. The rest needs a bit of rewording. Brad (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed content

This has been removed since covered in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Trimming the article to reduce article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"In 1809, Jefferson wrote to Abbé Grégoire, whose book argued against Jefferson's claims of black inferiority. Jefferson said blacks had "respectable intelligence", but did not alter his views. In 1814 the planter Edward Coles and Jefferson corresponded about Coles' ideas on emancipation. Coles tried to persuade Jefferson to free his slaves as he was about to do, though Jefferson refused and urged Coles not to do so either, fearing slaves would be left to roam about with no shelter, food and protection. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. I offer the following, still wordier than I personally prefer. Note that I've moved the last sentence of the preceding paragraph to the first of this one.

According to Stephen Ambrose: "...Jefferson, like all slave owners and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy--and of course as property." He believed blacks were naturally inferior to whites in reasoning, mathematical comprehension, and imagination, independent of environmental factors. Jefferson perceived a biological hierarchy of race, considering whites superior in beauty and intelligence and blacks ugly, deceptive, and unintelligent.

Another version, still aiming to please everybody:

Jefferson believed blacks were naturally inferior to whites in reasoning, mathematical comprehension, and imagination, independent of environmental factors.He perceived a biological hierarchy of race as detailed in the Chain of Being in which whites were superior in beauty, morals, and intelligence to the ugly, deceptive, and unintelligent blacks. Yopienso (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where things stand atm but having just read the slavery section it's still full of Historian a says and Historian b says. We had this problem with the Hemings section. Stacking one author against another just does not work. Brad (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Exactly right. See new section at bottom of page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The second version seems good since this is more stream line, however, there is no need to repeat Lemire references. What is needed now is Jefferson's fear of slave revolt. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's already in the "Foreign policy" section. I'm going to go ahead and edit the "Slaves and slavery" paragraph, subject to revision by other editors. Yopienso (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I noticed that the Jefferson page here no longer has protection, which seems sort of odd considering that the page was recently blocked/unblocked, not to mention it has a history of vandalism, which now seems to be returning on a regular basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a move protection on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which doesn't do anything to prevent drive by vandalism. Apparently no one knows why the previous protection level was removed. Seems it should be restored. We've already experienced at lest two incidents of vandalism. As the greater bulk of all intentional vandalism is done by 'IP users' it seems WP by now would have abandoned its naive and idealistic 'open policy' regarding edits. Oh well, enough said here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

When an article comes off of full protection it reverts to no protection and such is the case here. You can request semi-protection again (no IP's or new accounts allowed) but so far I haven't seen enough vandalism to warrant this. No doubt when US schools are back in session the vandalism will pick up again. Brad (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson and slavery lede section

Here is the current version of Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. Yet, he was opposed to the ultimate continuation of the institution of slavery throughout his life and privately struggled with the dilemma of slavery and freedom and its compatibility with the ideals of the American Revolution."

The above sentence does not reflect current research, but rather holds to the traditional view that Jefferson was anti-slavery. From reading this one would believe that there is no disagreement that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Without starting an edit war, is there anyway to add or suggest that other historians disagree with the view that Jefferson was anti-slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence reflects current research. He did own hundreds of slaves. He didn't want slavery to continue forever. He did struggle with the contradictions.

The fact that he owned (and fed and worked and punished and rewarded) all those slaves evinces that he was not "anti-slavery" in the Wm. Lloyd Garrison (and, apparently, the Cmguy777) sense of the word.

My only suggestions: remove "throughout his life" just to trim unnecessary words, and split the paragraph at the beginning of this sentence. The paragraph begins with his smarts and then takes a turn into slavery. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert: Done--Other Choices (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Did Jefferson ever directly state he did not want slavery to last forever? The only sentence I know is that Jefferson stated blacks would one day be free, however, this does not mean he stated slavery would end. Finkelman maintains Jefferson anti-slavery historians made up or distorted the historical record in order to protect Jefferson, the icon of liberty. Finkleman listed several not anti-slavery historians in 1994. The sentences do not reflect that there are historians who state Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What about these statements? "Jefferson in his rhetoric always opposed slavery and as President he ended the American slave trade in 1807. Historians disagree on how much Jefferson was dedicated to ending slavery in the United States." These sentences reflect current historical debate. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Nonsense. The article should reflect established historical facts first. i.e.Jefferson's Lawyers years, DOI language, emancipation attempts, etc, etc. Cm' you're trying to kick up the same dust with your 'current research' ruse. (it was once referred to as "current scholarship" in the many prior debates you seem to have forgotten about.) There are many modern historians who are not on the same page as Finkelman, et all. Unless 'current research' is in possession of new evidence of some sort, their research is no better than those that came before them. We've entertained this sort of academic narrow-mindedness before. Let's not drag the page into it again. Modern historians offer us a wide view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

One editor changed the statement that "Jefferson opposed the ultimate continuation of the institution of slavery" to "Jefferson opposed the institution of slavery." I think this is a controversial change which should be talked about first, so I reverted it. Personally, I don't think the change is justified.--Other Choices (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OC' the phrase 'ultimate continuation' is excess verbage. Removing this did nothing to change the statement over all. If you want to entertain the 'Finkelman sez' sweeping nonsense that's up to you. But before we use this routine to make changes in the lede it will require discussion and a wide range of consensus first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make hasty edit changes to the lede. I put this in discussion. Nothing had been decided yet by any editors. Any edit changes only make discussions difficult and confusing. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The view that historians disagree Jefferson was anti-slavery has been put into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference citation error needs to be fixed

There is a citation era at the end of the references. Can anyone fix this? Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yopienso (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso! Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yopienso (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Slaves and slavery section improvements

The current Slaves and slavery section is written in a neutral tone and appropriate issues have been addressed such as slave life and Jefferson's racial views on blacks, and selling slaves. Two issues, I believe need to be addressed. The first is Jefferson's fear of a domestic slave rebellion. That was one reason he was against the importation of slaves. He could control the slave population. The second is whipping slaves. I suggest writing out any paragraphs or sentences for discussion before putting into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cohen paper is good for both. Yopienso (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is not neutral. It's still full of cherry picked quotes and runs at 641 words and more should be added? Time for a reality check. Brad (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's sure better than it was. I tried to copy edit the 3rd paragraph, but realized I don't have the time to try to bring it up to speed. There's a good project for anyone willing and able. Which cherry-picked quotes? Do you think more emphasis should be made on TJ as slavemaster? Yopienso (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

'Controversial' change in lede

OC removed the term 'throughout his life' from the lede. I went along and further condensed the same text. What was 'controversial' about this edit? And wasn't OC's prior edit controversial? Have restored version prior to both OC's and my edits. We've talked about this before. Seems we're going to have to do it again for those who don't consult talk history.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the term "throughout his life" from the lede after two editors favored the change and nobody (including you) opposed it. Then you came along and made a further change to the lede without touching the change I made. I reverted your change (as I explained immediately above), so you retaliated by reverting my change, which you suddenly consider to be "controversial." You seem to be skating very close to WP:POINTY.--Other Choices (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments but at the rate the talk page expands I sometimes don't check out other discussions immediately. I went along with your edit because the new statement was general and sufficed to convey the idea of 'throughout his life' without saying it. I further reduced the same text, but you claimed removing this verbage was controversial, which I did not understand, becuase it was your edit that coul;d be considered 'controversial'. Making such changes, in the lede no less, without a wide range of consensus could also be considered disruptive, btw, esp with this page as you must be well aware. Have reverted back prior to both our edits and hope we can go from there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to what I think we all want. Does anybody think moving this part, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. Yet, he was opposed to the ultimate continuation of the institution of slavery and privately struggled with the dilemma of slavery and freedom and its compatibility with the ideals of the American Revolution. to the very end of the last paragraph is an improvement? Yopienso (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Like this:

After Martha Jefferson, his wife of eleven years, died in 1782, Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life; his marriage produced six children, with only two surviving to adulthood. In 1802, allegations surfaced that he was also the father of his slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998, DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. Although some historians have noted that the evidence can also support other possible fathers, most have concluded that Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings and fathered one or more of her children. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. Yet, he was opposed to the ultimate continuation of the institution of slavery and privately struggled with the dilemma of slavery and freedom and its compatibility with the ideals of the American Revolution. Yopienso (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, can we get you to use italics instead of the small text? It's very difficult to read. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I do it with largish amounts of text to avoid taking up so much space. Yes, I could use italics, but another idea would be for you to hold down Ctrl while pressing + to enlarge the size on your screen. Yopienso (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The lede does not address historians who view Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it does, which is the whole point of saying that Jefferson was opposed to the "ultimate continuation of slavery" instead of simply saying that he was opposed to slavery.--Other Choices (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with OC. Also, the lede should address established historical facts. There is no evidence comparable to the life long efforts of Jefferson that says he was not anti-slavery. Again, all we have is academic conjecture on what he didn't do, nothing that measures up to all that he did do. There's the difference you (CM), once again, are ignoring. Done with repeating this stuff to you. You need to get a RS that nails the idea based on concrete evidence, get a wide range of consensus, and then we can talk again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Stating that Jefferson was opposed to the "ulitmate continuation of slavery" is the same as Jefferson opposed slavery. The lede does not address that their are historians who view Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The lede is for general established facts. Views can be entertained in the other sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The lede is suppose to reflect current research. Historians who disagree that Jefferson was not anti-slavery has not been addressed in the lede. Gwillhickers, your sarcastic and arrogant tone, i.e. "entertained", is inappropriate and offensive. Stop. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with OC, who seems to see TJ's contradictions, but not with Gw', who seems not to see that side of TJ that supported slavery. That bugs Cm, who can't seem to see the side of TJ that opposed slavery. It's not either/or, guys, it's both.

This sentence, Jefferson has often been rated in scholarly surveys as one of the greatest U.S. presidents, though since the late-twentieth century, he has been increasingly criticized by historians, often on the issue of slavery, has been changed, I think. "On the issue of slavery" doesn't express the point of the criticism. We could rewrite it as Jefferson has often been rated in scholarly surveys as one of the greatest U.S. presidents, though since the late-twentieth century, historians have increasingly criticized his failure to end slavery. Or, criticized his failure to more vigorously oppose slavery. Or criticized his acquiescence to the institution of slavery within the United States. Yopienso (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction, I see a side of Jefferson who went along with slavery while making definite attempts to end it, and at times who put family obligations (debt) before his concerns for slavery. I do not see, and no one has presented, anything that affirms Jefferson 'supported' slavery. You can say he 'supported' slavery when he sold slaves, but that is like saying a soldier supports a war because he fought in it, or that someone who drives a car 'supports pollution'. Unless you can show where the soldier/car driver 'promoted' these things it is unfair to say they supported anything. Again, general established facts belong in the lede, views can be entertained elsewhere. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, Gwillhickers, but heads-up about the incoming Wiencek source, which (per the preview information that we've discussed earlier) argues that Jefferson consiously and deliberately profited from breeding (increasing the number of) slaves. By the way, it might be useful to double-check your opinion about what properly belongs in the lede against WP:LEDE.--Other Choices (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : "Consciously and deliberately profited"? This is more of the same. i.e."The car driver used his car to commute to work and 'consciously and deliberately profited' from it, thus confirming his support for air pollution." -- No one has yet to present any evidence outlined by a RS that confirms Jefferson 'supported', or at some point stopped opposing, the institution of slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

- "Consciously and deliberately profited" is news to me. I understood that he was a reluctant seller of slaves, held them too long into years of declining production, and at one point around 1815 or so stopped purchasing altogether, so as to make his personal bankruptcy certain. I thought his management of slave population to have been UNprofitable, and he tinkered with manures and crop rotation to try to increase yields to AVOID purchasing more land and slaves, his personal calculus tending to an interest in books, wine, architecture -- and political ambition.

- And there is that little matter of election in a slave-holding state where the FIRST test of character for a politician running for office was -- owning slaves. --aside-- The SECOND test of character in Virginia was liquoring up your voters. Men voted out loud "viva voce", then shook the candidate's hand. Only once did Washington ACT on his belief that men should vote sober. He lost, then was re-elected when he conformed to the customs of his time, and handed out free drinks before votes. Editors on this page may wonder what he REALLY believed what voting and voters SHOULD be. Really? His actions did not conform with our modern ideal of rational voters making sober election choices, so we can deconstruct his correspondence to conclude that he believed in superstitious voters drunkenly casting ballots as a justification for democracy in a republic? Really? Really?

- I thought Jefferson sold slaves so he could afford to GIVE books to UVA? He put "University of Virginia" on his tombstone, not "slave profiteer". Does a BALANCED narrative on Wikipedia say, The emperor wore no clothes, but others say he wore his clothes lightly? Are not we to determine the "preponderance" of scholarship and evidence? That's sort of like the difference in the standards of evidence between a jury convicting on a misdemeanor, versus a capital offense. If something is not "beyond the shadow of a doubt", must we encumber every assertion with a "yes-but" quibble? That would not be encyclopedic summary style, it would be an academic format. Happily with inline note links, we do not have to lose supplementary views, they can go to notes.

- Yes, annual balance-sheet and cash-flow analysis of Jefferson's personal economy stretching over time in public office and retirement would be welcome, that is how one determines "profit" so as to responsibly use the term. Now, just a heads up, I would be suspicious of a stab at it by some hobbyhorse scholastic who had not the wherewithal to report findings in compliance with GAAP standards. Any such untutored, idiosyncratic representation would make informed conclusions impossible on our part, however suggestive old or new research findings might interestingly be. Of course, I love ALL things Jefferson, so bring on Weincek. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

VH - Much of that probably comes from the following strand of scholarship. I don't think you were here when we discussed this previuosly: T. Jefferson said: "I know no error more consuming to an estate than that of stocking farms with men almost exclusively. I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. What she produces is an addition to capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption." Ibid., 45-46. T. Jefferson's keen awareness of the profit to be derived from the natural increase of his slaves is also shown in his observation that "our families of negroes double in 25 years which is an increase of the capital invested in them, 4. per cent over and above keeping up the original number."--William Cohen, p. 17, footnote 54.

As has been noted several times, our task is to represent all of this broad and varied scholarship in summary form, for this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@WilliamCohen, well, yes Jefferson made calculations as to profitability over time, hence his assertion in "Notes" that a master's investment was covered by a slave born of a slave by age 45, and so by rights, as every man owns his own labor, and accounts being even, the slave should be freed. But that does not bear on the fact that Jefferson ruined himself by not populating his plantation with women of childbearing age. You may be thinking of existing Virginia slave-breeding operations elsewhere, but Jefferson had no connection with them to my knowledge. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not thinking of them, I am pondering the scholarship about what TJ said. (As an aside 45 y.o. seems rather late in time -- among other things one would have to figure in the life expectancy of an enslaved manual laborer, and his useful life and means of support, thereafter.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Getting back on topic, for my understanding of Jefferson wanting Slavery to end, eventually, I key on his broad moral condemnations in the DOI and in "Notes" and elsewhere, and also, his late in life expression to Lafayette, as reported by slave Israel Jefferson that, it should end but now was not the time.

I was recently reading about the aborted slave uprising in Richmond during one of the Monroe governorships (c. 1800), and it is no wonder, given his moral qualms; his feelings for liberty; his own knowledge of the price of revolution on the whole inhabitants of a place; his knowledge of the darker side of the slave system, even as he tried to lighten it; and his sitting on his mountain, his family and people he lived with his whole life, within and surrounded by hundreds literally and figuratively enthralled in this system, that he did not tremble and pray for its (peaceful) end. Jefferson was nothing, if not perceptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be just one among many perspectives ignored by the 'either/or' school of thought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

editbreak1

All we are doing here is speculating about details. Jefferson owned slaves, so naturally he managed them so as to make a profit. That by itself says very little. We must consider other pertinent facts ALONG WITH these details -- often referred to as 'weighing all the evidence'. It is entirely possible for Jefferson to own/work slaves while making definite attempts to end slavery, which he did on numerous occasions. We keep hearing that Jefferson was a 'complex man', yet listening to a couple of editors, they seem to think the man is entirely two dimensional. i.e.'Jefferson was not a saint, therefore he was evil.' I am restoring the lede to its previous version (leaving 'ultimate continuation' in place) as this 'talk' is far from over and there is no wide range of consensus to change it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, you were the only one to object, and that only after you got into a snit.

What about moving the first 2 sentences to the end, as I asked above in small letters? Yopienso (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My 'snit' involved holding an editor to the same standard he was expecting of me regarding undiscussed changes in the lede. We are putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't some one present evidence that more than merely 'suggests' that Jefferson, after a long history of opposition to slavery, all of the sudden stopped, and that he was no longer opposed? Let's do that first, then we can talk with some actual basis to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are attempting to make Jefferson your personal blog and are purposefully obstructing from the article lede the Finkelman source that listed several historians who view that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not your personal blog, so kindly stop the horn blowing when things don't go your way. Please use Finkelman to source his own statements. We can't speak for other historians in the article on the basis of 'Finkelman sez'. If Finkelman says a given historian holds a view, then find the RS for that historian and cite it, keeping in mind the difference between concrete evidence and speculations about a couple of selected details. [additional : ] Meanwhile I am about to add a comment about other historians in the lede. There is enough doubt to merit mention of this, keeping in mind that established historical facts can't simply be canceled out on the basis of specualtion only. Again, we need solid evidence to base these claims on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Thomas Jefferson is not on in a court trial! Wikipedia is about what the sources state. Finkleman pointed out that there were historians that did not view Jefferson as anti-slavery. This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. Readers have the freedom to view Jefferson in any way they want and given a fair assessment of Jefferson. Even if Jefferson was anti-slavery and an abolitionist, there were certain historians who disagree with this view. The disagreement needs to be mentioned in the article lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Great edit Gwillhickers! The readers know there is disagreement on Jefferson and slavery. Thanks. This allows references that Jefferson was anti-slavery to be put into the article. That makes the article balanced when readers know their is disagreement from historians on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the general statement that Jefferson opposed slavery gets a citation. At that citation, Finkleman gets paraphrased to point out there are scholars who do not agree, with an offsite link to Finkleman, maybe.

@Gwillickers, a bankrupt such as Jefferson has not made a profit in his enterprise. I will try to find the source showing the slave population of Jefferson's Montecello properties decreased, regardless of his general calculations of population increase that might have been used to demonstrate that the Virginian slave in general was healthier and longer lived than the French or German serf or New England factory worker, or the South Carolina indigo field hand, or the Mississippi cotton picker. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the general statement that Jefferson opposed slavery gets a citation AND the general statement that Jefferson supported (or strengthened, or practiced, or maintained, or whatever) slavery gets a citation. We have to cite TJ's theoretical opposition to slavery (and actual opposition to the international trade) AND his participation in domestic slavery with the aim of turning a profit both from breeding and labor. We've been over this ad nauseam. We should avoid going off-topic and comparing TJ's slaves to serfs or other workers around the globe. Yopienso (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

-TJ was a man of the world, he read about it, he traveled it, he acted on the world stage on two continents. He thought about it, spoke about it, wrote about it in English, French, Italian and Latin. The Enlightenment considered everyone in all circumstances. The point of the DOI was to respect --and be persuasive to--the opinions of all mankind, for instance, hence his study of Koran, and owning a copy. You may remember the first Muslim elected Member of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives on Jefferson's copy of the Koran walked over from the Library of Congress. When we think about slavery or anything else in the wake of Jefferson's mind, it is difficult to keep up, but it is not off topic to try to trail after him.

(1) Jefferson did not turn a profit from slavery -- he did not aim to. His reluctance to engage in its practice did not allow himself to keep his financial head above water. He was not stupid. He knew how it could be done profitably, and chose not to do so.

(2) Jefferson did not run a slave factory to "profit from breeding". He did not import males to his property, house the impregnated women, raise the children to ten years of age, then drive them in chained coffles of twelve each into the Deep South for sale to the highest bidder. Jefferson owned slaves he and his wife inherited, purchased few, sold few, and bought little arable land on which to make them profitable.

- Your indiscriminate categorization of Jefferson's slave-holding practice indicates a profound underestimation of just how evil and outrageous hereditary slavery in the 19th Century could be, even in the relatively mild practice of North American Border States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL Yopienso (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@The Virginia Historian, it seems to me that the question of whether Jefferson consiously profited from the natural increase of his slaves is a subset of the question of whether his plantation operations in general were profitable, which has to be weighed against his profligate spending habits to evaluate his chronic debt problems. I think that the Cohen article isn't a very good source, simply because it is so old; but it is out there (on-line, no less -- which means open season for cherry-pickers), so editors can plausibly suggest including content from Cohen. However, if Cohen is a lone voice saying something, there will be problems with WP:WEIGHT. The real test for this issue will come with the releasee of Wiencek's book, and then we'll have to wait and see how the academic community reacts to his scholarship.--Other Choices (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

VH - when you have a source for "his reluctance" etc. We can talk about that source. In the meantime your apparent reluctance to see that TJ in reference to children born into slavery called them an increase in capital leading to profit seems off topic. And your accusation against Y of "underestimation," etc. just seems inflammatory as well as off-topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

- I thought to read more into Gary Wills for one before contributing anything to the article text itself. But agreed, all the primary source original research should be removed and replaced with secondary scholarly reliable sourced material. Is 1970 work non-admissable by reason of agism? Poor Dumas Malone !!! Okay, I've got some reading to do before I return.

- Nevertheless, on Jefferson's part, if (a) there are no coffles of ten year-olds lashed south, -- or even more remotely, (b) the shrewd Yankee practice in New York and Pennsylvania, loading up cartloads of slave children two years before their "gradual emancipation" was to free them at fourteen, then removing them to sell into a slave-holding State, THEN Jefferson was no "breeder" of slaves. It is the calling Jefferson a slave breeder which is the unsupported "inflammatory" statement, justified only by a thin extrapolation of logical syllogisms from disconnected journal entries and correspondence and unrelated to any historical facts on the grounds of Monticello.

- I do not believe that all Jefferson's slaves lived as the tenants along Mulberry Row, which was, to put it snidely, more nearly a Potemkin Village sort of facade, or more kindly, a wannabe demonstration project. Historical research -- not mere word games -- is being expanded on the lives of Jefferson's slaves "over the hill" and out-of-sight from his impressionable guests. Preliminary findings show a not-so-happy existence as that enjoyed higher up the hill.

- In all seriousness, would editors here give me three recommended authors who have had monograph published to read before I return? I don't have ready access to JSTOR, but my city branch library can do interlibrary loan with state universities. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not clear if you want books but among others (perhaps you can find more recent), RB Bernstein (Oxford 2003) Finkleman (Sharpe 2001) and for Monticello, specifically, L. Stanton (TJF 1996 and 2000). But keep in mind that where you may really want to edit is Thomas Jefferson and Slavery before here. Also, for JSTOR, your library should have a subscription, also you may request copies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

- Yes, books, thanks. I'm no fresh-mint PhD, just a retired high school social studies teacher. In my frame of reference, journal articles are sort of a test flight for a scholar with integrity to get a peer-review for recent research. Then I've seen some of my favorite authors like Joseph Ellis, evolve in their understandings over decades of publishing books peer-reviewed and defended and further researched ... books.

- I'm so old I don't think good history for textbooks gets distilled until after the event's 50 year anniversary. When we write about Vietnam, as I remember it's 20 years to get USG documents, 50 for U.K., and 100 for the French. So the French occupied in 1883 + 100 ≈ 1980 + 50 ≈ 2030, by 2030 or so we should be getting decent write ups on the Vietnam War into the high school textbooks.

- Elsewhere an editor recently posited all those fighting on one side of a war are ipso facto Eric Hoffer's true believers, sort of like a graduate student choosing to take courses under a faculty in pursue of a PhD, I suppose. So all slave holders must have believed in slavery and all its practices everywhere ... sort of forgetting in his premis, for the soldier, the nature of conscription is a form of coerced labor, -- for reference, see SDS pamphlets available at the Los Angeles International Airport 1968 for an "inflammatory" explication of the concept. William Cohen seems to get it, Everybody doesn't believe everything about all that is done in the institutions in which one finds oneself participating. I think I will read a book he wrote.

- How to explain to the graduate student. All football coaches on the staff of Penn State, while freely consenting coaches at Penn State, and in the pay of Penn State, did not approve of all the practices of all the coaching staff at Penn State, nor did all coaches at Penn State practice all relationships with minors in their charge which some coaches at Penn State practiced in the community with tacit approval. Nor can any global inference properly be made about the Penn State football season ticket holders, nor the women's softball coaches at Penn State. I hope that this is not so anti-deconstructionist so as to be inflammatory to those not yet long-in-the-tooth ... is that then to say, to those young scholars still wet-behind-the-ears? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

William Cohen source

I just skimmed through the Cohen source. Right from the start on page 1 Cohen says this:

Moreover, throughout his life he continued to hold that slavery was unjust and immoral.] (Bold added.)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cohen paper was first published in 1969, which is a bit long in the tooth for Jefferson scholarship.--Other Choices (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is, Cohen is one source, and his use of words does not mean we need to use them all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Gw's point is that a phrase he likes that has been deleted (twice now) is found in the paper. While Cohen is old, I find him pertinent. (Malone, remember, wrote 6 volumes from 1948-1981.) On p. 3, he points to a 1961 book as the beginning of attacks on "Jefferson as a proto-abolitionist master." Gw cherry-picked one sentence from the first page, so I pasted on his talk page a slew of quotes that give the sense of the paper, which is that "Jefferson's proslavery behavior" was at odds with his anti-slavery rhetoric, making him "a man of many dimensions." Yopienso (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase I 'cherry picked' was a general and overall comment, found on page one from a source brought to the table by another editor. It wasn't some isolated detail with lots of conjecture piled on top to make it look as if it compared to Jefferson's DOI language, emancipation attempts, ordinances, banning of slave trade, letters, speeches, etc, etc. Nothing has been presented that even begins to compare to the established evidence. There is no concrete evidence that confirms that Jefferson 'no longer opposed' or 'supported slavery'. Just conjecture and speculations about cherry picked details. Jefferson had runaways flogged. "Jefferson hired slave catchers and asked his friends to keep an eye peeled.." That you have to grasp at this sort of thing only exemplifires that there is no concrete evidence that Jefferson 'supported' slavery. This will be the third time this has been explained to you. Please do not drag the debate on if you can not find something that confirms that Jefferson 'supported' slavery, and kindly keep the debate off of my talk page., the likes of which I am transferring here so others can comment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Historians debate Jefferson's commitment to the anti-slavery cause."

This sentence, "Historians debate Jefferson's commitment to the anti-slavery cause," was added to the lede without any discussion, so I deleted it. I don't think it's necessary or useful, because the lede already strikes a properly ambiguous note about Jefferson's anti-slavery credentials.--Other Choices (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Other Choices you deleted Gwillhickers edit without any discussion. The reader needs to know that historians debate or disagree that Jefferson was anti-slavery. You are keeping information from the reader to make a fair assessment of Thomas Jefferson and slavery. That is POV. Stop being an obstructionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I certainly don't take well to your "obstructionist" comment. That type of language raises the hostility level around here, which really isn't a good idea. I opened this section to explain why I deleted YOUR unilateral addition to the lede. If you want to talk about a different, earlier edit, perhaps you should open a new section where you can begin by explaining why you didn't bring it up before now. And I am pleased to notice that (so far at least) you are not objecting to my most recent edit, which is the topic of THIS section.--Other Choices (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the addition was unnecessary and the revert warranted because the section already says, "many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree." (Some editors insist on that word "disagree," while I would prefer a more parallel construction of as a foe of slavery/as a supporter of slavery.)

However, I don't think we needed to discuss it first. Consensus is arrived at two ways: by editing and by discussion. When there is consensus for the content of a new phrase, I think we can rely on editing. On this controversial article, I think we should first discuss an addition or removal of material that may be controversial in content. This, imo, was mainly about style.

Other Choices, you are certainly not "obstructionist," but informed and rational and working collegially to improve the article. Yopienso (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There needed to be in the article lede that other historians debate or disagree that Jefferson was anti-slavery. My obstructionist statement referred to the readers who were obstructed from a neutral article. I am all for editors to coexist in a "happy" Wikipedia talk page. I apoligize to Other Choices if any statement was held to be offensive. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"In reference to negro slavery"

Alanscottwalker, it is a pleasure to work with you on this article. I have reverted your good faith edit in an effort to keep the word count down and just from my personal writing aesthetics. :P Since the whole section refers to Negro slaves and slavery, I don't see the need to make that point in the closing paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Blah. It just seems to hang there now. Also that sentence seems not well sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lemire referenced sentence

Why is this sentence POV? Lemire is a reliable source on Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed that blacks wanted to kidnap whites and mate with them just as an Orangutan had kidnapped and wanted to mate with black women. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"In his Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson adopted the contemporary scientific view that the inferior blacks desired to mate with the superior whites.

Where does the idea of "wanted to kidnap whites and mate with them" come from?? Whose stretch is that? Lemire's

From Notes on the State of Virginia:

Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour
of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of
the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. (bold added)

Jefferson said that blacks "declared" their preference for whites, based on "their own judgement" so apparently his views are based on his observations along with the scientific theories of his day regarding Orangutans. This is obviously something Jefferson didn't 'invent' on his own. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence from Lemire is only indirectly related to "slaves and slavery," and so is inappropriate for inclusion in this article. Furthermore, it seems like cherry-picking a source for sensationalistic negativity. Whether intentional or not, inclusion of this gossipy tidbit gives the appearance of a biased cheap shot against Jefferson. And finally, it isn't even mentioned in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article so it shouldn't be included here.--Other Choices (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Yopienso (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Other Choices is spot on. It's an inflammatory statement that should be removed. Brad (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is directly related to slaves and slavery. The common belief was that Orangutans kidnapped black women to mate with them. Jefferson believed that blacks desired the superior abilities of whites just like an Orangutan desired a black woman. Jefferson viewed the difference between whites and blacks was that same as the difference between an Orangutan and a black woman. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're merely repeating the same failed claim. As was pointed out already, Jefferson's view here was based on observations of Negros and the common scientific theories of his day. This view is really incidental to Jefferson and amounts to nothing where morality, right and wrong are concerned. The Orangutan comment will only serve to play on modern day stigmas regarding racial differences. If someone was to make that comment today they would no doubt be doing so to incite or vent hatred. That was not at all the case with Jefferson some 200 years ago. Most people of Jefferson's time never saw or didn't even know what an 'orangutan' was, much less harbored the belief that the orangutan "kidnapped black women to mate with them". But let's say for the moment this was the "common belief". Would Jefferson be 'wrong' to share the same belief 'common' during his time? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not judging Jefferson's "Orangutan" statement. He was speaking toward the black race. Jefferson was directly addressing in NOTSOV why he wanted to deport African American slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : (edit conflict) Which has what to do with the idea that Orangutans "kidnapped black women to mate with them"? You say you're not judging TJ for this statement but have several times used it as the basis for his 'racism, deportation, hierarchy, superiority, etc, etc.' when in fact it was only an observation. Jefferson made clear why he felt Africans would be better off in Africa after emancipated, as once again, Cm', freed slaves would be left roaming about with no food, shelter, and because of the idea that there would be racial conflict which very easily could have resulted in a fate far worse than slavery in the US, though I doubt you will ever here someone like Finkelman or Reed ever admit it. To them the sun revolves around slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert:Gwillhickers, depriving readers of the truth is not Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article on Jefferson is not meant to be an apologetic advocating slavery. I never used the Orangutan statement as a basis for "racism, deportation, superiority ..."! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the Orangutan statement was a "common belief" and based on the scientific theory of the day, not invented by Jefferson. If you want to include it and the idea of blacks preference for whites, please make sure your are clear and let the readers know that this was on observation and the scientific theory of the day. While you're so concerned about keeping the truth from the reader you can help remedy the problem by outlining the lives of slaves. In fact, there should be a separate (sub) section on 'Jefferson's management of slaves'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

- I tried to explain here, Colonization is about personal emancipation initiated by the slave himself, enabling him to free his entire nuclear family at one stroke, the master compensated immediately by legislative funding. Somehow, we should be able to look beyond aggregate census statistics to the actual people living. Free blacks suffered a substantial decline of freedom and privilege from 1775 to 1815. Some positions concerning the several kinds of emancipation are about people who want to live free with their families, not about philosophical categorical imperatives, nor abstract aggregate numbers arrayed in county populationl spread sheets.

- Jefferson clearly believed that blacks were capable of self-government -- in a Liberian democratic republic -- science -- he personally recommended the astronomer-surveyor, almanac-self-publisher Benjamin Banneker to G. Washington to survey DC -- industrial enterprise -- slaves engineered and built his architectural plan for Monticello -- and agricultural pursuit.

- In "Notes", Jefferson understood the rationale for the rise of slavery in "Laws", he personally objected to it in "Manners". In "Notes", Jefferson sought emancipation for (1) the educated black, (2) those over 45, and (3) expatriates who voluntarily chose immediate freedom by joining a colony. We have to move beyond the Cliff Notes misrepresentation. He did not advocate coercive "deportation".

- Here we are trying to write an encyclopedia article based primarily on secondary sources. In a survey article on Thomas Jefferson, exactly what scholar WP:RS attributes what percent of Jefferson's publication to mating orangutans as an area of life accomplishment? Where does Lemire place the little volume privately published in Paris to refute a French Philosophe's idea that all things American are scientifically degenerate from European? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Treaty of Paris (1783)

Off topic. Better discussed at Declaration of Independence

From reading the Treaty of Paris (1783), the British Crown did not recognize Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and in the opening paragraph he refers to himself as Prince of the United States. The treaty also mentioned the British have open waterway rights on the Mississippi River forever. Maybe this belongs in the reference desk. Is the United States still part of the British empire? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1783) transcript Cmguy777 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the article state that the British crown did not legally recognize the Declaration of Independence? Has the British government ever recognized the Declaration of Independence? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplify that sentence to, "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of. . . George the Third. . . and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore. . ." and you'll see he wasn't calling himself the Prince of the USA. Then read Article I and you'll see he acknowledged American independence. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the first sentence George III stated he was the most Potent Prince of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is not recognized in the document and George III is apparently granting the United States independence and autonomy. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful with the phrase "Jefferson's Declaration of Independence," because the Declaration of Independence was a group effort by the entire Continental Congress, with Jefferson having been selected by "Mr. Independence" (John Adams) to write the first draft after Adams' primary collaborator Richard Henry Lee was recalled to Virginia. (Jefferson admitted that he didn't write anything original.) Adams and Lee together wrote the original declaration of independence -- the Congressional Resolution of May 10 and 15, 1776, with its definition of the term "happiness" which featured in the later Declaration.--Other Choices (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The article gives Jefferson allot of credit for the DOI. The document was a source of contention between Adam's Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans. I believe this needs to be mentioned along with the Independence of the United States was formerly recognized by George III in the Treaty of Paris (1783). Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to question the relevance of the manner of King George III's recognition of U.S. independence to this article on Thomas Jefferson, but I've never thought about it before, so I don't want to dismiss it out of hand.

I'm surprised by your statement that the Declaration of Independence "was a source of contention between Adams' Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans." My gut feeling is that's not accurate, but perhaps you have a reliable source in mind for us to consider.--Other Choices (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does this have to do with this article? More appropriately discussed at Declaration of Independence. Brad (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The DOI was a contentious document between the Federalists and Republicans. My source is The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History, Volume 1 page 146. That only lasted until the War of 1812 and the decline of the Federalists. What does the DOI have to do with this article? Seems to be the centerpiece of Thomas Jefferson biography article. Jefferson made specific charges against King George III in the DOI. George III recognized American Independence in 1783, not 1776. When Jefferson wrote the DOI that legally created Loyalists and Continentals. The Loyalists could have been considered traitors to the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to share Brad101's skepticism about this topic's relevance to the article. Furthermore, I suspect that you are misreading your source. It might help if you give an exact quote from page 146 of the book you mention -- which, by the way, is a tertiary (not secondary) source, so it might not be appropriate to use in this case. To give a prominent example of a secondary source that makes no mention of the point you're trying to make, see The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick. This is why I imagine that you're misreading your source.--Other Choices (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

- To recap the [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=6&page=transcript

Cohen

(This discussion for some reason was posted on my talk page, and has been moved here so others can comment.)
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How can you not call this supporting slavery? "Jefferson owned slaves, so naturally he managed them so as to make a profit."

A soldier clearly supports the war effort by his participation, as do taxpayers, even when we disagree philosophically with its aims or methods. (Some people disagree so strongly they refuse to support the war by fighting or paying taxes.) Every time we drive a car we contribute to pollution, which is why Ralph Nader doesn't drive. "Support" doesn't mean only "advocate for" or "promote." It also means "4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen," "9. to give strength to; maintain."

Insert : Nonsense. Claiming someone 'supports pollution' because they drive a car is a wild stretch and nothing but a pov with one detail (that ignores others) to support it. All we have is conjecture that TJ 'supported' slavery. You have only taken a few of these types of details and are using this stuff to compare with DOI language, emancipation efforts, etc, etc, etc. You are attempting to use a few minor details, easily qualified by other facts, and are ignoring a life time of opposition, actions, etc that clearly indicates that Jefferson was always opposed to slavery. Instead of digging around for isolated tid-bits of dirt why don't you take a good look at the things Jefferson did do in his efforts to oppose slavery? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of Cohen's paper. Excerpts follow; I've bolded some passages:

The Ordinance of 1784 marked Jefferson's last public attempt to limit or end slavery. p. 9

One theme that emerges with great clarity from an evaluation of Jefferson's antislavery career is his steadfast opposition to the slave trade. On this issue public opinion was with him, and he did not temporize or take a moderate stand. On the whole, however, there was a significant gap between his thought and action with regard to the abolition question. He fully believed that it was morally and politically evil to hold another man in slavery, but he continued to do so. p. 10

His bondsmen were well fed and clothed, and their work load was comparable to that of white freemen. In this regard their lot may have been easier than that of many other slaves in the state. Nevertheless, when he dealt with runaways, sales of slaves, breeding, flogging, and manumissions, his behavior did not differ appreciably from that of other enlightened slaveholders who deplored needless cruelty, but would use whatever means they felt necessary to protect their peculiar form of property. p. 13

Throughout his life Jefferson hired slave catchers and asked his friends to keep an eye peeled for his thralls when they struck out for freedom. p. 14

It may be argued that, although Jefferson deplored the institution of slavery and particularly the buying and selling of men, the purchases and sales he made were impossible to avoid, since they were for the purpose of paying off debts or uniting families. But in 1805, he said that he was "endeavoring to purchase young and able negro men" for his plantation. Clearly then, he was not merely engaged in a holding operation designed to protect his slaves from a cruel and inhospitable world. pp. 16-17

Insert : The reason Jefferson owned slaves in the first place was to make a profit. This is a given. Faulting him for owning slaves then turning around and faulting him for buying slaves is a redundant accusation over the same thing. The chief means by which slaves were acquired was through purchase. It is understood that people who owned slaves usually bought them. Faulting him in this fashion would be no different than accusing a car driver/air polluter for purchasing a car. Redundancy for the sake of filling up space. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

By 1805 Jefferson had come to the realization that slavery would not end overnight and in the face of worsening political division among the states, he no longer could take an active stance against slavery as President. As President Jefferson was now a member of the Executive branch. Laws regarding slavery would be a Legislative matter, so it would have been improper for him as President to advance a partisan position, esp in light of prevailing controversies regarding slavery at that time. While president no one proposed a nation wide anti-slavery bill for him to sign. Context. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Jefferson's unwillingness to manumit his bondsmen arose, at least in part, from his reluctance to alter his standard of living and to bring his practices into line with his principles. p. 18

Jefferson's proslavery actions were particularly evident in the area of foreign policy, and the treaty which granted the Louisiana Territory to the United States contained a provision protecting the right of the Spanish and French inhabitants in the area to keep their slaves. p. 20

Insert : This was diplomacy as those inhabitants were not part of the US citizenry. To impose such laws would have been to render thew entire territory unstable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

. . .Jefferson again demonstrated his ability to mix vague abolition sentiments with a position that worked to the advantage of the slave states. p. 21

Insert : This is typical of sweeping conjecture, it cites no specific example. Jefferson made various concessions regarding slavery in political matters, and there are many qualifying circumstances that explain why. i.e.His "silence" while President because of deep political divisions among the states, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was a man of many dimensions, and any explanation of his behavior must contain a myriad of seeming contradictions. He was a sincere and dedicated foe of the slave trade who bought and sold men whenever he found it personally necessary. He believed that all men were entitled to life and liberty regardless of their abilities, yet he tracked down those slaves who had the courage to take their rights by running away. He believed that slavery was morally and politically wrong, but still he wrote a slave code for his state and opposed a national attempt in 1819 to limit the further expansion of the institution. He believed that one hour of slavery was worse than ages of British oppression, yet he was able to discuss the matter of slave breeding in much the same terms that one would use when speaking of the propagation of dogs and horses. p. 24

...his abstract speculations about human freedom carried little weight when balanced against the whole pattern of his existence there. [Paragraph] Interacting with one another as both cause and effect to produce Jefferson's proslavery behavior was a complex set of factors. . . p. 24

His wealth, his status, and his political position were tied to the system of slavery, and never once did he actively propose a plan that would have jeopardized all this. More often than not, the actions he took with regard to slavery actually strengthened the institution. pp. 24-25

But it should not be forgotten that Jefferson's world depended upon forced labor for its very existence. p. 25 Yopienso (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would neutrally put in the article that Jefferson had slaves flogged, that he kept slaves from running away, and that he opposed the limitation of slavery in 1819. However, this article is not meant to prove that Jefferson was pro slavery. There needs to be enough information for the reader to decide whether Jefferson was for or against slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus?

Regarding the last few edits on the TJ page, on at least two occasions the term consensus was used to justify reverts. WHAT CONSENSUS? It is clear that we are going to have to call for another poll and get a wide range of consensus. 'Consensus' is not a pat on the back from one or two like minded editors. I am restoring once again. The lede previously reflected general established facts and acknowledged that not all share the view. This is not fair?? If someone wants to change that they need to show a source that goes beyond speculation of minor, isolated, details and offers us concrete evidence that Jefferson 'no longer supported' or that he 'supported' slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Putting in that other historians disagree allows Wikipedia editors to put in any reference that Jefferson was anti-slavery. This creates a fair environment. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but we just had that perspective deleted from the lede. -- OC' that was not a controversial phrase you've deleted. There is no doubt that many historians do not share the view that Jefferson was always opposed to slavery. In all fairness you should restore the prior version. There is no controversy that historians are widely divided on issues here and so a wide range of consensus on that item is hardly needed among those with their eyes open. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the phrase is controversial, I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate in the lede, and at least one other editor agrees with me, which means that there is clearly NOT a consensus to add the phrase to the lede, so out it goes. By the way, it's nice to see you and Cmguy agreeing on something -- anything -- for a change.--Other Choices (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"unnecessary and inappropriate"?? You know as well as I there is wide disagreement. I am hoping you will reconsider and re-include this perspective, this truth, before someone else does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If we go back and delete the phrase "throughout his life," then I think the sentence about Jefferson opposing the ultimate continuation of slavery is uncontroversial. Two other editors agreed with me, so I went ahead and made what I thought was a no-brainer change; but then you and Cmguy decided to pair up (will miracles never cease) and make a point of opposing the deletion of "throughout his life." That leads to an interesting issue here at the Thomas Jefferson article -- can Gwillhickers and Cmguy cooperate to block edits that are approved by everybody else? For the moment I've backed off on that "consensus" change, as I ponder this new editing challenge.

But regarding the sentence that you and Cmguy now want to include, my basic point is that it shouldn't be included without a consensus, and you know very well that there isn't a consensus. Attempts to continue meddling with the lede without consensus are generally regarded as disruptive. --Other Choices (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : It wasn't I who began meddling with the lede, with no consensus. The original version had consensus for some time before the latest wave of edits came through. Again, you need more than an agreement from a couple of current editors, and btw, you need to cool it on the rhetoric. Cm' and I have not 'paired up' nor are we 'cooperating to block edits'. The phrase in question is somewhat common knowledge among Jefferson historians, editors and others, and there are RS's that have mentioned this before. Why you are taking such a stand on this item is beyond me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Other Choices, by leaving out information from a reliable source you are conveying to the reader the false impression that historians are in agreement that Jefferson was anti-slavery. That would be a lie. Finkelman stated there were historians who do not view Jefferson was anti-slavery. Wikipedia's policy is to put in any edits from a reliable source. Finkelman is a reliable source. By your own words, consensus, Gwillhickers and myself, want that edit to be put in. By deleting the phrase you going against 2 to 1 concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I added historians are in disagreement to the lede. There needs to be at least one sentence in the lede that historians are not in agreement Jefferson was committed to anti-slavery. Other Choices, the readers need to be allowed to make up their own minds. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cm' your latest edit to the lede is the best yet. Historians are in disagreement with how much Jefferson was committed to the anti-slavery cause. The phrase how much can be taken to mean 'a little', 'some', 'a lot' , or not much at all. Very good choice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I appreciate the compliment. I do not want an edit war over this issue, however, I believe somewhere in the lede there needs to convey in writing to the reader that not all historians agree on how much Jefferson was anti-slavery. I believe Rjensen used the word "committed" and that allows the reader to make their own choice on Jefferson's commitment to anti-slavery. His rhetoric was anti-slavery, however, I personally am not sure how much his actions were. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

FN 171 and last one out turn off the lights

What is that article? Is it just someone's self-published thoughts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is FN 171? Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FN = footnote. 171 is its number ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So sorry so dumb! Yes, I've been looking into that. I think the ref should be deleted. The two at the end are good. Also see Henry Louis Gates, Jr., The Trials of Phillis Wheatley.

I think I'm bailing on this article at least for now--far too contentious. I hope, however, that you don't quit trying keep it reasonably factual. It needs a template alerting the unsuspecting reader that it contains questionable material and is in a constant state of flux. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A template? That's a good idea. Yopienso, though we are not always in agreement, we still need voices here on the page. Please reconsider before leaving us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, I hope that you'll continue to keep an eye on the article at least. This article has been plagued for many months by a pair of obsessive, opposing POV pushers whose only point of agreement is their shared willingness to add reliably-sourced "stuff" to the article ad nauseum to keep their endless argument going. This leads to a constantly heated atmosphere which affects other editors who try to get involved in the article (including me -- sometimes I have to just take a deep breath and disappear for a bit). Eventually other editors burn out and leave in disgust, which leaves the pair of persistently persnickity POV pushers alone, happily bickering as they progressively deface the article.--Other Choices (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see what would happen if we would all just leave the article to the two of them for a couple of months. This is a serious suggestion. Yopienso (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel the same way; maybe I'll check back after the Wiencek book gets published. With Tweedledum and Tweedledee around here 24-7, the editing process on this article is seriously broken.--Other Choices (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sour grapes. Only your edits were 'broken'. Though no names were mentioned you need to put a lid on the personal attacks. You are just as much a 'contributor' to the "broken editing process" as any one else, given the controversies while making edits claiming you have consensus. Baloney. The page was in serious trouble a couple of years ago, with bloat of out control in the usual sections. It has taken that long to get sections de-bloated, no thanks to you. Have a nice day unless you have other plans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that your and Cmguy's constant bickering has not helped maintain a healthy editing environment. It's just one argument after another; something has to give here. I do however, agree that the article has improved from what it was a couple of years ago. People who waltz in with expectations of saving the article don't see all the drudge work that's been done. Brad (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, the 'editing environment' was often subject to radical changes, pov/commentary parades, deletions and changes made with a bull-dozer with little to no discussion or consensus, and just as much 'bickering', if not more, from the editors responsible. How is the 'bickering' to be avoided? By one party walking away and letting the other party do what it pleases?? Yes, the article has improved greatly over the last few months and I believe all here are largely responsible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson and slavery

A reminder that this is the Thomas Jefferson biography, an account about the man. Readers do not come here to read about 'slavery' by itself, they come here to read about Jefferson. There is virtually nothing in the article that shows Jefferson's personal involvement, management and treatment of slaves. All we have are isolated comments. 'Jefferson sold slaves'. 'Jefferson objected' to certain points on emancipation legislation', etc. I propose a separate section that covers slave life at Monticello, etc, where the readers can see for themselves how Jefferson interacted with slaves. It will of course mention occasional floggings, nail factory, etc, but will be presented in context, that Jefferson felt it was against the laws of nature, did not overwork slaves and only used harsh punishment as a last resort, as witnessed and cited by actual slaves and others. Keeping this information from the readers is rank pov pushing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. First you say this is an article about TJ and then want to add an entire section about Monticello slavery? Hello? The last thing this article needs is another section. Readers are entitled to know how TJ treated his slaves which can be done in one paragraph or less and in total to the slavery section in about 600 words. Brad (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Section, paragraph, whatever. Jefferson's personal involvements with slavery are just as important to the biography as are his political involvements. The biography is about Jefferson's life. As there are dedicated pages for Jefferson and slavery, Presidency, etc I had no intention of including much more than I added before, which wasn't much, and even it was deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How accurately does the current article reflect this sentiment?:

"My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them (slaves), we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from 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, 1814

(insert added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That statement could be interpeted both pro and anti slavery. Couldn't Jefferson clothe and feed African Americans as free persons? I suggest to cite a source, other then TJF, that states Jefferson fed and clothed slaves, that would be appropriate. This to me is a neutral statement, "Jefferson fed and clothed his slaves." The reader could interpret that as kindness from Jefferson, but I don't believe the article needs to specifically state Jefferson was a kind slave master because he fed and clothed his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Because Jefferson treated his slaves well he was 'pro slavery'. Right. Thanks, Cm'. You have just demonstrated at what lengths some will go to convey the idea of a 'pro slavery Jefferson'. Telling the truth is neutral. If one were to say 'Jefferson was a nice guy because...' that would not be neutral. This has never be done, in any way. Please do not try to block basic historical content on the premise that it's not neutral simply because it may cast a favorable light on Jefferson. Also, Monticello.org is a reliable source, and incidently, they are not the only ones who have published or have made reference to Jefferson's letters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am saying let the reader decide if Jefferson treated his slaves well. The words "cruel" and "kind" are completely subjective. I am all for neutrally putting in the article that Jefferson fed and clothed his slaves. I am not trying to prove Jefferson was a kind or cruel slave master. I don't agree with everthing Finkleman stated. Finkleman used the term "hated" and I believe that word is a bit strong in the article. Jefferson wanted to deport blacks, not exterminate them. I disagree with Finkleman pinning the blame on Jefferson over Heming's suicide. Finkleman, however, was good at pointing out the inconsistencies of other historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All that I ever wanted to do is include some perspective about Jefferson's treatment and management of slaves, not just for historical context, but to help the reader get past all the modern day stigma that slaves lived in shacks, were kept in irons, wore rags, fed slop, whipped on a daily basis to make them work, etc, etc. As for terms like nice guy or hatred or cruel and kind, these can be left out while still offering an insight into Jefferson and his personal dealings with slaves, so that shouldn't be an issue.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As long as subjective phrases are eliminated from the article. I suggest that a possible neutral statement is that Jefferson allowed the whipping of slaves although he did not participate. Jefferson prefered using the threat of force rather then actual force. One source states that a few of his overseers where cruel. Apparently his overseers were cruel while he was away. I believe Jefferson avoided witnessing the practice of whipping slaves. Also, how is cruelty defined, one lash is humane, while two lashes is cruel. Any whipping could be considered cruel. Jefferson actually attempted to implement a no whipping policy that his overseers purposely disobeyed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get too absorbed with the one item, whippings. Over the course of TJ's life at Monticello only a few slaves were whipped, and again, as a last resort. Let's not gloss over the 100's who were treated very well and the many who interacted with the Jefferson family in many capacities. No one wants to paint a picture with a 'Yellow Brick Road', but at the same time we need to tell the simple truth in this area. It weighs heavily on Jefferson's person, and this is his biography. It can be done with a paragraph. With all the modern day stigma surrounding race relations these days, it would be very easy for the young and impressionable reader to leave the page thinking slaves were treated cruelly and lived in constant hell. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can second guess what readers think, however, there needs to be enough information for the reader to make a decision. That is why neutrality in the article is important. I believe the best is to come up with a neutral paragraph one slave whipping. One source stated Jefferson carried a small whip and threatening slaves. This presents a picture of Jefferson being a tough guy and not the book worm stereotype. Jefferson desired to use the threat of force over actual whippings. I believe mentioning that Jefferson attempted to implement a no whipping policy is important. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whipping slaves neutral paragraph proposal

Here is an attempted neutral paragraph on Jefferson's policy of whipping slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson preferred to use the threat of force to control his slaves and at one time implemented a no whipping policy. His overseers, however, occasionally whipped his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not bad! We might want to be more clear about 'occasionally whipped'. Will have to look into that detail further. It's my understanding whippings were rare, although I am far from certain. Can't find a source that is clear on that item. I've read that whipping was something Jefferson hated to do and used as a last resort, but that's it. Can't find mention of 'frequency' though I would 'guess' it was rare, given Jefferson the man and conditions at Monticello. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. True Jefferson did not want to witness the whippings. One source stated that Jefferson carried a small whip with him as a show of force. Jefferson the tough guy. Jefferson did not personally participate in the whippings. His overseers may have been cruel, however, cruelty has not been defined. I believe best to only put that his slaves were occasionally whipped. The real question is did his overseers act on their own or did Jefferson allow them to whip slaves? I don't mind putting in that Jefferson carried a small whip with him. I don't believe that makes him look cruel, rather, a tough guy outside the norm of him being a book worm. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to check, but maybe his overseers whipped his slaves while Jefferson was away. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The above sentences can be added to the article with the correct sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I had tried a few days ago to edit the information about Thomas Jefferson helping organize the Democratic-Republican Party and changing it to the Republican Party which was started as the anti-Federalist party and Jefferson along with Madison were an integral part of that movement. There is not any footnotes added to back this claim, but their is ample information in Jefferson own words that back up being a part of the Republican party as far back as the early 1790's. The only evidence I have found about the Democratic-Republican party started showing up after 1800. Over the last two years I have been doing my own research into Jefferson and alot of misinformation about him has been cleared up for me. The Democratic-Republican party from my reading was splinter groups that sprang up in a few cities after 1800 and ultimately by the 1830's had pretty much decimated the Republican party the split off completely to form what we now know as the Democrat Party. So if anyone has any information to back up this claim about his political party being the Democratic-Republican party I would like to see it, or if there is none it needs to be edited to reflect that this is an opinion or replaced with Republican party. The Wikipedia page for Democratic-Republican party is more acurate these days, but the information on the Jefferson page is misleading.--SALoyd (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding, having read hundreds of Jefferson's writings and letters myself, that "Republican Party" was shorthand for the association that was known as both the Democratic-Republican Party and the Antifederalist Party. It has no connection whatever to the modern group known as the Republican Party. If you have sources that back up your interpretation, you are invited to bring them forward. As I side note, I recommend you not use the phrase "Democrat Party" if you intend to be taken seriously. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : In Ellis's 'American Creation: ..., 2008,' the party is repeatedly referred to simply as the Republicans. The word Democrat or Democratic doesn't even occur in that text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the Democrat Party thing, I keep forgetting that people are sticklers for it being the Democratic Party. I too have read alot of Jeffersons writings and I know the Republican Party he was a part of is not exactly like todays or even Lincolns Republican Party and also is nothing like todays Democratic Party or of Andrew Johnsons Democratic Party. So where did your understanding of what he meant in his writings help you come to the conclusion that it was "shorthand" for the Democratic-Republican Party? Have you found any information that would lead you to that understanding? In my understanding of Jefferson writings it was named the Republican Party after the Federalists had wanted to enlarge the power of the Federal government and copy a more British style of governance that they had previously fought so hard to get away from to govern as a Republic based on limited Federal authority, hence the Republican Party was so named. It seems there would be atleast one mention of the Democratic-Republican Party in any of Jeffersons, Monroes, Madisons, or any others writings if it were to be of some note, but there is not. As I stated earlier it seems that the Democratic-Republican Party seemed no more than a splinter group or a small faction trying to get a foothold in the Republican Party, which by the late 1820's and 1830's they had accomplished that and ended up breaking away from the Republican Party after it had pulled many into their faction thereby leaving the Republican Party as an empty shell when they broke off and formed the Democratic Party.--SALoyd (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please bring forth references and sources for your claim. It's the responsibility of those wishing to make changes to back up the claim; not the other way around. Brad (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Brad, so if there is something implied on a Wikipedia page that is not sourced that is alright and it should not be questioned for its accuracy? What and how many references and sources to the Republican Party from after the US Revolution and before 1830 do you want, there are a lot of them. The changes I made I did reference and source, but it was changed back anyways to the unsourced version claiming the Democratic-Republican Party.--SALoyd (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the three edits you made: [1], [2], [3]. Only in the first edit did you supply a "reference"; a link that resolves to: an error page. Your other two edits were partially correct in that asking for citations is a normal thing (please use the {{cn}} template) but injecting your own opinion into the body of the article: (there has been no evidence to back that assertion up, just opinion) and in your edit summaries is not acceptable. You said: I have proof, do you?. Produce sources. Brad (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Monticello says: In 1796, as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Republicans, he became vice-president after losing to John Adams by three electoral votes.[4]. Monticello is a fairly reliable source. Brad (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the edits were poorly done. My understanding is Democratic-Republican is an accepted shorthand way to distinguish from Republican, which has a myriad of uses, one of which is several prominent modern political parties. As this article is not about that except in summary form, it seems like a normal useful usage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that my edits were poorly executed as it was my first time editing, but I understand more on how to do this. The link that I provided had worked and do not understand why it no longer works. Monticello, yes they are generally a good source on information on Jefferson, but even they can be mistaken at times. The following is one example that the Democratic-Republican Party was a different entity than the Republican Party of that time period.

"In compliance with the wishes of our Republican Brethren of Kent County in the State of Delaware is informed on us by the proceeding Resolved___ We Humbly submit to your consideration the following reasons upon the subject of said resolve.

Being decidedly of opinion that Allen McLane esquire deserves not to be continued Collector of the Port of Wilmington in the State of Delaware;__ we have been in expectation of hearing of his removal, but being disappointed, we are induced to believe you are persuaded that the Republicans of Deleware with his continuation in office." Delaware Democratic Republicans to Thomas Jefferson, March 24, 1802, Resolution [5]

This is not to say that they did not support Jefferson, because they did. In this case they were upset with Jefferson siding with the Republican Party of Delaware on keeping this guy in power instead of doing what the Democratic-Republican Party of Deleware wanted. In todays political system it would equate to say that there are Progressive Democrats or Conservative Republicans, but they are factions off of the main parties, Republican Party and Democratic Party.--SALoyd (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK but I think you might want to concentrate your efforts on Democratic-Republican and the other party articles from that time, using WP:Reliable Sources to present WP:NPOV information, in a WP:Verifiable format, instead of at this article, which needs to summarize allot of other things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I could do work on the party articles of that time, but the issue is that there is no evidence or supporting information that has been presented that Jefferson and Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party, other than Brad101 linking to Monticello website where they state that Jefferson was the Democratic-Republican Party candidate also without any sourcing on their part. Is using this sourcing straight from a letter from the Democratic-Republican Party stating that they are at odds with the Republican Party over who is the collector for the Port adressed to Jefferson make it invalid and considered original research? Can anyone find any information to prove that the Democratic-Republican Party was around before 1800, maybe letters, resolutions, or even Congressional records dated before 1800? Or is the fact that Monticello has it on their website good enough and WP:Verifiable even though it is not sourced through them in the article.--SALoyd (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it verifiable that Democratic-Republican is a name used to denote the party started by Jefferson and Madison around 1791? Yes, according to the source Brad provided and the sources in that article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@SALoyd, the early Jeffersonian political grouping was not a formal party as parties are understood today, so you're not going to find, for example, a party logo or stationery with the printed party name, etc. What you WILL find in the original literature is slightly different names applied to the overlapping cooperative networks of leading men in the several states that backed Jefferson's political agenda and presidential candidacy. To avoid confusion, historians characterize this early Jeffersonian grouping as "Democratic-Republican," to distinguish it from the later Democratic and Republican parties. Perhaps you will agree that it makes sense for this encyclopedia to follow accepted usage, no matter what the primary sources do or don't indicate.--Other Choices (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker. That is part of the problem, it is not sourced in the article that they organized that party. On the Democratic-Republican party article page, it just claims that only political scientists use the name Democratic-Republican Party and that is unsourced also. From what I understand about the editing on Wikipedia is that editors just can't make blanket statements without the sourcing to back up what they state, is that right or wrong? So according to you it seems that it is okay to cite someones or a groups opinion on an issue and put it out there as fact. So Wikipedia is more of an opinion encyclopedia based on others opinions as long as they are published and/or a third party entity.

@Other Choices. I have poured through thousands of original literature from that time period over the years and what I have found is not "slightly different names applied to the overlapping cooperative networks of leading men in the several states that backed Jefferson's political agenda and presidential candidacy.", but the opposite. I have found that there were two parties, the Federalist Party and the Republican Party with no slightly different names used until 1802 in a letter from Jefferson to Caesar A. Rodney on June 14 discussing the afore mentioned quote I gave earlier from the Democratic-Republican Party of Delaware. In this letter he mentions the Democratic-Republican Party in Dover about their issue, then goes on to talk about Rodney, "I hope you are fixed on as the republican candidate at the ensuing election for Congress."[6] Notice he did not state the Democratic-Republican candidate, just Republican candidate, even though earlier in the letter he mentions the Democratic-Republican Party. We are led to believe that it was shorthand for them to just state Republican in those days, instead of taking the time to write out the full name. So then Wikipedia is more for accepted opinion of what some believe over actual fact of what really was? Wow, I thought an encyclopedia was for finding facts not opinions. When information arises that contridicts the concensus of opinion, then no need to apply the new information that would conflict with the concensus of opinion because we must follow the accepted usage. Well, I know now where not to get my information from if I have a question on something or someone, because it may or may not be factual just accepted information by the consensus of the few.--SALoyd (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, SALoyd, here at wikipedia it's not about the "facts" or the "truth." It's about what RELIABLE SOURCES say. The way wikipedia thinking works, if you elevate your personal understanding of "facts" above the reliable sources, you are guilty of ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is not allowed at wikipdia. So, for example, my ground-breaking research on the Declaration of Independence can't be included here, because it hasn't been published in a reliable source. This means that I personally know that there are mistakes in certain wikipedia articles (reflecting common scholarly errors), but I can't do anything to set the record straight (other than managing to get published in a reliable source). That's the way it goes; I fully accept that this limitation is necessary to maintain a semblance of order in this cooperative volunteer endeavor of creating an encyclopedia.

Insert: By the way, the term "Democratic-Republican" was used at least twice in conjunction with the so-called Democratic-Republican Societies of the mid-1790s that evolved into the political base of Jefferson's nascent party.--Other Choices (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

SA - Sourced and verifiable are actually two different concepts: verifiable means it can be sourced, not that it is so. As Brad told you, you may use (please use the {{cn}} template) where something needs to be sourced, but uncontroversial information may not be. I assume that this is generally uncontroversial information -- that this is a way the party has been referred to for the reasons stated, and no one has questioned it). I don't think even you are. See also Democratic-Republican Party in the Encyclopedia Britannica Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning the fact that there was a splinter group from the Republican party formed to create the Democratic-Republican Party that did not agree completely with the Republican Party that came about in the early 1800's. What I am questioning is the assumption that Jefferson along with Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party or was even affiliated with that party just because political scientists believe it to be so when there has been no proof of this. I have as long as I have been studying this believed that this was a controversial claim, especially when there has been no proof of this given. So now since I have questioned the accuracy of this claim then it makes it controveersial does it not? Even the Encyclopedia Britannica does not source their information, but they do state that it was the Republican PArty that was founded in 1792 and the name Democratic-Republican derisive label was branded upon the Republican Party by the Federalists and they adopted it in 1798. I still contend that those that used that name was still a faction of the Republican Party as not all, even Jefferson, used that moniker. It also goes on to NOT state that Jefferson helped organize them. So does the Britannica source make this a controversial subject, seeing that it does not go along with the narrative that is on Jeffersons article about organizing the Democratic-Republican Party?--SALoyd (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep in mind that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a TERTIARY source, which should be used selectively (if at all) in a wikipedia article. Another one to keep in mind here is WP:SYNTH -- if you combine two reliable sources to reach a logical but novel conclusion, that is off limits, too. The issue at hand here is pretty low-key, but on hot-button issues it's often necessary to restrain the POV pushers, which is why we have all these bureaucratic rules.

Regarding the origin of the "Democratic-Republican" term, if reliable SECONDARY sources disagree about it, then it is a controversial issue and we as wikipedia editors should represent that controversy in the article, using a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. If there is a consensus among scholars to use "Democratic-Republican" as a term of convenience for the Jeffersonian party in the 1790s, then this article should silently reflect that. However, if you are aware that there is NOT such a scholarly consensus (and can provide examples using reliable sources), then you have a case for changing the article.--Other Choices (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Those links and cautions to a new editor are well made. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party (edit break 1)

SALoyd, for lack of a more politically correct way of saying it, it's time to put-up or shut-up on this matter. If you can't produce a reliable secondary source to prove your claim this discussion is not productive towards article improvement. If you've been out reading primary documents and coming to your own conclusions then it's original research with a bit of Randy in Boise thrown in for good measure. This topic would be more appropriate for the Democratic-Republican Party article. Brad (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

At least then, we would have a source to talk about. At present, I still don't see how Democratic-Republican is misused here wrongly (even though that subject has a more detailed history, which is a good reason for the blue link). The terminology currently appears to be used in an NPOV and uncontrovertial summary manner (especially in the lead of this article) which needs to be in summary form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

- For some common ground/understanding, see Sean Wilentz, "The rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln". Two early political organizations OUTSIDE government were (1) Democratic Societies, discredited at the Whiskey Rebellion and (2) Democratic-Republican Societies discredited at the Jay Treaty. Jefferson corresponded with leadership of both. These, more akin to today's Tea Party, preceded truly national party organization. Most Tea-Partyers endorse modern Rs, but not all modern Rs are Tea-Partyers.

- INSIDE government, Jefferson and Madison collaborated in establishing a national legislative party on the floor of House and Senate then in the U.S. districts and state legislatures, beginning in the Washington administrations. In American historiography, it can be referred to under the index-title, "Democratic-Republican" until 1844 depending on the topical specialty and era under study. But in the time among ambitious candidates contending for power among expanding, changing electorates, the JEFFERSON-MADISON CREW qualified local and U.S. candidates and state-wide slates and funded partisan newspapers under the titles varying "Republican", "Democratic", "Democratic-Republican", and "Jeffersonian-Democrat" as local vote-pandering required. Jefferson translated Solon from the Greek as: "no more good must be attempted than the nation can bear."

- I guess he deemed that a nationally applied party name in every state and national election was more than "the nation could bear", and still get his boys elected into Congressional majorities for his, Madison's and Monroe's six consecutive terms of 24 years, which is what I suppose he REALLY wanted more than a well defined label for statistical elections analysis two centuries later. Sorry, as yet no RS for this last point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Items for consideration:

• In Ellis's American Creation:, 2008, the party is repeatedly referred to simply as the Republicans. The word Democrat or Democratic doesn't even occur in that text.
• In Randall's, Thomas Jefferson: A Life, 2001, however the term Democratic-Republican Party is used exclusively.
• In Peterson's, The Jefferson Image in the American Mind, 1960, only the term Republican is used.
• In Berstine's Thomas Jefferson, 2005 only the term Republican is used.
• Halliday's Understanding Thomas Jefferson, 2002, uses Democratic-Republicans but overall uses Republican by itself.
• In Merwin's Thomas Jefferson, 1901, Republican is again used exclusively.
• In Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia the term Republican is used exclusively.

Obviously the key word here is Republican.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! In the Times, September 4, 1811 Page 4 Column 4 edition, former editor of the Balitmore Post, H. Niles, mentions the name "Democratic Republican". Niles states, "There are Republicans who are not Federalists, and Federalists who are not Republicans: there is a difference between names and deeds. Hines states that the term "Democratic Republican" was the "common language of the day". This means that at least by 1811, the term "Democratic Republican" was used popularly by the people. Here is the Link: Address Column 4. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Hamilton Years: The Formation of the Republican Party - Thomas Jefferson helped to found the first American political party, the Republican party, to uphold the agrarian ideal and fight for a market economy in which men could trade freely, without the tampering and controlling measures of government. [7]
• Thomas Jefferson, 2nd Vice President (1797-1801) - ...he would confine his duties to presiding over the Senate and offering leadership to his anti-administration Republican party in quiet preparation for the election of 1800. [8]
• Jefferson versus Hamilton - The Republican Party emerged as organized opposition to Federalist policies... [9]
• Thomas Jefferson - Jeffersons presidential leadership - In 1801, for the first time, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. [10]

I wish there was information available by something other than the original source that contradicts the notion that Jefferson helped organize/form the Democratic-Republican Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SALoyd (talk • contribs) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am in no way an expert on this subject. My view is that the first party's were the Federalist and Republicans. The Republicans then called themselves the Democratic-Republicans and then finally dropped "Republicans" for only "Democratic". The Federalists completely dissolved in the 1810's and became the Whigs. The Whigs dissolved in the 1850's and became the "Republican Party". The questions include was there any difference between the initial Republican and Democratic Republican mentioned in the Times or when did the Republicans first start calling themselves Democratic Republicans? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider myself an expert on this either, but I have been researching this subject for several years along with other subjects pertaining to the time period where Jefferson was involved. The Republican Party was started as the anti-Federalist Party, and drew in Federalists that were feeling uneasy with what the Federalists were proposing for the country. There were groups in several cities around the mid 1790's with a few more after 1800 that started calling themselves the Democratic-Republican Party because they did not agree completely with the Republicans, but still considered the Republican Party as brothers working for the same goals. Both parties supported Jefferson for the Presidency and also during his time as President. The Republican party did dissolve around 1840, because there was inner turmoil among the Democratic-Republicans and the Republican Party where many of the Republican members went over to the Democratic-Republican side of the party. Those few members that were left started the Whig Party that dissolved and restarted the Republican Partyafter about a decade, what people today call the party of Lincoln. This is why I take issue with the supposed fact in Jeffersons summary that he and Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party.--SALoyd (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The February 17, 1819 edition of the American Commercial Daily Advertizer, page 2 stated that John Adams "dared to be a Whig in '76." Adams was known to be a Federalist, and I take that the Whigs identified more with the Federalist Party, then the Democratic Republicans or Republicans. Finding out the differences between the first Republicans and the Democratic Republicans would help give a better understanding in terms of Jefferson and Madison's involvement. I suppose that historians believe that there was not enough difference to seperate the two parties individually and that is why they state Jefferson started the Democratic Republicans. These parties seem to have been loosely organized. The Times article stated that a Publisher identified himself as a Democratic Republican rather then an organized registered party. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be beneficial to review high school American government or college Political Science 101. Page 24 here could be a starting place. This is what today's Democratic Party has to say about their history. (Hint: the early Republican Party is in no way related to the present R. Party, but is the ancestor of the present D. Party. The Whigs and then the new Republicans (party of Lincoln) followed in the same basic line as the Federalists.) Good luck! Yopienso (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party (edit break 2)

Good points all but now the process for anything to be changed in this article involves proposals for wording (and citation) and a consensus decision, whether anything needs to be changed. I still see no reason not use Democratic-Republican in the lead of this article (see WP:Lead) summary form. Perhaps in the article sections on the 1790s, some mention addition/deletion maybe made. All editors (old and new) need to keep in mind that we are in a constant struggle to keep the word-count of this lengthy article down. Other information to consider Anti-Administration Party and First Party System. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; there is no reason. The most concise and least confusing (if not the most punctiliously accurate) term is "Democratic-Republican." The blue-linked article explains all that. Yopienso (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Time to move on. Explaining the particulars of the DRP in this article is out of scope. Brad (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed the Democratic-Republican Party article somewhat addresses this issue, however, what is not addressed is any differences between Madison and Jefferson's Republican versus Democratic-Republican, a term popularly used as early as 1811. This issue would best be expanded in the Democratic-Republican Party article to save space in this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While we don't want to delve into the particulars of the differing titles I think we should at least mention that Jefferson and his contemporaries referred to their party as Republican, based on Republican principles. This is the term Jefferson uses in all his writings and letters. As OC' mentioned above "Democratic-Republican" was later adapted by historians to make distinctions between the various camps. Remember also that the word 'Democratic' is a verb, a process, while 'Republican' in this case is a noun, the person referred to. Currently the 'Election of 1796 and Vice Presidency' section starts off with this sentence: As the Democratic-Republican presidential candidate in 1796, Jefferson lost to John Adams. As it reads it suggests to the reader that "Democratic-Republican" was the title presented to the people before the election. I would recommend that the intro sentence simply make reference to Republican and then further into the section (and elsewhere) introduce and make the reference to Democratic-Republican as needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you do that, the modern reader who doesn't know his history is going to think "Republican" refers to the present-day party when, in fact, the two are not remotely related. The casual reader will miss the later explanation. The way it stands now is, imo, the best way. The only reasonable change would be the unnecessary "organized what came to be called the Democratic-Republican Party." Since that's what it came to be called, we can more simply just call it that! Again, the blue link explains it all.

Grammar note: "democratic" is never a verb; "democratize" is. "Republican" can be a noun or an adjective. "Democratic-Republican" is a compound proper adjective. Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem, the Republican Party never became the Democratic-Republican Party. They were a fringe element of the Republican Party that did not agree completely with the Republicans, that is why they did not just call themselves Republican. The term Republican Party was still being used into the 1830's and the Democratic-Republican Party just dropped the Republican part of their name around the same time. The Republican Party dissolved and became the Whig Party in opposition to the Democratic Party in the 1830's through the 50's when they again started using the Republican Party name again. This is why the label Democratic-Republican Party does not belong in this article about Jefferson. Perhaps a small blip section could be added to address the Democratic-Republican Party being a part of the Republican Party that Jefferson actually helped organize, but not as the main party of Jefferson. Normal everyday people that are not researchers or even curious, will take the "fact" on Jeffersons article as gospel and then cite it when discussing what they think is the truth about history and if this is kept on there then Wikipedia is helping to spread falsehoods.--SALoyd (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert: SALoyd, your summary of American party history doesn't fit any reliable source that I've read, such as Holt's The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, and Peterson's The Great Triumvirate. Perhaps there's ground-breaking research newer research that I haven't seen (which is quite possible -- it's not my core area). If so, then the thing to do is to use reliable sources to revamp the article on the Democratic-Republican party, and then bring the issue back here. P.S. I suspect that professional historians would charge you with an anachronistic misunderstanding of "party," inaccurately projecting the later (post-1820s) meaning of party onto the earlier Jeffersonian era. For an example of a biography dealing with the transition in political practice through the lens of the career of one man, you might check out Cornog's The Birth of Empire: DeWitt Clinton and the American Experience.--Other Choices (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SALoyd, if there are differences between the Jefferson's Republican and Democratic Republican partys, you need to have some source that states the differences between Jefferson's Republican party and the other , Democratic-Republican party. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what the Democratic Party says in 2012:

The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren."

[Photos of Thomas Jefferson & James Madison]

Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. . . James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feeling" in which Democratic-Republicans served with little opposition.

Want some more?

Democratic-Republican Party

http://www.amazon.com/Madison-Jefferson-Andrew-Burstein/dp/1400067286

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/ron_chernow/index.html

http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9063241

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857724.html

http://www.amazon.com/James-Madison-Richard-Brookhiser/dp/0465019838

http://millercenter.org/president/jefferson/essays/biography/4

http://millercenter.org/president/adams/essays/biography/1

http://millercenter.org/search?q=Democratic-Republican

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/james-madison/history4.html Yopienso (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Was someone contesting this? -- Gwillhickers (talk)

The issue concerns party title. Jefferson ran as a Republican. His party was steeped in Republicanism, an idea/ideal Jefferson made reference to consistently. All we have to do is relate this idea with a note:

Jefferson ran as the Republican presidential candidate in 1796 but lost to John Adams. [note:Historians in later years refer to this party as the Democratic-Republican party to distinguish from the Whigs and other federalists who emerged as the Republican party of which Lincoln and Reagan belonged.]

Bear in mind, the 'note' will not be inserted into article text, but will appear in the notes section. I can handle the note/markup if we have a 'go' on this. However we do it the reader should know that Jefferson ran as a Republican during his day. This distinction can easily be addressed with a note, one sentence. -- If there's a simpler approach, let's hear it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what sort of circus music would be appropriate for this discussion. Brad (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Best I could do. Brad (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you sort of stole my thunder. I was thinking about linking up to something by John Phillip Sousa. In any case, what's the beef? Shouldn't we say TJ ran as a Republican? I feel an obligation to educate the 'modern' reader. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

- Lots of good sources laid out here. I hope to start a serious reading program this fall, to contribute directly to the article by spring. Just one quibble pertaining to the discussion above.

- Modern political party "history" is NOT scholarship WP:RS. For instance, concerning the Jefferson-Clinton unbroken continuity asserted at the link above, it omits that by 1890 or so, state legislatures in Democratic Party control passed constitutions and statutes that cut the franchise by more than half of the 19th century high -- black and white -- ended funding for public education, blocked women suffrage, and other policy and practice that the modern Democratic party seeking office this election cycle would never consider for their platform, or even tolerate as serious discussion ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

FOR "Democratic-Republican" -- (a) first use of the term provide a note explaining that in different states and over time, other labels were used, and name some. (b) further down in the article, lay out the seven most commonly variations in a chart, noting local ballot name, state, year, and CAUCUS joined in Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, I don't think the "party history" was being proposed as a source, only an example of the need for clarifying terminology over more confusing terminology. I do think whatever the "cure," if one is needed, it needs to be very brief and not more confusing for this particular article. (Again I draw editors attention to the more detailed accounts in the series of article beginning with First Party System through Fifth Party System; whatever party system there is now, appears to need a historical review someday in the future) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, (b) chart idea withdrawn. In a section below, I laid out the 'First party system' labels as sourced by Martis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party (edit break 3)

Ok Gwill, I just happened to come across a mention of Republican Party while reading Malone Vol 2. It would be important to note the origin of the DRP. Using your example above it should say no more than:

Jefferson and Madison founded the Republican (now known as the Democratic Republican party) blah blah.

Or words to that effect depending on context. No need for the infamous notes that have plagued this article in the past. Brad (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this one.

Jefferson and Madison helped in the founding of the original Republican Party (that some today call the Democratic-Republican Party).

Then a new article should be made to address the "original Republican Party" or update the Republican Party article to reflect the history of that party of being first formed by Jefferson and other anti-Federalists. There it could be added the link to the Democratic-Republican Party as a faction or off shoot of the Republican Party. Then the dismantling or dissolving of the Republican Party could be explained where the Democratic Party broke off and the "Whig Party" was formed in the 1840's, until the 1850's when the Republican Party was restarted in opposition to the southern Democratic Party.

This would mean that all references in the Jefferson article to the Democratic-Republican Party would have to be changed to Republican Party, except in the summary sentence that I just mentioned.--SALoyd (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Brad's suggestion is enough or this article. Other articles need to be discussed elsewhere.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

SALoyd's comments demonstrate his confusion--precisely the confusion we should avoid introducing to the article.

That said, and despite my previous well-considered comments and persisting opinion, the biographers quoted by the White House use "Democratic-Republican" and "Republican" interchangeably in the TJ bio.

Thanks to ASWalker for understanding the thinking behind the links I posted, even though I regret having stuck my toe back into this murky little pond. (School starts tomorrow, so I should be quite absent from WP.) Also, I concede to GW that "democratic" could perhaps be an adverb modifying the adjective "republican" or an adjective modifying the noun "republican."

Again, sticking with the widely accepted "Democratic-Republican" name seems to me the simplest and wisest term, in other words, the best choice, to use in this context. Yopienso (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ASW, yes, this is the maximum of any explanation warranted in this article. The infobox can remain branded with DRP. Thanks for your edits. Brad (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, yes I went into more depth of explaining how to make this article more factual by detailing how to intertwine the multiple articles than I should have, but I did it anyway to show how it could be done without adding to much information to each article. It is only confusing to those that do not understand logic. In your view it may be widely accepted that the Democratic-Republican Party and the Republican are one in the same, but only in your limited view it is. There has been multiple sources given within this debate on this talk page that would show that your widely accepted view would not be so widely accepted. Here is another example of how those of the time new that the two were not the same, and yes it comes from an "original source".

The people are now able every where to compare the principles & policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats, with the career of the adverse party; and to see & feel that the former are as much in harmony with the spirit of the nation & the genius of the Govt. as the latter was at variance with both.James Madison to William Eustis, 1823. [11]--SALoyd (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Your blue link Republican Party goes to a disambiguation page. I assume you meant it to go to the present-day Republican Party.
2. I understand you to say the party of Lincoln started out as the party of Jefferson. This is not true. (Then the dismantling or dissolving of the Republican Party could be explained where the Democratic Party broke off and the "Whig Party" was formed in the 1840's, until the 1850's when the Republican Party was restarted in opposition to the southern Democratic Party.) Whatever you meant, it's confusing.
3. In the Madison to Eustis quote, "the former" refers to the "Republicans or Democrats" (synonyms); "the latter" refers to "the adverse party," which I assume to mean the Federalist.
4. Like Brad and ASW said, we can just leave it at Democratic-Republican for the purposes of this article. Yopienso (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jefferson's management and treatment of slaves

A good source that focuses on Jefferson's private life that also covers his personal dealings with slavery at Monticello is 'JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON ...', By Rev. Hamilton W. Pierson. It is drawn chiefly from the records and writings of Capt. Edmund Bacon, Jefferson's long time business manager and overseer. Pierson was the first historian to make use of this material. At the beginning of chapter VII, p.103 it starts of with this passage: {excerpt from book published by PBS, Frontline:)

Bacon: Mr. Jefferson was always very kind and indulgent to his servants. He would not allow them to be at all overworked, and he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped. His orders to me were constant, that if there was any servant that could not be got along with without the chastising that was customary, to dispose of him. He could not bear to have a servant whipped, no odds how much he deserved it.

Pierson is also used a source by Monticello.org on their Edmund Bacon page. Others have also used this valuable source including Peterson and Ferling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Typically, with such older sources (eg 100 y.o.) we don't use them directly, where more recent sources have used them, we use the more recent sources. In this way, we represent current scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bacon was only one of Jefferson's oversears. "Kind and indulgent" are subjective terms. What does "overworked" mean in terms of time, 8 hours, 10 hours, 12 hours. "he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped." That sentence seems to be very polite way of saying that Jefferson's oversears occasionally whipped his slaves. No where in the article states that Jefferson treated his slaves with cruelty. The readers need to make their own decisions on whether Jefferson was cruel or kind. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the issue, if the article states that Jefferon was "kind and indulgent", then we have to put in another source that Jefferson's oversears treated his slaves with cruelty. That would be very confusing for the reader. The article needs to be specific on how Jefferson treated his slaves without subjective wording. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have already said, it was not my intention to use the source to say 'kind or indulgent'. We can always do what some other editors have done and say, 'according to historians, overseers and slaves...'. And "overworked" means 'overworked', regardless of time involved. According to sources, slaves worked from sun up to sun set, just like most free farmers. To reflect "current scholarship" we can also use monticello.org in conjunction with the Pierson source. {additional -- edit conflict) Bear in mind that the idea of 'modern' doesn't mean a source is automatically more objective or accurate. I submit that many modern day sources lack the capacity for objectivity and are partisan and peer-driven. They are also far removed from many primary sources, as people die, records are lost and historical places change, oftentimes drastically. By and large, most modern sources merely copy the older sources. Unless a source is in possession of new evidence, the only thing 'new' is their opinion, and we've seen how that can vary. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For the slavery section, I would use author sources, rather then TJF or if TJF is used have author reference to back up TJF. I am not sure what overworked means, especially to modern day readers. If an author source states Jefferson worked his slaves from dawn to dusk, that would be a 12 hour work day for the slaves. That statement is neutral. If Jefferson clothed and fed his slaves, that is a neutral. If Jefferson allowed his slaves to sell crops for money, that is neutral. The main focus needs to be neutrality in the wording. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Also, let's not get into a tiff about TJF again. It is and has always been used to make points in the slavery and Hemings sections and elsewhere. However I too prefer book sources, so I will continue the search for sources that cover this area in Jefferson's life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Here is some perspective on the work week over 200 years before Jefferson's birth. In 1516, Thomas Moore wrote Utopia, on an ideal society. Moore states that people who worked the common 12 hour work day were "like beasts of burden". Moore believed the ideal work day would be six hours. 9 AM to 12 Noon, then a two hour break, then work from 2PM to 5PM. Moore set the standard for modern working time. Moore stated that the 12 hour work week was the "fate of slaves". A 12 hour work day was no picnic for the slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I doubt we're going to find a source that says this explicitly, but I imagine they had an hour off for lunch and were allowed suitable breaks. And remember, seasons change. A 12 hour work day is feasible during the summer months but after the harvest days grew shorter and work slowed down considerably. According to Monticello.org during the winter months there was little to no work for most of the field workers and other general laborers. According to Jefferson's letters and written accounts from his main overseer and long time business manager, slaves were not over worked, which makes sense. i.e.If you over work them one day they are slower the next. Hopefully at this point we can see that Jefferson was not the sort to 'drive' his slaves like cattle and he was very conscientious about their general welfare and quality of life. Because of modern day stigmas this must seem like an impossibility for some thinkers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a source that stated Jefferson fed and clothed his slaves. The article needs to give the reader enough context in neutral wording to make their own decisions. I believe the term "overworked" is subjective and undefined. The article needs to specifically state how Jefferson treated his slaves without having to convince the reader he was either cruel or humane. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was Applebaum removed as a source on slave life? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the Applebaum source and information on slave life. I added that Jefferson was against the removal a slavery from Virginia, since slavery was the custom of the commonwealth and intertwined in tobacco production. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To reduce the size of the Slaves and slavery section I would remove all commentary. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Have removed Davis commentary. Feel free to restore and discuss if there are objections. Also, Applebaum doesn't say Jefferson did not want to end slavery in Virginia, he says "he never eliminated slaves from his economy". Other sources say Jefferson always wanted slavery, everywhere, to be abolished. Even Applebaum says this on p.179 but he tags on his own conclusion based on a speculation, in not so clear language ("to do so he would have eliminated the custom of his state"), so we are going to need other qualifying sources in conjunction with Applebaum. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Wasn't Virginia Jefferson's economy since he was the second largest slave owner in the state? Applebaum states that Jefferson "accepted slavery" for economic ties with tobacco and for the honor of his state. This statement ties in with Jefferson's letter to Coles, and I believe there are a few historians who believe Jefferson had ties with fellow Virginia slave owners. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Considerations for the biography

I think the sources have established the issue on Jefferson's views of slavery and his treatment of slaves more than well enough. The article should reflect this while at the same time remaining neutral. While neutrality is always strived for, it should not be used to cancel out established history that is based on established facts. As there is doubt among historians this is of course mentioned, but doubt and speculation alone should not supersede established historical content, unless there is concrete evidence (as opposed to conjecture over an isolated detail) to give it weight. Including roundly sourced content is neutral. While we don't want to use terms like "kind and indulgent" we should be able to say TJ treated his slaves well if that is the established truth. While whippings occurred in extreme cases this is something that can not cancel out the greater truth during a lifetime of effort at Monticello.

• Jefferson had deep moral convictions about slavery. He regarded it as a great moral and political evil. No more human slave owner ever lived, and his servants regarded him with almost idolatrous affection. Ellis, 2007, p.47

• No one was more kind and just in the treatment of slaves. Merwin, 1901, p.26

• He would not allow his slaves to be over driven, or whipped unless as a last resort, preferring rather to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious. Peterson,1970, p.535

• As a fledging legislator as long ago as 1769, in the Virginia courts as a young lawyer, in his declaration of independence, and in his first draft of the Northwest Ordinance, Jefferson had worked to make his contemporaries recognize the evil of slavery and to set free all enslaved African-Americans. Randall, 1994 p.591

• Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life., Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson and Slavery

• Moreover, throughout his life he continued to hold that slavery was unjust and immoral. Cohen

• The more he pondered slavery the more sure he was that this blight on civilization must ultimately be wiped out. Halliday, 2001, p.135

• Mr. Jefferson was always very kind and indulgent to his servants. He would not allow them to be at all overworked, and he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped. His orders to me were constant, that if there was any servant that could not be got along with without the chastising that was customary, to dispose of him. He could not bear to have a servant whipped, no odds how much he deserved it. Pierson, p.103

• [additional : ] My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them (slaves), we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from 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, Letter to Edward Coles, Aug. 25, 1814, Peterson, 1977 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• [additional : ] " For men probably of any color, but of this color we know, brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them. Their amalgamation with the other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent. " Letter to Edward Coles, August 25, 1814 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, notice that TJ says from the start For men probably of any color. His views of race were commonplace yet it did not change his views on slavery and the treatment of these people, as the evidence, testimony and RS's clearly indicate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the references you mentioned, Gwillhickers, Jefferson treated his slaves good. The definitions of kind and cruel slave treatment, however, are extremely subjective. Putting that Jefferson clothed and housed his slaves gives the reader information to make the decision whether he was kind or cruel to his slaves. Of course Jefferson was taking care of his property, since the slaves had monetary value that Jefferson used to pay off debts. To make the Slaves and slavery section neutral I have suggested taking out commentary that could be used in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. I would also suggest stating that Jefferson implemented a no whipping policy, however, his overseers apparently took matters into their own hands. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove the neutrality cite. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

'Kind' or 'cruel' are subjective terms when there is little evidence to go on. When the evidence rolls over you like a steam-roller me thinks it's about time someone took a second look at matters. As I think you must know, there is much evidence that says Jefferson was a "nice guy" (duck!), but of course we can't say that. Finkelman's head would implode. How about you Cm'? It's late here on the left coast. Lock horns with you tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert: My views whether Jefferson was a cruel or kind slave master do not apply to this article. I do have my own views as Jefferson as a slave owner from a readers stand point, however, I am trying to keep the article as neutral as possible. I am not sure they know everything that took place on Jefferson's plantations. Were their witnesses to the whipping of Jefferson's slaves that documented brutality? I believe Jefferson acknowledged one overseer as being "cruel", however, he did not dismiss the overseer. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To express TJ's views of and treatment of slaves we can say..

by most accounts Jefferson was conscientious about not over working his slaves,
provided well for them and rarely resorted to harsh punishment except as a last resort.

(mention of occasional whippings by overseers will be included in the text.) If there is a RS that says 'Jefferson did not treat his slaves well', or one that in fact says 'he was cruel or mistreated them', then we can say opinions vary. Historians are obviously divided on whether or not Jefferson was always anti-slavery, however, I have not seen one source that says he didn't treat his slaves well. At best, all we'll find is someone sniping at a detail out of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I believe there is a source that states Jefferson's overseers were cruel to his slaves. If you put in that Jefferson treated his slaves well the article will have a contradiction. "Overseers treated his slaves cruel" versus "Jefferson treated his slaves well." The reader is left confused and bewildered due to the contradiction. Stating that Jefferson treated his slaves well opens the door to any other edits that states his overseers treated his slaves cruel. Great effort has been made to take out of the article that Jefferson was a cruel slave owner. Why is there a push to put in that Jefferson was kind to his slaves? That takes away the neutrality that has been established in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"A push to put in that Jefferson was kind"? Look at the evidence. Regardless of exceptional whippings the greater population was well cared for and Jefferson made numerous efforts to assure their quality of life comparable to the average free farmer, who btw was not afforded guaranteed shelter, food and clothing every few months. Jefferson was away much of the time. Any overseer who was cruel was so on his own accord. Jefferson made clear his policy towards the treatment of slaves, so when exceptional whippings are mentioned let's make sure we give the reader all of the context that goes with it. Numerous RS's, new and old, have said unequivocally that Jefferson treated his slaves well and interacted with them in numerous capacities. We can mention that whippings occurred at the hand of overseers on occasions but that Jefferson was adamant about harsh punishment being used only as a last resort as RS's, overseer's and slave's testimony have affirmed.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, slaves had no rights, none. Slaves were property. Their "marriages" and family could be broken up at any time by the master, i.e. Thomas Jefferson. Slaves could be sold at anytime. Slaves could be whipped and killed at any time. In fact 20 25 slaves were hanged in Virginia while their only crime was "plotting their freedom". The only "safety" a slave had was that they were worth money. Killing a slave would mean loosing money for the slave master. If you believe this was a kind world, that is fine. I believe underneath all this push for Jefferson and being a kind slave owner is that this is justification for black slavery. That goes beyond the scope of this article. Jefferson carried and brandished a whip at the slaves as a show of force, meaning if you don't work you will get whipped. The article is neutral. Again, kindness is extremely subjective and undefined. Information has been put into the article that Jefferson clothed and housed his slaves. The reader could interpret this as acts of kindness. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction: 25 blacks were hanged in Gabriel's Rebellion in 1800 in Virginia. Jefferson did not want the hangings rather he wanted deportings of the slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was to put Jefferson and slavery in the context of his times. Hangings, uprisings, whippings, in my opinion, does not sound like a kind world to live in. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Again this is not an article about the institution of slavery. You have been told this several times yet you keep going back to the same routine. This article is about TJ and his slaves and not about the institution of slavery. Please get this straight. Brad (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion in reference was on Jefferson being a nice guy slave owner. I believed that putting that in the article would make the article on the justification of slavery rather then on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I added that Jefferson publically recommended limited hangings of blacks. Gwillhickers did a good job of editing. Thanks. The reader is given enough information to decide if Jefferson was a nice guy slave owner or anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Again no one wants to use terms like 'kind' or 'indulgent' but we can still say he treated his slaves well, as numerous RS's, testimony and letters clearly indicate. As I have always been told, we report what the sources say. The section is about Jefferson and slavery. This is why it's also important to cover his personal involvement with his slaves. Once again, this will give the readers plenty of insight into Jefferon's moral relationship with these people whom he believed he had a 'duty' to protect and provide for. The section still needs trimming down and some of the highly objective language dealt with. e.g.the ugly, deceptive, and unintelligent blacks. Is this a Jefferson quote? Chernov doesn't say this. - Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if we put Jefferson was good to his slaves and then put his overseers were cruel to his slaves, that is contradictive. The previous edit that states Jefferson wanted to get the remaining blacks out of Virginia, so they would not be hanged out of vengence would be an anti-slavery action of Jefferson. Ferling calls Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia description of blacks racist in Setting the World Ablaze. Let's say the article states Jefferson was good to his slaves and then states Jefferson's overseers whipped his slaves. OK. That means Wikipedia is endorsing that whipping black slaves was good treatment. That is dangerous territory, Gwillhickers. This article is suppose to be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Considerations (edit break)

Not 'contradictive' -- complex. Overall Jefferson was good to his slaves and treated them well. This can be said while at the same time mention to occasional whippings by an overseer can be made. And remember, according to RS's, overseer's and slave's testimony, whippings were uncommon and used as a last resort. If this is not handled right the section could indeed come off as contradictive, so we must be careful to be clear and give proper weight to the overall greater truth for most slaves over a 40+ year period. Again, including roundly sourced and established history is neutral. If efforts were made to skew or distort this picture, that would not be neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Complex, yes, Gwillhickers, that is why there needs to be neutrality in the article. There is the issue of whippings, illiteracy among slaves and slave families, viewing slaves as inferiors, and working children in the nailery and the spinning wheel. There is also the fundemental that slaves had no rights and were subject to being hanged. Even their marriages were not legal and could be broken up at anytime. Jefferson sold 50 slaves to get out of debt. How can Jefferson be a good master when he sold his slaves? To put in a generalzation that slaves were treated well most of time is a simple answer to a complicated question concering Jefferson and the treatment of slaves. Are whippings humane or cruel? That is a question outside the scope of this article. The 12 hour work day in the fields was extremely labor intensive. The reader needs enough neutral information to decide if Jefferson was cruel or humane. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is the issue of occasional whippings -- and there is the issue of overall treatment of the greater slave population over a 40+ year period. Child labor wasn't anything new and was not limited to slaves in those days. Many children were raised on farms and began work before the age of ten, in the cities children, orphans, often worked in factories doing menial or repetitious tasks. Do you have a RS that says nail makers were overworked or treated cruelly? Also, many slaves knew how to read and write at Monticello, something that was often forbidden on other plantations. Again, your view is largely presentist, historically naive and seems driven by modern day social considerations, given your narrow focus and language. Again, numerous RS's, testimony, letters and overwhelming evidence say Jefferson treated his slaves well and was conscientious about the quality of their lives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not naive, Gwillhickers. I am aware child labor was common in the 18th and 19th Centuries. I believe that if Wikipedia states slaves were generally treated well, that is an endorsement on enslaving and whipping African Americans. That goes beyond the scope of the Thomas Jefferson article. I believe one slave was severely injured at the nailry and ran away. He was caught and Jefferson threatened to sell him or ship him to the West Indies. Yes. When the discussion is on whipping black slaves and enslaving black children I recommend discretion in the Wikipedia article to preserve neutrality. I believe there will need to be editor consensus on whether to add a statement that Jefferson generally treated his slaves well. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"endorsement on enslaving and whipping"? Citing that slaves were treated well while noting occasional whippings is not an endorsement. I think I'm about done entertaining these notions of yours, one after another. It's only your opinion that children working in a nail factory was something that amounted to overworking and/or cruelty. It seems once again you are sniping at details in the usual 2+2 fashion, with no qualifying content or RS's to carry the ball any further. Please find a RS that's say's the greater slave population was overworked and/or treated cruelly. Make sure the source explains why. Otherwise we can say many historians have generally noted that Jefferson did not over work slaves and made many efforts to treat slaves well. This is easily demonstrated by his numerous efforts at Monticello and elsewhere. i.e.Allowed them gardens and a poultry yard, paid many of them extra, trained many in highly skilled capacities, etc. We need to also let the reader know that Jefferson was very conscientious in this area and expressed a moral duty to slaves by not mistreating them and providing for and protecting them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am all for the addition that Jefferson allowed his slaves gardens and a poultry yard, if there is an author source. What good is being trained in highly skilled tasks if you are a slave, have no rights, or can't leave to make your own living? The article has noted Jefferson freed three slaves, however, he only freed two slaves. The slave he let run away remained a slave. If one brings morality into the question, then why didn't Jefferson free his slaves? I did cite a source, Sir Thomas More, who had stated in 1516 that working from the early morning to late at night (12-18 hour work day) was the fate of slaves and equivilent to the work of beasts of burden. This was over 200 years before Jefferson was born so you can't say I am using presentism. More advocated a six hour work day in Utopia with a two hour break from nine to five. In other words any work over six hours would be considered overwork. If Jefferson's slaves worked from dawn till dusk, that would be a 12 hour work day. If the slaves worked 6 days a week that is a 72 hour work week. In More's Utopia the worker would have worked a 36 hour per 6 day work week, that is a 36 hour difference between More's ideal society and how many hours Jefferson's slaves worked. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My whole point is this, Gwillhickers, subjective words such as "kind", "cruel", and "morals" need to be discussed by more editors, before for being allowed to be put in the article, if there is reasonable concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Kelloggs did a study on worker productivity: The Pursuit of Happiness. This might give a better definition of the term "overworked". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Only an idiot needs to have the idea of "overworked" explained to him/her. You are attempting to drag a simple issue into endless debate, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy continually wants to strike out against slavery as an institution while denying that he's doing so. We're not here to discuss the lack of human rights for slaves. Your agenda is clear. Drop the stick. Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am for keeping the article neutral. Stating that Jefferson was a good slave owner is an endorsement of the institution of slavery. Does Wikipedia endorse that blacks are inferior and that they are lazy and deserved to be enslaved? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, with your skewed account. No one wants to say TJ was "a good slave owner". You have a long history of misrepresenting what editors write. Please stop this. Claiming WP is 'endorsing slavery' by citing roundly sourced content is not a WP endorsement of slavery. It's like saying, because Germans treated American POW's well during WWii that we are endorsing the 3rd Reich. BALONEY. Unless you have a RS that backs up your notions, you need to stop with the foot dragging. Again, we can say According to many historians and testimony from slaves and overseers Jefferson treated his slaves well and did not overwork them. You are trying to block basic and well sourced content with the idea of neutrality, when in fact it is you who wants to distort the picture and overshadow 40+ years of history with the idea of occasional whippings. This has gone around in a circle more than enough. We've heard your view. RS's please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanton (1993), p. 159 states that a sick slave named James was whipped three times in one day by one of Jefferson's overseers. Hughes (March 9, 2004), Thomas Jefferson: A Man of His Time, states that Jefferson used whippings on any captured run away slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Berans (2003),Jefferson's Demons: Portrait of a Restless Mind, Chapter 10, Dreams, states that Jefferson brandished a whip and yelled at his slaves. Jefferson had one of his slaves whipped in front of his friends. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• He would not allow his slaves to be over driven, or whipped unless as a last resort, preferring rather to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious. Peterson,1970, p.535

• Jefferson had deep moral convictions about slavery. He regarded it as a great moral and political evil. No more human slave owner ever lived, and his servants regarded him with almost idolatrous affection. Ellis, 2007, p.47

• No one was more kind and just in the treatment of slaves. Merwin, 1901, p.26

• As a fledging legislator as long ago as 1769, in the Virginia courts as a young lawyer, in his declaration of independence, and in his first draft of the Northwest Ordinance, Jefferson had worked to make his contemporaries recognize the evil of slavery and to set free all enslaved African-Americans. Randall, 1994 p.591

• Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life., Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson and Slavery

We have already acknowledged that some slaves were whipped on occasion by overseers. All you are doing now is horn blowing, hoping modern day stigmas will carry the ball for you. Harsh punishment was used for sailors on occasions. This does not mean they were not treated well. POW's often received harsh punishment for various offenses, this does not mean they were not treated well as prisoners. Slaves were also dealt with by means of harsh punishment on occasion. Your narrow focus while ignoring the greater picture is pov pushing. Again occasional whippings can be mentioned while relating the greater truth, backed by RS's and the testimony of slaves and overseers. All you have done is cited whippings, with no content as to frequency, cruelty and life in general for the greater slave population. Also, I asked you about the last sentence in the Slavery section. ...the ugly, deceptive, and unintelligent blacks. Is this a Jefferson quote? If not this out of context comment needs to be removed also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Considerations (edit break 2)

Gwillhickers, there seems to be no end to your insistance that Jefferson treated his slaves well. Here is a quote from Stephen E. Ambrose (1996), pg. 34: "Slavery worked through terror and violence-there was no other way to force men to work without compensation". Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West. Jefferson allowed his overseer's to use whatever form of punishment that they saw fit to use. Even if Jefferson rarely whipped his slaves there was always the threat of being whipped. I don't own this article. If you want to make additional edits that Jefferson treated his slaves well, go ahead, however, I recommend that any edits be put in neutral wording that does not to justify slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are obsessed with whippings and are obviously trying to claim it was the only language understood by slaves at Monticello and anywhere else. Numerous RS's say slaves were treated well, and were rarely whipped. Slaves and overseers have said this. Again, soldiers, very often impressed into service, were always faced with the threat of being shot for desertion but this does not mean they were not treated well as soldiers. Again, you refuse to count past four as all you see are whippings that rarely occurred and are ignoring 40+ years of history regarding the greater bulk of the slave population. Btw, slaves were compensated. They were given a sizable log-cabin, food, clothing and many other things and sometimes paid extra. I imagine there are exceptions, but slaves did not go hungry as did many farmers struggling in the dirt to support their families. Free farmers worked from sun up to sun set and farm children began work before the age of ten. Your view is not only acutely presentist, it seems confined to within the walls of the classroom. Again, we can say according to historians.... If you can find more than one RS that says slaves at Monticello were 'not' treated well, then we will qualify the statement and say many historians.... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I sighted a source that stated slavery worked through "terror and violence". This section is on slavery and slaves not on the draft, impressment, or being shot for desertion. Soldiers by the way, were not drafted for life, but were to serve for a limited time, unless of course any soldier was wounded or killed in action. As I mentioned, Gwillhickers, you can put in the article that Jefferson treated his slaves well. However, I believe the wording needs to be neutral not to convey that slavery was a good institution for blacks. That goes beyond any treatment of slaves by Jefferson in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You cited a source that did not reference Jefferson. Sources that make sweeping and highly subjective claims are usually not objective anyways. The analogy to soldiers was made only to demonstrate that though they were shot for desertion, the greater population were nonetheless treated well. It's like you're saying because soldiers were shot for desertion, they were not treated well. Period. 2+2 as you know does not equal 100. I use this analogy often only because there is so much, too much, opportunity to do so.
Slavery as an institution was morally wrong. The article can articulate this very well by citing Jefferson's objections to it, but since you seem to be obsessed with removing anything that even suggests that Jefferson was a "good guy" you've scurried right over that perspective, among others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, neutrality means letting the reader make their own decisions on Thomas Jefferson. Ambrose does mention Jefferson.

"Not every master whipped his slaves-Jefferson almost surley never did...but every master had to allow his overseers to use the lash whenever the overseer saw fit, or felt like it. Slavery worked through terror and violence-there was no other way to force men to work without compensation." Ambrose (1996), p. 34

Ambrose is pointing out the slavery worked under the whip. Stating only that Jefferson was a good slave master would lead the reader to believe slavery was a good system, and as you have pointed out Jefferson believed the system was immoral. Brodie (1974), Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, pp 287-288 states that Jefferson shook a whip at the slaves to make them work harder. Brodie points out that Jefferson knew the whip was part of slavery and that Jefferson stated he was not "fit to be a farmer with the kind of labor we have." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like more of the same sort of speculations from afar about slavery in general with an attempt to paint Jefferson with the same brush. And you're sniping at another isolated detail, a quote that's supposed to amount to something, but taken in context and viewed in light of general established facts it amounts to nothing that says TJ was not conscientious about slave treatment. Jefferson was openly opposed to the whipping policy and encouraged his slaves in many other ways and with great success. I think at this point you must know there's much evidence that supports this advent bringing it beyond the realm of speculation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Jefferson brandishing the whip at the slaves? If that is true, that would deserve mention in the article. There is no need to emasculate Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Owning slaves was no doubt something that required a show of force from time to time, esp with new arrivals. If Jefferson showed up "brandishing" a whip it would be interesting to know if this was a rare event and whose testimony supports the idea. Did Jefferson ride around waving or snapping his whip at slaves? Is there more than one source that mentions this? (According to Webster's, "Brandishing" means to "wave, shake, or exhibit in a menacing way".) If Jefferson simply made an appearance 'with' a whip (as opposed to brandishing) once or twice over a 40+ year period this would be just an exception. If he always or frequently "brandished" a whip, or actually used it, that would be an entirely different matter and worth mention. It would be deceitful to portray Jefferson riding around on a horse "brandishing" a whip when in reality he was opposed to this policy and rarely resorted to it. We can mention that a few overseers used the whip on occasion (most often if not always when Jefferson was away) but were strongly discouraged from doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as the reader knows whippings took place by Jefferson's overseers, that is fine. The reader would be given both views that Jefferson treated slaves well and that slaves were whipped by Jefferson's overseers, even if rarely done. From the sources I have read, Jefferson often brandished the whip, meaning he showed them the whip without words. This was effective as his slaves worked harder. The whip does not negate any "good" things Jefferson did for his slaves, but demonstrates that even Jefferson had to contend with a show of force. Brodie found that Jefferson brandishing the whip was troubling since Jefferson's image was a gentlman slaveowner and farmer. From our discussions then I would mention the following: historians overall view Jefferson treated his slaves well; only a few of his slaves were whipped by his overseers even though Jefferson implemented a no whipping policy; and that Jefferson prefered a show of force rather then whippings to make his slaves work harder. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I added information on Jefferson's treatment of slaves. There was nothing deceitful if Jefferson shaked his whip at his slaves. I was going by what the source stated. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Political party label - Congressional Caucuses, 1789 - 1827.

- The reliable scholarly source for “standard identification sources” from the dean of Congressional political party identification, surveying (a) newspapers and correspondence, (b) caucuses and conventions, (c) state ballots and national government, is Kenneth Martis, “Historical Atlas of Political Parties of the U.S. Congress 1789-1989”. See pages 27-28. Available in major libraries at the atlas tables.

- Congress 1-3: Pro-Administration v. Anti- administration (Jefferson)

- Congress 4-17: Federalist v. Republican (Jefferson) with local Republican denominations of ‘Quids’, ‘Democrats’, ‘Randolphites’, ‘Old Republicans’, ‘War Hawks’, ‘anti-war Clintons’.

- Congress 18: ‘Adams-Clay Federalists’ (Ma-Md-NC) v. ‘Adams-Clay Republicans’ (Ky-Oh-N.Eng) v. ‘Crawford Republicans’ (Ga-Va-NY) v. ‘Jackson Republicans’(Tn-SC-Pa).

- The party divisions evident in this last Congress was the national political context of Jefferson’s last years of 'retirement'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)