Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Reverend -- or -- the Reverend

In the Education section, ‎Matthewdgonzalez gives us Reverend Maury versus the Reverend Maury. Is the old written form of address no longer used for clergy? That is the current form among British and world-wide Anglicans and American Episcopalians, it was certainly the form of reference for Maury and Jefferson referring to men-of-the-collar at the time. Any help on current style to be used on a Wikipedia biography page? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the usage determines which phrase is used. Speaking of the Reverend Maury would be a third person usage, whereas Reverend Maury by itself would be used to address the person directly, however one could also use Reverend Maury by itself in addressing the third person, so it would seem either usage would be discretionary. Don't know of any WP policy that says otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The real Jefferson

Gwillhickers seems to have a real problem coming to terms with the real Jefferson, and even Yopienso doesn't seem too comfortable with the real Jefferson. A recent article by a Jefferson historian sums up the Jefferson of history nicely [1].

Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience....Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition....Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation.

On how he treated his slaves:

Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. A proponent of humane criminal codes for whites, he advocated harsh, almost barbaric, punishments for slaves and free blacks. Known for expansive views of citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks “outlaws” in America, the land of their birth. Opposed to the idea of royal or noble blood, he proposed expelling from Virginia the children of white women and black men...Jefferson told his neighbor Edward Coles not to emancipate his own slaves, because free blacks were “pests in society” who were “as incapable as children of taking care of themselves.” Destroying families didn’t bother Jefferson, because he believed blacks lacked basic human emotions. “Their griefs are transient,” he wrote, and their love lacked “a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.” Jefferson claimed he had “never seen an elementary trait of painting or sculpture” or poetry among blacks and argued that blacks’ ability to “reason” was “much inferior” to whites’, while “in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.”

On his efforts to keep slavery legal:

Jefferson also dodged opportunities to undermine slavery or promote racial equality. As a state legislator he blocked consideration of a law that might have eventually ended slavery in the state...As president he acquired the Louisiana Territory but did nothing to stop the spread of slavery into that vast “empire of liberty.”

I sympathize with Yopienso's efforts to write off Jefferson's repugnant views on slavery and blacks as an innocent contradiction that we can never understand, and his correct desire to judge Jefferson by the standards of his day. But the simple fact here is that by the standards of his day, his treatment of his own slaves was brutal, he was exceptionally racist, and he opposed even modest efforts to free slaves.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed Finkelman ad nauseam here, Quark. Meacham, Weincek, and he are all scholars, and all disagree, at least on emphasis when not on facts. His statements are for the most part technically true, but lack balance.

• Ex.: Unlike Meacham, he ignores TJ's financial straits, some of which he brought on himself and some of which he didn't. Quite simply, TJ could not afford to free his slaves.
• Ex.: He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. The phrase after the comma there is hyperbole; every Southerner comprehended selling slaves away.
• Ex.: Destroying families didn’t bother Jefferson is flatly untrue, though he did think blacks' feelings weren't as keen as whites'.
• Ex.: Jefferson remained . . . a buyer and seller of human beings. The context is not given: Jefferson did not engage in the commercial buying or selling of slaves. He purchased slaves occasionally, because of labor needs or to unite spouses. Despite his expressed "scruples" against selling slaves except "for delinquency, or on their own request," he sold more than 110 in his lifetime, mainly for financial reasons.

I almost wonder if the slavery section should not reflect an attempt to give one view we can all agree on, but show the contrasts in views held by scholars.

I've already spent far too much time here today. I was raised in the racist South and "get" Jefferson. The second paragraph of this article explains a little bit about it. I am anything but a racist, but being raised among white and black racists, I understand racism. Whites just didn't see blacks as people. . . even in the 1960s. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Meacham isn't a scholar, he is a journalist. Weincek and Finkleman are scholars. I am as southern as Robert E. Lee and yet know that racism in the 1960s or today is quite a different thing from racism in the 1860s, and far more different than racism in the 1760s. I understand your attempt to add context, but putting it in the article the way it currently is goes way beyond context and goes into the area of apologetics. Even if we are going to add proper context, the work of scholars like Finkleman and many others would show that Jefferson's racism and treatment of his slaves was unusually extreme even by the standards of his own day. This kind of thing can be argued at length on the article about Jefferson and slavery, but here we need to keep it short since this is such a controversial topic. I am fine with contrasting the views of scholars who take a more favorable and a less favorable view of Jefferson on the topic, but what we have currently is not that at all.

Do you agree that balance needs to be brought back to the section?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, I think the present version gives too rosy a view of a slave's life at Monticello. (Actually, I said of TJ.) But we like discussing major changes; when lots are done at once he's hard to assess.

Gwhillhickers, what do you think of showing the contrasting views of scholars and prize-winning authors as opposed to trying to agree on a unified text? Yopienso (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of slaves

Recently an editor, who once before came through and made sweeping changes with no discussion, has once again stripped away much sourced info regarding the treatment of slaves [add: while reintroducing unclear language i.e."Jefferson sometimes tried hard not [to] overwork his slaves"], with no discussions.
Is there any source that in fact says Jefferson overworked slaves, "sometimes", or at anytime? Finkelman? Ferling? Reed? TJF? I have restored to the version ('Slaves and slavery' section) that was in place beforehand. Please discuss before making major changes in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Our friend with the bull-dozer approach to editing is at it again, removing and now reverting sourced content and is attempting the usual weasel-wording tactics used in this section before it was cleaned up through discussion and consensus. Q' please discuss any changes you would like to see and provide RS/citations. This sort of behavior has caused nothing but trouble and disruption in the past -- what do you hope to accomplish this time? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of the section was a defense of Jefferson's role in slavery, not an impartial summary of the topic.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for an explanation, Quark. Please revert while you and Gwillhickers discuss your assertion. There has been considerable discussion and eventual consensus for much (maybe all) of it.

Meanwhile, I will specifically ask that this or a passage conveying the same information be included:

Although he proposed abolishing slavery in all territories to the west after 1800 in his draft of the North West Ordinance of 1784, that provision was stricken by Congress. Neither was slavery prohibited by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase treaty.

Obviously the last sentence needs stylistic improvement.

Helpful hint: Blanking your talk page after I left a note isn't in good form. Yopienso (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers has a long history of refusal to stick with the facts on Jefferson. Gwillhickers can tell us what he wants added back, and I will certainly compromise, but the section was full of historical fictions, which I can easily justify with more sources.

I have restored the section you requested.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

{E/c}Thanks for your cooperation! :-) Yopienso (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any facts I have included are sourced, so kindly cease with the slander approach. Once again, you have come sailing through making massive deletions with no regard for consensus or discussion past or present. Your attempt to strip away content and context is obvious. Have seen better writing in dictionaries.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The "facts" you continue to restore are wrong, and we have a long history of dealing with you and your "sources". You have a history of using highly dubious sources that don't even meet basic Wikipedia standards. The last time I was here, the accurate facts on the topic were listed and well sourced, and mysteriously they are now deleted.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not spending much time here these days, but I know we spent a lot of time after your last series of edits gaining consensus and we all were reasonably happy with our results, as far as I can remember. Some of us have, frankly, tired of the fray, and yes, I for one felt Gwillhickers tried to paint too rosy a picture of TJ and could be adamant, but your method is more disquieting to us. Anyway, I'm too busy in real life right now to contribute much. Yopienso (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Q'soup, If there were any 'wrong facts' it seems you would have said something by now, and still here, you weasel-word it with nothing specific. I have responded to your 3RR noticeboard complaint and have agreed to not make any more edits until this matter is resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd, it would seem I have just said a lot. In any case, many of your fake facts here are simply regurgitation's from a few months ago when you tried to stuff the section with them.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "regurgitation", all you have done is repeat the same non specific slurs you made at the noticeboard. And now you get to list one of the "fake facts" I have made. Once again, you forgot to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quarkggluonsoup, I respect what I believe to be "good faith" edits of yours to the article. However, Jefferson's treatment of the slaves does mention that slaves were whipped and children worked in his nailry. The reader can interpret these actions in any way the reader wants. That is balance. Jefferson did not want to exterminate blacks. That has been inferred in the article on his attempt to deport slaves in Gabriel's Rebellion. In other words, life in the nailry was cruel, but Jefferson's intention was not to see that they died, rather, only produce nails. Jefferson outlawing the slave trade caused slave owners not to overwork their slaves to death, since slaves were harder to replace. That does not take away that slavery was a horrible institution and the labor was extremely difficult. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Turn of events

Q's complaint to the 3RR notice board was turned down.
Yopensio, thanks for your input and attempts at diplomacy with Q'. For the record, if there are certain items of content/context that portray Jefferson inaccurately or wrongfully, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You want to know what portrays Jefferson wrongly? Everything I deleted. Tell me why you think I am wrong.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Insert : No doubt this is what amounts to a 'discussion' in your mind. I am done talking with you about content. You first came through (this last time) and made numerous and sweeping deletions/revisions and didn't even have the mind to leave an edit summary. This is something you do often as the numerous complaints on your talk page clearly reveal. (including the ones you hid). Several attempts were made by me and others to discuss your repeated deletions/changes. Instead you continued with your undiscussed reverts and when I attempt to check your rampant editing you wrongfully drag the issue over to the 3RR noticeboard as if you actually had some sort of respect for policy and guidelines. When filling out the 3RR template you ignore the question asking you if you first discussed changes and have made reverts with no discussions. Of course you had no choice but to ignore that and went ahead anyway and filed the 3RR form. After arguing with one editor over his decision another administrator came in and handed you your walking papers. Now you're back, doing the same thing all over again. i.e.Making major reverts of any edits that stand in your way with no edit summaries or discussion as usual. If you want to make a different statement, back it up with more reliable sources. If you simply want to continue gutting historical context that is well sourced with no discussion expect to be reverted, on the spot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, when you reverted to your previous version, you removed an edit I made. Not cool. – Wdchk (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Imo and according to my knowledge, not being a scholar on Jefferson, the facts as presented before QGS's return are technically correct; it's the way TJ is made to seem so good and kind that seems off. I've worked mainly on the slaves and slavery section. The following paragraph seems aimed at making him look good and the life of a slave comparable to that of a free farmer; as I've asked here before, why did they run away if their life there was so good? As usual, the house slaves had it much better than the field slaves, so the house slaves' experience would not be typical.

Though there are accounts of whippings by overseers, Jefferson would not allow his slaves to be whipped except as a last resort, and then only on the arms and legs, preferring to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious.[186] According to testimony of slaves and overseers, whippings were rare and administered only for stealing, fighting, or other exceptional cases. Jefferson would not overwork his slaves, expecting them to work no harder than free farmers.

Another personal opinion is that the first paragraph of the slaves and slavery section was better before the most recent edit. Starting out with "Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery" introduces him in his context, which many readers will have no notion of. The next line, "Although a slaveowner, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and master," imo, could go, because right off the bat it's spinning him as well, yes, a slaveowner, but a good one, you see. Which, in fact, he was; it just seems wrong to me to editorialize like that. This is essential: "His views on the institution of slavery and African slaves are complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree," although I've never liked the last part of that sentence. There was a lot of wrangling, as I recall, over just how many historians; I'd simplify it to, "historians disagree on whether he was pro- or anti-slavery." Or something like that.

CBS News has an article/review today, "Jefferson's irony: Voice of liberty, slave owner," that I think has a good balance.

The boys were routinely whipped to force them to be more productive. "That happened while Jefferson was on Monticello," said Bunch. "It happened when he was gone, because in the 18th century, you couldn't run a plantation without using violence."

A man of his time, Jefferson thought he was benevolent. But even his plan for ending slavery would be considered racist today.

That's all, folks! Happy Sunday. Yopienso (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are (many) items that portray Jefferson other than some 'racist slave driver' who treated his slaves cruelly then that is the way it goes. Again, there are simply too many sources, young and old, testimony from slaves and overseers, letters, political involvements, etc, that reveal Jefferson to be more than the narrow and selfish man some individuals would have you believe he was. I suspect such accounts are met with mixed reactions simply because it undermines all the peer-driven activist/media hype on the topic. Regarding the CBS media account you referred to, written by an unknown individual(s), we will still need reliable sources that say boys at the nail factory were "routinely whipped". According to various slaves this seemingly excessive CBS account is not at all an accurate estimation of affairs. These things were discussed at length before, so I'm a little disappointed that we have to rehash this all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would never call TJ a "racist slave driver." He was a refined and thoughtful gentleman of the 18th-century plantation culture. A long-standing problem here has been the inability to come to a consensus on his complex personality; trying to shade him as either a villain or a saint is too simplistic. I agree with Jon Meacham, as quoted on p. 1 of the 3-page CBS article by Martha Teichner:

"Most human beings I know are quite capable of denial and hypocrisy," said Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jon Meacham. "I think Jefferson's virtues were enormous, and his vices were equally enormous. [...] "Looked at in full, you find a man whose life was made possible by slavery, who had misgivings, who as a young man attempted, however feebly, to reform the institution," said Meacham. But in the end, Jefferson "allowed himself to be trapped by the economic, political and cultural circumstances into which he was born." Yopienso (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot word my long-held view of TJ better than Meacham did, except possibly to cast his vices as lesser than his virtues. This is where I differed with some editors in the past--he has to be judged by his times, not ours. Yopienso (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The quote about the whippings at the nailery is from Lonnie Bunch. Yopienso (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to start challenging sources against each other all over again, given the many dozens of sources already in place. You are referring to a featured editorial hosted by CBS. Lonnie Bunch apparently hasn't published any historical works and is highly involved with racial politics and giving a 'voice to the anonymous'. Extremely peer driven. Further, his account of Sally Hemings was to be expected, not even acknowledging Randolph and his five sons, so evidently he is in lock step with that parade along with the folks at TJF, etc. His account also cites no sources other than a generic reference to the usual line up at TJF, i.e."Getting Word", the Monticello 'oral history' project, et al. His claim that children were "routinely whipped" smacks of the same sort of sensationalism Finkelman used when he said "Jefferson hated the negro". When it comes to controversial matters we need to consult a variety of sources. Lonnie Bunch's account is not at all consistent with the testimony of a slave named Jim who spoke about a young slave getting caught stealing nails at the factory and was not whipped. Now we're hearing that the children, more than one, were getting "routinely" whipped. There is also an irony here. While Lonnie Bunch refers to TJF-Monticello at the end of his 3 page article, he seems aloof to the idea that TJF's account of slave treatment at the nailery is not consistent with his excessive claim. He doesn't even mention that long time overseer at the nail factory was George Granger who was himself a slave. Was Granger the one who "routinely whipped" children? It would seem we'll need other sources that make the claim about children being "routinely whipped" at the nail factory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Two of them were William Page and Gabriel Lilly, white men. Although Jefferson praised Lilly as “as good a one [overseer] as can be,” Lilly’s management was punctuated by violence. In 1801, Jefferson was concerned with his overseer’s “treatment of the nailers.” In 1804, joiner James Oldham charged Lilly with “Barbarity … moast cruel” after whipping an ill James Hemings. Here. Yopienso (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article does already mention accounts of slaves being whipped. "Were boys whipped routinely?" is a valid concern. However, what historical account(s) mention boys were whipped routinely? Is the CBS source valid? Was Jefferson there when these boys were whipped? Did Jefferson condone the whipping of boys at his nailry? These questions, in my opinion, need to be answered before any edit of boys being whipped routinely is considered to be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reword paragraph

Since explicit mention of whippings seems to be of primary concern for at least one editor I have reworded a paragraph in the Slaves and slavery section, mentioning the over use of the whip by some overseers. I also have removed the phrase "whippings were rare" as this is an overstatement, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you edits Gwillhickers. I have read the unknown authored CBS article that claims Lonnie Bunch stated The boys were routinely whipped to force them to be more productive. Martha Teichner made this statement in her video and then inferred that Lonnie Bunch made this statement. This sentence was not in quotes and apparently not Bunch's original statement, the reporter made the statement and then added Bunch as confirmation of her statement. That in my opinion, is not good journalism, to infer someone made a quote without having heard the person's original statment. The statement that boys were whipped routinely is unreliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead, we can quote from Jefferson scholar Finkleman[2]

Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience....Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition....Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation.

And

Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. A proponent of humane criminal codes for whites, he advocated harsh, almost barbaric, punishments for slaves and free blacks. Known for expansive views of citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks “outlaws” in America, the land of their birth. Opposed to the idea of royal or noble blood, he proposed expelling from Virginia the children of white women and black men...Jefferson told his neighbor Edward Coles not to emancipate his own slaves, because free blacks were “pests in society” who were “as incapable as children of taking care of themselves.” Destroying families didn’t bother Jefferson, because he believed blacks lacked basic human emotions. “Their griefs are transient,” he wrote, and their love lacked “a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.” Jefferson claimed he had “never seen an elementary trait of painting or sculpture” or poetry among blacks and argued that blacks’ ability to “reason” was “much inferior” to whites’, while “in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.”Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record: Jefferson also believed racial differences were "fixed in nature" as did most people of his time. Yet he still went through great lengths to provide for slaves and treat them well, anyway. Finkelman's opinion is not consistent with the facts, and there are many. If Jefferson was "deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks" he would not have gone through such extraordinary measures to provide for and treat them well. Also, Jefferson's comments to Cole about free slaves being "pests" who can't take care of themselves was made in the context that freed slaves would have no place to go and no means by which they could afford a living. Again, sniping at isolated incidents without overall context has been tried before in the slavery and controversy sections. If there is a specific statement along these lines someone would like to make or rewrite then it would seem we need to hear it. So far all we've gotten is pussy footing around the idea that the section isn't balanced, yet at this late date no specific statements have been presented, much less cited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That isn't true. I sympathize with your attempt to take an historicist approach and filter out presentism. Few things bother me more than presentism, but your problem is that your understanding of past cultural biases is wrong. The idea that blacks could be inferior due to differences "fixed in nature" is a manifestation of scientific racism, which barely existed until well into the 19th century. Jefferson's racism was ahead of its time. The more common idea at the time was that inferiority, if it existed, was a product of nurture and not nature.

Jefferson was too abusive of his slaves for us to consider that he "treated them well". In any case, you are substituting your personal beliefs in defense of Jefferson from the work of scholars. Some do defend him, and it is fine to include their work on the article, though currently it is one sided.

Quite a lot of problems have been cited, you are just too blinded with your love of Jefferson too see them as legitimate problems.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The real crux of Jefferson was that he could not allow blacks to be citizens and equal to whites. The condition of slaves was terrible throughout the South and North. Monticello was a slave plantation and Jefferson exploited blacks. I believe the reader can infer this from the article. The term "treated them well" does not equate that the slaves lived a life of leisure, but rather exemplifies that Jefferson did not work his slaves to death, as was common. He gave them shelter, clothing, and cooking ware for their subsistence. I do not say this lightly, but Monticello was not an extermination camp for blacks. Focusing on the harsh realities of being a slave, although important, goes beyond the focus of Jefferson's main biography. Finkelman's view that Jefferson hated blacks is an opinion rather then a historically fact. The term "hate" is also very subjective and undefined. Finkelman blamed the death of James Hemings on Jefferson, the slave that Jefferson had set free. James Hemings committed suicide as a free man, not as Jefferson's slave. Jefferson neither stated he hated blacks nor desired to kill them. Jefferson wanted to deport free blacks from Virginia. More could be expanded on Jefferson's views on deporting blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, Jefferson himself was not abusive of his slaves, some overseers were at times. There are no sources that say his policy was "abusive" other than the sniping and speculations we get from the likes of Finkelman which typically fly in the face of established facts and testimony. Apparently you are also out of touch with the sources and cornerstone events that Jefferson was responsible for. Many historians, scholars, have noted Jefferson's dealings with slavery and overall treatment of slaves and their families. Any "failures" regarding Jefferson and slavery are easily explained in those turbulent and unstable times. Any 'love' for Jefferson on my part comes after the fact, and because of the fact. Noting facts for historical context regarding human affairs is not 'apologetic' -- it is noting facts for historical context regarding human affairs. This is called for in response to the Finkelman type rhetoric that has emerged in the 20th century. Much of it agi'prop. Now that we're in the 21st century the political 'pendulum' seems to have swung back to a more realistic position and an even newer consensus is emerging. Again, if you have a specific statement you would like to make or rewrite we need to actually see it, for a change. Also, in the future, kindly not accuse me of editing for my love of Jefferson and I won't accuse you of editing because of your hatred for him. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Info box: Profession

In the Info box under 'Profession' there are three items: Planter, Lawyer and College Administrator -- but there is nothing that indicates Jefferson was a Politician i.e.SOS, V.P., President. For lack of any other title, I will add Politician to the info box. (done) Or would 'Statesman' be more appropriate? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

- For scholars on radio and tv, we’ve got NPR’s | On Point: Jon Meacham for “Thomas Jefferson: politics and power”. [Aside - Comment on the blog attributes Jefferson’s financial difficulty to a close friend defaulting on a co-signature loan.]

- | Charlie Rose: Roundtable on presidential leadership with Jon Meacham (Jefferson), Michael Beschloss ‘Presidential courage: brave leaders and how they changed America 1789-1989’, Doris Kearns Goodwin ‘Lincoln: team of rivals’, ‘Johnson’, Robert Caro “Years of Lyndon Johnson”, Jim Fallows ‘Presidential speachwriters’.

- All around the table seem to believe you have to be a politician to gain power -- and -- to return to power, which Jefferson did -- in and out of both state and national politics. The mantle of 'statesman' is a later judgment accounting for on-balance effort and effect, rather than a profession ... well, seems to me, for the purposes of discussion ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the history behind the word. To the comparatively ignorant reader like myself the term Statesman seems to suggest a more prominent figure, whereas politician can and often suggests a lesser entity of this sort, yet either will work for me. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

- I'd say use politician to be more accurate, neutral, avoid charges of bias, puffery. But a more complete description of his profession would be a 'state and national politician-legislator-executive'.

- Not to quibble -- because his writing surely influenced American jurisprudence during his lifetime and as a legacy -- but as I remember, unlike many other politicians whose profession was lawyer to make ends meet in-between public service -- like Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster -- Jefferson basically tried his last case in court as a young man -- to overcome the prejudiced English of Norfolk, Virginia to allow the smallpox vaccination to Scots passengers landing, instead of quarantining them in small cabins with other immigrants who had contracted the disease before them. -- Jefferson was a life-long student of the Scottish Enlightenment, a philosopher, scientist, planter, educator, diplomat, politician, legislator, executive ... polymath is the word. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term politician at times can be used unfairly in a derogatory manner, such as a Gilded Age politician or political boss. Yes. That was after Thomas Jefferson's times. However, attaching a negative association with the term politician in my opinion is historical bias. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and I do not believe that calling Jefferson a politician is in anyway derogatory. Jefferson did start an opposition politcal party to the federalist and I believe that would make him a politician. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

- And, scholars agree with you. See Meacham, Jon. "Thomas Jefferson: the art of power" 2012. ISBN 978-0-679-64536-8, p.xix. "Thomas Jefferson was the most successful political figureof the first half century of the American republic."

- Meacham holds that Jefferson's [political] dynasty is unmatched in American history. Either Jefferson -- or a self-described political adherent -- served as president for 36 of the forty years 1800-1840: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and Van Buren.

- Meacham is making a nice expansion on Raymond Walter's 1965 volume, "The Virginia dynasty: the United States, 1801-1829" which discussed the political history of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. WPs Virginia dynasty probably needs source elaboration using Walters (1965) and Meacham (2012). As it is at the WP article now, there are only two sources referring to electoral outcomes rather than supporting a discussion of the term as historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On the basis that there seems to be no on-line viewing of Meacham's publication of late I would assume you have the hard text in hand, one of the '500 allowable'. :-) There is content in the biography regarding Jefferson always being among the top ten rated presidents in US history, even today, to the amazement of some no doubt. Meacham's comments would do well to add credence to this idea. If you have book in hand, I would ask, put pen to paper. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I surely will, it's wife's wedding anniversary gift. But Kaplan's "Revenge of Geography" is due back to the library .. Eight chapters on geographical studies, Mackinder, Strausz, Spykman, Mahan, moderns, then chapters on Europe, Russia, China. I'm mid-through India, then to come Iran, former Ottoman Empire and finally, "America's destiny: Braudel, Mexico and grand strategy". 100 pages to go. great good stuff. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'real' Jefferson, indeed

Yopienso, the section already mentions whippings, selling runaways (family separation), etc. To balance this off, we show how slaves were treated and how they lived. The section had zero content in that regard before. Remember? Now it does, and now there is balance. The section already mentions differences of opinion among historians also.
Showing how slaves were treated and how they were provided for knocks the bottom out of all the naive and presentist speculations that comes from much of academia and some of the so-called 'modern' sources and I suspect this is why it is greeted with the same sort of anger and frustration we're seeing from another editor. The only way to sell this stuff is to suppress how slaves were treated and how they lived. If Jefferson was this heartless selfish racist (as compared to the commonplace "racism" of his day) he wouldn't have gone through extraordinary lengths to make the lives of his slaves better. If you feel the section is still not balanced then we need to present the content you would like to add and/or remove and provide RS's that articulate any point -- we'll need more than just once media source written by an activist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Its mention of whippings does not include the cruelty at the nailery; it's a whitewash.
• What you dismiss as "naive and presentist speculations. . . from much of academia" is part of the academic discourse that cannot be ignored.
• TJ went to no "extraordinary lengths to make the lives of his slaves better"; he provided for them adequately.

Constructively, as opposed to pointing out faults in your statement, what I meant by " showing the contrasting views of scholars and prize-winning authors as opposed to trying to agree on a unified text" was to say, for example, "Finkelman says. . . but Weincek says. . ." Right now we mention differences of opinion among historians, but don't specify what the differences are.

I do not think we should include assertions, no matter if they are made by top scholars, that are demonstrably false, like Finkelman's above that "Destroying families didn’t bother Jefferson." I do think we should include his skewed ideas since they are part of the scholarship, but balance them with another scholar's opposing view. As CMGuy used to say, we can let the reader draw his own conclusions.

I went back in the archives and, except for the misrepresentation of Kosciuszko's offer, which, in fact, TJ was powerless to accept, I think the slavery section of this randomly chosen older version (I clicked "older 500" twice to find it) is better than the present one.

But, like I've said, I won't be available to help. I suggest enlisting the able help of TheVirginianHistorian, and, if she's willing after so much rancor here, Parkwells. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of opinions of scholars on Jefferson. I disagree that the older version is better and focuses way too much on Kosciuszko rather then Jefferson and his slaves. Of course working in the nailry was cruel, but what is the real point of having to put that working in the nailry was cruel, then that Jefferson was a cruel taskmaster. I do not believe that is neccessary to point out, rather, we must let the reader have room enough to make their own opinions on Jefferson. We could list a whole bunch of opinions on Jefferson both positive and negative, however that would confuse the reader. Your contention is that the article is a "whitewash" Yopensio of Jefferson. I used to think that also, but Jefferson was complicated and hard to pin down. The article mention that slaves were whipped and children worked in the nailry. The reader could understand from this information that slavery was not fun or a picnic. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminders

Further insights into Jefferson's mindset regarding slaves and slavery have been presented repeatedly on this page, beginning with Jefferson's opposition to slavery in his youth, his lawyer years, DOI, outlawing African slave trade, etc. His "failure" to rush into the newly acquired Louisiana Territory and impose anti-slavery laws has been explained time and again, that the inhabitants and interests in the territory at the time were largely French and any such actions on Jefferson and the United State's part would have compromised already strained relations with France. Given the growing conflicts with England at the time, the last thing Jefferson/the USA needed was another enemy camped in his back yard. i.e.The sun does not revolve around slavery. Modern day presentists routinely avoid these things because it simply lets out a lot of the steam used to launch their political balloons with.

Finkelman

Re: Finkelman NYT opinion piece:

• Jefferson also dodged opportunities to undermine slavery or promote racial equality.

"promote racial equality" is a modern day expectation. In the 1700-1800 era life was generally short, cruel and unforgiving. Infant mortality was common place and to be expected. Wars displaced families and caused wide spread death and destruction, frequently. Survival for the common man was generally a struggle, with no guarantees. Amid all of that, it would be a little difficult to lend an ear to anyone running around complaining about racial equality during these times. Politicians had all they could do from keeping the young USA united and able to repel foreign invasion. That was the priority -- not "racial equality". That may sound 'cruel' to the young and impressionable who doesn't know any better but that was the reality.

• Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time.

Selling and breaking up of slave families was the norm in slavery -- Jefferson went through extraordinary lengths to encourage and keep family units together and even provided separate cabins for many couples with children. Here is yet another interesting story where Jefferson purchased a black slave family and then sought out found and bought their father/husband from another plantation so they could be together as a family. Finkelman is typically sniping at the exception, building an opinion on that and is ignoring every thing else that would undermine that opinion. i.e.intellectual dishonesty.

• A proponent of humane criminal codes for whites, he advocated harsh, almost barbaric, punishments for slaves and free blacks.

Such as? We all know whippings were used on the arms and legs mostly, corporal punishment. There was also plenty of harsh punishment for most people in those days. i.e.Horse thieves were hung, stealing often resulted in long prison terms, deserters in the military were shot, not whipped. Everyone was subject to harsh punishment, not just slaves, who for the most part were not shot, hung or put in a prison cell for half of their life for running away, stealing, etc. Finkelman's speaks of slave treatment as if life was a bowl of cherries for everyone else and in the process grossly misrepresents Jefferson and many others.

• Known for expansive views of citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks “outlaws” in America,

An actual example would have been nice. Apparently Finkelman expects us to believe that in spite of advocating emancipation Jefferson was all along actually plotting to make free blacks "outlaws" in the process. IMO, Finkelman is very naive, acutely presentist and writes with an angry, indictment like, tone and as such needs to do a little thinking outside the box he was raised in.

As was easily demonstrated, isolated remarks like Finkelman's are easily exposed in light of historical context. Finkelman typically takes isolated items uses them as a coatrack for his speculations and in the process has proven to be more acutely presentist. IMO, given Finkelman's excessive language he is simply another peer-driven media hack with a degree. Again, the section already acknowledges differences of opinion. The best thing we can do is provide as many facts as possible, mention differing opinions and let the readers decide for themselves. How does the section not do this? Too many facts? Not enough opinion? Is the proposal here to take away (numerous) facts and add more opinion? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the section is reflected in your post here: rather than simply mention what scholars say on the topic, large parts of the section (like most of your response above) are devoted to apologizing for Jefferson and making claims that it really wasn't that bad. Wiencek is a Jefferson scholar, and the views of him and other scholars, no our own, are what need to be portrayed here.

The section is currently a work of apologetics for Jefferson, and one based on the views of some editors here, not scholars.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

- Problem with Finkleman -- on inspection -- is that he attributes actions and words to Jefferson arranged into a legal indictment that relies on items placed out of chronological order, whereas an historian's scholarship is scrupulously careful to maintain it. Here Finkleman is referred to as a "scholar", and he is most certainly a law professor at Albany Law School. I read it in the NYT.

- Finkleman's forays into the historical suffer from his Eurocentrism. In a quote attributed to him above, he speculates, Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. Unsourced assertions such as these reveal that his writing does not reflect the literature of the field and West-African restorative justice in particular. Students of slavery history are acquainted with Ira Berlin's "Many Thousands Gone", and are aware that a murderer in a West African village was sold away from their family and friends --the proceeds awarded to the village family which had suffered the loss. And SCHOLARS OF THE SUBJECT can successfully integrate that understanding into their writing for popular publications.

- The attempted murder in the nail factory to which Finkleman obliquely refers, was indeed punished personally by Jefferson. Not by whipping the guilty party, which some here seem to endlessly push forward as the Monticello regime with little evidence. Jefferson's punishment was to sell the murderer away from the community as was African custom. Selling a murderer into slavery can be canted about as "incomprehensively cruel even at the time" only by (a) narrowing one's view to Enlightenment Europeans of the time, or (b) referring anachronistically to modern Africans. One recalls penal colonies in Georgia and later Australia where those English freemen found stealing a loaf of bread were sent abroad away from their family and friends" for life.

- In modern U.S. courts for the merest of property crimes, our citizens are today taken away from their family and friends -- the largest numbers in the world -- courtesy of law school graduates. Mr. Finkleman's peers send NON-murders away for PROPERTY crimes concerning amounts under $50-1820 law, which we find at Measuring Worth as being LESS THAN the property value of $990 (laptop) or $33,100 (new car) today, depending on how you calculate it. Who cannot imagine sending someone away in Mr. Finkleman's acquaintance? It is remarkable that someone with such a fine sense of social justice and moral sensibility has any time at all for Jefferson IN HISTORY, when there is so much to do to ameliorate the incomprehensively cruel practice AT LAW seen by today's readers of the NYT. What does the idiomatic expression, "send him up the river" mean to Mr. Finkleman's Albany, New York circle of lawyer-scholars, but just this, sending them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was incomprehensibly cruel even at the time.?

- But in any case, however we all admire and praise lawyering in the temples of American courts -- lawyers are forever to be our secular priests as DeToqueville observed -- in this quoted passage and, alas, in others -- we find an amateur historian-lawyer who repeatedly violates the fundamental tenet and icon of an historian's integrity: chronological narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

Currently in the references there are six citations tagged with [non-primary source needed]. Reminder:Primary sources can be used:

WP:Primary Sources -- Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
(bold added)

The references in question (ref's 199-203) merely make simple citations and have not been used to prop up any interpretation. If there are no objections I will remove the tags shortly. i.e.Most if not all Jefferson primary source material has been reliably published, and in most cases by a good number of publishers and authors, including Peterson, Appleby and others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson as hypocrite

- In the public arena this week, as previously on this page, Jefferson is critiqued as hypocritical. It is a mere parlor game of anachronism, not scholarship. Without Jefferson's Declaration, there is no nationally adopted standard by which to judge the Constitution. Here is the foundation of a nation imagining that nature created ALL MEN EQUAL in anything. Jefferson was careful to say, all men are created EQUAL IN RIGHTS, to life, liberty and personal industry. And for whites and blacks, governments are instituted to secure those rights, although there was no place where blacks and whites shared the same community governance when he wrote the principles. He ACTED ON THESE principles, regardless of any theoretical speculation about "superiority" that may have been evidenced in private.

- The superiority discussion in the article fails the test WP:IMPORTANCE since most of it turns on a work he privately published for a private audience of Enlightenment thinkers in Parisian salons -- chronology -- as a young man. Some letter quotes are literally out of context, the statement of an alternative which he later qualifies or rejects in the same letter. He writes as a philosopher speculating in thought experiments much of the time.

- As a public matter, Jefferson (1) intervened to protect the lives of men suspected of servile insurrection, (2) supported creating an independent Liberia for blacks to secure their rights by self-government, and (3) he freed his own family relations held in slavery whether he fathered them or not. ALL THREE principled actions were sustained by him in the face of opposition, with associated personal, social, political and financial costs. He lived a personal life and a public life CLOSER TO HIS IDEALS than men before him, men of his time, or men of his social class.

- If Jefferson is judged by standards before Jefferson writes his own words, he is no hypocrite. If he is judged by standards of most men of his time or most of his social class, he is no hypocrite. WE cannot even name-call him as a hypocrite until his mind leads ours to see -- that what nature and nature’s God intends IS NOT FOUND AMONG US -- not equal protection of our lives, not equal exercise of our liberty, not equal opportunity to pursue material or social advancement. We have work to do here, but it is not name-calling Jefferson by figuratively beating him about the head with his own walking-stick. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Finkelman's hit piece was written at the high school level for an audience who doesn't know much about American history on the one hand, and for those who have a racial axe to grind on the other. Go ahead, read it again. "The Monster of Monticello"? Aside from the title, there are other phrases just as revealing that peg Finkelman as a political activist with a degree, not a historian with the objectivity and capacity to tell the whole truth. The opinion piece is anything but a reliable source. The folks at the New York Times managed to do one thing right -- they published Finkelman's myopic rant under 'Opinion'.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion leading? I don't understand. Is the VirginiaHistorian requesting that something be changed or modified in the article? Fairness has been given to Jefferson in the article. Jefferson's white supremacy could be expanded although what is written is neutral. The main issue is that Jefferson could not accept blacks as equals, although, he did not hate blacks as Finkleman suggested. Jefferson was not clear if he was only refering to Englishman and Americans when he stated "all men are created equal", in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Finkelman's socio-political opinion piece was brought to the table with the suggestion that we should quote from it and use it as a source. Any criticism of this skewed and distorted piece of writing was called for. Finkelman has long since crossed the line from historian to activist, as is evidenced by his language, his involvements and the typical out of context claims about Jefferson's 'failure' to change thew world around during those unstable and turbulent times, all by himself. Again, keeping the government/congress united and able to repel foreign invasions, not to mention dealing with the various wars, was the top priority. Expecting Jefferson to campaign for "racial equality" during this era is not only naive, it's extremely presentist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiencek got smacked pretty hard.

For his Smithsonian article and book Master of Monticello. Most notable smacker was Gordon-Reed: Wiencek Responds to His Critics Brad (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting you should say so right now; I just tucked this debunking by Gordon-Reed into my sandbox a few minutes ago. I'm trying to ignore this page and get some urgent stuff done in real life, but keep getting distracted. :P Yopienso (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha. You can see steam rising off the debunking by AGR. What a tart smack in the face and one that I think is deserved. I was boggled by the stretches that Wiencek was making in order to form his conclusions. Anyhow, there's a new TJ bio out by Jon Meacham which is on the bestseller list. Brad (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Brad. I thought this article could be interesting. This was published 9 years before Wieneck on slave breeding. UN/RE/DIS Covering Slave Breeding In Thirteenth Amendment Jurisprudence This scholarly article was authored by Pamela D. Bridgewater. Thomas Jefferson is mentioned as practicing slave breeding. Here is a direct quote: "Slavery was driven in large part by the economic benefits it offered to slave owners' and the national economy." (page 20) Thomas Jefferson is stated to have participated in slave breeding. "Even though Jefferson ultimately came to disapprove of slavery, he long participated in the institution and took profits from the reproductive capacities of his female slaves." (page 30) Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Slave breeding" is an opinion. What did Jefferson actually do when he practiced 'slave breeding'? Did he select various individuals for their strength, size, etc and arrange for them to copulate? Or did he simply allow them to have children like any other human beings? Here also is another ruse just to introduce the idea and the term 'slave breeding'. Another apparent attempt to win the debate by simply inciting anger and resentment among the historically ignorant and the naive. There is nothing in Bridgewater's article that even approaches any sort of proof regarding "breeding". It is almost all conjecture and simply parades various terms around like "sexual and reproductive exploitation" with the usual generic criticism aimed at "traditional historians". If Jefferson had some rule that forbade slaves from having children unless he said so he would have been criticized for that, but since he allowed them to have children like any other humans he is instead accused of "slave breeding". In other words, no matter what Jefferson did, there are always some individuals reading to snipe at him for something, anything -- and if they can't nail their speculations down with actual proof, they will flood the dialog with conjecture and trigger words. First it was "white supremacy" -- now this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes it "slave breeding" are the amply documented comments of Jefferson himself that reveal his attitude about the profitableness of his slaves' offspring. Yopienso (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes Jefferson a slave breeder is that the slaves born to his female slaves were his slaves. These children were Jefferson's property, not the property of thier natural parents. This was an endemic part of slavery and in my opinion does not reflect negatively on Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Insert: IOW you are going to use primary sources and begin attaching your own interpretations to them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here we go with the Jefferson light mantra. Why is this so diparaging to Jefferson if he did in fact breed slaves as others did in the South. The Bridgewater article does state that Virginia was a primary slave breeding state or common wealth. Jimmy the Greek got fired in January 1988 from CBS for stating that southerners bred slaves. Guess what, Jimmy the Greek was right, according to historical research found in this book, Slavery and the Making of America (2005), pages 98-99, by James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Add insert: What does Horton's book say about Jefferson specifically? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The book, Slavery and the Making of America, establishes that there was slave breeding and slave owners looked for the strongest blacks to work in the cotton fields. The book describes Jefferson's contradictions as a slaveholder and writer of the Declaration of Independence. Bridgewater specifically states that Jefferson was a slave breeder. I am going by what the sources state. I have no personal anymosity if Jefferson breeded slaves. Wiencek states that Jefferson calculated the worth of his slaves. Jefferson himself wrote that he valued the worth of his female slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson calculated the cost/worth of his slaves, and everything else on his estate including lamp oil. Simply because he figured their worth does not establish him as a breeder, it establishes him as a slave owner and planter who kept track of costs and values of everything on the plantation, including slaves.
Looking for the strongest slaves to do work was understood. What evidence do we have that anyone, let alone Jefferson, selected the strongest slaves for purposes of breeding other strong slaves?? None. Simply allowing slaves to have children like other human beings is not breeding. Unless Horton can present us with specific evidence regarding this idea, we can't say Jefferson was a "slave breeder" -- and if we're going to employ the 'simon sez' routine, then we're right back on that same ol' track where we start filling up the section with opinion and commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Allowing slaves to have children is not 'breeding' in the sense that Bridgewater, and apparently you, are implying. It is understood that some slaves, like most humans, had children. It is also understood that as slaves they would come to work as slaves when they came of age. I would like to see any document that "reveal his attitude" in no uncertain terms. The article already acknowledges some slaves had children, that they began work at age ten, etc. We simply need to present the facts, source the facts, and keep the activist speak, presentist conjecture and idle speculations out of the section. i.e.same old approach with a new face. Once again, we should present the facts, mention differing opinions among historians, as we have done, and let the readers decide what is, "breeding", "supremacy", etc, etc, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said "selective breeding" (except Jimmy the Greek, who has no place in this article). Bridgewater refers to natural increase. TJ profited from it. Yopienso (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Insert: Thank you, Yopienso. Yes. That is the basic truth. Let's be careful not to use this idea as a coat-rack for words/ideas that are highly debatable and speculative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any objection to put in the article that Jefferson profited from his slave property children born by his female slaves? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson profited from all of his slaves. This is a given. This is what the section currently says about slave children:

Children of slaves began working at the age of 10; the girls would spin wool or flax
while the boys made nails in Jefferson's nailery. From 16 years of age slave
children would either work in the fields or learn a trade.[167]

Do we really need to say that slave children were TJ's property and that he made a profit off of them? This is already understood. Later on in the section it also says Jefferson bought/sold slaves. Again it would seem the idea of 'profit' is understood. If you want to verbally articulate the idea of 'profit' then it would seem we need to refer to all slaves, not just children. btw, ' be nice if you could introduce some new facts for a change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The kind of profit to which Bridgewater refers is capital profit, not labor profit. A slave had intrinsic worth as salable chattel whether s/he worked at all. Profits from slave labor are a different category. TJ's notes indicate his keen awareness that just by bearing live children, female slaves added to his capital holdings. His notes also record the profitability of slaves' labor. So I think mentioning both is a good idea, but don't at the moment have a suggestion as to wording. Yopienso (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course Jefferson realized the fringe benefits of having new arrivals. What was he to do? Tell slaves, 'no, you can't have your own children'? This is how the section currently reads:

Jefferson took part in the domestic slave trade. He seldom bought
slaves but frequently sold them.[169][170]

The idea that they were sold like 'property' I think would be understood even by the 3rd and 4th grade reader. The idea that somehow all of this is supposed to buttress the notion of "slave breeding" has not been established in any form and IMO remains in the realm of speculation. The section mentions Jefferson bought/sold slaves. I suppose if we were to say instead, Jefferson bought/sold slaves 'like property' ", it would sound more misgiving. Better yet, why don't we say, Jefferson bought/sold slaves like they were cattle? Seems to me that's what this is all about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yopensio is correct. Female slaves who bore children increased Jefferson's capital that he could use to borrow money. We don't have Jefferson's actual books, for example slave assests to spending debts at a certain time. Rather then use the term "profited" we could put in the article that Jefferson increased his capital worth. Remember Jefferson's family had to sell his slaves to pay off Jefferson's debts. That was Jefferson's capital. Slaves were human property and as harsh as this sounds the children of Jefferson's female slaves were Jefferson's property. When Jefferson stated "my family", he meant that all his slaves were his property, including children. Even Jefferson acknowledged in a letter that children born to his female slaves increased his capital property worth. This needs to be put in the article with neutral and appropriate wording. I suggest that Jefferson's lavish spending needs to be mentioned in conjuntion with his female slaves producing children increased his capital value or holdings. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cm', regarding your statement -- "When Jefferson stated "my family", he meant that all his slaves were his property, including children". -- Is that what he really meant? It sounds like you had lunch with the man. This is speculative conjecture, at best. Again, it is understood that slaves were 'owned' by Jefferson -- what you fail to grasp, apparently, is that while Jefferson realized new arrivals increased the 'net value' of his estate, this in no way establishes him as a "slave breeder". Jefferson was very humanistic, as is evidenced by his provisions for 'slaves' that worked at Monticello, his extended family, a number of whom were very close to Martha and himself, and his regard for family units, etc, etc, etc. He had much else going on in his life, esp as president, in the face of foreign threats, wars, to be so absorbed as you suggest, that all his motives and actions regarding slaves revolved only around an increase value of a slave to the extent that this made him a "slave breeder". Jefferson was absorbed in the revolution and later his presidency and pitted with the task of keeping the states, congress, united. In the face of this it is a wonder Jefferson had any concerns for slaves at all. Wake up! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If slaves needed permission from Jefferson to marry, then I believe that would make Jefferson a slave breeder, since he his choosing who the slaves could marry. We can avoid using terms such as "slave breeder" and "profiting" in the article, however, I believe the article needs to mention that Jefferson's capital increased when his female slaves had slave children and he used this as collateral for his debts and lavish spending. I don't make excuses for Jefferson's actions or attempt to justify them in terms of his responsibilities in the Revolution and as President. That goes along with the Jefferson light mantra. I have never had lunch with Thomas Jefferson. The term "my" is a possessive pronoun, such as my car, my dog, my ox. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reiteration

The net worth of Jefferson's estate increased primarily by its ability to produce needed goods. The occasional birth to a slave hardly impacted this overall value. Slave labor is what increased Jefferson's capital. Btw, the section doesn't even say this. (!) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you are ignoring historical research and making up your own version of Jefferson light and in my opinion treating this article as if your own property or personal blog. This makes things extremely difficult to edit on this article since editors apparently need your permission to edit in the Slaves and slavery section. Other editors including myself have gone out of our way to have discussions, knowing that either you are Brad will disapprove. You know very well that Jefferson slaves having children increased his capital worth. Editing on Thomas Jefferson has come to be almost impossible, and in my opinion, is keeping Jefferson from coming a good article. We all know you will overturn every edit unless you give approval. If you want to deny the truth and historical research, that is fine, but you do not have the right to force your opinions on the readers or other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being overly harsh here. If you disagree with his edits, you should argue about the edits instead of calling him out like that. Let's keep the tone civil, shall we? FurrySings (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not calling anyone out on anything! That is the point, we can't argue about any edits. Gwillhickers is determined to block any edit that states Jefferson's capital worth increased with his female slaves producing more slaves. Every edit has to go through Gwillhickers or has to gain his approval. Why not tell Gwillhickers to keep his tone civil. That would help. Gwillhickers makes an edit without any discussion, yet Gwillhickers states that we need to make discussions before editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Cm' your account of my editing activity seems par with your approach to history -- rather narrow and caught up in the moment of the present. Other than yesterday, I have not edited in a while, only doing bibliography and reference work. Where was your concern for 'ownership' when the 'bulldozer' recently came through here, twice?? Not a peep from you, so please put the phoney indignation back in the can and kindly contain your personal attacks. Debate the points -- not the editors.

I added a sentence regarding Jefferson's estate and how it relied on slave labor, because -- one, this content was missing, and two, because I thought other editors would agree -- including you. Is there something 'in particular' about that edit you disagree with, or are you simply peeved that it was me who pointed out a real oversight while you bickered about trying to portray Jefferson as a "slave breeder"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Insert: I believe you are refering to Q'. No. I don't appreciate Q's "bulldozing" edits even if with good intentions. I believe editors need to have the freedom to edit without being intimidated from other editors, and that applies to myself. I am not disagreeing with your edit on Jefferson relying on slave labor for income, however, I believe the reader needs to know that Jefferson's slaves also gave him wealth. I believe slave breeding went on in Virginia and the South, however, for the sake of compromise, I am not for putting the phrase into the article concerning Jefferson. I will make an effort not to jump to faulty conclusions, and I apologize if I have on this account. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe my non edit policy on Jefferson has served enough time. I am relinquishing this policy and am open to make edits that improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit that Jefferson was one of the wealthiest plantation owners who owned 177 slaves by 1776. I believe this links Jefferson with wealth and the ownership of slaves. I used Ferling as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Insert : The statement I just added yesterday relates this idea quite clearly already.

His estate's overall value relied on its ability to produce various goods,
mostly grains and tobacco, through the use of slave labor. [157]

You made your edit only so you could add the word 'chattel'. I have seen the term "extended family" used by several sources and Jefferson himself referred to them as servants, not slaves -- and certainly not "chattel". Your one source, Ferling, 2000, p.51, doesn't mention "chattel" or anything about an 'extended family', instead it covers Jefferson's view of "rural America" compared to city life. Are we awake today? In your last edit you have the word 'family' inclosed with quotations, but for some reason did not include 'chattel' in quotes. -- Why? -- Also, your mantra of 'Jefferson light' has become stale and clearly indicates you view Jefferson as some sort of diabolical "white supremacist" who was a "slave breeder" and because you have repeatedly scoffed at including any facts that undermine some of the notions you would love to advance. You have made this absolutely clear, and therefore your edits should be scrutinized accordingly. I believe Jefferson and most other sources use the term "extended family". Let's further investigate that, shall we? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

- Edits about Jefferson's female slave production are too narrow. They, like other contributions proposed, are snippets of original research enlarged by speculation uninformed by the literature. I would repost my 9 October, but the response was a call for more “Dark side of Jefferson”. At WP, we have a consensus in a definition for slave-breeding.

- At Slave breeding in the United States, economist Richard Stutch noted that in the American South, plantation average gender ratio was woman 1 : 2 men. This is consistent with that at Jefferson's plantations. -- In ‘selling states’ of the American South, among ‘slave breeders’ the ratio was reversed and greater, women 4 : 1 man, according to Richard Sutch. That is "slave breeding" -- as it is used in American historiography. It is not related to "slaves with children", which is what Jefferson's plantations had, at times trending to women 1 : 3 men, that is, not slave-breeding in the sense used in American historiography. We should not break new scholarly ground here by redefining "slave-breeder" to make Jefferson one.

- Jefferson cannot be characterized as a slave-breeder merely because his slaves did NOT have a net death rate -- as those in Port. Brazil, Fr. Haiti, Sp. Columbia or Eng. Jamaica. This is what slave breeding looks like in a scholarly historical account: Ex-slave Maggie Stenhouse remarked, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. .... A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from." [from SBUS note #10. WPA, Slave Narratives.] There is no such description for Jefferson's plantations extant, nor has any economist abstractly reasoned from the data available to that conclusion.

- Ideological speculation from one-letter snippets, lack scholarly research. They are simply original research into lone original documents, without context supplied by historical scholarship in a chronology built by patient amassing evidence available. Without the reliable sources, proposals from isolated letters cannot meet WP standards for concise, summary narrative in an encyclopedic style for a general international readership. Narrow research of isolated original documents belongs in a scholarly journal article, or on a personal blog. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well said and well researched TVH. Yes, it would seem actual 'slave breeders' would have a high ratio of women to men, not the exact opposite as was the case with Monticello. . Again, the occasional birth at Monticello, etc hardly impacted Jefferson's overall estate value and doesn't even begin to support the notions we see creeping into the conversation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was wealthy

- Jefferson's wealth confirmed Cmguy777’s latest posting relative to other presidents, at least. Please read Wall Street Journal online, | The net worth of the American presidents: Washington to Obama. I think it was Newsweek also picked the data and reworked it into a clever time-line graph.

In millions-of-2010 dollars, assets-to-liabilities = net worth.

- We do know from recent developments that one cannot always readily liquidate assets at value, whether in a distress sale or coming out of a speculation bubble -- yet nothing is mentioned in the calculation relative to business cycle fluctuations. Nevertheless, since reporting in constant-2010-dollars accounts for the secular trend, it bears observing -- that for purposes of comparison of Presidents, one-to-another they are relatively rich in the following way:

- Washington $525M, J. Adams $19M, Jefferson $212M, Madison $101M, Monroe $27M. - Virginia Dynasty Era.

- J.Q. Adams $21M, Jackson $119M, Van Buren $26M, W.H. Harrison $5M, Tyler $51M. - Jacksonian Democracy Era.

- Polk $10M, Taylor $6M, Fillmore $4M, Pierce $2M, Buchanan <$1M. - Antebellum Era: Manifest Destiny to Secession.

- Lincoln <$1M, A. Johnson <$1M, Grant <$1M, Hayes $3M, Garfield <$1M. - Republican Regime into Gilded Age.

- and so on. For Talk only -- not for the article, because for me the perspective is too comparative-era, political-sciency-ish for here.

- But I'm just sayin' Jefferson was -- in a substantial way -- flat-out rich, regardless of cashflow balance-the-check-book issues -- and his contemporaries would have reason to see him that way from our anachronistic perspective today. Of course that there article referenced above would include the WSJ assessments of nailery, mills ... in a way that plantation evaluation on the ground in the time would not necessarily be comprehended in the hands of a cliometrician tied to slaves and slavery, so to speak.

- So this tidbit is just meant to be between us fellas at Talk, since a WSJ feature article on the occasion of a political campaign is not, well, scholarly, unless a scholar picks it up in a verifiable publication a little later on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Slave's wages

While searching through sources the other day I came across an interesting passage from A.G. Reed's book, The Hemingses of Monticello, pp.180-181, where she outlines how some of the skilled workers and house servants at Monticello received a higher wage than most free people doing the same work. James Hemings, according to Reed, once he became a chef, received such a good salary he could afford to hire his own lawyer. Do we need to mention this? I think so. It gives us yet another insight into Jefferson's relationship with his slaves, one that seems to have been largely dismissed by many of the open minds of modern day academia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That depends. Is this speculation on Reed's part or is their actual evidence James Hemings was paid by Jefferson. Remember James was freed by Jefferson. Did Jefferson pay Hemings to be a chef after he was set free or while he was a slave? The other issue is that the Heming's were related to Sally Hemings. Jefferson did show favor to the Heming's slaves, but did he show favor to slaves who were not house slaves? The Hemings were not the only slaves on Jefferson's plantations. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading through the reference, James Hemings was paid by Jefferson while in Paris, France a free city prior to the French Revolution, for work as a chef. Reed was stating that Hemings could afford an attorney in Paris, not the United States, to petition for freedom. Reed does not state that James Hemings was paid by Jefferson upon return to Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All good points. According to Reed James Hemings was paid by Jefferson while in France. Certainly we know that all slaves were not paid like this, or at all. Reed lists several sources (ref 35) for this content, (I have hard text in hand) including, Sabitter, 1984; Gutton, 1981; Hufton, 1975 and Maza's Servants and masters, 1987. This is all consistent with the fact that Jefferson paid his master carpenters, blacksmiths, etc at Monticello an extra wage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To me the issue is whether these were Jefferson's slaves or white workers that Jefferson paid. Hemings, technically, was not Jefferson's slave in Paris, rather his servant, and the same for Sally Hemings, whom he paid in Paris according to Reed (page 180). Do any of these sources state specifically who was paid at Monticello? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

James Hemings was a mixed race slave, and according to Reed could afford his own lawyer if he wanted to purse 'freedom' while in France. James never pursued that and eventually returned to Monticello with Jefferson. -- however, the section already mentions that some slaves were paid extra, and the idea here was not to outline or commit text to any one or two particular slaves and their wages, so if we don't expand on this idea it presents no big issue in terms of the section leaving out important content. Gotta wonder why James chose to return with Jefferson to the United States, later freed, and then five years later committed suicide. Separate issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reference/source that states Jefferson paid his non Hemings slaves, that would be fine to put in the article. If there was a source that stated James Hemings was paid by Jefferson at Monticello, that would be fine also. Focusing on the Hemings might mislead the reader that he treated all his slaves like the Hemings, who were related to his wife, Martha. France was a seperate nation and had seperate rules and laws then the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Maybe Jefferson promised James Hemings his freedom upon return. I don't know. The French Revolution was just getting started and maybe Paris was being ruled by the mob when Jefferson left. Not sure why James killed himself other then guessing depression from drinking. There were no psychiatric drugs that could be taken then. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Dinner with the Jeffersons

Virginia ham? -- Wild Turkey? -- Side 'o beef? Hmmmm... Jefferson the vegetarian? Nawww... -- Merry Christmas, Good will towards men, and pass the gravy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And a very Merry Christmas to you, too! We're having home-raised pork shoulder and store-bought turkey. Lots of vegetables, including pecan pie. (Yes, that's a vegetable dish--nuts and corn syrup!) Yopienso (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson ate well! Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

'Extended family' & 'Servants' v 'Chattel'

Cm's last and redundant edit only served to include the word 'chattel', yet the statement is incorrectly sourced and the term was not used by or indicative of Jefferson and his veiw of and regard for slaves. The sentence more than suggests that Jefferson viewed/treated his slaves like cattle. This needs to be fixed. A quick search reveals a few sources that use the term "extended family" and/or "servants". I am confident there are more.

• Monticello.org

• Brodie, 1974, p.53

• Reed, 2008, p9.291, 413

• Randall, 1994, p.520

• Hyland, 2009

• Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society

• The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cm' thank you for fixing your edit, but shouldn't we specify that slaves were TJ's "extended family", not his 'family' (period)? Seems to me you would want to use the qualified version of 'family'. Plenty of sources for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. And I appreciate you, Gwillhickers, for discussing the edit rather then removing the edit. I removed the word "chattel" from the narration. I used the same Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze source that you used in a previous edit. I made this edit to link Jefferson's wealth with his slaves, without having to mention Jefferson profited from slavery. I believe this is a fair a neutral edit. The sentence in know way views that Jefferson viewed his slaves as "cattle". Jefferson never called his cattle, if he had any, his "family". Ferling refered to Jefferson's property as a "chattel" on the page referenced on page 54. The direct quote is this, "His slave "family," as he called his chattel, had grown to 117 members in Albemarle County, with another sixty or more scattered about his various properties."

One can say "extended family", but Jefferson himself said the possesive "My family." If you want to change the narration, that states "extended family", that is fine, however, in my opinion this can be misinterpreted, since this does not imply the possesive pronoun. In other words, Jefferson did not state, "My extended family". I would appreciate however to leave the full context of Ferling as a source. You can change the word "family" to the phrase "extended family" with an additional source. Ferling does not use the word "extended". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

{edit conflict insert)

We could simply combine both qualities into a passage or phrase.

e.g. Jefferson maintained what resembled a (self supporting community and an) extended family at Monticello, the slaves of whom he often referred to as "my family" and "servants", (not allowing use of the term "slave" when addressing these people).

The text enclosed in parentheses could be optional if this tends to reveal any nice qualities about the man.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with "whom he often referred to as "my family" and "servants" with the a valid source. However, I believe that his ownership of slaves needs to be associated with his wealth. I am not against that Jefferson be implied as a "nice guy" in the article. However, I am for accuracy. When Jefferson advertized the capture of Sandy, a fugitive slave, he refered to Sandy as a "mulatto slave" in the advertisement? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I am not against Jefferson. I was the one who added the deed of manumission photo of James Hemings. I don't believe Washington manumitted any slaves, while he was alive. Jefferson deserves credit for manumitting two slaves, even if one deed was purchased and another was by replacement. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

- Can it be said that on his death, Jefferson -- concerning NOT his figurative plantation-family -- but

(a) concerning Jefferson's literally DNA-related "extended family" --

(b) in the manner of the French at pre-revolution colonial Saint-Domingue --

= (c) Jefferson freed his extended family relations held as slaves, whether he fathered them or not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If we can say Jefferson freed his extended family relations held as slaves, whether he fathered them or not, then we can put an end to attempts here to brand Jefferson a “slave-breeder” in any sense.

Apart from historiography, "slave-breeder" can be used in unscholarly contexts in that deliciously double-entendre sense that MA French-educated abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner used the term against SC slaver Senator Andrew Butler, provoking a conspiracy of five southern congressmen to ambush and permanently brain damage Sumner by Butler cousin SC slaver Representative Preston Brooks on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

But even in the non-scholarly sense, "slave-breeder" does not apply to Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not need to call Jefferson a "slavebreeder" in the article. However, this does not take away the fact the Jefferson's female slaves having children increased Jefferson's capital worth. By the way, Sumner, I believe, was beat up because he stated that Senator Butler was sleeping with the "whore" of slavery. The other word was more offensive then "slavebreeder" in my opinion. Sumner I believe was referencing the Bible that speaks of a worldly system called Babylon in Revelations. Sumner was publically equating slavery with the business of prostitution and of course this upset Preston Brooks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Epilogue

Yes, this should be obvious at this point. Again, thank you TVH for these historical insights. -- Cm', the poster of a runaway indeed refers to a slave and regarding Jefferson's usual reference to his slaves would be an exception to the rule, as the poster might confuse people if it stated "fugitive servant". Also, there are now two phrases in the section, recently added, that clearly state that Jefferson's wealth and estate value depended on slave labor. This idea was further advanced, by you, when mention was made of Jefferson's wealth and his 177 slaves. When the section is further taken as a whole, it more than establishes that Jefferson's wealth was made possible through the use of slave labor. At this late date I would think that would be understood by most readers before they even begin reading the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not true Gwillhickers, since his family sold 130 of his slaves to pay for debts due to Jefferson's lavish spending. That is the truth. Jefferson's slaves were collateral property. Jefferson's slaves in themselves gave his plantation value in addition to the work or labor in fields to bring in staple and/or commercial crops. I believe Jefferson's nailery was profitable, but was closed down. Jefferson even admitted that the birth of slaves from his female slaves added to his capital worth. I put in a sentence that links Jefferson's slaves with his capital worth. Of course the reader knows Jefferson used these slaves to make money. However, as slaves they could be sold for profit as human property. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cm' once again, you are deliberating about something that is well covered in the section. i.e.Jefferson bought/sold slaves, his wealth depended on them. WHAT ELSE is it exactly that needs to be added to the section that conveys this idea?? You first came into this latest round of discussions with the idea of 'slave breeding' and when that is shown to be without any basis and from that point on you have continued to complain about something else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Bridgewater stated Jefferson was a slavebreeder. My only concern was that the reader understand that Jefferson's slaves had wealth in themselves, independant of their production in the fields or nailry. Jefferson himself admitted this in a letter when he described the value of his female slaves producing children. I believe the issue has been resolved. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Plantation paradigm two v. six types

- The Bridgewater plantation two-step paradigm would have only two accounts of life-on-the-plantation of the American South. There are Type-I plantations - slave death camps with net population loss, replenished by importation, OR there are Type-II plantations - slave-breeding enterprises where net slave population increases by a fraction or by a flood, grain exports, cash crops or none, the profitability of slave increase somehow posted in a ledger equivalent to that of cash crops, grain sales or nail revenues. End of story.

- Social justice for the slave in family and community can yield another paradigm of three types, each with sub-sets A and B.

(I) - Dehumanizing holocaust: Type I-A slave death camps, net loss replenished by importation (cash crops-sugar, indigo, mines). Type I-B slave-breeder factories without families (exhausted soil, slave women 4 : 1 men).

(II) - Middling enterprise: Type II-A cash crop farms with net population increase (usual 19th century American South). Type II-B diverse farms worked by families with children (humane overseer practice, religious services, honored marriage, family passes off-plantation - often 1700s).

(III) - Freedom by fortune: Type III-A diverse farms, families with children and manumission by trade-craft self-purchase, meritorious service, family (Fairfax, Jefferson). Type III-B diverse farms, families with children and slave community emancipation (Washington-part, Jefferson's friend Coles-entire).

- It seems to me very sterile history to simply say, in slavery look only at the elites without comparison of their relationships or the lives of their slaves. Look only to the morally reprehensible masters, call them for what they surely were then and are today, and there is an end to historiographic analysis. If that is all there is, then I am against slavery, period. Can a historical narrative admit representation of anything more? If not, I oppose slavery as did a kinsman Norfolk delegate voting for abolition in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1831 (won the House, lost in the more-mal-apportioned Senate by two switch final votes--long story). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Slaves cheered Jefferson

There is record that Jefferson was cheered by his slaves upon return from Paris. Jerry Holmes (2002), Thomas Jefferson: A Chronology of His Thoughts, page 106, states that his slaves cheered Jefferson's return since Jefferson was much kinder then his overseers. Gwillhickers has brought up that Jefferson was cheered by his slaves. I believe this could be mentioned in the article in conjuction that some of Jefferson's slaves ran away. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion does this mean that putting in that Jefferson's slaves cheered for him upon return to France is appropriate for the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring historical context

Cm', slaves couldn't marry and Jefferson didn't say who could and could not have children. You're obviously reaching for ways to say 'breeder' albeit indirectly. And the 'Jefferson light' remark is your mantra and a notion you need to scrutinize for yourself evidently. Historical context doesn't provide an "excuse" for Jefferson's so called "inconsistencies", (a 21st century mantra) it provides us with an explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there could be vandalism in this talk that I did not do. Please refer above. Since Cm' was mentioned I need to respond. I was not reaching for ways to state Jefferson was a slavebreeder, rather that he profited from slaves, or was made wealthy by owning and/or increasing the number of his slaves. I believe this issue has been resolved in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2012 Re:Thomas Jefferson's Religion

This is a request to change the Religion for Thomas Jefferson from the current "Christian (unaffiliated deist)" to "Deist". All reputable sources say that Thomas Jefferson was in fact a Deist with no connection to Christianity other than his version of the New Testament where he removed all of the parts he found to be nonsensical or immoral(this is also called the Jeffersonian Bible). Johnpeponis (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson refered to himself as a "Christian". Of course, that was Jefferson's version or view of what a Christian was. If I am reading Jefferson correctly he was not even a diest, rather an atheist. Jefferson's view of morality tended to be the god of Jefferson. Jefferson viewed religion from a philosophical or scientific approach. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On April 21, 1803, Jefferson in a letter to Benjamin Rush wrote:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."

Jefferson claimed to be a Christian only inasmuch as he thought Jesus wanted everyone else to be. This doesn't establish him as a Unitarian, Protestant, Catholic, but it does ascribe Christian thinking in his religious precepts which were also Deist. If Jefferson were completely Deist in his beliefs Jesus would not have factored in as Jefferson himself claims. Seems 'Christian-Deism' is about as close as we're going to get to finding a label for this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That depends Gwillhickers, if Jefferson even believed in a spiritual or supernatural world. Jefferson view was if you can't see something then nothing is there. Jefferson believed Jesus as a second rank philosopher and stripped Jesus of his divinity by knocking out all the miracles. Jefferson at core was a scientist and held a scientific view of the world. Jesus never owned slaves and Jesus did say that the servant held the highest position in the Kingdom of God. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

- Do you have a source for "Jefferson believed if you can't see something then nothing is there"?

- I thought Jefferson said Jesus was superior to Cicero as a philosopher and guide for humanity in a republic. What is your source for "Jefferson believed Jesus as a second rank philosopher"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820:

But while this Syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in it's true and high light, as no imposter himself but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist, he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin. I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it &c. &c. It is the innocence of his character, the purity & sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologias in which he conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes indeed needing indulgence to Eastern hyperbolism. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."

Interesting how Jefferson is stating that to believe in God, you are a heretic. Jefferson believed that Locke, Tracy, and Stewart were superior to Jesus, however, I did make a mistake. Jefferson believed that part of the gospels were written by other persons. Jefferson believed that Christ was great moral philosopher, but he was corrupted by his apostles and St. Paul. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always read Jefferson as a radical unitarian with occasional deist sympathies. As an example:

excerpt from a letter to James Smith, dated December 8, 1822
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was amoung the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the eastern States; it is dawning in the west, and advancing towards the south; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.

He speaks positively of what he calls "primitive" Christianity as a form of pure monotheism (which, of course, it was). In other places, though, he definitely talks like a deist, making reference to the "Watchmaker" conception of the creator and denying the historicity of many accounts of miracles, both in the New Testament and in the Hebrew Bible.

At any rate, our articles are built on reliable sources, and most of those either call Jefferson a deist or eloquently dodge the question. And so it goes... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

- Jesus of Nazareth contemplated as philosopher not as a divine. This looks good to me. Jefferson saw Jesus promoting good acts -- love the neighbor you have seen in order to show your love of God whom you have not seen. -- without good action among men, faith in the good Creator cannot be seen in any material way.

- Jefferson espousing a deist "pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe" without (a) the sectarian Jewish and sectarian Christian issues regarding the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth or a doctrine of Trinity-triune Godhead not developed in the primitive church.

- NOR does Jefferson in the passages above seem to be much concerned about (b) Pelagian questions regarding the nature of mankind or their need of savior-intercessor with the Creator-giver of natural rights. Each of us lives among society under government to advance their individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Other questions are not material to governance in a democratic federal republic, which is the best hope for protection of those rights in the American experiment during Jefferson's lifetime.

- That explains Jefferson owning a volume of Holy Koran now held at the Library of Congress, which was used to swear in the first Member of Congress adhering to Muslim faith. I like it. Good faith research deeper than I had access to. Thanks to Cmguy777. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginianHistorian. Jefferson's religious views are complicated. The article needs to state that Jefferson believed Jesus was a moral philosopher and Jewish reformer. The article needs to state that Jefferson was a Materialist, following the philosophy of Epicurius. This would improve the article, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

- Agreed. although I do not have proper sourcing at hand, and -- apart from the abstract philisophical merit of Jesus' teaching,

- I believe TJ saw that among the practical alternatives generally available, the application and extension of Jesus' teachings in the world would prove the most material contribution for Americans building social and political communities amidst the republics found here and now in the early 19th century. If I find something in Meacham, I'll come back to this. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going by Jefferson's own writings that I suppose would be considered a primary source. A secondary or tertiary source would be good. In the article I would state: "Jefferson was a materialist who held Jesus' teachings in high regards, believing him to be a moral philosopher and Jewish reformer." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

- Alternate B. Following description of Jefferson as Deist, "Though Jefferson was a materialist, he regarded Jesus' teaching as useful moral philosophy that could benefit society." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. TheVirginianHistorian. That sentence would be appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes

I've not had much time to contribute to or even watch this article. I've just now noticed the beautiful formatting in the notes section. Thanks are due to Gwillhickers, I believe, and possibly others. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Religion

If Thomas Jefferson was a deist, how can he be a Christian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brough87 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does not directly state Jeffesron was a Christian. Jefferson believed he was a Christian because he admired Jesus' moral philosophy and he viewed Jesus as a Jewish religious reformer. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does indeed say that he was a Christian. My query centers around how must be one or the other. Seeing as Deism is an entirely different position (in relation to a God) than Christianity is. Brough87 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article specifically states that Jefferson rejected Orthodox Christianity. The article only states that Jefferson referred to himself as a Christian. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cm' is correct, Brough87. Jefferson can't be stuck in some black or white category as he was indeed a very complex man who can't be 'summed up' with what you may (or may not) see on the surface. i.e.Just becuase you see some one eating salad doesn't 'automatically' mean they're a vegetarian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson was against slavery from his youth

How accurate is this statement? In my opinion this statement, although neutral, is general and unspecific. What date did Jefferson make any statement in opposition to slavery? Jefferson did not advocate a 1769 bill to end slavery, according to Finkleman. However, I believe a specific date as to when Jefferson came out against slavery would improve the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The other issue is that Jefferson was raised in a slave owning family and he inherited slaves when he was eleven years old. Would the 1770's be the best time to put that Jefferson expressed opposition to slavery, or more accurately supported gradual emancipation? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

- 'Lawyer and House of Burgesses' would be perfect. see Meacham, Thomas Jefferson 2012 p. 48-49. Meacham references his debt to historian Lucia Stanton's search in 'Those who labor for my happiness' for Jefferson and slavery to establish the general context on his views of slavery: From 1774 to 1826, Jefferson tended to have 200 slaves (range 165-225). Inherited 150, bought 20, "most of the others were born into slavery on his lands." Throughout Jeffersons wide career, Meacham says, "Jefferson was to embody the slave-owning interest."

- "In the beginning of his public career though, Jefferson was more willing to work to reform slavery than he was to prove in later decades." In 1769 he crafted a bill that shifted control of emancipation from the General [Royal] Court to slave owners themselves -- unilateral authority to the owner himself. This would have removed sole discretion of a slave's "meritorious service" from the hands of royal prerogative. The shy Jefferson asked his cousin Richard Bland to take his bill to the floor of the Assembly. "The reaction from the House was swift and certain. Bland, Jefferson recalled, was 'treated with the grossest indecorum'."

- Finkleman is too-cute-by-half to say "Jefferson did not advocate" his own 1769 bill when Jefferson wrote the bill himself and arranged for his philosophically aligned kinsman to sponsor on the floor. (Meacham uses John C. Miller, 'Wolf by the Ears', p.4-5, and Gordon-Reed, 'Hemings of Monticello', p. 109).

- Shortly after Jefferson takes on Samuel Howell v. Wade Netherland. He argued his client, the grandson of a white woman and a black man should be immediately freed, despite Virginia statute which required his bondage until at least the age of 31. "Jefferson argued natural law , 'everyone comes into the world with a right to his own person and using it at his own will' Jefferson said. 'This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature...' He lost the case." (Meacham, p. 49, uses Gordon-Reed 'Hemings' p. 109 and Miller 'Wolf' p. 5.) [tvh-1. Theodore Sedgwick's natural rights argument by implication from the 1780 MA Constitution -- won freedom for Elizabeth Freeman (Mum Bett) in 1781 in the MA Supreme Court.] [tvh-2. J.Q. Adams' natural law argument won the 1840 Amistad Supreme Court case for African-born Spanish slaves.]

- Meacham summarizes this section saying, Jefferson said or proposed things which might have led to the end of a slave society, "but for him abolition was always to be an eventuality for future generations ... wounded by the defeats of his progressive efforts on slavery, Jefferson was finally to retreat to a more conventional position." thereafter. (Meacham, p. 49). [tvh-3. Then Jefferson got elected a lot of times in Virginia, and for a lot of different things by votes from other slave-holding states out of Congress and the Electoral College, for a very long time.] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Virginia Historian. I believe the article needs to reflect that Jefferson began his public opposition to slavery in 1769, even though someone else submitted his bill. That clears up the Finkleman issue whether Jefferson wrote the 1769 law. I believe the article needs to reflect that Jefferson's public actions against slavery, including the slave trade, ended in 1807, and thereafter Jefferson prefered that the younger generation would take up the cause of emancipation. That would be historically accurate. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is Jefferson's view that the expansion of slavery would end slavery. That is why he was against any infringement of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase and why he opposed the Missouri Compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

- Chronological context must include 1780s Jefferson sitting as Virginia's representative on the Articles Congress committee dealing away Virginia counties in Ohio and Illinois with populations electing delegates at the Richmond House of Delegates. Of this I am sure -- in conjunction with Representatives from Connecticut and Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania -- as a way of finally getting Maryland to ratify the Articles of Confederation, gaining unanimous approval of the states FIVE years after its implementation. [tvh-1. The Constitution only took TWO years after its operation to bring RI and NC into the fold for unanimous ratification, so the Constitution was twice as good as the Articles in the eyes of the American people of the Founding Fathers, unlike misrepresentations which Lost Causers suggest elsewhere.]

- As I recall uncertainly, Jefferson was then a part of sponsoring a bill for 'no slavery in the northwest territories' which passed, and also a bill for 'no slavery in the southwest territories' which failed by one [state delegation] vote. -- Remember the Founding Father's who saw the soil exhaustion under cash crops, believing in the "eventual extinction" of slavery before the invention of the cotton gin?

- By linking a desired outcome to the operation of nature, they were trying to "set the conditions for success" as they say in business school, to bring about end-of-slavery by limiting its westward expansion by the natural exhaustion of the soil under cash crop cultivation. This habit of mind for political action is also evident in the abolition of primogeniture to break up the great colonial land holdings. If a great man were to die, common law (different colonies variously) provided one-third to the widow, two thirds to be divided equally among the sons. The government did not need to expropriate or tax apart great holdings, each family increase would by its own nature -- in its private capacities -- provide for great-estate division over time towards a more republican distribution of wealth among society. [tvh-2. Of course, the 'family corporation-foundation' reunites the great estates under one head, and trends concentration of wealth in society which friends of democratic republics find anathema. The previous solution applied today would require every child of a great estate to hire a fiduciary independent of the others. That would allow the operation of nature to divide economic concentration without government intervention.]

- Meacham documents Jefferson's contingency plan for patriots failing independence -- to migrate west of the Appalachians and carve out their own republic to escape politically the crown's tyranny, personally the hangman's noose. Recall the success of Virginian Rangers led by Clark (older brother by 20 years of Clark in '"Lewis and Clark") -- during the French and Indian War, west to the Mississippi and north to the Great Lakes.

- Then 1800-oughts Jefferson opposed infringement of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase to get Southern representatives to drop their strict-constructionist requirement for a Constitutional Amendment before they would allow additional funds appropriated. First authorized monies from Congress were for New Orleans alone, NOT for territory stretching north-west to the Rockies where previous Spanish-French treaty provided for Spanish 'first-right-of-refusal' before French could sell it. But (a) Napoleon wanted the gold to fund conquering armies in Europe, and Haitian independence (France lost sugar plantations) made French North American holdings for food supplies irrelevant, (b) U.S. westerners wanted the territory, (c) southerners wanted expansion of slavery. [tvh-3. As I remember (d) pacifist Jefferson wanted to buy the U.S. out of any probable European conflict expanding west for the foreseeable future, and (e) politician Jefferson wanted an agricultural population explosion which would ensure his party dominance for the foreseeable future. -- Gotta read more Meacham to confirm my impressions from earlier readings.]

- As for 1820s Jefferson rationale and outlook, I don't recall. I'm reading Meacham as fast as I can alternating with Stoker's 'The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War'. Wife gave me one, Santa the other, so I'm caught between 'a rock and a hard place'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian. I believe the article needs to reflect Jefferson's views on the expansion of slavery. I thought Jefferson's rational for not infringing the spread of slavery was for several reasons. Blacks where not ready to be part of an all white demcocracy along with whites and therefore could not be emanicipated, such as Jefferson refered to in his letter to Edward Coles to keep his slaves. Jefferson feared blacks would rise up and kill their former white owners such as in Santo Domingo. The spread of slavery would somehow create an economy that did not depend on slavery. I don't get that arguement and may confuse the reader. More clarification is needed. True. Jefferson did desire to keep southern states in control of Congress. Maybe this would explain Jefferson's political opposition to the infringement of the spread of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "spreading out" to reduce slavery, remember that the "wolf by the ears" from Jefferson's perspective was a small community of free surrounded by a large community of slave (like so many places in the rural slave-states). So, to buy into Jefferson's theory, the spread would have to happen with some relatively fixed number of slaves and a much increased free population. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

- Cmguy777 has an important point I think needs to be kept in frame if not forefront for narratives related to the American South -- the influence of French slave-holding emigres fleeing the slaughter at Saint-Domingue during the Haitian Revolution. There were various tides and overlapping eddies of massacres among blacks, mulattos, whites, blacks-mulattos and mulattos-whites. They settled primarily in Charleston, South Carolina., intermarried with the local aristocracy and became influential writers and politicians -- influencing the American intellectual climate especially among the slave-holding South. Not to go poly-sci on you, but sort of like the emigre influence of Cuban-Americans on the Cold War following Castro's Cuban Revolution. Sorry, I know that's not scholarly, but I'm just sayin' what can happen in a democratic republic with a free press. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, slavery and its attendant often disastrous problems of control were an important issue both ancient and throughout its history, but my comment was specifically addressing Cmguy's comment regarding how Jefferson might rationalize the spread of slavery with its reduction in the economy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

- Gotcha, we should find a source to explain the transition in Jefferson's thinking from slavery-containment in the Northwest Territory bill (won) and Southwest Territory bill (lost), to an endorsement or acquiescence in slavery-expansion at the funding of the Louisiana Purchase. Simply buying off the Spanish and French west to the Rockies without war may not be material enough in the scale of things when we look at our scholarly sources from reliable publishers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a particular source in mind, but it seems likely that part of the issue with the former French/Spanish/Indian land was slavery in some form, either in Indian custom or in European colonial practice/law, already was established in those lands. The different legal history of the Northwest Territory, as opposed to the Southwest Territory and Louisiana, maybe both timing and happenstance: New Orleans/Baton Rouge slavery was already pretty well established among a relatively large population, whereas, in the Northwest Territory and Illinois Country, slavery existed but in a much smaller population and seems to have at some point migrated more across the Mississippi (leading to Missouri slavery). Kentucky and Tennessee were being simultaneously populated by Virginians and North Carolinians (who accepted and brought slavery with them), whereas Virginia's Illinois County never really got off the ground, to the relief later of Edward Coles, Jefferson correspondent, and his slaves. At any rate, a fateful die was cast when the exclusion of slavery from the Southwest Territory lost by one vote. Jefferson, of course, watched all of this in real time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alanscottwalker. Why did Jefferson keep slavery off the table during the Louisiana Purchase? I know that Secretary James Monroe had allot to do with writing the treaty, however, did Jefferson miss an opportunity? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe TheVirginiaHistorian is correct in that there was a shift by Jefferson from slavery containment to slavery expansion after the Louisiana Purchase. I have read one historian state that Jefferson believed expansion of slavery would end slavery. This issue needs to be expanded in the article. I myself don't understand how spreading slavery would curtail slavery. I suppose Jefferson believed that as the slave population in the South spread to the West, there would be less likely a chance of former slaves upon emancipation of attacking their former masters. That is a guess. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical context

'If' we are going to pursue this line of thought it should be done in the light of historical context, that the country was struggling to maintain its independence while trying to remain united, and hence strong, in the face of foreign threats, esp from Britain who did all it could to exploit the issue of slavery in terms of dividing the nation. Although Jefferson was always opposed to slavery he was evidently wise enough to put national security interests before domestic issues i.e.outlawing slavery in the newly aquired Louisiana territory, knowing such a pursuit would compromise relations with France, a much needed ally at the time. Again, the sun did not revolve around slavery as it seems to be for some in the 'present' -- many years after slavery was abolished altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're correct that the sun did not revolve around slavery. Only the entire Southern economy and half the Northern economy and the cotton mills in England did. Yopienso (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Yopienso. Okay, if you mean AFTER Jefferson's death by 1860, 80% of the entire export "Southern economy and half of the Northern economy" revolved around slavery supplying cotton mills. But beginning 1852, South Carolina began taxing itself to build a state blue-water navy, by 1858 secessionist governors were buying up weapons for war, so English mill sources for raw cotton ramped up from Egypt and India to 90+% by 1861.

_ HOWEVER, for an article here on Jefferson, we might look at time in five chunks for the sake of simplification, say first period, [ I ] life to 1775 (Continental Congress), [ II ] 1775-1800 (election to presidency), [ III ] 1801-1809 (to end of presidency), [ IV ] 1809-1812 (to restart of John Adams letters), [ V ] 1812-1826 (to death)

_ If so, we can look at the economy in five time periods during Jefferson's time as it may have related to his life. These reflect the economic and political evolution of Virginia in the United States.

_ Jefferson's concern at different times of his life spanned the economies in [ I ] Virginia and British Empire, [ II ] New England, Middle and Southern colonies, and international [ III ] New England, Middle-Northwest, South and international, [ IV ] North, South, West and international, [ V ] North, South and international. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is correct that the nation was on a course to the American Civil War over slavery. Yes, there were national security issues at stake, especially with Mexico. The British were a source of contention in the Pacific Northwest where they could possibly launch an invasion of the United States through the Rocky Mountains, however, this was later then Jefferson's times, I believe in the 1840's and 1850's. These security issues were somewhat resolved by the Mexican American War. The issue is Jefferson's views on the expansion of slavery having aquirred the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon. Jefferson was pro French and Napoleon was pro slavery. I suppose the ultimate question is did Jefferson cave into the Southern slave interests in the Louisiana Purchase, since slavery began to spread Westward after the Louisiana Purchase. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that acquiring the Louisiana Purchase did take the French out of the national security issue. However, Spain, a proslavery state would remain a source of contention in the Caribbean. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Va Hist, for your comments. Yes, I got ahead of myself; the cotton was later. I'll rephrase: You're correct that the sun did not revolve around slavery. Only the entire Southern economy and half the Northern economy and the tobacco industry in England did. The impact of slavery on American history cannot be denied, nor should it be minimized in a WP article. Yopienso (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain skeptical about how much any economey depended on slavery, given the hype and exagerations of those who used, and continue to use, the issue of slavery, for political, social and racist motivations -- just as Calander did in Jefferson's time, and IMO just as Julian Bond and characters like Finkelman are doing today. Slaves were used to grow and harvest cotton and tobacco by and large. These are only two commodities, niether of them edible. What was the rest of the country doing all this time? Sitting on their hands? -- Slaves were introduced to the colonies by the English and European bankers and most slaver operations and many plantations were chartered by same, while very large percentages of the goods produced by slaves were exported to England, France, et al. Jefferson was all too aware of this and was indeed in a position to ascertain this reality. All too often when the issue of slavery pops up, esp on college campuses, the discussion extends no further than the shores of the United States. The 20th centuty is over. I would think it's about time we moved away from the flat-earth view of slavery and looked at the whole truth. Seems Jefferson would be an excellent place to start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the historical questions are why did Jefferson allow slavery in the Louisiana Purchase and why did Jefferson oppose the Missouri Compromise? (Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cm', you need to remember past discussions (1, 2, 3, etc, etc) esp the one in full view of your response here. For the benifit of new readers, and once again, Jefferson "allowed" slavery to continue in the L.T. because he didn't want to compromise relations with France, a much needed ally at the time, who still had large slave holding interests there, and he opposed the Missouri Compromise because it established a geographical dividing line between the states, fearing it would lead to violence. History proved him right. Once again, Jefferson put national security/interetss before domestic and idiological pursuits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: The Jefferson talk page has a dedicated search engine for past discussions. Please use it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There were discussions on the above issues and thanks, Gwillhickers for the information on talk page search engine. There needs to be an adequate explanation in the article with valid sources on why Jefferson allowed slavery to spread with the Louisiana Purchase and why he opposed the Missouri Compromise. What sources state that national security was why Jefferson allowed slavery to spread in the Louisiana Territory? History has shown that the Missouri Compromise actually delayed the American Civil War. The Kansas Nebraska act that removed the geographical line of the Missouri Compromise actually caused the American Civil War as pro slavery settlers and anti slavery settlers rushed into to make a land grab. Kansas turned into a bloody battle ground between pro slavery and anti slavery opponents. Why not admit Jefferson caved into the slave power after 1783? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Maybe sources could clarify the Lousisana Purchase and the Missouri Compromise and Jefferson's views on the spread of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Louisiana Purchase Junius P. Rodriguez (2002), page 284. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• The Louisiana Purchase Junius P. Rodriguez (2002), p. 328. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• The Louisiana Purchase Junius P. Rodriguez (2002), p. 165. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is Article III of the Louisiana Purchase:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess."

This meant that Congress could not take away their slaves. What is interesting is the statement, "In the meantime". Does this mean that Congress could eventually regulate slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Source: Transcript of Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803) Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The pages you've cited, with yellow highlihting 'all over the map' doesn't help. Will have to look further into this but you are citing many events, during and long after Jefferson was president, involving Congress, et al and seem to be getting far afield from the subject of Jefferson's involvement, or lack thereof, regarding his 'failure' to prohibit/abolish slavery in the newly aquired territory. Try to boil it down a bit and concentrate on Jefferson and the time of the purchase and try to give us any key passages you feel will make any point, esp if it supports the notion that Jefferson, after all, actually wanted to prepetuate slavery in that territory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I was concentrating on what Rodriguez stated on the Louisiana Purchase (LP), that the document was controversial from the start and the Federalists opposed the measure. I don't know how to turn off Googles' annoying highlighting of the passages. From a Real Estate transaction view the LP land sale was great, but no Indians got any of the money for their land nor citizenship. The LP protected slavery already in the territory according Rodriguez. I suppose Rodriguez was referring to the protection of "property" statement in Article III of the LP. From Jefferson's point of view, Jefferson appears to be giving into the slave interests in terms of expansion of slavery, whereas in 1784 he was going to outlaw slavery in the West. Was Jefferson giving up on trying to stop the expansion of slavery in 1803? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the L.P. was controversial, esp among federalists, who no doubt sniped at Jefferson for partisan reasons. Again, Jefferson's main consideration was national unity and remaining friendly with France. If we are going to mention any of these things we of course will need more than one RS, ideally from some one who hasn't a racial or political axe to grind. And try not to speak of the 'Indians' as one unified body. There were many tribes, many of whom were always fighting each other for land, and if Jefferson were to pay 'them' any money they wouldn't know what to do with it. The idea of 'paying them money' is a 20-21st century expectaion and typical classroom naivety. -- If the white man were to somehow pack up and leave the continent, the Indians by and large would have gone right back to what they were doing. i.e.remaining divided and fighting with one another for land. Funny how only the white man is criticized for doing what the Indians were already doing to each other. Mayhaps we should leave the Indians out of this topic and concentrate on Jefferson, the L.P. and his approach to slavery. The issue is complicated enough as it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To remove the annoying highlighting click the "clear search" in the upper right hand corner and the highlighting will go away. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

When searching a google ebook for a phrase try putting the phrase in quotes. When you attempt to search for 'this, that and the other thing' , without enclosing it in quotes, the search results will look like this.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the highlights. Thanks, Gwillhickers, for the tip on using quotes on any Google search. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Labor proportions

@ Gwillhickers says, "I remain skeptical about how much any economy depended on slavery, given the hype and exaggerations of those who used, and continue to use, the issue of slavery …. Slaves were used to grow and harvest cotton and tobacco by and large. These are only two commodities, neither of them edible. What was the rest of the country doing all this time?"

To start with, in colonial Chesapeake and Outer Banks regions, (Md, Va, NC) slave laborers in total population or in cash crops will not exceed indentured servants until after the first hundred years, in the 1700-1750 time frame.

_ _ By Jefferson’s time -- for the regions of modern Md, Va, WV, Ky, NC and Tn -- I do not remember economic production under slavery matching the production of yeomen farmers. I believe the value of economic production by slaves remains less than half that of farming yeomen even with equal numbers in eastern places.

_ _ Yeomen farmers during Jefferson’s lifetime were (1) more productive per acre in all crops except slave-family plots, (2) there is large expanded cultivation westward both in tobacco and in grains exported to Caribbean and Europe and they support larger populations -- easterners maintained malapportioned legislature by balancing property values, not district populations, (3) because eastern soils became exhausted -- owners resisted use of fertilizer, see the strange career of Edmund Ruffin,

_ _ While slave-owner interests in Virginia blocked the manufacture of native son Cyrus McCormick’s grain thresher in the Virginia Valley, he relocated to Illinois. And throughout the South, the use of the mechanical cotton gin, reaching factory-size of a barn, was had on plantations in Georgia without compensation to Eli Whitney, leading him to emigrate to start a factory of rifled muskets featuring interchangeable parts in Connecticut by the time of the Civil War.

_ _ The great slave production (and deep South slave population) boomed as a percent of total agricultural production value in most Southern states AFTER 1830 as I remember from my reading into a centennial national atlas published around 1890. Much more was done with agriculture which is now taken decennially three-five years staggered from the population census. The 1970s national atlas did not carry forward the colored county maps of endemic diseases found in the first one, either.

_ _Times change and census report forms with them. But when biographers such as Meecham "set the stage" with the season and song birds, population and transportation ala Hemingway, I would like to know what two diseases killed 10% of the population there each year, where the subject stayed seven years, for instance. The information is readily available for every U.S. state and territory, by county and city in public documents for the 19th century. But I digress into a soapbox. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TVH, as you have clearly delineated how the impact of slave labor on the various economies varied as time went on. It is certainly not a black and white issue (pun, or no pun). In any event, it is clear these people played a significant role and it should not be minimized, while at the same time their labor and contributions should not be overstated, hyped or outright distorted as it has been so many times before during modern times. As this is a side issue to the Jefferson bio' we should duly make mention of it for historical context while tieing it in with Jefferson's dealings with slavery in the newly aquired territory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Cm' Thanks for your edits, but it seems we need to tie it in with Jefferson a bit more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• VirginiaHistorian's assertions about yeoman v. planter production are misleading since they look at production per acre, not percentage of overall economy, which was dominated by the planters. Look at Table 2 on page 74 of this paper. (It's inconveniently sideways.)
• To what method of fertilization do you refer? Crop rotation?
• McCormick's reaper was not for sale until after Jefferson's death. Yopienso (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can make a print out of the charts (or lay on your side on the couch and read them). Yopienso, I'm not sure how you're arriving at the idea that the economey was dominitated by slave owning planters, esp since there were so many Yeoman farmers besides them, not to metntion all the other trade that was conducted by freemen in the cities and towns. This area of trade and commerce is unrepresented in the account you offer. The other charts, regarding Mobility among land owners and nonlandowners, etc, doesn't seem to shed any light on the issue either. When we consider the impact of slave production on the economey we must remember also the costs of housing, feeding, clothing and caring for slaves -- costly things that made slave production possible. Perhaps the more accurate term would be Slaveowner/slave impact on the economey. Again, not a black and white issue. Reminder, we are trying to improve the Jefferson article, so hashing out the impact of slaves/slaveowners on the economey could easily get afield to the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We may be getting off subject here. Jefferson's personal economy relied on slavery and there was a planter aristocracy. We have to go by what the sources state. Ferling stated that Virginia relied economically on slavery. Maybe there are other sources that make this statement. I started this talk to discuss Jefferson's views on slavery during his lifetime. Did his views change? Why did Jefferson allow slavery in the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, when in 1784 he wanted to oulaw slavery in the entire West? Did Jefferson cave into the slave interests when he opposed the Missouri Compromise? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to both of you for keeping this on track. We must remember that if TJ "caved to slave interests," they were also his own. Yopienso (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AGREE with Yopienso. Meecham says Jefferson represented slave interest all his career, implying that was so -- even when (a) he was seeking ameliorate slavery with more manumission or (b) constraining its impact on democratic republicanism by limiting its expansion -- which Meecham also documents. -- Ruffin was concerned with using guano to restore exhausted eastern tobacco fields. McCormick and Whitney were anachronistic references to the slave power following inequitable short-term policy which became self-defeating in the long run due to its undemocratic nature preventing beneficial changes.

_ _ The power to follow many self-destructive policies came out of the malapportioned legislature, where EACH voting white male east of the Blue Ridge Mountains equaled the weight of TWELVE white adult males in western counties. Not only were counties larger in more densely settled free-farm regions (two delegates per county), but additional weight was given value of property in malapportioning the state senate away from population to be represented. The most spectacular blunder was perhaps the requirement for each county to report a majority slave population before extending the Kanawa canal west from Richmond to complete with Maryland's westerly C&O canal, the loss of Claudius Crozet, Napoleon's military engineer, and refusal to adopt his railroad policies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If a Chesapeake Bay MD county is Yeoman-Planter tied in total 1820s wealth, Virginia's annual economic production will be even MORE non-slave. As I remember the book title, there's "lies, damn lies, and statistics" are the devil. Steven Sarson, “Yeoman Farmers in a Planters’ Republic, …Prince George’s County, Maryland”. In Journal of the early republic. Spring 2009. Table 2. p.74. Total wealth among landowning. 1800, 1810, 1820 -- Planters (large and small) to yeomen (large and small) hold about the SAME proportion of total wealth across three decades of Prince George, MD: 43 - 42%, 44 - 46% and 44.5 – 44.3. So by total wealth, the economy is mixed of equal parts slave and free, not slave-predominant -- though the article explores in some detail exactly HOW yeomen were economically subservient to planters trade connections.

_ _ (Also of interest Re: slavery: Non-slaveowning across three sample years. Table 3. P. 76. Planters (not large) to small yeomen: 4 – 28%, 12 – 34%, 8 – 34%, making "extinction of slavery" plausible for the sake of argument for Jefferson's generation into the 1820s, then less so -- based on early 19th century life along the Anacostia River, Maryland. It is interesting, but for scholars, that's just a starting point for further inquiry, finding the documents to interpret, enlarging the scope with sample sets of eastern shore, piedmont, upland nearby the National Road for Maryland, then for Virginia.)

_ _ So by a statistical measure used by Sarson (2009), it looks like total WEALTH between planters and yeomen were EQUAL in Prince George MD 1800, 1810, 1820. But total wealth does NOT necessarily mean PRODUCTIVITY as a measure of the ongoing economy, which Yopienso and I are trying to unpack in order to get to What degree early 19th century economy is centered on slave economy in Jefferson's Virginia. Western yeoman Virginia will weigh in the balance of Virginia's economy to a greater degree than the 44 to 44% tie of a Chesapeake Bay country along the Anacostia River just east of DC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

editbreak

If Jefferson "caved to slave interests" this means he resisted them initially. If he went along with them, there would be no 'caving in'. France was a needed ally. They had large slave owninmg interests in the territory. Again, to maintain good relations with France, Jefferson didn't rush in and begin ubdermining its interests by imposing laws against slavery, which btw would have required great amounts of manpower, time, effort and money to enforce. Jefferson had no personal interests in the territory. His conern there revolved around keeping the country unified, not divided and preserving a much needed aliance with France. Easy math. I disagree with Meecham. If Jefferson represented slave interests "all his career", he wouldn't of had to "cave in", as he was already on the same page -- and I doubt he was "representing slave interests" when he denounced slavery in the DOI, and when he outlawed the slave trade. It looks like we will have to bring other sources into the fold because Meecham's blanket statement leaves too many issues unresolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Louisiana Purchase divided the nation since the Whigs were against the purchase. Jefferson's opposition to banning slavery in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is direct historical evidence Jefferson caved into the slave interests. I say caved in because Jefferson in 1784 was against slavery in the West. Specifically Jefferson denounced the British slave trade in the DOI, let's be honest here, not the American slave trade, a different issue. Outlawing the slave trade increased the value of Jefferson's slaves and decreased the probability of a slave rebellion all in the interests of slave owners. Outlawing the slave trade did help slave owners treat their slaves better because they did not want to waste their property. The cold reality of Jefferson, Gwillhickers, is that he was both for and against slavery, as complicated as that sounds. Although the slave trade was outlawed, African Americans were bought and sold at auction and Jefferson did nothing to stop slave auctioning or internal slave trade. I do not agree that Jefferson was always held by the slave interests as Meecham states. I am only trying to help the reader understand that Jefferson was complicated, and apparently fluxuated in his opposition to slavery, a man of great words, but limited actions against slavery. Jefferson himself told Edward Coles during the War of 1812, that he had given up on the cause of the emancipation of slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers, Cmguy777. I hope represented Meecham in the post above as accounting for Jefferson wanting to (a) ameliorate slavery and (b) limit expansion. No blanket statement was intended to infer that Jefferson solely made a career of promoting slavery and slaveholding. “Slave interest” referred to his politics as an elected man from a slave-owner state supported by men elected from slave-owner states.

_ _ Re: Louisiana Territory. Jefferson appointed Virginian Meriwether Lewis territorial governor. Lewis and his editor friend Joseph Charless were criticized for being pro –Indian treaty, protecting local French Creole property rights, for measures limiting or anti-slavery and respecting Spanish territory -- leading some to speculate he was assassinated by agents of General Wilkinson, Aaron Burr’s confederate, and Burr was a would-be | "American Emperor", Jefferson's western nemisis to the future of the U.S. as a united continental republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay TVH, didn't mean to imply you were making the blanket statement. Meecham's statement "represented slave interests all his career" simply fllies in the face of too much historical evidence that says otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cm', you're repeating some of the same lines all over again. Yes, there was a difference between the slave trade and slavery, but both were hand in glove with slave interests, esp among those who wished to increase their slave lot, or aquire one from scratch. Regardless of any increase in slave value, it amounted to (very) little in terms of Jefferson's overall estate value. And 'decreasing the probability of a slave rebellion' was in everyone's interest, including slaves, something Jefferson expressed himself. We have discussed this before. Also, the "increased slave value" claim is an isolated, out of context, Finkleman mantra which ignores Jefferon's entire estate value, among many other things. (Finkelman has proven, by his actions, that he is in the fringe, given his "Jefferson hated the negro" and "Jefferson the Monster" rants, not to mention the litiney of his presentist language. As such, he is less than reliable when it comes to controversial issues.) Yes, Jefferson was indeed a complex man, yet you seem to view him in the typical two-dimensional manner. You said you were going to avail yourself to past discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Gwillhickers, there were previous discussions, but the issue of whether Jefferson caved into the slave interests has not been adequately delt with, and seems to get lost in these conversations. Honestly, Gwillhickers, I believe you view Jefferson in a one- dimentional manner, that Jefferson could do no wrong concerning slavery. Did Jefferson cave into the slave interests? That's the question the readers deserve to know. This is not a personal blog on Jefferson and we are not suppose to ram our personal views of Jefferson onto the reader. How can this article honestly and truthfully state Jefferson was always against slavery when he adamantly opposed the Missouri Compromise, allowed slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, and told Coles that he needed to keep his slaves for the good of his country? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

“Caved into the slave interests” is probably a presentist phrasing to provoke our partner Gwillhickers. Jefferson and his cousin were humiliated to their faces when they proposed widening manumission, allowing owners to free their own without consent of legislature. They were instructed directly, personally, in no uncertain terms, not-going-to-happen. It may be that some of us out of intellectual integrity and moral purity would have retired to our mother’s farm and written a journal of passing events from our libraries. But that is an alternative history I would not chose to write, and when Newt Gingrich tried his hand at the craft, I did not find the attempt entertaining. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not here to provoke anyone or any editor. The article currently states Jefferson was always against slavery. Then why did Jefferson allow slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, told Coles to keep his slaves, and strongly opposed the Missouri compromise, all within his lifetime. The Missouri Compromise was a direct result of the LP in 1803. That is why I am having a discussion in the page. These questions I believe need to be answered to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Why did Jeffesron allow slavery in the Louisiana Purchase? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: Addressed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Why did Jefferson tell Coles to keep his slaves? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Why did Jefferson oppose the Missouri Compromise? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: Addressed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be the article needs to better distinguish between Jefferson's personal view and Jefferson's political persona.

_ _ On the one hand, Jefferson consistently held that the institution of slavery debased humanity, perversely effecting masters and their children and cruelly using those enslaved both physically and ethically. Thus his unwavering interest in demonstrating the humanity of those held in slavery, that they could possess self-governance in family economy, trades and manufacture. He persisted in trying to discover attainable ways of finding free homes for freed slaves. All these have been condemned today as not-integration, as previously noted.

_ _ On the other hand, Jefferson's political persona required the freely given votes, financial support and political alliances forged into a governing majority according to the constitutional rules of the republic. Support for Jefferson in the slave-holding states gave him malapportioned Electoral College weight -- the additional 3/5 slave ownership added to citizen population, a proportion taken from Articles Congress requisitions to the states during the Revolution. This made Jefferson the "Negro President" by the New England epithet. See |“Negro President”: Jefferson and the Slave Power. Gary Wills (2005). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been asserted that Jefferson "caved in to slave interests" because he opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories in 1784 and he favored the expansion of slavery into Missouri in 1820. I would like to suggest that the editor in question check William Freehling's The Road to Disunion, which deals with Jefferson's stated rationale for supporting expansion: slaves would diffuse away from the Old South to the point that emancipation would become politically possible. This was a common enough view at the time. Was this just a political stance or did Jefferson actually believe it? That is not for us to decide, but rather we should follow and summarize the reliable sources, and sometimes the reliable sources simply don't answer all of Cmguy777's urgent questions.Other Choices (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's anti-slavery legacy

These are interesting facets to put into context: first, what is the chronological order. (1) Louisiana Purchase with slavery – rationale?, (2) Coles keep your slaves, Coles frees all his slaves on a raft crossing into Ohio – rationale?, (3) opposing the Missouri Compromise – rationale?,

_ _ (4) death, then his disciples (a) James Madison, (b) James Monroe and (c) grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph attempting 1830-1832 to abolish slavery in Virginia by gradual emancipation and equal rights to all free black men, universal male suffrage – what were they thinking? Nat Turner rebellion 1830, but also Jefferson admirer, Virginian (d) Joseph Jenkins Roberts becomes president of Liberia. -- Are we to omit black Virginians from Jefferson's legacy?

_ _ See Peter Wallentein, |Cradle of America: four centuries of Virginia history, 2007 p.140, 144; Ronald Heinemann et al, |Old Dominion, new commonwealth: a history of Virginia 1607-2007, 2007, p.172, 180; and Virginius Dabney, |Virginia, the new dominion 1971, p.216, 226; 1989. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian for the sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

TVH, as you obviously have more than the average amount of knowledge of Jefferson and Virginia history, I encourage you to put some of the ideas you mentioned above on 'paper'. Would also be nice to see someone give attention to and work on a section besides the slavery section, for a change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am all for giving attention to other sections th[a]n the slavery section. However, I believe a few more unanswered issues need to be addressed such as Jefferson's letter to Edward Coles, Jefferson's idea that expanding slavery would end slavery, and Jefferson forming a plan to emancipate slaves after the Missouri Compromise to prevent war or succession. After the Missouri compromise Jefferson believed that their was an emergency need to emancipate the slaves from Virginia. Governor Randolph proposed a plan to emancipate slaves, however, Jefferson then was against emancipating slaves because he viewed Randolph's plan was too expensive. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cm', I have several times articulated why Jefferson advised Coles not to free his slaves before, believing they would become "pests" and left to fend for themselves with no money, shelter etc. Coles himself shared this view and in his dilema sought the advice of Jefferson. There are sources that articulate their correspondence. Start with Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson, By Alan Pell Crawford, 2008, pp.98-99. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. This would be good for the article. The other issues, in my opinion, that Jefferson believed expansion of slavery meant the end of slavery and Jefferson's 1820 plan to emancipate and deport the slaves to save the Union, needs to be mentioned. Are there any sources with page numbers that explain the other issues? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are. If you think the article should be expanded on this issue then you need to roll up your sleeves and do some searching and reading yourself. 1, 2. [Add:] However I'll look into it a bit more and bring any other pertinent sources I may find to the table. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I have no issue with "rolling up my sleeves" and doing research, however, I wanted to discuss or mention these issues in the talk page that I believe need addressing in the article. I was approaching these issues from a reader's perspective. One issue that I believe Jefferson remained solid on was the mandatory deportation of slaves once emancipated. He did not believe blacks and whites could live in the same country. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is because Jefferson figured, no doubt correctly, that most whites (and perhaps most blacks, I dunno) would be unwilling to live together. Remember, in those days racial and cultural indifference was the norm and all that was expected of you, morally, was to put your family and your own people before anyone else. Even so, most people frowned on mistreating slaves, esp among religious/spiritual minded people. Jefferson and Coles gives us a definitive examples of this mindset, in spite of any apparent 'inconsistencies' we may see on the surface. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So this is where I need to craft something to back up Cmguy777 and something to back up Gwillhickers: (1) "jefferson wrote coles not to free slaves then and there for the good of his country (Virginia), and after further discussion, Coles freed all his slaves crossing the Ohio river north on his way to Illinois, about half the newly free families splitting off from him straight away."

_ _ And (2) the antipathy shown free black communities during Jefferson's time in Virginia (cite Norfolk State University history professor) some prosperous free black Virginians following Jefferson's principles such as Joseph Jenkins Roberts migrated to Liberia to found a free home for free men. Then following Jefferson's suggestions immediately following his death, Virginians in public life acted in the 1830 Virginia Constitution and in the following legislative session, pushing for state financed gradual emancipation: James Madison, James Monroe, John Marshall, John Tyler, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, etc.

_ _ One consideration I am not sure how to work into the narrative, which of course means it must forever be lost in Talk page archives. During gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania, children reaching an age to have "compensated" owners in labor for their nurture and care, were to be freed around age 14-16. To circumvent the Quaker intent of freeing the slaves, some Pennsylvanian slave holders removed children from their families around age ten and sold them south into permanent slavery. To avoid that personal tragedy to individuals held in slavery, humanitarians such as Jefferson sought to use state funds to buy slaves, train them as farmers and artisans, set them free and sponsor them as free people into their own self-governing free country.

_ _ I suppose scholars do now characterize that impulse as "deportation" in some sort of academician argot so it can be compared in a scholarly way to the "deportation" of Armenians, force marching of tens of thousands unendingly without food into a desert to die by attrition. Same linguistic trap we found earlier here in the use of "slave breeder" to my mind. Should this page encompass the Pennsylvanian "removal" -- now I don't know what to call it -- but it is the historical context of the "wolf-by-the-ears" -- that Jefferson's suggestions in correspondence were meant to address in the name of humanity? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft statements

TVH, once again I am thoroughly impressed with your depth of knowledge -- now we need to use your resourcefulness to address the areas that are not covered and/or missing in the article, as Cm' has pointed out. i.e.The article doesn't even mention Coles, nor does it cover Jefferson's ideas about "deporting" free slaves to Africa, where he, and others, thought they would be better off. We need a base from which to build on:

1. Jefferson advised Coles not to free his slaves because ...

2. Jefferson, (at one time?), thought freed slaves would be better off if sent to Africa and devised a plan ...

Yes, we must be careful with the language (e.g."deport") as we are writing for a modern day and largely naive audience who too often has been stigmatized and goaded into a flat-earth view of slavery overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Jefferson's plan to expatriate slaves was controversial during his time. I would mention that Jefferson after the 1820 Missouri Compromise in an emergency situation devised a plan to expatriate slaves to prevent a Civil War. An explaination on Jefferson's letter to Coles to keep his slaves rather then free them is needed for the article. And then there is Jefferson's view that expanding slavery would end slavery needs to be addressed in the article. Thanks Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian for your helpful information and claryfication into these issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, an explanation of Jefferson's letter to Coles is NOT needed for the article. Please back away from the arrogant POV pushing; you are not the dictator of what needs to be included. If mainstream reliable sources consider the Coles letter to be an important point, it's worth a mention. Otherwise, leave it alone.--Other Choices (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? That kind of aggressive put-down is not needed for this talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with ASW'. -- OC', I appreciate the concern but you accuse Cm' of being the dictator yet in the same breath come off with a dictatorial tone yourself. What POV is Cm', or anyone, trying to push? It would seem to me any RS that covers Coles' letter would indeed cover the reasons why so on that note brief mention is due. I don't think Cm' was doing a POV number by suggesting it should be included. I see no POV issues either way so long as we stick to the facts and put them into context. Let's be cool and get these two items (Coles / Africa plan) into the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Got drafts? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

OtherChoices, if stating an opinion is a dictatorship then we are all dictators of this article. I hope we can approach this issue with civility. This is a talk page and I believe I have a right to add my opinion. I stated that I believe the letter of Edward Coles needs to be explained in the article. Why is Jefferson telling Edward Coles to keep his slaves? I agree there needs to be a valid source for the Edward Coles letter in giving an explanation. Jefferson is also "passing the mantle" to Coles or the younger generation to emancipate and expatriate the slaves. Putting something in draft form, as Gwillhickers suggested, and then getting input from other editors is best. Thanks for your support Gwillhickers and Alanscottwalker. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Coles

Here are a few sources for Coles, [most] available in their entirety as Free Ebooks.

• Elihu Benjamin Washburne (1882) Sketch of Edward Coles
• Clarence Walworth Alvord, Elihu Benjamin Washburne, (1920) Governor Edward Coles, Volume 15
• Wilbur Theodore Norton (1911) Edward Coles: Second Governor of Illinois. 1786-1868
• Edward Coles, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, (1856) History of the Ordinance of 1787
• Alan Pell Crawford, (2008) Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Coles draft

• "On August 25, 1814 Thomas Jefferson responded to fellow Virginian Edward Coles, who had asked Jefferson to take up the abolition cause in Viriginia. Jefferson told Coles that he believed blacks were in a degraded condition and not ready to participate in Virginia society. Jefferson believed that gradual emancipation and expatriation of blacks was the best way to alleviate their condition. Jefferson told Coles in the mean time to take care of his slaves, feed and clothe them, for the good of his country Virginia. Jefferson stated that he was to old to publically take up the cause of freeing slaves, and told Coles this was best left to a younger generation." --- Crawford (2008), Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson, p. 102-103. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not bad Cm', but we need to mention that Jefferson hade other reasons for declining Coles' request besides age. Unlike Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson spent many years in politics, Sec'State, two terms as president, etc, battling with pro-slavery forces, and as such had more reasons and more of an inclination to decline Coles' request than Franklin would of had.:

• In 1814 Jefferson received a letter from Edward Coles who had just inherented a nine hundred-acre plantation and twenty-three slaves from his father, a close family friend of the Jeffersons. Coles having deep moral objections about owning slaves and faced with the dilema of freeing slaves in Virginia, whose laws prohibited freed slaves from living there, sought the council of Jefferson hoping he would undertake the arduous effort of "devising & getting into operation some plan for the gradual emancipation of slavery". Jefferson, who at that time was seventy one years old and who had fought over the issue of slavery for many years, was sympathetic to Coles' plight but declined to take on such a task at that point in his life, stating .."

"This enterprise is for the young; for those who can follow it up; and bear it through
to its consummation. It shall have all my prayers, & these are the only weapons of an old man.

Coles in his disappointment mildly criticized Jefferson, reminding him that Benjamin Franklin had freed his slaves. Crawford, (2008), pp.102-103; Washburne, (1882), pp.22-24

I am assuming there will be those who will object to the lengths of either of the above drafts, but there doesn't seem to be any way around including context without committing a few sentences to this topic. If there is another way of accomplishing this, let's see another draft.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some combination of the two above paragraphs would be good. My paragraph was from Jefferson's point of view on abolition. I did mention that Jefferson believed blacks were in a degraded state as why not to incorporate them into Virginia society. Jefferson wanted gradual emancipation and expatriation rather then full out abolition of slaves. Plus that Jefferson believed he was too old to take up the abolition cause. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"In 1814, Thomas Jefferson responded to fellow Virginian Edward Coles, who had inhereted a nine hundred-acre plantation and twenty-three slaves from his father, a close family friend of the Jeffersons. Coles held deep moral objections about owning slaves and faced with the dilema of freeing slaves in Virginia, whose laws prohibited freed slaves from living there, sought the council of Jefferson hoping he would publically undertake the cause of abolition. On August 25, Jefferson wrote to Coles that he believed blacks were in a degraded condition and not ready to participate in Virginia society. Jefferson, rather, believed that gradual emancipation and expatriation of blacks was the best way to alleviate their condition. Jefferson recommended that Coles take care of his slaves, feed and clothe them, for the good of his country Virginia. Jefferson, who was 71 years old, was sympathetic to Coles' plight but declined to take on such a task at that point in his life, stating he was to old, and told Coles that this "enterprise is for the young; for those who can follow it up; and bear it through to its consummation." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We're getting a little long winded here. Jefferson's view of the condition of slaves isn't really needed, nor is his thoughts on gradual emancipation. He had no intention for devising a plan for gradual emancipation at Coles' request and at that point in his life. Jefferson declined because he was old and tired from confronting pro-slavery forces for so many years and because he knew that the slavery issue was widening the gap between the various states/representatives. I believe my draft is more appropriate because it's shorter, has introductory context, as your draft does, and includes quotes from both Jefferson and Coles. i.e.Coles' request and Jefferson's decline of that request. In fact, we could leave out Coles' response/criticism and comparison to Franklin as you did in your draft, as this is the Jefferson biography, not a summary of Coles and his thoughts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• In 1814 Jefferson received a letter from Edward Coles who had just inherented a nine hundred-acre plantation and twenty-three slaves from his father, a close family friend of the Jeffersons. Coles having deep moral objections about owning slaves and faced with the dilema of freeing slaves in Virginia, whose laws prohibited freed slaves from living there, sought the council of Jefferson hoping he would undertake the arduous effort of "devising & getting into operation some plan for the gradual emancipation of slavery". Jefferson, who at that time was seventy one years old and who had fought over the issue of slavery for many years, was sympathetic to Coles' plight but declined to take on such a task at that point in his life, stating .."

"This enterprise is for the young; for those who can follow it up; and bear it through
to its consummation. It shall have all my prayers, & these are the only weapons of an old man.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, my first draft was what I originally intended. I was attempting to summarize Jefferson's views. Leaving out the condition of slaves, emancipation, and expatriation would not accurately represent Jefferson's response to Coles. Jefferson believed abolition would be a shock to Virginia values and culture. Jefferson was against abolition because he did not want blacks whom he viewed were in a degraded condition to be equal citizens to whites. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an opinion. Jefferson wanted slaves sent to Africa for their own good and for the good of society in America -- not because he had this thing about them being 'equal citizens'. The reason Jefferson declined Coles is well represented by the established facts, as reflected in Jefferson's own words. His reference to "degraded condition" is just that -- that slavery had rendered them in a ruinous state of mind, the likes of which fostered despair, resentment, even hatred, as is evidenced by Nat Turner and others. Are there RS's that say Jefferson declined Coles' request because he didn't want them to be 'equal', and if so, is such a contention backed up by established facts -- or is this another attempt to imply Jefferson was a "white supremacist" without actually saying so? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwilhickers the source Twighlight at Monticello discusses Jefferson's view that he believed blacks were in a degraded state, that their abolition would be a shock to Viriginia society, that Coles was to keep his slaves and take care of them, and that Jefferson supported gradual emancipation and expatriation. This is not what Coles wanted to read from Jefferson. He wanted Jefferson to publically come out against slavery. If blacks were in a degraded stated, then blacks are not equal to whites, that is why they needed to be deported. Jefferson believed whites were superior in reasoning and mathematical abilities. Jefferson earlier stated that blacks be expatriated and replaced by whites. Jefferson believed whites were more beautiful then blacks. What is the point of sweeping Jefferson's views under the historical carpet? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Because blacks are inferior slavery shouldn't be abolished but instead slaves should be gradually emancipated. Right... You're mixing words and conjecture. In your first sentence you say blacks were in a degraded state, but not from slavery, and then use this to launch your "superior" rhetoric. None of this is why Jefferson declined Coles' request and no one has swept anything under the rug as these things are already covered in the article. Jefferson did not decline Coles' request because he thought blacks were not as good looking and couldn't do math. You're attempting another POV end run and IMO have been looking for a way to run your 'supremacist' BS, yet again. Earlier I gave you the benefit of the doubt, even defended you. Now you need to present facts/RS's per Jefferson's decline of Coles' request as I have done or give it a rest. At this point I'm inclined to only say this about Coles.

Coles inherited slaves but was opposed to slavery and asked Jefferson to embark on a campaign of
gradual emancipated. Jefferson, at the age of seventy one and after years of fighting with pro slavery forces,
declined the request thinking such a pursuit should be done by those who can see it through.'

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft / edit break

Just for the record, Crawford's Twilight at Monticello ... pp.98-99, says that Coles shared the same view as Jefferson, that slavery was "unjust to the slaves and corrupted the master". This is why Coles appealed to Jefferson. Crawford's Twlight at Monticello also says: Jefferson closed on a note of mild encouragement. "That your success may be as speedy and complete ...", p.103 (bold added) -- No where does it say "abolition would be a shock to Virginia society", and that this was the reason Jefferson declined, nor does it say that Jefferson wanted to "deport" blacks because he thought he was "superior", or that this also was the reason Jefferson declined Coles' request. And the stuff about 'good looks' and 'math ability' is just a bunch of coats thrown on the rack of Coles' letter. (These views were a suspicion and based on Jefferson's observations, and were never used as an excuse by Jefferson to oppose abolition or gradual emancipation, per Missouri Compromise, etc.) -- If there are no (other) objections by tomorrow I'll add my original draft to the section. Cm', if you want to add anything to it please make sure it relates directly to the letter and Jefferson's decline, is factual, and is backed up by RS's. In the future, please do not attempt to torpedo the discussion with so many modern day buzz words when the discussion doesn't turn out as you (all along) hoped it would. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ]

I was going be the source Twilight at Monticello in addition to the actual letter that Jefferson wrote to Coles. Twilight at Monticello does quotes Jefferson's letter to Cole. Jefferson did mention gradual emancipation and expatriation. Jefferson actually stated the word "shock" in his letter. Jefferson mentioned blacks were in a degregated state. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Insert: No one said Twlight' didn't mention Jefferson's letter or 'gradual emancipation' and no one said it didn't mention a 'degraded state' but not in a way you presented it originally but from slavery. None of this ties into Jefferson's decline. Jefferson offered encouragement to Coles aspirations but declined for reasons of age, etc, as has been addressed already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Edward Coles Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Degradation:

"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." Thomas Jefferson - LTEC Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Yes, pests inasmuch as they had no place to go nor any means by which to support themselves. This is why he favored emancipation to Africa. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Emancipation and expatriation:

" As to the method by which this difficult work is to be effected, if permitted to be done by ourselves, I have seen no proposition so expedient on the whole, as that as emancipation of those born after a given day, and of their education and expatriation after a given age." Thomas Jefferson - LTEC Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Shock:

"This would give time for a gradual extinction of that species of labour & substitution of another, and lessen the severity of the shock which an operation so fundamental cannot fail to produce." Thomas Jefferson - LTEC Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he uses the word shock but not in a way that you did previously. You seem to write as if no one is going to check on this stuff. Cm' you're all over the map. Your POV pushing has gone on long enough. User 'Other Choices' was correct even though his tone was inappropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of Coles' letter

Cm', if you want to expound on Coles' letter it should be done on the Edward Coles page. Please don't try to take snippits of the letter out of context and insert words like "superior" into the mix, again, completely out of context. Jefferson all along had the best of intentions for slaves and any 'inconsistencies' that may have occurred are easily explained by the circumstances of the day. i.e.political division, war, etc. -- you seem to have a way of trying to obscure that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I appreciate your initial support for wanting to put in Jefferson's letter to Edward Coles. Thomas Jefferson wrote this letter to Edward Coles and Jefferson's letter belongs in the Jefferson biography article. In my opinion, your issue is not with me or POV, rather your issue is with who Jefferson was as a slave owner. In his letter to Edward Coles, Jefferson stated the best method to end slavery was to emancipate slaves at an certain age, educate the slave, and then expatriate free blacks. This would reduce the shock in Virginia society to have released what Jefferson believed were "pests" who could not take care of themselves. The two slaves Jefferson freed were skilled laborers. From Jefferson's previous statements and in his letter to Edward Coles, one can conclude that Jefferson believed whites were superior to blacks. That was my conclusion and I had no intention of putting that in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My concern regards your preoccupation with certain 'bytes' of the letter which you obviously want to use out of context to promote your 'superiority' notions -- all the while you have ignored the greater bulk of that letter where Jefferson expresses the duty to provide for and take care of slaves, or the part where he says "The love of justice and the love of country plead equally the cause of these people"(slaves), or where he offers encouragement and prayers to Coles' aspirations. Almost the entire letter is committed to encouragement, duty, prayers, advice on how to proceed with gradual emancipation, advice on how to rally the younger generation to continue the effort of emancipation along with the part where Jefferson maintains that society should "feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen" -- along with all the other benign content. Again, all you have done is focus on a couple bytes and have attempted to use this, out of context, to promote your 'superior' rhetoric.
Yes the letter is far too long to include in the Jefferson biography, so all we can do is say Jefferson declined Coles' request to campaign for emancipation at that point in his life because he was old and retired and unable to follow it through and that he offered prayers and support for Coles' efforts. He didn't decline out of any personal interest, or because he felt he was "superior" in looks and math ability, etc. That is just so much modern day presentist and naive bunk that can only fly if we ignore the greater bulk of that letter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I am reading the whole letter, however, the article needs to accurately state Jefferson's views on abolition. Jefferson was opposed to a general abolition as Coles had wanted, rather prefering that Coles keep his slaves for the good of the country. I used the words "degraded state", as reason why Jefferson was opposed to general abolition. There is no reference to superiority in that statement. I never proposed to use the word "superior", nor do I have any intention of using that word in referernce to Jefferson's letter to Edward Coles. Jefferson did use the word "degradation" in his letter to Edward Coles allowed to roam freely in Virginia society. How about adding that Jefferson favored gradual emancipation, education, and expatriation, rather then general abolition as Coles had wanted, and then handed this task off to the younger generation because Jefferson was too old? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Both Jefferson and Coles favored gradual emancipation rather than outlawing slavery and then releasing all of these people at once into society. Can you imagine what would of happened to the majority of these people if they were all, 10's of thousands, released at once with no shelter, food etc?? Both of these men opposed slavery but at the same time they were realistic and not reckless with their ideals. Again, we need to put circumstances and realities into context before we moan and wail about any perceived 'inconsistencies' some individuals would like to parade around the class room with. I still think my original draft is best, per their quotes -- your original not bad also, and yes, we can also mention that both men favored gradual emancipation over outright and immediate abolition:

• In 1814 Jefferson received a letter from Edward Coles who had just inherited a nine hundred-acre plantation and twenty-three slaves from his father, a close family friend of the Jeffersons. Coles having deep moral objections about owning slaves and faced with the dilema of freeing slaves in Virginia, whose laws prohibited freed slaves from living there, sought the council of Jefferson hoping he would undertake the arduous task of "devising & getting into operation some plan for the gradual emancipation of slavery". Jefferson, who at that time was seventy one years old and who had fought over the issue of slavery for many years, was sympathetic to Coles' plight but declined to take on such a task at that point in his life, stating .."

"This enterprise is for the young; for those who can follow it up; and bear it through
to its consummation. It shall have all my prayers, & these are the only weapons of an old man.

Both favored gradual emancipation over outright and immediate abolition and the subsequent releasing of many thousands of slaves into society with no shelter, food or means to support themselves. Crawford, (2008), pp.102-103; Washburne, (1882), pp.22-24

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I will admit Gwillhickers you would make a great fantasy writer. You are purposely skipping in the letter that Jefferson believed blacks were in a degraded state, that Jefferson favored the three E's, emancipation, education, and expatriation and that Jefferson did not favor a general abolition. Crawford's Twighlight at Monticello specifically states Coles wanted Jefferson to publically support abolition. On pages 98-99 Crawford states "Coles wrote to Jefferson urging him to take up the cause of abolition himself and rallying younger men like Coles around him." Your edit is not supported by the Crawford source. Jefferson did not want a bunch of free blacks to be in the same society as whites. That would be shocking. The Crawford source does not state Jefferson "had fought over the issue of slavery for many years". That was your POV. We seem to be going around in circles and there appears to be no room for compromise on this issue. Go ahead and put your fantasy novel in the article. You win. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The degraded state, from slavery, has been acknowledged, at least twice, along with Jefferson, and Coles, favoring gradual emancipation rather than setting all slaves free, tens of thousands, all at once, with no food, shelter or any means to support themselves. Yes I, and the readers, have 'won', simply because the facts are on my side of the fence. "Bunch of free blacks"?? Evidently you're the victim of your own two- dimensional fantasy. Sad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The mention that Jefferson had "strong suspicion" that blacks were inferior is mentioned. However, the reason why Jefferson did not favor general abolition because he believed blacks were in a degraded state and "pests" of society is not mentioned in the article. This is found in Jefferson's letter to Coles. Jefferson did not believe blacks were inferior because of slavery or education. He believed blacks were inheritly inferior as he expressed in Notes. Jefferson believed whites were in a degraded state because of slavery. If there is a source, and I believe that source is the Letter to Edward Coles, then I believe that what you mentioned, "favoring gradual emancipation rather than setting all slaves free, tens of thousands, all at once, with no food, shelter or any means to support themselves", needs to be in the article. I initially thought we were attempting a collabortive effort to add Jefferson's letter to Coles, but apparently there is no room for compromise. Jefferson favored the three E's, emancipation, education, and expatriation. Can that be allowed to be put in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this sentence:

"Jefferson in his letter to Edward Coles desired that slaves be gradually emancipated, educated, and then expatriated, believing that blacks were not yet in condition to take care of themselves." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)