Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Thomas Jefferson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Thomas Jefferson and slavery, summary style

I just removed one of twelve paragraphs in the section about slavery, for reasons of synthesis. More paragraphs should be removed, reduced or condensed so that only two or three remain. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, most of the detail about the sub-topic should be placed in the main article about that issue: Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Only the major themes should be presented here. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the various Jefferson articles there is sometimes a rather large area of overlap as content goes, especially when a given article lends itself to a subject just as, or near, as much. This is not to say that the the biography here should have as much coverage, or weight, as a dedicated article(s) covering a topic, sometimes. Many topics are just as pertinent to the Jefferson biography as they are to the other various pages that (may) cover any given subject. As for synthesis, you didn't articulate this idea much at all. You may want to review that policy so as not to make the typical mistake/oversight that is common to this policy. i.e OR and advancing new positions, which has not occurred on this page. -- Gwillhickers 05:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wha..? There should never be a "large area of overlap", not to the tune of 12 paragraphs.

As far as synthesis goes, believe me, I know the policy. You should not be using various primary sources to arrive at an interpretation of Jefferson's thoughts and actions. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to put your horses in front of your cart. Please explain your issues before coming in and making sweeping changes. Most of the content on the page here was arrived at by, often lengthy, discussion. Overlap exists everywhere on WP, sometimes considerably so, and rightly so, so readers don't have to hop around from page to page to read about a topic that is well suited on a given page. You also might want to peek into some of the dedicated pages to see if they're covering things as well as you seem to be claiming they are. Have you done so first before coming here, perhaps half blind? Where are these "twelve paragraphs" -- all on one other page? I don't think so. Again, highlight your issues and then if need be cite the exact policy that you feel may support it rather than coming in here with a disruptive approach. Also, the listing in the infobox was arrived at by much debate and including 'architect', then 'amateur architect' was agreed on as a compromise. Please review the discussion to see if it covers any issues you may have here also. If not, feel free to raise any issue that wasn't addressed several times already. -- Gwillhickers 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, have you read Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:NOTPAPER? While I understand the desire for well-rounded articles, summary style is a long-standing and widely respected guideline. It sometimes leaves somewhat jarring holes, but, on the other hand, if we put everything of interest into this article, we will arrive at something akin to Dumas Malone's Jefferson biography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to scale down the slavery section kindly make specific points below. We can do this so long as the section doesn't read like a police report without any balance. 'Summary style' doesn't mean giving a depleted and out of context account of the issue. We've all been down this road, but if you prefer to ignore the rest of the article for the next several months we can discuss what has been discussed many times -- all over again. -- Gwillhickers 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, with this edit you have violated WP:BRD. Your talk page response here is just general stonewalling rather than reasoned defense of specific paragraphs that I removed. The burden is on the person who wants to include text, not remove text. The burden is on you.

Certainly, this section of the biography has been the subject of past discussion. In August 2009 at the GAR discussion, Cmguy777 noted that the article lacked any mention of slave life at Monticello, and that it should have "one or two paragraphs" of such material. Cmguy777 was commenting on this version of the article in which the slavery section was already too large at 1158 words including some long quotes sourced to primary documents. This version of the article lost its GA status in September 2009. The slavery section crept larger and larger but was intermittently reduced again, for instance this large cut by User:Brad101 in May 2012. The slavery section was the focus of a lot of back-and-forth editing activity in July and August 2012. By mid-August, Brad101 observed that the slavery section was "full of cherry picked quotes" and was too large at 641 words. The tempering hand of Brad101 stopped appearing here later that month. Without him, your version today has ballooned to 1453 words, wasting the reader's time with details.

Gwillhickers, I can see in past discussions on this matter you have had to defend the article against editors who seemed to want to paint TJ as a cruel slave master. Counter complaints were lodged against you that you wanted a white-washed version instead, with slave life at Monticello depicted as an idyl. Count me out of that discussion—my only concern here is brevity. I will leave it to topic experts to compose two or three succinct paragraphs about the most important themes relevant to the biography and to decide which portions should be taken to the sub-article. I'm not going to weigh in on the question of what kind of slave master was TJ; I trust you and the other editors here to get it right. The result should be a summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the fussing and fighting over this article is but only one reason why I've been gone almost a year now. I'm sick to death of this article because of Gwill and CMguy. They've held this article hostage for over two years with this bullshit. I've stated here repeatedly until I was blue in the face about the article size and it's really not a surprise that it ballooned up again while I wasn't looking. Also not a surprise are the boatloads of discussion wasted arguing about something as stupid as 'architect' and forgetting about any main objective to move the article along. And CMguy still hasn't learned how to indent his responses. Good luck. I'm done with this crap. Brad (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As painful as it must have been, thank you for weighing in. I think it's important to have the perspective of editors such as yourself who were active on this article a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Blinkerset. "Amateur architect" is what Jefferson is refered to by sources. Gwillhickers edit, in my opinion, was extremely conservative and done out of compromise between editors. The slavery section, possibly could be resummarized, but we really worked hard on the first paragraph, the most important in the slaves and slavery section. Please do not change that first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Working on summary of slavery

Here are what I think are the main themes of the slavery section:

TJ lived in a slave society
TJ believed slavery was bad for the slave and the master
TJ believed slavery was economically necessary for agriculture in the South
TJ owned and sold many slaves, about 600 over his life, about 130 at Monticello
TJ believed the Negro race was inferior
TJ proposed slavery should end in the West after 1800
TJ drafted 1778 Virginia law forbidding slave importation
TJ was criticized for allowing slavery in the Louisiana Purchase
TJ's views on Gabriel's Rebellion
TJ opposed the Missouri Compromise, he thought the slavery issue would split the country
TJ signed into law the 1808 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves
TJ was in favor of a gradual phasing out of slavery in the US
TJ was against international slavery
TJ was relatively kind to his slaves, providing for them relatively more generously
TJ eschewed the extremes of violent punishment of slaves, though this wish was not always carried out

Here is what I believe to be excessive detail for this biography. (The details can be taken to Thomas Jefferson and slavery:

Whether TJ's debt influenced his owning slaves
Missouri "exploded" the issue of slavery
TJ refuses one case where overseer kills slave by whipping. (This is just one case, after all.)
When and where TJ acquired or sold slaves
People who provided slaves to TJ
People who obtained slaves from TJ
Letter to John Holmes
Details of what slaves did for TJ
Details of what TJ did for his slaves
"Moral obligation"
family separation
Edward Coles
General Tadeusz Kościuszko
Hemings family preferential treatment

Please discuss. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would add 1774 attack on King re slave trade; 1780s law fobid slavery in all territories (lost by one vote but incorporated into NW Territories law). You can drop "TJ was criticized for allowing slavery in the Louisiana Purchase" (that was never on the table); and *TJ's views on Gabriel's Rebellion [minor issue]. Maybe add haiti. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet and Rjensen, and think his view of Haiti was important. Also, I believe that TJ thought that freed slaves could not be integrated into U.S. society and should be repatriated to Africa, which should also be mentioned. TFD (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also largely agree, but do you mean by TJ being against international slavery that he was against the trans-Atlantic slave trade?

My major disagreement is that I think TJ's debt was such a huge factor in his refusal/inability to free any slaves that it should be mentioned. Also, because the Hemings drama looms so large in the public mind right now, I do not strongly support getting rid of the preferential treatment they received. At the least I would say they were the only slaves ever freed. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, my take on the slavery section is that it should be about Jefferson's general views about, and public practice of slavery. The Hemings material has its own section and was not part of TJ's public discourse. I think any Hemings info should be in the Hemings section but not in the general slavery section. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point; I concur. Yopienso (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a proposal for consideration written along the streamlined lines suggested. As for debt, its complicated, and therefore may need to be relegated to the daughter article. TJ's wealth was slaves, was it not? More so, than land or anything else. So his borrowing was secured against his wealth (slaves). His income was slaves work, so he was sevicing his debt through slavery. (a bit of a chicken and egg problem). As long as our summary says he personally was economically dependent on slavery - that may cover it. As for the few slaves he freed (or let go) that may be a brief sentence at most: "Jefferson personally freed very few slaves; most were related to Sally Hemings." (or some such). As for Haiti, what is the wording of that proposal? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am for taking a more conservative approach to scaling the section down. How Jefferson treated his slaves is important for the biography article. Jefferson's view on the Missouri compromise is signifigant. He predicted the Civil War. Jefferson's letters are important in order to establish Jefferson's views on slavery. Although Jefferson stopped the Atlantic slave trade, slavery was allowed to expand in the South. General Tadeusz Kościuszko is a difficult situation since if Jefferson took on Kościuszko he probably would have been challanged by Kościuszko's family. That would be best left addressed for the Jefferson and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First things first

Seems we're getting ahead of ourselves here, discussing 'tactics', while no overall strategy has been agreed on other than we need to scale down the section. As we can see, there are a lot of issues to sort out. Not only do we have to chose which ones will be covered (not done) we will also be pitted with the task of 'how', and 'how much' each topic will be covered (also not done yet). To make life 'simple', we also have Hemings to deal with. Much controversy and debate has occurred, repeatedly, on that topic alone. So how do we cover all this stuff in the space of one page without the section reading like a dictionary or police report? As the topic of slaves and slavery is complex, with how they lived under Jefferson making it even more complex, we are going to need at least a page to cover this adequately.
Just recently for the first time in a long time, the talk page was involved in a long debate about a topic other than slavery. In spite of disagreements it was nice to dig, review and further explore one of the many neglected topics on this page, for a change. Now it seems were all set to tie up the talk page about slavery, once again, while the other topics rot on the vine because all the editors are dragged into the same debate that has gone on over and over, and this is my optimistic assessment. Yes, editors are free to edit other sections, but it's sort of difficult not to get pulled into the fray when the section and its topics are being skewed, under represented while other topics are highlighted. The existing section, while almost two pages long, is much better than it once was. Hemings coverage all by itself was five pages long when I called for a consensus to scale it down back in March of 2011. It was a long painstaking process but we did it. Take a look at the names who were 'for' and 'against'. Some of them are with us now and at least one has changed his tune. In any case, to cover this section fairly we are going to need at least a page, and no doubt we will have to ignore certain topics to do that. Okay. What topics do we ignore? Which one gets the most coverage? Or do we give one sentence to each topic and pile one on top of the other so we have something that looks like a list in paragraph form? -- Gwillhickers 17:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bink has taken the time, now, to provide a list of topics about which ones should and should not be covered. I disagree with several items already. We need to chose which topics will get covered, first before we start pecking away at individual items. -- Gwillhickers 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could also see the proposal first. Others are suggesting their quibbles, with Binks lists (few though they maybe, so far). As for the Hemings Controversy section [1] that would seem to be a model, to aim for, since it ultimately was edited down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

While we're dealing with slavery, once again, the Hemings subject also needs to be addressed. It has its own section. There are many topics about slavery. Does Hemings get its own section, or should it also be included in the slavery section and given summary attention like the other topics? Perhaps now you'll understand why I was opposed to the initial bulldozer approach. There is much to consider here. At least now we're beginning to do that. Given the complexity and variance involved I believe the section is okay, each topic gives special insight into Jefferson, the person, while the Hemings topic should have its own section, as this was a major controversy effecting Jefferson biographies everywhere. If anything we can do without Coles and Kościuszko's last will, but that should be about it imo. -- Gwillhickers 18:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does not seem that complicated. Both "Slavery and" and "Controversy" are separate related articles to this article, so they have their own summary section in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually it isn't that complicated if we agree. The Controversy' has its own section, so now lets look at this section through the same summary lens we are looking at the Slavery' section. Will the Controversy' section be the standard we use in the slavery section to determine the summary of the many important topics there? Seems we have achieved that already, all of us, to a great degree. I like to think that what we've been doing here for the last three years wasn't a waste of our time and effort. We need to think about more than just the reduction of text space here and remember that we can easily skew a picture by leaving out some of the topics, facts and context. We can trim a few topics, but overall both the slavery and controversy sections, though on the lengthy side, have achieved optimum content and balance. GA and FA goals were recently mentioned. Many lengthy and in depth pages have achieved GA and better. One of the FA requirements is having a subject that has been extensively covered and well written. The one thing that has stood in the way of this page from achieving GA or better are the major and disputed changes that have occurred on a monthly, sometimes weekly, basis. Thanks to most of us here the sections for the first time in a while have remained basically unchanged because we've made them that way. They point to Jefferson's inconsistencies but there is balance and context about. Seems we should keep that in mind if and when we start scaling down the text, if we decide to do that in the degree we all of the sudden seem to think we should employ. I have no problems with omitting coverage of Kościuszko's last will, and Coles correspondence with Jefferson, and we can always grammatically scale down some text, but not the facts. -- Gwillhickers 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In the Slavery' section I just removed a couple of topics, some redundant phrases and a few other excessive items, (e.g.wool for slaves, etc). I also moved a small paragraph about Hemings to the Controvery section. If anyone is opposed to these edits go ahead and revert and we'll discuss it. -- Gwillhickers 22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy representation in lede

Lede should reflect what the body of text says, that other historians have noted that all the evidence, most notably that DNA evidence points to other possibilities. This is a controversy and should get fair representation in the lede. There are dozens of notable historians who don't buy into the socio-politically motivated claims by much of the so called "mainstream". We've discussed this before. -- Gwillhickers 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just made a compromise edit. Please see these sources:

Guilty:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/enigma/ellis.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rah/summary/v034/34.4bay.html

Insert : "Guilty"? This is what the closing statement says on the JHU souece :
"On both sides of today's debate, as is also true in older considerations of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship,
Hemings is largely a cipher—a blank slate on which any story can be...

Not guilty:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/challenging-the-jefferson-hemi

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/jefferson-hemings-revisited/30273

Insert : This 'list' leaves much to be desired. There is a large list of descending historians and professors in talk page archives. If we must trudge through all of this stuff again I'll produce it. I'm hoping we've learned from past debates so we can move on to something else besides this reoccurring sideshow. If half the time and energy spent on the controversy went in to overall page improvement, this article would have been a FA a long time ago. This will never happen so long as it remains a controversy amongst us. No one will ever know the truth about the Jefferson - Hemings story for sure, so we should all learn to accept that, keep the presentation neutral and move on. -- Gwillhickers 00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also please compare the credentials of Joseph Ellis and Mark_Tooley. Basically, it's the fringe at TJHS that disagrees. Yopienso (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the compromise -- don't appreciate your choice of words here. This so called "fringe" happens to comprise a large body of historians and professors from many notable universities. This "fringe" also includes Herbert Barger, a noted Jefferson historian who worked side by side with Foster when he was doing DNA research. It also includes a former TJF research committee member, Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, who exposed that committee for having made up their minds before they even evaluated the evidence. Agenda, peer driven, POV pushers, the lot of them. In any event, this is not a contest to see whose list is bigger than the other's -- there are enough historians and professors on both sides of the fence to warrant giving fair representation in the lede to both views. The evidence is far from conclusive so all we are doing is presenting opinion about a theory. Some buy it, other's don't. Frankely the lede should just mention a controversy and be done with it and should only give coverage to established historical fact. i.e.Jefferson was the main author of the DOI, etc. As it is, this controversy, this fuzzy theory, is covered more than any other topic in the lede -- and I'm getting sort of tired of having to drag another forget-me-not or half-clueless new comer through these points here on the Jefferson talk page all over again. In any case, thanks for keeping the Jefferson page neutral. -- Gwillhickers 00:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you present an article questioning the Hemmings story, written by Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, "a conservative religious thinktank noted for its critique of liberal religious groups," which is called "Challenging the Jefferson-Hemings Orthodoxy". Readers of this articles want to know about what informed people think, not fringe views. TFD (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Insert : edit conflict) "Informed"? FYI, I didn't introduce the Tooley story -- and parroting weasel words like "fringe" only tells us how little you know about who's who out there. The 'rah, rah rah, hooray for our side' sophomoric approach doesn't change the facts, all of which point to other paternal candidates as well. Kindly not speak on behalf of all readers in some underhanded attempt to justify not keeping the section neutral and inclusive of all viable views and facts, and please keep the POV weasel words off the page. The article already mentions "most historians". -- Gwillhickers 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that it was TJ's seed, not just some unnamed male family member. Once the male Jefferson line was implicated, historians zeroed in on which person was most likely, and it is TJ. There's no need to overstate the minor viewpoint which attempt to clear the name of Thomas Jefferson without actually naming someone else. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Any facts that they used to 'zero in on' Jefferson with also point to other paternal candidates, very easily. This will make about the 50th time this has been discussed. The article already mentions "most historians" only because a couple of highly biased sources (TJF, Brodie, etc) were arrogant enough to make such a claim. It has never been proven, not even qualified (i.e.did they conduct a poll?). There are simply too many others reputable people who can articulate the other viable possibilities, including Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, former TJF committee member who exposed the TJF committee for having made up their minds before they even evaluated the DNA and other evidence, all circumstantial. And btw, someone else has been named. His name is Randolph Jefferson. Once again, this page is not the place to educate the uninformed who come here with their minds already made up and a chip on their shoulder. There are more than enough other sources for this article to give neutral coverage of the various opinions out there. Trying to brush it off as "fringe" only reveals an inability to address this reality honestly. -- Gwillhickers 05:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated roughly umpteen times before, opinion had significantly shifted over to TJ paternity before the DNA tests. The DNA tests only led to further confirmation of what was already the majority opinion back then. How does the fact that Jefferson was with Hemings every time she conceived, and that she never conceived when he was not with her "very easily" implicate Randolph? Anyways, sources are near unanimous, the only thing happening is that the so-called "Scholars Commission" has finally managed to publish their report as a book --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : When DNA results were first released several publications, like Nature magazine, flat out said that the results proved Jefferson was the father. Many others news rags followed in kind eager to sell papers. Eugen Foster, the genealogist who conducted the DNA testing, Herbert Barger his historical consultant and others were outraged. This was in the 1990's and of course there was a big whoooo.. for some years that followed as most of the people in the 'get Jefferson' camp couldn't be, or didn't want to be, bothered with all the other considerations. That was then. The year now is 2013, and many have reevaluated not only the DNA evidence but have considered many other things that got drowned out and swept under the rug with all the political and racially charged hoopla. Considerations such as Randolph Jefferson and his four sons, all of age, who were known to fraternize with slaves at night, up playing his fiddle at late hours in the night. Yet we're supposed to believe that after Callander went public with his Jefferson paternity rumor, with news papers running the story while Jefferson was running for president, that Jefferson, while president, returned to Monticello and fathered two more children by Hemings, right there on the estate with family friends and house keepers all about the place. -- Gwillhickers 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Jefferson go on sleeping with Sally? Callender's story had fizzled the first time - no because nobody believed it, but because it was commonplace in Virginia for white planters to father children with their slaves. It was not unusual, and it was something that polite society politely ignored. Note that e.g. Sally's father was John Wayles, Jefferson's father-in-law and a reasonably well-off member of the planter class. Sally actually was a half-cousin of Jefferson. That did not cause enough of a scandal to make Martha Wayles a bad catch. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The homecoming of Thomas Jefferson would occasion the overnight stays of Randolph Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson's parentage were certainly so --- the same editors would include the observation that widower Jefferson then followed the French (Haitian) manumission practice to free all his children by a slave, and describe the 'affair' as a Virginian common law marriage by seven years' cohabitation. But they do not use their speculation on parentage in scholarly pursuit. That implies they are not sure of their parentage 'evidence' as grounds for the observations which would necessarily follow. Sensationalism is not scholarship, after all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "very easily" is not the same as "very far-fetched. So we are now to believe that Randolph came over only if Jefferson was at Monticello, and had nothing better to do than jump into bed with Sally Hemings every time over a period of more than ten years, but that he never ever sneaked in a visit when Jefferson was not at Monticello? Also note that the chance for a couple that actually tries to get pregnant are about 20-25% per month - and that's assuming they have sex often enough (or planned enough) to hit the women's fertile period. So chances for an occasional visitor to father 6 children are very low - whoever was the father would have to be in a long-term relationship with Sally Hemings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Exactly. As I've maintained numerous times, any evidence that is used to "zero in" (revealing remark) on Jefferson can also be used to support several other paternal candidates. The similar appearance? Didn't Randolph, Jefferson's brother, resemble Thomas? Times of conception? Jefferson received family visitors every time he returned -- and besides, this was his home. It's not much of a coincidence that he was around when Sally was, who also lived there. Had this been some odd place and Hemings and Jefferson were both around during times of conception, that would be compelling evidence. There was also a lot made, spun, of the fact that Jefferson freed Hemings' children -- yet he didn't free Sally. As I said, much has been reevaluated since the 90s. We've gone over this time and again. The Jefferson page has remained stable for the past several months, for the first time in a while. At this point, if someone wants to further embark on the issue they should (do their homework) speak in terms of what they want to add and/or remove to/from the section, per reliable sources, not cherry picked. -- Gwillhickers 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The point about the lede is not whether TJ was in fact the father of Hemings's children, but that the consensus of modern historians is that he was. No one (either scholars or WP users) is saying the case is shut. Ellis, however, says, "How then to put it? To say that Jefferson's paternity of several Hemings children is proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' sounds about right." There is no reason for me to begin to cite the many experts who concur.

Ellis further says, "No one had mentioned Randolph Jefferson as a possible alternative before the DNA study. He is being brought forward now because he fits the genetic profile. This belated claim strikes me as a kind of last stand for the most dedicated Jefferson loyalists." VaHist, do you have a source for "The homecoming of Thomas Jefferson would occasion the overnight stays of Randolph Jefferson"? Bay says, p. 411, "An infrequent visitor at Monticello, Randolph was never previously suspected as a possible partner for Hemings."

I suggest changing

Owing to DNA and other evidence, the consensus of most modern historians is that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. A minority note the evidence also supports the possibility that other male members of the Jefferson family could have fathered her children.

to

Despite on-going controversy, DNA and other evidence has led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children.

Yopienso (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I like your second version for its trim elegance. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. The statement as it reads suggests that the matter has been factually concluded. Again, there are enough historians and professors on both sides of the fence to give fair representation to both views. Again, "most historians" is an unproven opinion from highly biased sources (esp TJF) and is not grounds to be skewing the presentation here. Again, the article already says "most historians". The section should remain neutral. -- Gwillhickers 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Historians are competent to determine what "most historian" think. Weight requires us to determine the relative acceptance of different views and it makes more sense to consult historians that to make the call ourselves. If you think the view that Jefferson was not the father should be included, then you need to establish the degree of acceptance it has in mainstream sources and we need to explain that in the article. TFD (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Typically you are speaking of historians as if they're all in lock-step on the same page. They're not. Far from it. Hence the controversy. If it were just a few obscure opposing voices howling in the wind there would be no controversy, would there? "Historians are competent"? Would that include those in the extensive list of prominent historians and professors below? -- Gwillhickers 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede statement for Hemings

The argument for "most historians" is academic, has never been proven and smacks of POV, made by one side arrogant enough to do so. Since we are only discussing opinion, about a theory far from proven, this topic should take a back seat to the established historical facts mentioned in the lede. Here is a statement that presents no POV and is intellectually honest.

Since the early 1800s there has been an ongoing controversy over whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children of Sally Hemings, a house slave at Monticello. However, DNA and other evidence has not proven the claims of either side of that controversy to this day.

Please leave opinions about unproven theory out of the lede. These are special details that are not afforded to any other topic in the lede. Mention of opinions, "most historians", etc should be covered in the section. -- Gwillhickers 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this would work:

Since the early 1800s there has been an ongoing controversy over whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children of Sally Hemings, a house slave at Monticello. While DNA and other evidence have not definitively proven the claims of either side of that controversy, the consensus of most modern historians is that he was. Yopienso (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Awkward wording, especially the ending. I liked your previous suggestion: "Despite on-going controversy, DNA and other evidence has led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children." Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. Do you think this is better than what we have at the moment? Yopienso (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

alternate: There is an ongoing controversy among historians whether Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings’ children, but their DNA has been scientifically linked to his family. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two ways to do this in summary form, which we can support with sources, as WP:Lead would have us do, and this general article demands: 1) go with one of our longstanding iterations on "the consensus of most historians" or 2) don't bother to directly mention that there is misgiving from some minority viewpoint quarters, which is how Britannica deals with it ("Finally, in 1998, DNA samples were gathered from living descendants of Jefferson and Hemings. Tests revealed that Jefferson was almost certainly the father of some of Hemings's children." [2]) . Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I like this solution, but placed in the section addressing Sally Hemings, not in the lead. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Change of photo

Anybody but me think the other photo was better? Yopienso (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Naw, it was too much of a closeup and the likeness wasn't that similar with most other illustrations, imo. -- Gwillhickers 04:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, so much for discussion. Someone went ahead and added another version of Jefferson's portrait. Looks okay I guess. -- Gwillhickers 06:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the one I meant. I like the other one better because it shows him in the prime of his long life, looking vigorous and intelligent. The one we have now has an ugly background and makes him look like an old man. It looks better in green on the $2 bill! :-) Yopienso (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

To be pedantic, we don't have any photographs of Jefferson ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are coe-rect.

Yopienso (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposed to slavery

Well, one editor wants to say "verbally opposed slavery" which doesn't reflect the action Jefferson took, while another editor has just added "politically opposed slavery" which now reflects the action he took but doesn't really reflect Jefferosn's all around indifference to slavery on a moral level. By simply saying "opposed slavery" this covers it all. This is a minor issue, and I guess I can live with whatever we use here but imo the clause is best left in its simple form to reflect, verbally, politically and morally. i.e.A general lede statement that is qualified in the sections in several cases. -- Gwillhickers 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked up the word "verbally" here before adding it. The OED and Merriam-Webster lean more towards RJensen's definition, though, so I acquiesce to his edit. For the record, my thought was as the OED explains: "It is sometimes said that the true sense of the adjective verbal is ‘of or concerned with words,’ whether spoken or written (as in verbal abuse), and that it should not be used to mean ‘spoken rather than written’ (as in a verbal agreement). For this strictly ‘spoken’ sense, it is said that the adjective oral should be used instead. However, it goes on to say, In practice, however, verbal is well established in this sense and, even in legal contexts, a verbal agreement is understood to mean a contract whose accepted terms have been spoken rather than written. (Emphases in original.)

I am not OK with saying TJ "opposed slavery" because he also supported it and was supported by it. Maybe we should say he was philosophically opposed it? Yopienso (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoa--I skipped my main point: TJ wasn't consistently "politically" opposed to slavery, which is why I suggest "philosophically." He was politically opposed to the slave trade, and to the extension of slavery, but he failed to alleviate the slaves' lot as a Virginia assemblyman. Yopienso (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I looked up verbally myself and along with the common understanding of it, 'spoken as', which is what I suspect most readers will read it as, there are also the definitions you've outlined. Jefferson did not 'support' slavery. Though he owned slaves he went out of his way to treat them as and work them no more than free farmers. This is an idea that many 'modern' thinkers with their peer-driven two dimensional analysis fail to grasp. And 'failing' to do something is not 'supporting' it either. Every time Jefferson introduced legislation or took political action to oppose or end slavery he was blocked. There is not one defining word or action taken by Jefferson that amounts to 'supporting' slavery. One could say he 'supported' slavery because he owned them, but that's conjecture and is no different than saying you don't support clean air because you drive a car. Having said that I'll settle for Rj's edit also as it has greater scope. -- Gwillhickers 06:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "treat them as and work them no more than free farmers" is simply historical nonsense - unless free farmers were whipped, and bills for runaway free farmers were routinely posted. Jefferson may not have been Simon Legree, but he was a slave holder with everything that entails - including buying and selling humans against their will and using barbaric corporal punishment to force helpless people to conform to his desires and work for his economic benefit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the allegation that Jefferson 'supported slavery', and you're repeating tried and failed assertions. Jefferson only had slaves whipped, a rare event at Monticello, as a last resort for stealing, fighting, etc. Not beaten, hung or shot. Whipped. Free farmers and others were often hung for stealing horses. Slaves were whipped. Young "free" white boys were often subscripted into service marched off to war and ordered to march into a hail of gun fire. They were routinely shot if they disobeyed orders. The numbers of boys and men shot for disobeying orders or desertion in those days is staggering. But that's okay, they were "free". Your "barbaric" assertion is blatantly presentist and seems to lack the perspective of the time period in question, completely. And again, Jefferson only worked slaves as much as free farmers were expected to work and is well established in various sources, though I seriously doubt the likes of Finkelman would ever admit it. In any case, having an unruly slaved whipped is not supporting slavery, and that is the issue you seem to want to cloud. -- Gwillhickers 09:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Stephan Schulz. Abolishing the whipping post for white farmers guilty of theft was an important reform of the Jacksonian Era of the Common Man, North and South. Abolishing flogging for white and black sailors came later. Abolishing whipping for blacks in Virginia ended in the 1870s in part because it had been used as a way of restricting the vote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

there is no prominent man of Jefferson's lifetime who so consistently opposed so many aspects of slavery when he was in public office. No one in the US (I think John Jay comes in #2)-- perhaps no one in Europe comes close. The biggest issue of the day was the international slave trade, and he was the #1 person in its abolition. The second issue was the spread of slavery into the territories (an issue that led to civil war in 1861), and again he was the #1 opponent. That's more impressive than anyone else. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede paragraph about slavery

We've been working toward a better paragraph. Currently, it reads:

Jefferson politically opposed slavery all his life and played a major role in ending the international slave trade and blocking slavery from the Northwest Territory. He owned hundreds of slaves, yet freed only two. Since 1800 controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children.

A main point about TJ was his ambivalence. A trouble with crowd-sourced writing is keeping a lucid style. We do not need detail in the lede. RJensen has now added some detail and deleted other. I favor his deletion, having noted I kept it only to keep others happy. This seems better to me:

Jefferson's ambivalence towards slavery has long baffled scholars. While he played a major role in ending the international slave trade and in blocking slavery from the Northwest Territory, he also was a major slaveholder and a white supremacist. Since 1800, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. Yopienso (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the first version. I do not think historians are baffled and the term "white supremacist" seems anachronistic. TFD (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. "White supremacist" is modern day hyper speak. Virtually everyone in Jefferson's day was racist to the extent that they favored their own race. People favored their own family, people and race first. It was understood, and expected of you. If you use that term today we may as well just call Jefferson a nazi. And we need to qualify the DNA evidence statement as it was inconclusive. This is not a "view", this is a fact. DNA pointed to more than 20 possible fathers. We are playing musical chairs with the lede all over again it seems, removing some details adding others. I've qualified the DNA statement with one word, so it reflects what we agreed upon. If we are not going to mention other historians as we just got finished talking about then we need to make a clear and factual statement about the DNA evidence. No more half truths. -- Gwillhickers 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to allow commentary and extra details in the lede for the one topic then we need to make clear what the important facts are. The DNA and other evidence -- all highly inconclusive, implicating many other Jefferson family males. These underhanded attempts to skew the language with half truths to make it seem that DNA only points to Jefferson needs to stop. We discussed this and agreed with not mentioning other historians. Yopienso came up with a version that was not misleading and stable and it went into the lede so we should have a version that reflects that as was done simply by adding one word: Inconclusive. Apparently the editor who just changed the lede has something against making clear statements. -- Gwillhickers 19:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And again: The DNA tests were conclusive. They conclusively excluded the Carrs. They conclusively pointed to a Jefferson. Claiming they are inconclusive is wrong and misleading. If there had been no connection to Jefferson, that would have been an inconclusive result (because the male line might have been broken in any of the subsequent generation by an illegitimate father). What they don't do by themselves is to absolutely implicate "the" Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. The DNA evidence was inconclusive in terms of singling out Thomas Jefferson, and this is the Jefferson biography. Making efforts to not make this fact clear is underhanded and frankly is getting pretty creepy. Yopienso came up with a lede that while not mentioning other historians, made this point very clear. If you have a problem with inconclusive then kindly replace it with the clause that Yopienso had originally included: ...although the DNA results do not exclude other possible fathers. -- Why are you so opposed to making this fact clear for the readers? -- Gwillhickers 22:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The DNA evidence points to the Jefferson male line, and the great mass of other evidence points to Thomas Jefferson himself. Why are you protesting this point so much? Wait, I am remembering your racist comment about black staffers being obviously biased. I think you need to stand down on this issue: you are unable to contribute neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The "great mass of other evidence" points to other males also, and I've already addressed your par-time concern for so called racist remarks and have explained the racial bias that is evident from black staffers at TJF...not because they are black but because of their history and involvements, so keep banging on your tin pot if that's what you think it takes to get over in this debate. Btw, in edit history you claimed "the DNA testing was conclusive regarding the Jefferson male line", so this is essentially what I've added. -- Gwillhickers 06:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I think you're not understanding that it is the circumstantial evidence and the DNA testing combined that point to TJ. I'm basing this on the fact that you twice changed the plural "have" to "has." Evidence and testing together form a plural subject that must take a plural verb. We are not saying the DNA testing alone points to TJ. The DNA testing points to a Jefferson, and the other circumstantial evidence points to Thomas Jefferson. Together, they make a case strong enough to convince the majority of mainstream modern scholars that TJ fathered at least one child by Hemings and likely all of her children. Yopienso (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the claim, the mantra even, that 'taken together the evidence points to Jefferson', which of course is an opinion not shared by everyone, and I suspect maybe not even by "most". We don't know for sure, all we have is some high visibility web sites and maybe a couple of authors making the claim, patting themselves on the back no less. I've just recently addressed Schulz's comments on the evidence above. In any case we need to be clear about the evidence if we are going to have commentary at all in the lede for this topic so I'll replace the clause that you were good enough to include originally. TDOL made a similar edit not too long ago, and this is the way it was (+ -) for the longest time until recently. -- Gwillhickers 06:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortened the clause Yopienso included, simply saying that "...DNA testing implementing several Jefferson related males...".

Shultz, once again thanks for your last edit (and the grammar lesson). Now that we have commentary for this one issue in place, with "most modern historians", and "politically opposed", and DNA (a lot of details guys) I'm hoping we can get some rest and move on to more enjoyable things. TDOL, this last round of debate started when you added "inconclusive". Though I agreed with your edit I gotta tell you, I'm a little bit disappointed with your hit and run style. Not a peep from you the entire time. You should have stood by your edit and faced the music. -- Gwillhickers 18:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Position on slavery

In the spirit of compromise I thought I could live with how the lede, now, presents Jefferson's position on slavery, but I can't. We are glossing over Jefferson's feelings about slavery entirely. Just saying he was only "politically opposed" borders on weasel wording. Jefferson wrote at length about his moral feelings about slavery, saying it "degraded slave and master alike". This is a moral conviction. He also spoke out against slavery at a very early age. The clause he had included in the original draft of the DOI also more than confirms such convictions. There are scores of letters where he expressed his moral feelings about slavery. We should remove "politically" and simply make the plain statement i.e. opposed slavery as the lede did all along up until recently. The body of the text already establishes his moral position and is well sourced:

Although a slave owner, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and master.[194]
Jefferson was opposed to slavery during his youth, a conviction that became greater throughout his life.[22][200][201]

The lede should summarize, accurately, what the article says. -- Gwillhickers 01:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your racist remark of 4 October ("all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF") eroded your authority at this article. You cannot hold this article hostage with POV templates or never-ending talk page discussions that cover the same territory over and over. Let it slide, man. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bink, there was nothing racist about my remark, pointing to someone else who has proven to be racially biased himself with a long history of racially divisive remarks. This is what runs the TJF today, and all you are doing is bending over saying, 'thank you sir, may I have another'? You need to give up your par-time phoney indignation and address the topics fairly. As I intimated earlier, even if I were this racist you're so ever ready to accept, and I am not, sir, thank you, the points I raised still stand on their own ground regardless and are obviously what has you banging on your tin pot once again instead of squaring off with the ideas put on the table. Jefferson expressed a moral conviction against slavery his entire life. The lede should reflect this and what the body of the text also says. Sorry Bink buddy. The 20th century is long gone. You're going to have to do more than cry wolf to turn heads here in the 21st century. Kindly keep your cheap remarks off the talk page and use it for its intended purpose if you are capable. -- Gwillhickers 04:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The secondary sources I have read disagree. Jefferson opposed slavery in the abstract. In the concrete, he participated in the system and profited from it. Over time, he became increasingly less vocal about his opposition to slavery. And at least [200] does not support your claim. I don't have the other two sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 22 is available in Google book form, missing important passages, of course. Search for "slavery" and start on p. 142. It explains TJ's participation in slavery; the blurb supports my claim of his ambivalence puzzling or baffling scholars.

Source 200--On p. 997, Peterson shows what he calls a delusional Jefferson supporting, in 1820, the extension of slavery "because by spreading them over a larger surface their happiness would be increased, and the burden of thier future liberation lightened by bringing a greater number of shoulders under it." (The copyright date is wrong in the note--it was 1970.)

Monticello.org says, "Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed." It also says, "Although Jefferson continued to advocate for abolition, the reality was that slavery was only becoming more entrenched." And then it goes on about his belief blacks and whites could never live in the same society. Yopienso (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the paradox is evident. Jefferson was outspoken against slavery from his youth, put such sentiment into the DOI, (not exactly "abstract" opposition) yet on the other hand he profited, which by itself doesn't translate into support. If anything, the fact that he was politically opposed to it is more of an abstract idea than his moral opposition -- esp since he took little political action against slavery while he was president, though he was up against a congress that largely supported it. There is no question that he struggled with the idea in the moral realm. Perhaps the lede should read:

Though Jefferson owned slaves he was morally opposed to slavery but did little politically to abolish the institution.

It just seems the present lede statement doesn't peg the idea, morally or politically, very well. Thoughts? Btw, the details about ending the international slave trade and blocking slavery from the Northwest Territory should not be in the lede, either. -- Gwillhickers 15:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Profession" in infobox

Also decided I couldn't stand the oxymoronic "amateur architect" as a profession any longer. I would be pleased to list "lawyer, planter, ~~diplomat~~ statesman" and would even agree to including "architect." But after so very much squabbling, to have to look at Profession: amateur __________ (anything), I think it's easier to simply avoid the category. Neither Washington nor Adams have a profession listed. (Madison and Monroe do.) Yopienso (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "amateur" architect is sort of academic. Ben Franklin was a self taught scientist yet discovered electricity and experimented with it like no other contempoary. No one called him an "amateur" scientist. Same with Da Vinci. We are using 20-21st century phraseology to define someone who was ahead of his time in the field of architecture. -- Gwillhickers 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The term amateur has acquired a connotation of being inferior, but that is not its original meaning. Da Vinci and Franklin were amateurs, so were Darwin and Einstein. Olympic athletes are amateurs. TFD (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Olympic athletes are modern day entities so referring to them as amateurs is appropriate and reflects the standards of the time period in which they live. Jefferson, et al, were not considered amateurs because there was no 'professional establishment' for their fields of study in their day and were among the leaders in their field of study. Many artists and musicians, even today, are considered professional, having never gone to a school for art or music and receiving a diploma. Are all the many listed artists and musicians here at wikipedia referred to as amateurs? In Jefferson's day, he was not considered an amateur, so we should not anachronistically refer to him as such with 20-21st century labels. I seriously doubt any reader or historian coming to the page is going to look at the infobox and say 'hey!'. Those are my thoughts. I'm not going to push it any further because we had a long discussion and established a consensus. Just asking for a reconsideration as I believe Yopienso has done. -- Gwillhickers 17:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Round and round we go. We had a hard-fought compromise. Jefferson was not a professional architect and would have been surprised if someone referred to him as such. As before, I prefer "lawyer, planter, politician", leaving his hobby horses like science and architecture for the main text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(Insert) Yes, round and round indeed. I'm okay with the profession filed as it is, but I must say, you're downplaying matters entirely here. Designing landmark buildings, Washington DC's infrastructure, etc sort of takes the profession out of the realm of "hobby". Ya' think? A hobby is something you do to amuse yourself, like collecting stamps or butterflies. As soon as you do something for the benefit of people, society, government it becomes a practice or profession. Calling the practice a "hobby" is a gross distortion. -- Gwillhickers 23:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to go at it again; see my reasoning above, where I've struck "diplomat" and replaced it with "statesman." Statesman at once includes politician and diplomat and elevates both to the level TJ occupied. Yopienso (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea - I like the statesman idea! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, I didn't realize you had the intention of removing the profession field entirely. If you are going to use the Washington and Adams articles as justification for its exclusion then I'll use all the other president's articles as a reason for its inclusion, esp since Jefferson had several noteworthy professions. I have no problem with using statesman instead of diplomat, but let's get more than a pat on the back from one or two editors before we make that change also. -- Gwillhickers 23:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

Would you agree to "Statesman, Planter, Lawyer"? That would be my first choice. Second would be "Statesman, Planter, Lawyer, Architect." Third would be "Statesman, Planter." Fourth would be those same 2 or 3 or 4 designations rearranged in any different order.

I'm not trying to belittle TJ's architectural skills; I just can't bear the "amateur" part, which I realize was included out of the best of intentions as a compromise. Yopienso (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "Statesman, Planter, Polymath" (he gave up the law practice early on), Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. TJ was certainly a polymath, but I don't think "polymath" is a profession, though. Yopienso (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, polymath isn't a profession, not unless you're certified in 'polymathism' (ho ho). I think we're sort of getting into a tunnel vision approach here. We should just list the professions, or 'practices' in the one case if you prefer, and let the readers just assimilate the facts for themselves. Facts come first, opinions are a dime a dozen. -- Gwillhickers 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I just added the POV tag to the article. Many weeks were once devoted to making the article neutral and fair and all the way up until recently the article, and the lede, was basically neutral and reflected both significant views, so there was a consensus to begin with. There has been no discussion or consensus to add all the details that were recently added to the lede about Hemings. This has taken the article completely backwards and snubs all the editors who spent time discussing these matters to make the article fair and neutral. -- Gwillhickers 23:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No discussion? No consensus? Both of those assertions are dead wrong. Discussion has taken many kilobytes, and consensus is clearly against you. At this point you have decided to tag the article with a badge of shame simply because you have not been able to convince others of your position. Such an action is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no discussion to load up the lede with all the details you dumped into it a few days ago. There was a consensus and many weeks of discussion in 2012 to make the article neutral and it remained so up until recently until another editor with an obvious axe to grind skewed the DNA statement to make it read that DNA evidence only pointed to Jefferson. Don't ya' just love the honesty? If you want to get an in depth consensus we can always call for a poll. It is allowed if handled correctly. The "badge of shame" comment I suspect is just more of your par-time indignation that only comes to life when you can't address the actual points while you turn the other cheek when someone tries to brand opposing sources as written by "old white men". There shouldn't be any commentary and lengthy coverage for any one topic in the lede in the first place, but if we're going to have it then it should be fair and neutral. The commentary at present is the whole truth. i.e.most historians, and evidence that also points to other potential fathers. If you can live with that we can remove the tag. If not, then we can slug this out the hard way. I know there are plenty of other editors around that want fairness and neutrality for this article because this issue has reared its pointed little head several times before you came along and repeated history. -- Gwillhickers 09:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwhillickers, the unfortunate fact is that the historical community has accepted a view which you for whatever reason disagree. This is not the place to correct historians however. TFD (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwilhickers' modest proposal is to acknowledge for WP editors here that there is no such thing as your imaginary "historical community" in a class-conscious monolith; there is controversy over this point regarding Jefferson's slave children which is still unsettled. My previous point is, this straining at parentage in the lede is WP editor as the puppy in tall grass, lost in the weeds of detail, inappropriate to the introduction.

BTW, you may enjoy the Booknotes 9/21/13 with Henry Wiencek on his "Master of the Mountain". He pointedly refuses to label Jefferson a "hypocrite" in the talk and Q and A, Wiencek only observes a transition descriptively from pre-1790 emancipator Jefferson to post 1790 justifier Jefferson. He makes no reference to "a preponderance of historians", only refers to specific schools of thought and individual scholars, just as one might expect from a serious historian -- if you will pardon the expression.

It seems without entrepreneurial, industrial, financial or commercial genius, the South required some sort of independent basis of wealth to balance the sections in the republic. The unmechanized monoculture of tobacco, cotton, rice or indigo could not compete with diverse mechanized agriculture in the north, so the sole source of independent wealth in the South was --- slavery. At the loss of slavery, I suppose the antidote was to be found in the post-Civil War entrepreneurship, industrialism, financiers and commerce of the "New South", with a dose of political, economic and social justice by the end of the 20th century. But it aint over yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A person's parentage, marriage or significant other and children is typically included in ledes of biographical articles. No allegation is made in that Jefferson was hypocritical. Your offbeat views on South vs North have no relevance to the discussion.

Wiencek btw is a journalist not an historian and his book was published by the popular press and was widely panned by historians. Regardless, whether or not he comments on what weight should be assigned to various views, the policy of neutrality requires that we make that determination.

TFD (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TDF you tip your hand on several accounts as to your knowledge of basic American history and regarding the value of particular sources like Wieneck and historians altogether -- not a monolithic entity by any means. The economic situation in the south was indeed as TVH has articulated well and while it certainly doesn't justify slavery it does explain why it persisted and many attempts were made to better the livelihood of slaves in the USA as was evidenced by Jefferson and many others like them, unlike slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean where the life expectancy of slaves was only seven years. Re:Your (yet another attempt) to shoot the messenger (Wieneck) rather than point out any factual errors in his work, I can only ask you to adhere to such standards when you blindly go along with high visibility politically/peer driven sources like PBS, TJF, etc who don't attribute their work, claims, to any author, much less a historian. You're partially correct about one thing, that a person's biography should mention the wife or significant other but you're trying to stretch this idea to include theory and rumor far from proven -- to the point where it should even get commentary. -- Gwillhickers 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The TFD "offbeat views" on South v. North bases of wealth in my post are those of Wiencek, although I find "slavery" as the South's basis of wealth a plausible thesis, not TFD "offbeat". Wiencek purports Jefferson parentage of Hemmings children not only Jefferson-family, but Jefferson-personally, as does Annette Gordon-Reed --- which I disagree with as a certainty, as male DNA tracks to males in a family, no matter who wears the biggest hat in TFDs eyes. Now TFD holds Annette Gordon-Reed as "offbeat" on the subject (?), and we are back into the weeds where the introduction should not go. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That the basis of wealth in the South was slavery is accurate, the "offbeat" comment is about the other things TVH historian said that the South was not entrepreneurial and could not compete with the North. Regardless it has nothing to do with whether or not Jefferson had illegitimate children. TVH, it is not up to us to evaluate the reasons why historians have come to their conclusions, that is better left to Southern heritage discussion groups. We just report what they say in accordance with the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Weincek savaged TJ and was taken to task for it my Gordon-Reed and Stanton. Yopienso (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to see TFD savage Wiencek, I really thought he would enjoy the Book TV presentation, as Wiencek had his best foot forward for the cameras. TFD has a contrarian career ahead of him for a lifetime to demonstrate to a preponderance of historians that the antebellum South out-competed the North in any metric but slavery and slave-produced monoculture...and mules v. horses, maybe. Nice to have another fringe niche, I suppose, let a thousand flowers bloom... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not "savage" the book, I merely said it was non-academic and widely panned by historians. And the South had a thriving economy and presented a serious challenge to the North, which had to rely on protectionism to encourage economic development. 75% of U.S. exports came from the South. TFD (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And now you must determine from your own fringe explorations whether those Southern exports were in any way related to slave labor monoculture. It seems I cannot help you in this as in other things. The "thriving" you speak of was percentage growth up from previous poverty, at a slower rate of increase. It was, as David McClelland at Harvard explained in The Achieving Society, a cultural thing. That retarded Southern growth and allowed the North to advance at faster rates of growth to proportionately ever greater dominance in every field of endeavor but slavery. Without expansion of slavery the South's economy was doomed in a democracy as it supported relatively fewer population in ever diminishing proportion.

In the case of Virginians, an escaped slave blacksmith in Massachusetts invented the toggle harpoon, McCormick invented the mechanical reaper, the Assembly would not charter his manufacturing company, he relocated to Chicago. In the case of Georgia, Whitney could not get his cotton gin patent protection enforced on plantations, so he removed to New England to begin mass production of weaponry (see Civil War for unintended consequences). etc., etc. and so on and on ... in the face of reactionary slave-power adverse to any improvement for any purpose ... Virginian Edmund Ruffin vainly calling for application of guano to restore exhausted tobacco soils and his business attempts thwarted, opposing French transplant Crozet, former engineer for Napoleon and his calling as chief state engineer for a future of railroads instead of the canals merely reinforcing existing river-planter dominance ... pick a state, any antebellum Southern state ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I said, "the basis of wealth in the South was slavery". No idea how you read that as saying southern exports were unrelated to slavery. Perhaps you support that minority view[3] that Southern slavery was a pre-capitalist institution, and the South was a Gone with the Wind society, with ladies and gentleman lacking in enterprise. TFD (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You were very good to concede when confronted, that the basis of wealth in the South was slavery. But then you said southern economy was "thriving" based on aggregate economic data -- for your ladies and gentlemen of local power in a Moon-and-Magnolias fantasy -- regardless of the overwhelmingly impoverished majorities of slaves and poor white populations surrounding them. You have a habit of ignoring people in your fixation on places.

Certainly plantations were a form of capitalism, pernicious, immoral, AND they were relatively unsuccessful for the societies which allowed slavery to persist, both in absolute and in relative economic terms for their communities. For an alternative capitalist-plantation model of monoculture, see the English corporate cattle ranches in Texas. The slave owners in the South increasingly through the 1800s invested in Northern and English industry to finance their in-town living such as Richmond or Charleston SC. The evidence is that overseers in their absence maintained a more oppressive regime than plantations with on-site masters, and such was the case during Jefferson's absence at Monticello, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not "concede" anything, I corrected your misrepresentation of what I wrote. Your statement that the planters invested in the North does not support your belief that the plantation system was unprofitable. Where did they get the money to invest? That they did not provide an equitable distribution of wealth does not mean they were unprofitable. TFD (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I said the South was not relatively or absolutely entrepreneurial as the North, not as widespread, to the degree, or as successful as the North by either distribution of wealth or by aggregate profits – for unchallenged compounding decades. TFD direct quotes: And the South had a thriving economy and presented a serious challenge to the North… way too fringe to be taken seriously, and That they did not provide an equitable distribution of wealth does not mean they were unprofitable. But the profit to a narrow few had consequences. It so exhausted the soil that it beggared the remaining populations who then migrated to less oppressive regimes, over 50% migrating from antebellum Virginia went to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, another 40% to Kentucky and Missouri. Virginia, the largest Southern state slips from fifth to seventeenth in state ranking. Your analysis improves if you were to look beyond elites at the people, the masses, whatever.

Lift your gaze from the moonshine and magnolias surrounding stately mansions for a moment to see that very big houses built on loans secured by slave collateral was no challenge to Northern economic dominance, however profitable for a generation or two a plantation might be. Most plantation families lasted in a homeplace no more than three generations before the land was so exhausted that it was good only for empoverished tenancy by poor whites left behind. Monticello was no exception. Numerous Union diaries comment on the equivalent life-style of the poor white and slave throughout the South, in some cases poor whites suffered in the comparison.

It might help in your analysis if you distinguish between capitalist versus entrepreneurial, commodity transport versus diverse commerce, financial indebtedness versus capital accumulation, agricultural colonialism versus industrial independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of holding on to views that you have adopted without reflection, then searching for evidence to support them, you should suspend your beliefs and read mainstream sources through unbiased eyes. If you want to think that Gone with the Wind is a history book, that slave owners were aristocrats running feudal estates, or that capitalism always ensures equality of outcome, that is fine, but please discuss it with someone else. TFD (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD has a fixation on "Gone with the Wind" without regard to mainstream economic analysis of historical contexts. More TFD imaginary America, compounded with TFD responding to imaginary posts on WP. I have said nothing of the kind related to feudalism, but pointed out TFDs narrow pedantic capitalist analysis as the one dimensional elitist pap that it is, resulting in a TFD fringe conclusion that the South was economically competitive with the North over the antebellum period.

TFD: "And the South had a thriving economy and presented a serious challenge to the North…" which is patent nonsense, TFD ignoring slaves and poor whites in the elite's surrounding community, just as long as his favorite fixations had large white mansions on their plantations. The South had NO challenge to the North on any metric not directly related to the economic colonialism asserted by the British and Northern mills over the South's slave-based cotton commodity. They were NOT William Byrd's "masters unto themselves" as Biblical patriarchs or TFD's GWTW.

Forget the pretty ionic pillars. Look around at the people at the time and in the place, and compare them to the people in the North, both white populations were 85% engaged in farming...which economic regime brought greater prosperity and supported larger numbers? The North did -- without any substantive challenge from the South as TFD might imagine (apart from Richmond or New Orleans with substantial free black populations) . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

TVH, you're starting to sound like Gwillhickers.

The South's cotton was essential to northern manufacturing. The Union imported cotton even during the Civil War. I don't have the time now to dig out the texts I studied in an upper level Civil War course, but Economy of the Confederate States of America says, "Ironically, the largest amount of cotton exports went to the United States." The source would require a subscription, but it's well cited. Here's a webpage. Yopienso (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes cotton was exported from the south, your source is correct, and unchallenged by me. And TFD is correct, the scholarly contribution of Marxist scholars such as the Genovese’s introduced the notion of slave plantations as proto-capitalist enterprises of the extractive sort. I acknowledge Marxist contributions, so TFD says I adopt GWTW as historiography, but of course TFD is not serious here or elsewhere, only disruptive.

Non-marxist business analysis now counts four factors of production: 1) entrepreneur management of an ongoing business, 2) labor and their technologies fabricating goods or delivering services, 3) capital accumulation and financial investment and 4) resources including land and raw materials. TFD discounts entrepreneurship which would conduct an ongoing business, innovate labor practice, grow capital in local banks, and preserve the land as was done in the North.

The South allows itself to become economically a commodity colony of the North and Britain for self-seeking local elites. Its narrowly constrained wealth is extractive in nature, exhausting the soil within sixty years at each plantation -- so the South’s “capitalism” is not an ongoing enterprise as it was practiced in the antebellum North. Northern diverse farms produced greater absolute wealth, and in the event of the Civil War its exports of wheat during the Continental drought of the 1860s trumped the dollar valuation of a Southern cotton export which was simply substituted by Egyptian and Indian cotton. There are exports and exports.

Jefferson went to wheat, innovating labor practices, calling on slave use of complicated machinery versus rolling hogsheads of tobacco, including maintenance and fabrication of wagons, etc., and so actually demonstrating the humanity, self-reliance -- free-ability (?) -- of his slaves...but that is another post. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

IOW it required entrepreneurship to run a small farm in the north but none to run a huge plantation in the South. And the success of an entrepreneur is not measured by how much wealth he accumulates, but on how wealth is distributed among everyone in society. Incidentally, it was a Marxist view that the South was not capitalist. Just as with Puerto Rico, you are arguing a left-wing theory and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being left-wing. (Marxists excluded the South because by their definition of capitalism, labor must be paid. True, their definition of capitalism, which they shared with 19th century liberals, did not include entrepreneurship, but that is not relevant here.) TFD (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Extractive profit-making is not entrepreneurship. Hence the Dutch commercial empire surpassed the Spanish extractive empire.
Distribution of wealth-creating enterprise is a measure of a regions entrepreneurship. The South cannot be characterized as entrepreneurial as a region, the example of Richmond notwithstanding. The South offered no TFD “challenge” to Northern economic supremacy; no scholar says it did.
Jefferson had no plantation in Puerto Rico. Marxists today deny Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. as does TFD, a fringe unsourced position which is contradicted by USG primary, USG secondary and modern scholarly sources from political scientists and constitutional scholars.
Eugene Genovese is widely regarded as a Marxist scholar who did not agree with Marx in all things, as he characterized plantations as proto-capitalist versus feudal. That is the nature of scholarship, it advances even within a school of thought.

Southern plantations had a form of capitalism which we are agreed to, but profit alone is not entrepreneurship as I explained in the last post by using non-Marxist analysis... Plantation cotton -- narrowly held -- did not make the South as entrepreneurial as the North, nor as industrial with plantation cotton gins the size of barns, the chosen plantation regime did not make the region as prosperous, nor did the South “challenge” the North in any substantive economic way.

TFD is not so much leftist though he objects to conservatives as disruptive and he dismisses rightist think tanks. He may be more a moonshine and magnolias fringe, asserting Texas and Puerto Rico can lawfully secede from the Union, arguing brown-skinned islanders can never be included in the American federal republic though now mutually citizens represented in Congress, etc.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not usually one to shut down a discussion, but are you sure that you are still contributing to improving the article? I have the feeling this has drifted quite a bit, and not always into a useful direction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's plantation, Jefferson's territories

Thanks for your support. My points being, 1) Jefferson's slaves suffered more during his absence, 2) Monticello failed as an ongoing enterprise during his lifetime (debt is not capital accumulation), and 3) Jefferson's plantation-slavery regime exhausted the soil and so contributed to the Virginia and the South's economic decline in absolute terms of wealth beggaring the surrounding poor white majorities, and relative to 85% Northern population on free labor farms. I also have an interest in how population migrations alter the course of history and how the US expanded its territory. So one of my contributions to the Jefferson article is the narrative section at “States admitted to the Union”.

A related thread refers to Jefferson’s view of citizenship and incorporation into the U.S. first as a territory, then as a state. Jefferson was on the congressional committee negotiating Virginia’s cession of its claim to the Northwest Territory. He made a contribution as chair of the articles congressional committee to provide for the subsequent admission of states through stages of territorial U.S. citizenship, presidential then self-government, territorial delegate, “Member of Congress”, petition for statehood and Congressional admission.

Key to making Louisiana a state and securing New Orleans away from any Spanish claim was as international law requires, settlement of populations of citizens to establish the U.S. claim. Instead of a basis of English Common law, one of the reasons for Louisiana maintaining the Code Napoleon to this day was the requirement as Jefferson saw it for French citizen residents to mutually become U.S. citizens. New Orleans Territory achieved self-government and territorial representation in Congress in the same manner as proto-states in the Northwest Territories.

So historians say the Louisiana Territory was incorporated into the United States, regardless of its controversial antecedents under international law as a transfer from Spanish to French to U.S. administration. The section on Louisiana Purchase should be expanded to include some of these considerations, especially as they have modern application. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Image

OK, I couldn't stand that ugly picture of an old, grim TJ. I tried to use this one, but didn't know the proper formatting, so an unwanted title also appears. I would appreciate it if someone would fix it. I'm OK with the one Nickelfan removed on 13 Oct., too. The colors are better, but this one is facing left, which looks better in its right-hand position. Both were done in 1805, halfway through TJ's presidency, which I think is appropriate since he is mainly known as the 3rd POTUS. (Yes, he would have a WP article even had he not been POTUS, but wouldn't be as well known today.) Yopienso (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't exactly crazy about the prior picture myself, with TJ's forehead all lite up and while the lower half of his face looking like he just finished eating a chocolate fudge cake, almost. The current picture is better, but I think the one that was there for the longest time is the best. -- Gwillhickers 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)-- Gwillhickers

I've removed the unwanted title (by the simple method of removing it from the image link ;-). I have no particular preference for one image or another. Standard formatting advice is to have the subject look towards the text, so by that criterion, the current image is ok. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Stephan. Yopienso (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The old image of him, the one that was there until a few weeks ago, is the best one. It's a great-looking painting and the most realistic looking. It's also probably the most famous picture of Jefferson, so there's also that. Plus, it is his presidential portrait. 158.83.86.110 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposition for lede

Jefferson opposed slavery all his life in his speeches and writing, but he took little political action to emancipate slaves. He owned hundreds of slaves himself, and freed only a very few of them. Since the beginning of his career, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship Jefferson had with his slave, Sally Hemings. Inconclusive DNA investigations and circumstantial evidence have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. Yopienso (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, while I do appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground I ask you at this point to step back and take a good look at the amount of text we are devoting to Hemings -- more than slavery itself, an established fact. (!) Having said that I can go along with your proposal for now until we can better the lede in accord with the convention used for most biographies per consensus. However, I would scale down a couple details that are well covered in the section:

Jefferson opposed slavery all his life but took little political action to emancipate slaves. He owned hundreds of slaves himself, and freed only a few of them. Since the beginning of his career, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship Jefferson had with his slave, Sally Hemings. Inconclusive DNA and other circumstantial evidence have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children.

There's no mention of other historians, but your language is well enough and indirectly reflects their views. If you add this version to the lede, which is the way it was (+ -) all along, you'll get no objections from me. -- Gwillhickers 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but the evidence is that one of Jefferson's family fathered one or more of Heming's children, and Jefferson circumstantially one of them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's covered in the article, TVH.

GW, thanks for the collegial reply. I think we should show the difference between TJ's words and actions, which could be done by inserting one word into your abridgment: Jefferson verbally opposed slavery all his life but took little political action to emancipate slaves."

The DNA evidence conclusively linked Hemings' children to a Jefferson, but not to TJ. I think the article covers that OK. Will wait for more input here. Yopienso (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(Insert) Saying "verbally opposed" would suggest, esp to naysayers with their minds half made up, that Jefferson was all talk an no action. He made notable attempts to abolish slavery, starting with the clause he included in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This clause was stricken before the DOI was finalized and sent on to his kingship in England. Jefferson blasted the king for introducing slavery to the colonies. He also proposed abolishing slavery in all territories to the west after 1800 in his draft of the Land Ordinance of 1784, that provision was stricken by Congress.-- Gwillhickers 04:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you can say the DNA evidence was inconclusive, which would mean that anyone could have been the father. The term "circumstantial evidence" is a little misleading, since circumstantial evidence is the only kind that can prove paternity. TFD (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you suggest we say? 'Conclusive evidence'? If the evidence was conclusive, there would be no controversy. As is common knowledge with anyone half familiar with this topic, the DNA evidence pointed to more than 20 other males in the Jefferson family, per Y chromosome handed down through the male line, most notably Randolph. The other circumstantial evidence is just that. Circumstantial -- all of which applies to other males, including times of conception, as Jefferson was frequently surrounded by family members when he was around. Please familiarize yourself with what reliable sources have to say before you make attempts at throwing a monkey wrench into the discussion. -- Gwillhickers 04:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Your argument that Randolph was a frequent visitor of Monticello is inaccurate. Randolph was an infrequent visitor of Monticello. His letters to his brother provide proof of this. ^[1]Both Winthrop Jordan and Annette Gordon-Reed have produced extensive timelines of Jefferson's movements to and fro to Monticello, which circumstantially happen to coincide with "all" of Hemings' conception dates. Please provide sources for your statements about Randolph, or other Jefferson relatives visitations to Monticello. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephan, this: Some historians maintain that the evidence does not exclude other possible fathers is an improvement, but is not real accurate. I think all historians realize the DNA results do not exclude other possible fathers. Even more accurately, the DNA results don't (and can't) pinpoint Thomas Jefferson as the father. It may be better to leave off the first words, The DNA evidence does not exclude other possible fathers.

Which leads to my newest suggestion:

Jefferson verbally opposed slavery all his life but achieved little toward the emancipation of slaves. He worked hundreds of slaves, yet freed only two. Since the beginning of his career, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship he had with his slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children, although the DNA results do not exclude other possible fathers. Yopienso (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the DNA evidence was conclusive because scientists were able to conclusively match the DNA of a member of Jefferson's family with a descendant of Hemings. Had it been inconclusive, they would not have been able to do that. If you disagree, please provide a source. TFD (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There is more evidence than the DNA evidence. There is the timing of the birth, the special treatment of the children, the fact that the children looked like Jefferson (to the degree that the similarity with a Jefferson statue was pointed out by strangers), and there is the oral history of the Hemings family. Before the DNA study, the only fathers seriously considered were Jefferson or the Carrs. Nobody had included any other Jefferson in the calculation, because really no evidence points to them even now unless one excludes Thomas by assumption. So I think the difference is really between the large majority that think the overall evidence overwhelmingly points to Jefferson, and a small minority that maintains that there are other possibilities (and that often point to Jeffersons moral standing and integrity to rule him out). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Insert : Times of conception: Sally was around -all the time- because she lived at Monticello. Jefferson was around often (not rarely) because this was also his home. Had Monticello been a place that neither Jefferson or Hemings went to often, then, the times of conception evidence would have more weight, and even there, it would be far from conclusive. We've been through this. Appearances: Didn't Jefferson's brother Randolph look like Thomas? What about Randolph's sons? Any of them could have produced children that resembled Thomas and Randolph. We've been through this. Oral History: What about the oral history of the Easton Hemings who claimed Randolph was his father? We've been through this also. There is not one shred of evidence that exclusively points to Jefferson. Btw, 200 year old "oral history" isn't exactly evidence either way. All we have is a lot of racially and/or politically motivated wishful thinking based on sketchy evidence to make Jefferson their political poster boy simply because he was a US president -- and because he owned slaves they feel it's okay to lie about matters if they have to. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And we have been here before, too. 4 of the 6 confirmed children of Hemings were conceived while Jefferson was Vice President or President. Especially during the later 8 years, he spend a large proportion of his time in Washington, living in the White House. But he always went back to Monticello in time for Hemings conceptions. As for the rest: Have you finally read Gordon-Reed's American Controversy? My offer stands - let me know an address (in private - my email is enabled), and I'll have Amazon ship you a copy at my expense. I think we do agree on one point: There is indeed a lot of racially and/or politically motivated wishful thinking in this affair - and has been for 200 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Schulz, you never cease to amaze me. That is a most generous offer. Yes, Jefferson came and went while in office, however, every time he returned he was surrounded by family and friends who always showed up when he returned. I don't need Reed's book to confirm this, it's pretty much common knowledge as the topic goes. After all the accusations and newspaper scandals Jefferson went through about Hemings, I just don't see him coming back to Montecello, around all of those people, friends and family no less, and doing what Callander accused him of, esp while he was POTUS. That would have been reckless and foolish and highly uncharacteristic of Jefferson. In any case, we should be very clear about DNA evidence if we are going to have commentary in the lede at all. -- Gwillhickers 08:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because you 'don't see him coming back to Montecello, around all of those people, friends and family no less, and doing what Callander accused him of, esp while he was POTUS?,' does not make it factual? What you are describing are feelings, nothing more. Feelings are not based in fact, but in emotion. People risk things all the time. Especially politicians. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I admire your passion. I just hope you'd employ it with a better understanding (where "better" = "more like mine", of course ;-). As I wrote above, Callender's accusation fizzled because it was "not news". Southern planters taking concubines, even quite publicly, simply was a routine event. Both Sally Hemings' mother and grandmother lived in quite open relationships with their respective white partners/masters/common-law husbands. In the case of Hemings' mother, Betty Hemings, that partner was Jefferson's father in law. Sally's sister Mary Hemings lived openly in a common-law marriage with Thomas Bell, who bought her from Jefferson. And, from a slightly later period, Mary Boykin Chesnut wrote "Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines; and the mulattoes one sees in every family partly resemble the white children. Any lady is ready to tell you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household but her own. Those, she seems to think, drop from the clouds." Maybe take another angle. If Jefferson had real feelings for Hemings, would he refrain from that love simply for fear of scandal? Especially when he already knew from personal and family experience that this kind of scandal was, at most, a minor inconvenience? What kind of craven coward do you take him for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you're grossly downplaying the scandal. It hit the newspapers just before Jefferson ran for president, so I think he did more than blink. Then for him, as a standing President with the eyes of the nation, his family and friends (he had many and important ones) upon him, to turn around and go to Monticello, of all places, and have affairs that produced two more children would have been reckless and foolhardy. Seems to me if there was any feelings of love for Hemings, esp if she was the mother of TJ's children, he would have freed her also. -- Gwillhickers 18:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The scandal "hit the newspapers" like an eiderdown feather hits a anvil. Despite the story, Jefferson beat the incumbent President (who had beaten him 4 years earlier) with nearly two thirds of the popular vote. So again, it shows that the reports, while certainly not pleasant to Jefferson, did not have a major effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I suggest "Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing. Monticello.org is reliable on the DNA: as I just wrote above, "The DNA evidence conclusively linked Hemings' children to a Jefferson, but not to TJ." The case for TJ's paternity is convincingly strong, but not air-tight: there are other possibilities. Yopienso (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the introduction is now miscast through compounding contributions, as the paragraph on Jefferson's domestic life should have Martha and her children first, Sally and her children second. Jefferson did not relate to Sally or her children as he treated slavery elsewhere -- either on his plantations or in his politics -- the introduction should reflect that by putting his domestic relations with Martha and Sally apart from the slavery discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I just put Martha ahead of Sally, which is proper both chronologically and wrt their respective "ranks." I did not separate Sally from slavery since we had pared the slavery down to just a medium and a short sentence. Sally was a slave so I left the paragraph together. Let's see what develops . . . Yopienso (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am still not thrilled about commentary for one topic in the lede, the lede version now is better than I had expected. Thank you Yopienso and Schulz for not being rigid and completely unyielding. Schulz, as I said, I'm satisfied with the lede version but there's one point I would like to make clear. The DNA evidence was not conclusive in terms of singling out Thomas Jefferson -- it was conclusive in terms of narrowing down paternal candidates to only Jefferson male family matters. One last item, Jefferson did much more than 'talk' about slavery's end, so we should strike the word 'verbally' as again, this more than suggests that Jefferson only talked about ending slavery. While it can be argued that he didn't do enough, he nonetheless did much more than talk, he took action. Other than that, the lede looks okay. -- Gwillhickers 18:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Then please reinsert the clunkier "in his speeches and writing," which means the same thing. And you're welcome, and I appreciate your own flexibility. Yopienso (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly a "clunker", but it still doesn't reflect Jefferson's political actions. If we simply make the statement opposed slavery this imo is well enough. And let's not forget the lede still says he achieved little toward the emancipation of slaves and was criticized by many modern day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery. -- Gwillhickers 19:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DNA evidence is circumstantional. In fact all paternity evidence is circumstantial. TFD (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is. In Jefferson's case, there are so many gaps in the evidence that if the case was presented to a court of law it would never even make it to trial. -- Gwillhickers 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Facts in the lede

Just revised a statement in lede regarding position on slavery. It's an established fact that Jefferson opposed slavery on moral grounds but didn't accomplish a lot politically. There are plenty of sources that support these facts while there are also plenty of differing opinions regarding how 'sincere' he was, but the facts remain, that he did in fact make numerous statements, orally and in writing, opposing slavery throughout his life. Let's not confuse opinions with facts. -- Gwillhickers 11:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

TJF: Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life.

REBUTTAL: The site also says, Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. --Yopienso

Merwin, p.55: The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. T. Jefferson

REBUTTAL: Merwin quotes from the same book--Notes on the State of Virginia--in which TJ alleged African mated with orangutans and found blacks "inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body and mind." --Yopienso

id=4vrD1WKLicwC&dq=%22thomas+jefferson%22&q=moral#v=onepage&q=slavery&f=false Berstein, 2003, p.xi

REBUTTAL: "Jefferson's view of slavery was deeply conflicted . . ." p. xi. Jefferson always showed deep ambivalence about slavery. In theory, he opposed slavery as an offense against human beings' natural rights. And yet, for him, other issues entwined with slavery in ways that sapped his reforming energies. [. . .] For him, the racial differences separating whites and blacks were of overriding importance. Because, in his iew, those differences defined whites as superior and blacks as inferior, he believed that black could not be trusted with freedom. p. 40. --Yopienso

Peterson, 1960, p.188

REBUTTAL: Need I continue? Yopienso (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

( More sources forthcoming) -- Gwillhickers 12:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody who was "morally" against slavery would not have kept hundreds of slaves. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More of your 2+2=100 analysis? There were numerous considerations about just turning slaves free with no place to go, no food and means to care from themselves in a largely racist society, which, btw, most of the world was in those days. Jefferson and others wrote at length about these dilemmas, but apparently you know better than all the scholars who have articulated these points. Add : If this is the way you 'feel', why did you put the previous statement back in the lede? Jefferson's political opposition was inconsistent, unlike his moral opposition. It is a fact that he made moral objections throughout his life, and the sources say so. It is only your opinion that he was less than sincere, which I suspect you can't support other than with the sort of conjecture you used above. We must report the facts. -- Gwillhickers 13:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Slave owners who wished to free their slaves had to pay for their resettlement and of course they were not allowed to remain as freemen in Virginia. Even if they could, there would have been no employment for them. The fact that it was illegal to educate slaves, meant that most were illiterate. Emigration to Canada or Africa were not yet viable options. Jefferson helped to bring about the end of the transatlantic slave trade, which was an important action. His view was that slavery could be phased out. He could not have known that in 1840-1860, slavery would make a dramatic resurgence. TFD (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Although in practice, freed slaves could remain on their 'home' plantations, such as James Hemings at Monticello (1796), or later (1806) Lucy Jane Langston, freed mother of John Mercer Langston. Didn't one of Sally Heming's freed children migrate to Canada? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Binksternet's recent attempt to improve the troublesome paragraph. I think, though, that some of us thought the excellent points RJensen added were too detailed for the lede and more appropriate within the article. Gwillhickers linked to a July 11 version that I think is a good starting point. Should we restore it and work from there?

Historians disagree over how committed Jefferson was to the anti-slavery cause. Though he opposed the institution all his life in his speeches and writing, he took little political action to free slaves, owned hundreds of his own, and freed only a fraction of these in his will. Since 1802 historians have been divided over the controversy of whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello; though recent DNA evidence indicates a match between Hemings' descendants and Jefferson. Yopienso (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I would get rid of the modifier political as TJ freeing his own slaves would not have been a political act, at least not necessarily. Also, the DNA evidence is not presented in a vacuum; it indicates Jefferson because of the more usual historical evidence combined with the DNA evidence. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hemings Discussion needs to be shut down

I decided to visit this article after a two year absence. I see that Gwillhickers is still POV pushing and attempting to rewrite Jefferson's obituary, namely with regard to Sally Hemings. I'm an American History professor/historian at a well-known American University. I can tell you that, yes, most historians agree that it is highly likely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. It's not even controversial. My question is why is it controversial here? I'm a white male, but after seeing this debate languish on for years, I have to ask--is there some sort of racial purity agenda at work here beyond just legacy protection? No other figure in history has had to pass such stringent criteria for proof of paternity, even those who had children with mistresses. Excluding digging TJ up and disturbing his eternal resting place, I'm afraid this debate will continue. At some point the mods need to shut this discussion down. It's been going on for years and it's being fueled by one person. As for Sally Hemings being in the lead paragraph, I think it should remain. Just my opinion. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Apparently 'Joe bob' is on the attack. The debate ended days ago. The last debate before that was about Jefferson the architect. Up until recently there were many months that passed where there was no Hemings debate. Yet here you are in an obvious attempt to get one going again. What POV have I pushed? All I've ever done is insist on the fair representation of the facts and that they not be obscured, or replaced, by cherry-picked opinion. The fact that you feel the Hemings issue isn't controversial on your campus only echos what I've heard so often in that life on some campuses sort of exists in a bubble and when it comes to issues like this the faculty's heads are all stuck in the same jar. As I've outlined before, there are plenty of professors and historians from major universities and elsewhere that don't follow along with the PC, peer-driven, goose-stepping and have not jumped to conclusions on such sketchy evidence. To refresh your apparently selective memory, the debate here started a couple of years ago when the Hemings and slavery topics took up more than five pages of text with much of the language skewed. There was an overwhelming consensus to fix the problem and make the page neutral and it was accomplished, however there was a little back-sliding recently when attempts were made, once again, to render statements about DNA evidence to read as if it implicated T. Jefferson only. POV pushing indeed. I didn't initiate it that time either -- or now. No one has said anything in this debate for days, yet you come back, make personal attacks and then say the debate is fueled by one person. Unless you have specific things in mind for page improvement, please keep such tacky and hypocritical musings off the talk page. -- Gwillhickers 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Stating that this discussion needs to be shut down due to a particular POV pusher is not an attack. You have been POV pushing on this subject for several years now and unless my eyes deceive me, you have restarted the Heming's discussion above, specifically about Heming's in the lede. Consensus had already been reached, yet here you are again after two years, POV pushing on the same topics. My statements above is for the 'page's improvement." At some point the editors need to keep in mind that this has been happening for quite some time and it needs to stop. As for your statement about backsliding. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, Joe bob. I don't remember you, but I only came to this article in Jan. 2012. Seems longer. I've put your comment here where folks can easily find it and where it won't be quickly archived. Yopienso (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct on most points, but I wouldn't suggest a racial purity agenda. You do realize GWill has posted a pretty impressive list of historians who have not accepted the current consensus. (You can find my comment on that here.)

Thanks for moving. I haven't been here in a while. You can visit my talk page and see GWill's comments to me in 2011. As a historian I have to disagree. This is what I do for a living. This is all I do--research. These people are typically referred to in the historical community as "deniers," legacy protectors, or revisionists. Most respected historians agree, that in all likelihood, Jefferson fathered the Hemings' children. I could post a source list as long as my arm to this effect. Respectfully, people can find source material supporting just about any historical theory. It doesn't mean that theory is accurate. So I beg the question, why has this controversy continued for 2 years on this page? Consensus has already been reached in the historical community and on wikipedia. Perhaps GWill is hoping to wear people down after another two years. In another two years there will be a different round of editors. At some point this needs to stop. And I am sorry if this comes across as offensive, but the only reason I can think this continual line of POV pushing continues is some form of racial prejudice. It seems unfathomable to some that Jefferson could have a romantic relationship with someone of African-American heritage. These Hemings' debates need to end. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : You make a string of divisive statements and then say the debate has to stop in the same breath. This overwhelming consensus among historians, and here, is alleged and can't be proven. Consensus doesn't change the facts, which is apparently why you must refer to it as gospel. If it were true here there would have been no effort to fix the page in 2012 and before. I didn't do it by myself. Attaching labels like "deniers" and playing the race card are typical and divisive tactics used by those who can't carry the debate on a factual and rational basis and, by necessity, have to resort to such underhanded methods. 'Chicken Little' said the sky was falling. Naturally there were deniers. This is not a classroom where you apparently expect naive students to follow along. Again, if you have specific ideas in mind for page improvement please present them and keep your personal screeds confined to your own user page. -- Gwillhickers 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : I have a PhD in American History. I have also taught American history and World history for almost 20 years, as have most legitimate historians. I mean no offense by this, but I am not simply a hobbyist historian. As for your comment about the "race card." As a white male, I find it difficult to "play a race card," but I find such a statement to be offensive. I'm keeping my comments to the POV pushing and the article. I suggest you do the same. Consensus has been reached on this subject. However, I will be glad to provide a list of credible and reliable...again. However, I doubt that would satisfy this situation, as you are clearly POV pushing and unwilling to entertain credible sources contrary to your belief system. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I just came across this yesterday in a literature anthology. The context is an introduction to Clotel by William Wells Brown. The book was printed in 1853 and the commentary in 2012.

For his depiction of Jefferson's fictional slave daughters, Brown took seriously the rumor that Jefferson . . . had had sexual relations and children with his slave Sally Heming (DNA testing in 1998 and historical research suggest that the rumor had its source in fact). Nina Baym, ed. The Norton Anthology of American Literature, 8th ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012: 943.

I think the phrase in parentheses is exemplary wording for a tertiary reference. We could say in the lede, "DNA testing in 1998 and historical research suggest that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings's children." The section on Sally Hemings in the article gives the details and makes the claim for academic consensus. Yopienso (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe 'widower Jefferson fathered' might accommodate legacy perspectives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

When you examine Jefferson's dealings with slaves and slavery honestly it actually exemplifies his legacy. Late 20th century revisionists gave us the flat-earth version of slavery at Monticello and pushed the Hemings issue thinking that because Hemings was (part, a fraction) Black it would 'automatically' tear down Jefferson's legacy. Now here we are in the 21 century and the issue has sort of backfired. So now all they can do is clamor about "consensus", such that it is, and try to stay as far away from the facts as possible. -- Gwillhickers 11:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has "backfired." Just like in his day, Jefferson has today survived the taint of scandal because of the knowledge that it was common practice at the time. Comparing the Jefferson–Hemings union to flat-Earth fringe is inutile hyperbole. Nearly everybody at this talk page understands what Joe bob attacks said about sources: that if we cared to compile a list of historians who accept that Jefferson had sex with Hemings, the list would be very long indeed. Nobody cares to compile such a list because the effort is not needed. There is only Gwillhickers and sometimes TheVirginiaHistorian who are taking contrarian positions. And long-suffering editors here will probably agree with me that Gwillhickers would not stop pushing for his preferred version even if a gigantic list of mainstream historians was assembled. This debate must be shut down as having reached consensus. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've provided a long list of professors, historians and others, including TJF's own board member who blew the whistle on the likes of TJF and their biased disposition. Conversely, no one else has, ever, because after they point to outfits like TJF, PBS -- a media source, and a couple of authors like Brodie and Finkelman their little consensus parade comes to a halt. No doubt there are some others, but you'd have to guess at that also. And yes the issue has and continues to backfire which is why today's Hemings descendants refuse to have William Hemings, Madison Hemings' son, (also: 2, 3) exhumed for a DNA check, after being coached not to. They were willing at first. See also: New Thomas Woodson DNA Tests.) All you and "Joe bob attacks" have done is revive and continued the debate, making the usual vaguely supported claims about "consensus", staying clear of the facts, while you make a pathetic statement about TVH and myself as the only ones here who have differing views, suggesting the existing article is such without any consensus. Very dumb, Bink. Then after you've vented you turn around and say we should shut the debate down. I didn't revive the debate this time, nor the last. Before that the article was stable with no Hemings debate for many months. (You really need to check recent edit history and then archives and stop self assuring yourself with falsehoods.) Shut the debate down? Okay. You first. Stop talking about it -- starting now. -- Gwillhickers 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refrain from referring to your fellow editors as "dumb" because they disagree with you? Secondly, there are a plethora of credible sources that document the likelihood of the Hemings relationship. I will be glad to provide them--yet again. However, I sincerely doubt that would shut the debate down. I believe that a majority of the editors need to agree that consensus has been reached (which it has) and further restrict continual Hemings debates. If not, I'm sure if I return to this page in 2015, I will no doubt see you here POV pushing this very same subject. This has been ongoing since 2011, not 2012. Thirdly, you should not allow discussions about POV pushing to get you this upset. People are people and as such are subject to passionate emotions. Thus, I am not judging you for POV pushing. I am simply stating that you are in fact POV pushing and have been for quite some time. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Dumb. I was speaking to one editor, not "fellow editors", and simply said what he has claimed is dumb, which imo was, suggesting that the article is in its present state on my account alone. In any case, the lede and the section says that "most historians" have concluded TJ is the father, as there are sources that say this, such that they are. So I'm not sure what POV you think I'm trying to push. You weren't exactly clear about that either. All I have ever insisted on is fair representation of all significant views and the inclusion of important facts. Trying to obscure facts and under representing other significant views is POV pushing, so your accusations are sort of backwards. I have made more than my fair share of concessions in this article because of this thing we call 'consensus', so I really don't appreciate the inference that I call the shots around here and that it's me alone who keeps the debate going. It takes two, or more, to debate. Your whole approach was uncalled for. We had a debate about how some statements in the lede should read. We struck a compromise, it went back and forth a couple of times with other edits, and then it ended. Several days later, you come along and say the debate has to stop, after it had done so already. (!) Then you single me out, make personal accusations, stopping short of pointing to anything factual. As long as there are those who make attempts to skew the statements, like what was done with the DNA statement not long ago, there will be a debate. Yes, the debate has gone on for some time, but it is not I who had introduced reasons, edits, that brought about the debate, nor did I ever cause this page to be blocked from editing on several occasions with BS edits and refusal to abide by discussion and consensus. Most of my edits, save bibliography work, general fixes etc, have been preceded with discussion -- esp ones involving slavery and the Hemings controversy. After all you've said, you still haven't singled out any actual item, POV, that was forced into the article by me. From this point on, please direct any statements made on this talk page at article improvement. -- Gwillhickers 01:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments are intended for article improvement with hopes that this POV pushing will cease. Your comments about the lede are what I believe to be persistent and pervasive POV pushing. This has been ongoing for two years now. I'm under the impression that the discussion about the lede is ongoing and that you are suggesting additional changes. If this is not the case, then I will move on from this point. However, I am still gathering a detailed response to your claims with sources. I believe that some of your claims in this article have been based on feelings and not factual evidence. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Any statement in the lede was arrived at by discussion and the debate that you think we should shut down, and which this time you alone have initiated and escalated. Any "POV" I have advanced reflects the facts and what sources say and you have yet to point at anything specific -- just the usual and vague overages about POV. And when you take exception to any POV I may try to advance you only wave a flag which says you have your own POV, as do all of us. Kindly not accuse me anymore of pushing a POV while trying to advance your own. -- Bink, I took the time and posted a string of sources that support Jefferson's moral position regarding slavery. You had very little to say about that as usual, as the bulk of your talk on this page has been personal and gut level with little academic or intellectual substance attached to it. If you want to make a change in the lede kindly discuss it. Oh, that's right. We should shut down this debate and just jump in and start editing as you just did. Very smart. -- Gwillhickers 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Also please source your statement that the descendants of Madison Hemings' have been "coached" not to allow their ancestor William Hemings be exhumed. I was under the impression that they (like the Wayles/Jefferson family) did not want their relative's remains disturbed. Hemings was buried in 1910. I have not seen evidence that they were coached. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Since I'm not trying to introduce this topic into the article I don't see any particular need to further expand the debate in that direction, yet, as we have enough on the table already, thanks to you in great part. If you would like to continue this line of discussion, I will be more than happy to further your scope in a topic that you don't think we should be discussing anymore. Before I do I ask that you get your thoughts going in the same direction, because you're flip flopping, saying we should shut these discussions down all the while you are escalating them. Now you want to pursue yet another topic regarding the controversy you say doesn't exist. I came across this claim some time ago. i believe it was Herbert Barger, the historian who assisted Dr. Foster (who gathered DNA evidence). Barger has extensive knowledge about Jefferson family history and through historical research and investigations located all the graves from which DNA was extracted and who has also located William Hemings grave not too long ago. Modern day Hemings descendants weren't even aware of it, so such a glaring gap in their knowledge of family history doesn't reflect very well on any "oral history" they have to offer. I will look for the [Barger?] source again. In the mean time you might want to avail yourself to some basic information regarding the William Hemings topic. (See the New Woodson DNA Tests and Grave of William Hemings Located sections.)-- Gwillhickers 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

editbreak1

Insert : So I guess what you're saying is that you don't have a source. With regard to my understand of the Hemings' family, I certainly don't need an instructional on Madison Hemings from you. I'm simply asking for you to source your comment, which you have been unable to do so. As for the POV pushing, I thought I was specific, but I will get into the weeds per your request. Your entire discussion about the lede is an example of POV pushing.

1) You continue to POV push to establish the paternity on Randolph or his sons, but neither you (nor your sources) have provided any proof of timeline of their visitations to Monticello. In fact, Randolph visited Monticello infrequently as was evident from his letters ^[2]. Whereas, both Winthrop and Gordon-Reed have produced detailed timelines of Jefferson's movements to Monticello during key conception dates.

Randolph's paternity is a viable possibility and is a significant view among many scholars, so from time to time it comes up in these discussions. Your apparent insistence that I not mention him as such because there are no specific records of actual times of visitation doesn't cancel out the fact that he indeed visited Jefferson when he returned to Monticello, and your apparent attempt to sweep him under the rug as a possible paternal possibility is POV pushing. But that's okay, POV's are discussed on talk pages. Unwarranted introduction of such into the article is another matter. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not the consensus. If you are going to put forth the debatable theory that Randolph or his sons were indeed the father, then please provide a sourced timeline for his visits to Monticello. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

2) Your discussion of the DNA tests-- Nature has continued to stand by their DNA tests, which eliminated the Carr men as candidates and proved that Eston Hemings was in fact a descendant of the Jefferson line. There has been no backtracking on that. Jefferson did not have any "recognized" male descendants, which is why they tested his Uncle. These facts have not changed, yet you continue to say that they have. The only way to make absolutely certain is to dig up TJ himself for a DNA tests, which the Wayles/Jefferson family has refused. However, unlike your statement about the Hemings' family, you do not claim that the Wayles/Jefferson family has been "coached." ^[3]

Nature magazine skewed Foster's report on the DNA findings, much to Foster's outrage, claiming that the DNA pointed to Jefferson only proving he was the father. I have already provided links to articles that say the Hemings family changed their minds. I will continue looking for other sources. I believe Herbert Barger, whose original website is now '404', made the statement to the effect that the Hemings family was coached and hence changed their mind. Since DNA from William Hemings could dispel the theory that all of Sally's children were fathered by Thomas Jefferson it's certainly understandable why they were advised, or coached, to change their minds. Apparently they are more concerned with making a statement than they are with the truth. If the getting to the truth was their priority they would insist on further DNA investigations. This sort of behavior has become typical among many individuals in the 'Get Jefferson' camp which is why they are tripping all over themselves here in the 21st century. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The results were not skewed. They have always stated that Eston Hemings was an heir of the male Jefferson line. Prior to this test many people assumed the Hemings children were descendants of the Carrs, which was proved false. Those results are not up for debate, as they have been proven. Neither you, nor Barger have been able to provide any sourced material to indicate that Hemings was involved with another Jefferson. You also made a somewhat controversial statement when you indicated that the Hemings family were coached to not allow the exhumation of their ancestor. I assume you are insinuating that they do not want their ancestor tested because they're not really related to Thomas Jefferson? Why not apply that statement to the Wayles/Jefferson family? They don't want their ancestor dug up either? But you accuse the Hemings family of being coached and you can't seem to source it. However, I agree with you that this statement has no place here. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, if William Hemings would be shown to also be descended from Jefferson, would that in any way change your opinion? Or would you simply assume that both Eston and Madison were children of Randolph or some other unspecified Jefferson? On the other hand, if William Hemings does not show Jefferson ancestry, that would not eliminate Thomas even as the father of Madison, since the line could have been broken at his wife Mary - it's not as if all children of a wife are necessarily the children of the corresponding husband (and that does not even require unfaithfulness - I suspect that rape was a very real risk in the 1850s and 60s). So while it would be nice to have that extra bit of data, it's a marginal win of information either way. If, on the other hand, we had a full set of Thomas Jefferson's DNA, with modern methods it might be possible to distinguish him from the other Jefferson's (probably not on the Y chromosome, but using whole genome techniques). So I very much see the point of the Hemings family - why should they allow a disturbance of the grave for a minimal gain in information when another exhumation could contribute a lot more to a definitive answer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3) You claim that Jefferson wouldn't go on sleeping with Hemings because in your words: "you don't see him coming back to Montecello, around all of those people, friends and family no less, and doing what Callander accused him of, esp while he was POTUS?." This is POV pushing. This is a gut feeling, which cannot be sourced. This is POV pushing.

Statements come up in discussions everywhere. And other sources have expressed similar ideas, that it would have been reckless and foolish for Jefferson to return to Monticello, esp while POTUS, and confirm Callander's accusations, so you need to stop playing talk page cop for your POV, demanding a source every time someone discusses things they have read over the years. If I have intentions of introducing any such ideas into the article then I will further entertain your concern for sources and POV pushing. If you want to challenge any of these ideas here on the talk page, feel free.

If you were trying to make changes to this article regarding Jefferson's paternity based on a gut feeling and not sources, sorry but that's POV pushing. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV dispute : POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point
of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Calling someone
a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not
necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them.

You just described your activities. In fact an editor above directly accused you of using fringe sources. And you are in fact presenting minor ideas. The majority of historians have already reached a consensus on this issue. Just b/c there are some that haven't, that doesn't discount the majority.

And just for the record, there have been a number of times, once just recently, where I have made a similar complaint, that this subject has dominated the talk page too often, that it's difficult to avoid when someone comes along and starts skewing the language or simply makes flat out lies. Just so you know. And now here you are, dominating the talk page with the very subject you initially said needed to be shut down. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to that. I simply returned to this page out of curiosity and I was surprised to see you still engaged in the same debates after two years. I have no plans to remain on this page, as I have other things to get back to. But I do hope to return in another year or two. I hope that in another two years this topic can finally be put to bed. If you are truly done debating this topic, then I will bow out of this discussion. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

4) "Seems to me if there was any feelings of love for Hemings, esp if she was the mother of TJ's children, he would have freed her also." Yet again, another "gut feeling" statement. Hemings was in fact "released" after Jefferson's death, although not officially. Her other children were also released (or "escaped") at various points in time. These are just a few examples of your pervasive POV pushing. Much of which cannot be sourced. If you would like, I can go through and read your other posts as well. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Be my guest, but so long as they are discussions on a talk page regarding a controversial and sketchy theory they will continue. Again you are mistaking discussion of ideas for POV pushing. Many things come up in discussion, esp when evidence and records are sketchy. However, if they are wrongly introduced into the article with no sources then you can go ahead and parrot your POV claim. That hasn't happened. As I said, everyone here "pushes" a pov simply by discussing things, including yourself, so all you are doing is insisting that I not even discuss matters, as is evidenced by your title head for this section, Hemings Discussion needs to be shut down, which is becoming quite a novelty since you have escalated the debate more so than it has ever been in many months. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to escalate the debate. I genuinely thought you were suggesting additional changes. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, don't congratulate yourself so much upon reaching a compromise. Your version of the sentence about Jefferson's moral and political position on slavery was not accurate. Jefferson was not so ineffective as you portray; he accomplished some of his political goals with regard to slavery. You have him morally against it, but I don't think the lead section should be the place for Jefferson's notional morals. He may have been morally against slavery but he practiced it, so what the hell does that mean to our typical reader (who may very well be a school student.) Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet, part of the nuance to be conveyed on Jefferson and slavery is his change of public and personal policy over the years, especially contrasting pre-1790s and post-1810. Your rhetorical question is akin to asking what it can mean to the typical reader if a divorced man advocates public policy encouraging marriage among all sexual orientations. He practiced the dissolution of marriage, what more can possibly be said about the man, according to your last frame of reference. Is not this "identity politics" anathema to academe? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. This sort of two dimensional analysis is so typical. i.e. Since the man wasn't a saint, anything he had to say about love and human kindness is therefore meaningless. -- Gwillhickers 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Moral position on slavery

Ari Helo and Peter Onuf published "Jefferson, Morality, and the Problem of Slavery" in 2003. Their position is that TJ was personally opposed to slavery but was not so troubled by its existence as much as other commentators such as Joseph Ellis would like us to think. They say TJ did not "embrace utopian notions of the ultimate moral end of the still ongoing historical process." He worked within the system to effect gradual change. Helo and Onuf say that TJ's failure to free his own slaves remains a "conspicuous" problem in defining TJ's morality. Helo and Onuf point out the irony that TJ is commonly thought to be a moral crusader against slavery even though his position was dead-set against such standout attempts to change the system from the outside. TJ thought that the efforts of crusading abolitionists would interfere prematurely with the slow progress of the white community in coming to the realization that slavery must end. Helo and Onuf say that "Jefferson did not portray himself as a member of a morally enlightened vanguard, far out in front of the American people." Helo and Onuf observe that "Modern commentators are united in their contempt for Jefferson's moralizing about George III's culpability for imposing" slavery on the colonies. They say TJ's "historical conception of morality explains both his legendary caution on the slavery issue—a caution amounting to inactivity—and his apparent obtuseness to the damage done to the human victims of the institution. His primary goal was not to free black people but to free white people from the moral evil of being slaveholders." Thus TJ's morality on the issue is shown to be inconsistent with heroic action, with a vanguard position. TJ was not a hero in his stance. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet's bold quote above sounds right for Jefferson after 1810: he “did not portray himself as a member of a morally enlightened vanguard”, --- sounds pretty much like any practicing politician building a political machine in a democratic republic which could elect presidents to six successive terms. We would not expect commentators, unlike scholars, to be able to distinguish that post-1810 Jefferson from the crusading Jefferson pre-1790 who condemned George III. It seems they have not in Binksternet's accounting.

Most of Jefferson’s post-1810 contemporaries who would rid whites of slaveholding -- advocated, funded and secured state underwriting for freeing black people in their own self-governing republic. Free blacks in America had few rights and less protection under law amid racist white communities. Gradual emancipation in the northern states had led individual slaves to be sold into permanent slavery before their milestone birthday. Contemporaries such as Henry Clay found that outcome morally reprehensible as slavery-removal elements profited from the humanitarian impulse of emancipation.

The analysis by Helo and Onuf as rendered by Binksternet seems about right, Jefferson “worked within the system to effect gradual change”, therefore, “TJ was not a hero in his stance” -- working-class heroes are hard to find among actual personages of Virginia gentry in history -- but Jefferson was a preeminent American politician of high ideals and lesser accomplishments. That would square with Meacham's 'TJ:the art of power' narrative and the RJensen take above, I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Bink, the sources say Jefferson morally opposed slavery, a conviction that increased, his entire life.. As I already pointed out to you, there are some sources that express doubt about how sincere he was at various points in his life, but that doesn't change the fact that Jefferson expressed moral opposition to slavery on numerous occasions, so kindly stop edit waring on that point. You need to think outside the box rather than in the anachronistic and two dimensional manner you have been. -- Gwillhickers 21:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your simplistic fascination with Jefferson-the-moral-opposer-of-slavery is undone by the complexity of Jefferson's public and private writings and his public and private actions. The actions and writings contradict themselves at every turn. Jefferson's "morals" cannot be stated as simply as you wish them to be stated. He used slavery for profit and sex, yet he worked toward ending slavery because he wanted whites to benefit from a more refined society. He did not care whether the lot of blacks was improved; he never thought that whites and blacks should participate together in the same government. He thought miscegenation would ruin society, but he had sex with a woman of mixed race, and thus produced more mixed race offspring. There is no way we can say that Jefferson was morally opposed to slavery; the literature is not that simplistic on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually yours is the simplistic view. i.e.Jefferson owned slaves, ergo, he is guilty of everything. His "actions and writings contradict themselves..."? What actions?? For openers, ending the international slave trade had little to nothing to do with benefiting whites in America. He branded that practice as inhumane and cruel. In his original draft of the DOI he said: He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. The fact that he cared greatly about these people is evident in many of his writings and the great lengths he went through to provide for them at Monticello. He referred to them as servants and his extended family. Many slaves were close to Jefferson and his family. Jefferson's wife Martha in her death bed called for two slaves that were her close friends. His views about blacks and whites sharing the same government were based on practical considerations in the 18th and early 19th centuries, that the races could not coexist, as was evident in most parts of the world. I think I'm about done entertaining your sophomoric and short-sighted analysis. -- Gwillhickers 08:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

*In 1984, Charles B. Sanford wrote what became a respected analysis of Jefferson's religious views: The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson. Sanford writes about how TJ gambled his reputation on the issues that really mattered to him, the main one being the separation of church and state. Jefferson was highly aware that his insistence upon the separation of church and state hurt him politically, especially among Southerners. Sanford notes that TJ held back on the issue of slavery—he did not stick his neck out or gamble his career on it. Sanford says this issue was not so important to Jefferson, that he did not wish to martyr himself for the cause of slavery. At any rate, TJ cared more about the moral degradation of the white master than he did for the black slave. Jefferson's moral position against slavery was an empty gesture.

Lacy K. Ford writes in Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South, that Jefferson's notion of the morality of slavery was rife with contradictions and complexities. Ford says TJ was concerned primarily with the moral degeneration of the white masters, but that this concern was probably autobiographical—TJ was judging himself harshly, judging his sexual liaison with Hemings, and his experience of being "daily exercised in tyranny". Ford notes that Jefferson is mute on the subject of most active moral opposers of slavery in Virginia: the evangelical Christians of his day. TJ's morals are not so strong as to bring him to support these more active and effective groups. Ford says that Jefferson held consistent but private views on slavery from about 1785 until his death (he did not increase his conviction that slavery was evil.)
In the early 1990s Paul Finkelman published several works describing Jefferson as undeserving of the antislavery reputation which had become his legacy. Finkelman wrote that TJ's moral position on slavery was contradictory and hypocritical. He observes acidly that TJ sold 85 slaves to buy wine, art and luxury goods over a 10-year period, and that TJ misrepresented his slave sales in a letter to a friend. He notes that TJ lacked the moral fiber of George Washington who freed his slaves. Finkelman continues to hold this position as recently as 2012.[4]
Winthrop Jordan wrote that Jefferson was sincere in thinking slavery was evil, but that his personal and political positions on the issue were confused and contradictory.
William Cohen wrote in 1969 that TJ's antislavery activities peaked (ineffectively) in 1774–1784, but that after 1784 his public opposition diminished. In fact, TJ took some pro-slavery actions as president. Cohen says "On the whole, however, there was a significant gap between his thought and action with regard to the abolition question." Cohen says that TJ was a racist who was committed to protecting the institution of slavery.
Joseph Ellis writes about the "moral chasm" between what TJ thought was right and what he felt he must have to be a wealthy planter and a powerful politician. Ellis says that TJ evaded the moral consequences of being a slaveholder by hiding the problem out of his sight as much as possible and by taking the position of benevolent master.
All of these authors describe how Jefferson's moral position cannot be taken at face value, that it is too complex to state plainly, that it is full of contradictions. My position here on this article is that we cannot tell the reader that TJ was morally opposed to slavery when so many respected historians debunk this position. The overly simplistic viewpoint promoted by Gwillhickers cannot be what we present to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TJ certainly wrote more to white plantation owners about the moral degradation of white masters in his letter writing campaign. He also certainly achieved more than most plantation owners in securing a bar to slavery in the Northwest Territory as an Articles Congressman and admittance of free-soil Ohio as president. He also as governor publicly floated the idea of Virginia west of the Blue Ridge as free soil to the Ohio River (modern KY & WV).

Let’s name names for Ford's evangelicals. How is it that Methodists who are 20% black statewide, many free, and Baptists who are 50% black, mostly slave, mostly east of the Fall Line, – are “effective” on the slavery question in the state of Virginia per Lacy K. Ford, --- but Jefferson is not “effective” per William Cohen?

Do they not all, Jefferson, Methodists, Baptists, free black and slave, all live in the same resultant racist social environment on the plantation and off it in Virginia?

It looks like Winthrop Jordan and Joseph Ellis have the wherewithall to distinguish between pre-1790s Jefferson idealism and post 1810 Jefferson politics, as one would expect scholars to handle the subject without being wedded to bebunking ideology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You say that Finkelman wrote Jefferson was "underserving of ther antislavery reputation which had become his legacy." That suggests that Finkelman was expressing a minority view, and if his view has now become the majority, you need sources that say that. TFD (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"which HAD become." Finkelman was helping establish the new majority view, of which Jordan was a pioneer. Binksternet has set Finkelman in the context of other scholarship. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Finkelman and other historians are set into context in Kenneth Morgan's Slavery in America: A Reader and Guide. Morgan is a British historian at Brunel University in London. On pages 135–136, Morgan writes that historians have taken "sharply divided" positions on Jefferson, unlike historians who have studied Washington and Madison, two other slaveholding founding fathers from Virginia. Morgan writes that Miller (1977) argued that Jefferson's words were more antislavery than his deeds. Morgan says that Stanton (1993) writes sympathetically about Jefferson-as-slaveholder, emphasizing his benevolence. Morgan says Cohen (1969) shows how TJ's public antislavery efforts waned after 1784; his later writings were mainly private. Morgan says Jordan (1968) took the more traditional stance that Jefferson was trapped by the institution of slavery, but talks about TJ's racism. Morgan says Finkelman (1993) argued that TJ "had complex and contradictory attitudes toward slavery" and that "Jefferson lacked a serious commitment to slave emancipation and therefore does not deserve his antislavery reputation." Morgan goes on to identify Zuckerman (1993) as basically in agreement with Finkelman, calling TJ "the foremost racist of his era in America". Morgan observes that Temperley (1997) questions Jefferson's perplexed morality on the issue of slavery. Morgan says Finkelman demolishes TJ's antislavery credentials in a series of essays in 1996. Yopienso is correct in saying that Finkelman was establishing the new historical viewpoint in the 1990s. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Erik S. Root is another writer who puts the Jefferson/slavery literature into perspective. Root is a historian at West Liberty University in West Virginia. In All Honor to Jefferson?, Root says that his book "takes the unorthodox [in 2008] position that the Founders were anti-slavery."[5] Nevertheless, Root keeps his eyes open as he describes the literature on the issue. He says Jefferson was treated generally positively by historians writing in the mid-20th century, with the exception of Carl L. Becker who questioned whether the Declaration of Independence made any useful statement about natural rights. Root says that the Founding Fathers were attacked "in earnest" beginning in the 1960s. He lists traditional Jefferson biographers who were criticized for their sympathetic portrayal of TJ's stance on slavery: Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson and Julian P. Boyd, among others. Root says that the debate "has become so acrimonious that anyone defending Jefferson is believed to be, somehow, a defender of slavery." Root discusses some of the various modern biographers who are critical of Jefferson: William Cohen, Paul Finkelman, Joseph Ellis and Henry Wiencek. Root says modern historians often point to the hypocrisy of Jefferson's moral position on slavery. (Root himself is determined to shift the focus to Jefferson's statesmanship.) Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you've taken the time to put a lot on the table here, so ignoring it would be a cop-out on my part. It is quite evident that you are putting far more emphasis on opinion than you are facts, which unfortunately has become an trademark among "most historians" of the day. Your above commentary largely draws on the summaries from the two books you've linked to. The one common denominator among these particular sources you've selected is that it's largely conjecture, based on what Jefferson didn't do, and roundly ignoring what he did indeed do and the political and financial forces he was up against. During Jefferson's presidency the rift between slave holding and non slave holding political interests was so potentially volatile that waving the flag of emancipation at this time would have brought on an early civil war during a time when the country was still recovering from the Revolutionary war, and with Britain sitting in the wings waiting for the right moment to make their moves, which they were doing all the way up and through the War of 1812. Jefferson was also dealing with the Barbary war. A divided nation would have spelled disaster during this unstable period. Jefferson had enough sense to put issues of survival before issues of morality. This is just one of the perspectives you seem to miss sitting in your easy chair from afar. I asked you in response to your quote, "actions and writings contradict themselves..." and all you've done is submitted conjecture on what Jefferson didn't do, again, roundly ignoring what he did do, which is considerable, esp regarding how he provided for and treated his slaves. Indeed the issue is complex, but your analysis remains quite narrow, selective and judgmental. And when you make the jump from an alleged affair with Hemings to "sex with slaves" this all but confirms your inclination to slime the entire picture here. -- Gwillhickers 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "He used slavery for profit and sex". I did not write "sex with slaves"—that's your own construction. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish, your generic and overall statement boils down to the same thing. You said "slaves", not Hemings, in an apparent burst of anger. Looking back, all you've done is made attempts to deride Jefferson with opinion, staying clear of the long line of established facts. -- Gwillhickers 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Again you misquote me. I wrote "He used slavery for profit and sex", not "slaves". Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on what is found in reliable sources rather than what you determine to be the important "facts" of Jefferson's life and career. That is why I continue to point to reliable sources, ones that you deride as "opinion". I'm sorry but your wish to portray "facts" is not in line with Wikipedia's purpose. What we do is tell the reader the conclusions of the mainstream historians. You are correct that I have drawn considerable material from authors you dismiss as offering "conjecture", but this is exactly how Wikipedia is constructed. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you've left the planet entirely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Facts come first. Opinions are fleeting, ever changing, too often peer-driven and partisan and are a dime a dozen. By presenting the long established facts, per reliable sources, we allow the readers to draw their own opinions. We don't try to lead them into an opinion by dumping a lot of other one-sided opinion into the article, which is exactly what your approach has been all along.-- Gwillhickers 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwhillickers, you need to present sources, rather than speculation. TFD (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

All the facts included in the article are sourced by numerous reliable sources. I've even provided a list of them for purposes of the lede, still in full view of your 'response' here. I've not couched any of my positions in opinion. -- Gwillhickers 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And of course, there is the problem with Jefferson for all those striving for the state-beyond-the-state, the marxist objection to Jefferson's nationalism, his lifelong unifying intellectual world view: the United States should be a united country, an independent nation equal in the family of nations. That begins with his calls for an end of slavery by emancipation, manumission, colonization or other means, and ends with an accommodation in the Louisiana Purchase, his 'Mr. Jefferon's Lost Cause' as Roger G. Kennedy expressed it, yet a firebell in the night to alarm his countrymen. That unflinching worldview informs his last correspondence with John Adams, and is largely ignored by those pouncing on their artificially constructed 'hypocracy' concerning slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.genealogy.edu/moodle/mod/resource/view.php?id=3543

[2] ttp://www.genealogy.edu/moodle/mod/resource/view.php?id=3543

[3] ttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6706/full/396027a0.html

[1]

[2]

[3]