Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Slavery and Santo Domingo

Brodie Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (1974) pages 342-344 discusses why Jefferson was silent on Emancipation during his Presidency. There was hysteria over Gabriel's Rebellion and the slaughter of whites on Santo Domingo that kept Jefferson cool towards emancipating African Americans in the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe this information needs to be added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Besides Gabriel's Rebellion, the object lesson for slave holding communities would be Jean-Jacques Dessalines on the island of Santo Domingo at Saint-Domingue later Haiti. It is addressed in part at Thomas Jefferson#Santo Domingo revolt. Does that need some clarification?
The descriptive words to illicit the image of mass slaughter of whites without discrimination to attain immediate emancipation by the 1850s was the term, "servile insurrection". That was the rationale for the slave patrols which were especially active at each crisis or panic. Additionally, servile insurrection was assumed by many slave holders to necessarily follow immediate emancipation. Although simultaneously slaves were reported to northerners (and in the Lost Cause historiography) as content in their condition throughout the Southern labor system. Modern historians paraphrase concern for servile insurrection as a fear of "race war". I'm not sure what the term was in Jefferson's time.
Should this issue be restated in summary in political philosophy somehow? Do you have proposed language sourced from Brodie? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Brodie is the source for the Santo Domingo Revolt. I added the section:

1. Gives the reader more understanding on Napoleon and Louisiana.
2. Gives Jefferson's fears of a general Emancipation of African Americans.
3. Gives understanding why Jefferson was quiet on Emanicapation during his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This issue was political and took place during Jefferson's Presidency. The Santo Domingo revolt resulted in the opening of negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: -- Cm', nice bit of writing, though TVH raises some interesting points -- however I gotta find this a little funny as you were recently discussing ways to make the biography shorter. Whatever. I changed "African leader" to 'revolutionary leader', as Toussaint Louverture was born in Haiti, spent most of his life there and eventually went to France where he died, and according to his biography, there is no mention of him ever stepping foot in Africa, much less ever being any sort of leader there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Here we come to the limits of racial classification in fashion today. In one sense Toussaint Louverture was African-American, as Haiti is in the Americas, but that term would be completely misleading in this context. When races were referred to in the children's song as "red, yellow, black and white", he would be described as "black". Surely we are reluctant to coin our own term "African-Santo Domingue" for this article only. At Toussaint Louverture he is described with the nick name of his own time, "the Black Napoleon".
@Cmguy777: Perhaps he can be introduced as "revolutionary leader known as "the Black Napoleon". Or linking his name to that WP article may suffice. The conventions in fashion to show respect regarding racial terms have changed three times in my lifetime, I only wish to speak and write with respect. So I happily defer to others for the solution to communicate Louverture's skin color were that descriptor found to be relevant here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I copyedited the section to remove other "African" descriptors, relocated the illustration adjacent the subsection text, tweaked sizing, and added the image of Dessalines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur, but at the same time we don't want to be walking on eggshells just to appease those who think they can control the dialog simply by taking advantage of such sentiment, as they do with elected officials and others who are afraid they'll be called a racist. In his biography Louverture is referred to as a 'rebel leader', a 'black leader' and a 'military leader'. I would say 'rebel leader', or 'black rebel leader', would best describe the man and won't insult readers of Haitian descent. Esp since 'black' is widely accepted among other blacks and most whites. Lerone Bennett, Senior Editor of Ebony Magazine himself uses the word 'black' in his own dialog. He wrote it in 1967 but it still sheds light on the issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Remember this article is on Jefferson. Louverture and Dessalines are important and have their own articles. The main threat for Jefferson was Leclerc's French army. Yellow fever and the Haitian Rebellion in some ways paved the way for the Louisiana Purchase. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The two photos of Leclerc and Dessalines look great ! Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- I wouldn't go so far as to say the Haitian revolution "paved the way", for the Louisiana Purchase as Napoleon was in dire need of money to fund the wars he was engaged in. Had the Haitian revolution occurred in times of peace France very well would have come to Haiti in force and retaken its colony and the likelihood for giving up such a vast territory on the North American continent would also not have been so. Yes, the section is long enough. No need to do much else with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The money maker in North America for France was sugar, not so much prospective revenues from American trade through New Orleans. The point of maintaining French territory on on the North American continent was to feed the slaves producing the sugar in Santo Domingue/Haiti. Once Haiti was lost by rebellion and yellow fever, there was no longer any immediate need for a French-held Louisiana Territory, especially as the Americans were willing to pay in gold which could in turn be used to help prosecute Napoleon's war ventures. If Brodie as a source says Haitian independence from France "paved the way" for the Louisiana Purchase, we can adopt it. I recall the same insight in so many words from Jon Meacham "Thomas Jefferson: the art of power" 2012 p.386. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I find it a little amazing that France's interest in New Orleans, a major seaport with strategic significance, ala the entire Mississippi River, and the entire Louisiana territory, with all of its resources, revolved around feeding slaves in a colony like Haiti. France also had colonies elsewhere in the Caribbean and in Brazil that produced sugar. It seems France would have sold the Louisiana territory regardless of the state of affairs in Haiti given the great costs of war. Also, Jefferson's silence on emancipation was largely the result of the growing political division in Congress over the issue of slavery. The section claims that the rebellions were the reason. I would look beyond Brodie (the only source used for this section, btw) to be clear on how much of a role Haiti played in Napoleon's decision to sell the territory, and how much the rebellions lended themselves to Jefferson's silence during his presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Intuitively, I've got no problem with a source which might say in Napoleon's calculus, gold for European war trumped food for Caribbean plantation labor, and the loss of Haiti simply justified accelerating the process and disregarding the treaty with Spain allowing its repossession, --- once the U.S. offered gold for New Orleans. Then it was, more gold is better, so have all of the Louisiana Territory for more gold. But I do not have that source at hand.
All of Jefferson's writing based on Enlightenment philosophy pointed to a Louverture as the champion of revolution. The emergence of a Dessalines at the overthrow of the old order was as embarrassing to his systematic thought as the Reign of Terror was earlier. In the face of southern fears of servile insurrection, Jefferson fell silent on domestic emancipation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems to make sense. i.e.Louverture cemented Jefferson's and the south's concerns about servile insurrection which in turn was causing a serious rift in the Union.
I can concede that Haiti greased the wheels for the Louisiana Purchase, but it seems that the war that was breathing down Napoleon's neck was still the primary impetus for his decision to sell, and the section should note that distinction. When I get the chance I'll see if I can take the ball further than Brodie would. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

In the Santo Domingo section it says "loosing 25,000 men" when it should be "losing 25,000 men" there's something stopping me from editing it myself so hopefully someone else can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.27.190 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried the copyedit, "Nevertheless, the revolt continued and Leclerc lost 25,000 men in nine months." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Thanks ! Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

/*Jefferson's "Several" Plantations? */

The following is a statement I saw on the article page and do not agree with. "Jefferson owned several plantations ..." Try to name them. I am fully aware of the both of them. Where does one find "several"? There is Monticello and because so many people were often coming there Jefferson had Poplar Forest built as a quieter place and unknown to the population. Maury (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

At the Monticello Foundation site, Quarter Farms it is said that Jefferson divided his landholdings in Albemarle into four “farms”. Monticello mountain was the “home farm”, and Tufton lay to the east. North across the Rivanna River were Shadwell and Lego. I think that previous editors have taken the "farms" to be "plantations", as each was administered independently by a separate overseer. But I could be wrong. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Santo Domingo revolt

@Cmguy777, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Rjensen: -- The Santo Domingo revolt doesn't really warrant its own section in the Jefferson biography. Jefferson's involvement was incidental, turning down a request for aid from Leclerc. While the revolt may have made the negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase easier, it was still an event that Jefferson had nothing to do with. In the Louisiana Purchase section mention is already made to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
[Add :] The pictures of Leclerc and Dessalines are also inappropriate. Jefferson had far more involvement with Washington and Franklin and even their pictures don't occur in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you may have a point, in that there is not a separate section on the French Reign of Terror here, which led Jefferson's Democrat-Republicans to rename themselves Republicans to avoid guilt by association. But the French Santo Domingue revolt altered the Southern consciousness and the political environment which Jefferson could maneuver given his anti-slavery impulse demonstrated in earlier years. Can the section be shortened/tightened up relative to the impact it had on American politics in Jefferson's time and Jefferson's thought? The Reign of Terror gets a sentence or two with a link. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The sections in the Jefferson biography are all topics that Jefferson was directly involved with, and they are all 'major' topics. e.g.Declaration', Minister to France, S.O.S., Presidency, Embargo, Barbary War, University of Virginia, slavery, etc. While we should incorporate various historical content regarding the revolt into the biography, where appropriate, the revolt itself isn't anything that compares to the aforesaid topics in terms of the biography. -- Btw, somewhere along the line Edward Coles was purged from the biography. Coles was a friend and neighbor of Jefferson, and Jefferson had several involvements and had direct correspondence with Coles regarding the freeing of his (Coles') slaves, which Jefferson objected to. Even Coles didn't have his own section, and there was almost as much controversy about Jefferson/Coles as there was about Hemings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Coles as Illinois Governor was also a leader responsible for making Illinois a free soil state; those of his freed slaves who did not settle in Ohio joined him with their families in Illinois. Cole's correspondence with Jefferson continued into his political career in Illinois. Jefferson may have disagreed with Coles in his proposal to free all of his slaves in Virginia, but Coles answer was to free them all on the Ohio River so they could make their way into free territory with freedom papers. To make Illinois free soil, the objections of slave holders of French colonial descent had to be overcome. In this sense, Coles acted in the western territory of Illinois on Jefferson's earlier proposal to make Virginia free soil west of the Appalachians (Kentucky and West Virginia), leaving slavery only in the eastern half of Virginia. Whereas Jefferson failed in Virginia, Coles succeeded in Illinois. Was the Coles section a part of Jefferson's legacy?
It sounds as though we are agreed on shortening the Santo Domingo passage. Do you have proposed language? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the entire Santo Domingo section should be deleted. It says zip about Jefferson -- and is really more about Napoleon. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the section is tangential. I'd delete it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: As I say, the separate section can go, but the substance bears on Jefferson's thought and policy. The fundamental consideration deserves the same sentence or two that the Reign of Terror gets in this article, with a link. The expanded contribution from Brodie on Jefferson might be better placed in the United States and the Haitian Revolution article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: (Weren't you addressing Coemgenus? -- You pinged Cm') The Coles topic never had its own section. In any case it looks like we're in agreement. We can mention the revolt, along with the major split in the House over slavery in general, (concerns of which encompassed more than the situation in Haiti) as it may have effected his silence during his presidency. We can also retain mention of Haiti in the Louisiana Purchase section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiencek talks about Jefferson's silence on slavery in the Louisiana Territory while Congress was debating on whether to expand slavery. The spread of slavery was a factor that led to the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The section was suppose to be a lede into the Louisiana Purchase and mentioned why Jefferson was silent on slavery. The Congress did argue about slavery in Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson was against a bill that would outlaw slavery in the territory and Jefferson signed into law that Americans could "diffuse" slavery into the Louisiana Territory...The section also mentioned Jefferson's fear of a race war...Since I put in the section I thought the section was good for the article...The French defeat in Santo Domingo led to the Louisiana Purchase... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought that Gwillickers contribution summed it up pretty concisely:
The Haitian slave revolt along with Gabriel's slave rebellion in Virginia four years earlier, led Jefferson to remain quiet on U.S. domestic emancipation of slaves during his presidency.[Note: Brodie, 1974, p. 34.]
It made the connection with fear of race war, explains his silence on slavery, and preserves Brodie as a source on the subject. Is there another sentence to be added for the connection with Louisiana Purchase in that section? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That is essentially what I wrote in the article. Brodie should be preserved as a source. I thought that the section I put in was good for the article. I am for editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets be careful with the truncated comments that tend to ignore overall historical context. The major rift in the House over slavery was the main reason behind Jefferson's silence, and again, he did not want to meddle in French interests in the newly acquired Louisiana territory, knowing it would be next to impossible to enforce at that time, which btw was right in the middle of the First Barbary War. There were other priorities during this very unstable period. Yes, the revolts played a role, and the biography mentions this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Debating slavery and Louisiana

Historically Congress was willing to debate slavery while Jeffesron was President. The diffusion theory started when Mississippi joined the United States. Jefferson, according to Weincek, never pushed this diffusion theory. For one year his did not allow the slave trade. Jefferson was against outlawing slavery in the Louisiana Territory and there was a bill in Congress that would have done so. That is context. The article needs to mention that Jefferson stopped the slave trade for one year to prevent a rush of slave traders into the Louisana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: -- I'm sure many members of Congress were "willing" to debate slavery during Jefferson's reign. This is not to say that Jefferson's participation wouldn't have compounded, aggravated, the issue. Seems to me he was wise enough to leave well enough alone, and some of his writings say just that, along with the idea that the issue of slavery would not be solved during his life but that it was best "left to the young" in future generations to solve, and as we know, it took a major war to bring the institution to an end. Again, this was a very unstable time. Seems Jefferson was more concerned about these things than he was about how he would be written about by the likes of Finkleman, Weineck, etc and other racial/political agitators who happen to have degrees in history to hide behind. In any case, the image you added is nice, though I don't know if was appropriate to name/link the Chinnoks in particular. L & C encountered many different tribes, but whatever, I suppose an example is okay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I mentioned the Chinnooks since the photo had the Chinnooks meeting the Corps of Discovery. The Louisiana Territory was vast and in my opinion since Jefferson negotiated the treaty discussing the diffusion of slavery into the territory is appropriate for the article. Weincek's criticism of Jefferson was that he did not even push the diffusion/emancipation theory while President. The Founders had been critized by the British for holding slaves. One would think Jefferson would have had some opportunity to discuss domestic slavery while President when Congress was discussing the slavery issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Criticized by the British? The one's who were primarily responsible for introducing slavery to the new world? Do you think that only a few years after the Americans won independence that the British were disposed to say anything nice about their lost colonies? All I can tell you is that when someone makes a fundamental effort to slight America as a whole over issues like slavery -- consider the source -- and consider the things they don't tell you. Why don't you just come out and say why you think Jefferson was silent? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: No one is slighting America ! Objective analysis is critical to reliable historical research. Only Jefferson knows why he was silent on domestic slavery. Jefferson's reputation is great enough to withstand any criticism from Finkleman or Weincek. The nation was not secure against a Civil War and that was fought over slavery. Maybe if Jefferson's 1784 ban on slavery passed the United States would have been secured. Jefferson did keep the slave trade out of the Louisiana Territory for one year. That is notable and Jefferson deserves credit for that. Jefferson's issue maybe was not slavery, but rather, his issue may have been race. He apparently shared contemporary views of African Americans as inferior. One reason why Reconstruction was so violent was because people in both the North and South did not accept African Americans as citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't saying you were slighting America, but as you must know, the issue has been used to do exactly that. I don't think Jefferson was silent because he thought Africans were "inferior". Seems to me his silence was a matter of easy math. We've been through this. His silence has been well explained by others with the capacity for objectivity. Jefferson even expressed this idea in a letter to James Heaton, written less than two months before his death, the contents of which is printed out in the Summary for this file. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That is an interesting letter. Upon reading I infer that Jefferson is refering to emancipation of African American slaves, although, he does not mention this specifically. Is this the same Jefferson that wrote the Declaration of Independence, who boldly castigated George III and listed atrocities against the colonies? Jefferson's statement " when time, place, and occasion may give it some favorable effect " does not give a definate time, place, and favorable effect. That creates an endless loop. Jefferson while he was President could have made some public statement, I suppose, on domestic slavery. Throughout the years race has proven to be the reason why African Americans have not been fully accepted as citizens during Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Eras. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Throughout history, race, along with culture, have been major barriers between peoples. It remains so today in much of the world, but fortunately America has led the way in the effort of tearing down these barriers, and the effort was spearheaded by Jefferson and others like him. Various 'friends of America' however chose to focus on what Jefferson (et al,) didn't do, rather than all the things he did do. Heaton inquired about Jefferson's silence. Jefferson's letter, though brief and rather summary, responded sufficiently to anyone familiar with the context of Jefferson's life, which Heaton was. While you've expressed doubt about what you feel the letter may not have meant, you apparently forgot to tell us what you feel it did mean. i.e.selective reasoning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
How did Jefferson "spearhead" or advance the movement of tearing down racial barriers? Yes. He did state "All men are created equal", but that does not explain why Jefferson was silent on domestic slavery while President. I have already stated my opinion that I believe Jefferson's reluctance or silence on domestic slavery had to do with the fact that Jefferson did not believe blacks were ready for citizenship. The other factor would be Jefferson feared a race war. That is why I put the Santo Domingo section in the article. That is why he stated in his letter to Heaton that there was an unlimited time factor involved with their freedom although his statements to Heaton were general. I don't think we should take for granite that Jefferson held the highest office of this nation, the Presidency. He had tremendous power and popularity in the nation especially during his first term. I don't believe Jefferson mentioned slavery once during his first term in office whether to Congress or in his first Inagural or first four State of the Union Addresses. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson had always felt slaves were not ready for freedom and citizenship, and that may have been a contributing factor behind his belated silence, but again, the unstable state in the House, the ongoing heated debates therein, the unstable times in general and other priorities all played a role in his silence. His statements to Heaton may appear general but he was responding specifically to Heaton's concerns, which were specific ala Jefferson's silence, which is probably why the Library of Congress says so also. You seem to be seeing only what you want to see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing what I want to see? Can you find any message to Congress during Jefferson's first term as President that in anyway relates to slavery? This is not only a Jefferson issue, but a Founder issue. First there was the Constitutional 3/5 representation clause for African American slaves that benefitted Jefferson and white aristocracy. With that said, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional convention. 4/5 of the first Presidents were from Virginia. Second, Jefferson desired a nation of white workers to replace African American slaves in his Notes on the State of Virginia (Laws, 264). Third, the Founders past Naturalization Act of 1790 that only allowed whites, without any mental illnesses, to become citizens of the United States. That was Jefferson's America where women (1920) , Indians (1924), and African Americans (1870) could not vote in elections during Jefferson's times. I believe only white property owners could vote. This is only meant to be a discussion to help the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
We've already conceded that Jefferson was silent, so your first question is off the track and suggests that I claimed that he wasn't silent. Let's keep our line straight. The rest of what follows is also amiss, rhetorical, racially divisive, doesn't relate to Jefferson's silence, and only attempts to skirt the idea of the instability in the House over slavery, which, once again, Jefferson was wise enough not to aggravate, as either side showed no signs of making any concessions to speak of. Btw, cultures throughout history have been privy to men, including Indians, who didn't allow women (or whites, btw) to sit in tribal councils. What has this got to do with Jefferson's silence and article improvement? Absolutely nothing. Unless you have content and sources that can expound on Jefferson's silence beyond the usual peer-driven academic attacks on white Americans, try not to fill this void with racial invective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The Smithsonian exhibit on Jefferson mentioned women, Indians, and African American slaves not being able to vote. There is no invective or hatred towards whites. I am not comparing and judging cultures including the Founders. Mentioning women and whites were not allowed to sit on Indian councils would be good for any articles on Native Americans. There is no POV of "superior" cultures...The whole point was that Jefferson was President of the United States for eight years. He was an outspoken critic of George III. Jefferson's silence on slavery was signifigant since the Louisiana Territory was vast. You mention there was trouble in the House. Had Jefferson spoken out possibly he could have unified the country. Now that is all theory. Why was Jefferson for banning slavery in the West in 1784 but not while he was President in the Louisiana Territory? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Voting rights have nothing to do with Jefferson's silence. Jefferson was evidently wise enough to know whether or not he would have been helping the situation or throwing gasoline on a fire that was almost out of control to begin with. As an owner of slaves he would have been seen as pro-slavery and acting out of partisan interests. We've been over this. From here on please speak in terms of sources, and what you feel should be added or deleted from the article. This discussion, along with the jumping to other topics, has long since gotten old. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sources:
Proposals:

Insert : I would prefer to cover this advent this with more clear language. e.g. Jefferson chose to remain silent while a sharply divided Congress continued to disagree over the issue of slavery, a disagreement that persisted and eventually led to the Civil War. Historical context is very important here as I'm sure you'll agree. No doubt we'll have to bring in other sources besides Wieneck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Add : Voting restrictions during the early 19th century were not unique to Jefferson's terms as president and were not of Jefferson's doing. They were customary to most if not all of the world (where voting was allowed in the first place) at that time, so there's no point in adding such stand alone ideas to the biography. e.g.'While Jefferson was president women and blacks could not vote.' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since French-held and Spanish-held slaves were already extant in the Louisiana Territory, placing a ban on further importation would have resulted in a greater non-slave holding white population compared to the territory as governed by Spain and France. Recall that such a strategy resulted in Illinois voting to be free-soil. I take it Jefferson was not able to secure an extension on the ban beyond the first year.
The issue of comparative democracy as a function of the franchise is complex, since voting requirements were governed by states, and those seeking to attract immigrants in the west admitted more voters than some of the eastern. The great expansion to universal male white enfranchisement at 21 as a national phenomenon developed during the period leading up into the Jacksonian Era.
But some statement about the United States having a comparatively wide franchise compared to other societies with elections in Jefferson's time would be useful. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: My view is that a statement on who could vote within the United States during Jefferson's time would be good discussion for the article. Comparing other nations might be to detailed for this article. Also mentioning how the electoral college worked would be good. Was enfranchizement dependent solely on state goverments? How much was wealth involved in voting? Who could legally vote? Understandably that would require some detail, but in terms of reader ship I would make clear statement of who was enfranchized during Jefferson's Presidency. Jefferson, according to Weincek (2012) page 257 states that Jefferson was against the prohibition of slavery in the Louisiana Territory. The one year ban was a compromise with Congress betwen those who desired to limit slavery in the Louisiana Territory and those who wanted to expand slavery in the Louisiana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed language addition for Democracy section

Here is my draft for two paragraphs relating to Jeffersons democratic impacts relative to the franchise.

Beginning with Jefferson’s “revolution of 1800", democratic electioneering efforts were based on egalitarian appeals, despite the undemocratic aspects of the electoral college with districts or state legislatures voting. The Jeffersonian-Republicans "surpassed anything seen before in national affairs”. Absorbing the constituencies and techniques of the city democracy, a national coalition in every state was developed among planters, yeomen, and urban workingmen against the elites of a “Federalist monacracy”. The Republicans built an infrastructure of newspapers, public events and local networks of loyal operatives to communicate directly to the people voting. Note: Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. (2006) ISBN 978-0-393-32921-6, p. 97-98

Over the course of Jefferson's two terms, in one respect, politics and Republican Party affairs continued to be organized from the top down through the congressional caucus, from national nominations to party policy. Where Republicanism was the strongest, in the South, democratic reform was the slowest. Whatever might be called democracy was viewed in widely different terms among urban radicals, rural radicals, schismatic Randolphite Quids and the dominate Madisonian moderates. Nevertheless, nationally it is fair to say popular participation grew, exploding to “unimaginable levels” for the 1790s in New England and the middle Atlantic states. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania achieved 70 percent turnouts, some counties of North Carolina over 80 percent. While voting for governor’s elections could be double that of presidential turnout, still there was "substantial increase over the norm" before Jefferson’s election. Note: Wilentz (2006), p. 138-140

I am still looking for an international comparison. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: -- All very interesting, but it seems we're adding a lot of tangential details about politics and the advent of voting in general here. e.g. "Massachusetts and Pennsylvania achieved 70 percent turnouts...", etc, etc. Careful. If we're going to add anything here it should be in terms of  how Jefferson effected  the idea and implementation of Democracy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gwillhickers. There is too much added detail that could be confusing to the reader. My suggestion is to limit the discussion to Jefferson and the slavery debate in the Louisiana Territory, and then a brief decription of Democracy while Jefferson was President of the United States, i.e., who could vote... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
While you're agreeing with me about not adding such details here, you're ready to add other details about voting rights. If you're insisting about this we also might want to add that in much of the world only Lords and property owners were allowed to vote or have any say in public affairs, that America was among the first, if not the first, to extend voting rights to the poor. (Remembering that social reform occurs one step at a time -- usually over a long time). Otoh, we could just limit any additions to the non tangential things you agreed with, adding only those things that Jefferson was directly involved with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is a great source on enfranchisement by John Ferling (2004) Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 page 86 Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't see anything there that related to Jefferson directly. In fact Jefferson is not even mentioned on the page (and following page) you linked to other than that bit about Burr trying to "whittle" Jefferson's votes. Was there something Jefferson did that effected the advent of voting? e.g.Laws drafted, bills passed, anything? We need to keep focused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Are we reading the same article? The article states Jefferson was a "spokesman for Democracy". The book has Jefferson in the title and decribes the Election of Jefferson. Ferling (2004) is giving evidence of this Democracy. Since Jefferson "All men are created equal" Declaration of Independence in 1776 more men could vote, in Jefferson's times more white males. The information that is pertinant to Jefferson is who could actually vote for Jefferson. Tax paying citizens could vote not only landed gentry. Women and blacks were disenfranchised, however. This is pertinent to the article. Democracy was spreading in America after 1776. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: -- You linked to page 86 where it speaks of disenfranchisement for Catholics, Jews, etc and the difficulty of reaching polling places, etc. Jefferson is not mentioned. The following page speaks of Federalists and Republicans, existing politics, Constitutional Convention overshadowing the election of 1800, etc, while again, Jefferson is only mentioned in relation to Burr. Again, we need to pay more mind to what Jefferson was involved with directly rather than reaching for ways to say 'Blacks couldn't vote', as if this was Jefferson's doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Democracy was spreading in America after 1776, although it would contract after the Civil War. That growth accelerates after the election of 1800 during the administration and party building of Jefferson during his tenure as President, compared to the eligibility and turnout of the Federalist period (Washington and Adams). The passage from Wilentz is describing the growth of democracy attributable to Jefferson’s national party, contrasting it with that under the Federalists. That growth includes not only persuasion in Congressional caucuses, but grass roots in all states in the Union — notably Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which was of his doing. Would you only describe Jefferson’s effect in Virginia or was he the leader of a national party which effected national and local elections? I will look for a Virginia-only citation as well.

@Cmguy777: “Define Democracy in the article, at least mention voting limitations”. But voting was expanding in eligibility and participation. The passage explains who could vote, twice the numbers voted compared to Washington’s administration. They were a coalition of a)-b) radicals for universal suffrage, urban workingmen and rural laborers, c) restrictive suffragist Randolphite Quids and d) the dominant Madison moderates, who favored expansion of the vote to members of an organized militia.

@Gwillhickers: "How Jefferson effected the idea and implementation of Democracy” — the Wilentz passage describes how Jefferson implemented democracy, expanding both suffrage and participation with newspapers, public events and local networks of loyal operatives. These “details” are the how of Jefferson’s philosophy. They bear on the crucial insight that Jefferson was not only a thinker, he was a politician. I take it the passage added should be shorter, though it would make the section only three paragraphs. — editors seem to think that Jefferson and democracy deserves some expansion, so I'm willing to keep trying. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This draft #2 shortens the Wilentz contribution and adds Ferling.

Beginning with Jefferson’s “revolution of 1800”, his democratic electioneering efforts were based on egalitarian appeals. The Jeffersonian-Republicans "surpassed anything seen before in national affairs”. A national coalition in every state was developed among planters, yeomen, and urban workingmen against the elites of a “Federalist monacracy”. The Republicans built an infrastructure of newspapers, public events and local networks of loyal operatives to communicate directly to the people voting in every state. Note: Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. (2006) ISBN 978-0-393-32921-6, p. 97-98

A key to the expansion of the electorate was changes in the election laws sponsored by the Jeffersonian-Republicans. The franchise was expanded from landed gentry to tax-paying citizens owning either their own houses or their own tools. While women, blacks and Native-Americans were generally excluded, there were increases in turnout overall. Note: Ferling, John. Adams vs. Jefferson: the tumultuous election of 1800 (2004) p. 86.

’’Democracy in Jefferson’s coalition was viewed in widely different terms among urban radicals and rural radicals for universal white suffrage, schismatic Randolphite Quids for restrictive suffrage and the dominate Madisonian moderates who would include those in the militia. Nevertheless, nationally it is fair to say popular participation grew in Jefferson’s two terms, exploding to “unimaginable levels” compared to the Federalist Era. Note: Wilentz (2006), p. 138-140’'

This proposal would make a total of four paragraphs in the section on "Democracy". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: -- (change) We're still adding a lot of things, conditions, that simply existed in Jefferson's time and seem to be lacking in the actual things Jefferson didd to further Democracy. While some historical context is good, we need to see more of what Jefferson was directly responsible for or involved with in terms of Democracy and expanding Democracy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I like the second paragraph of TheViginiaHistorian. We do not want to get bogged down in detail. The Revolution that was started in 1776 by Jefferson that led to expanded Democracy among white Americans. Women and blacks remained disenfranchised. Jefferson may have been directly or indirectly involved. Why did Jefferson call the Election of 1800 a Revolution? I believe because Democracy was expanded for white Americans. I believe a general statement that democracy expanded for white Americans, more persons were eligible to vote regardless of owning property in several states, however, women and blacks remained disenfranchised. The fact that Jefferson was forced to have Burr as his Vice President created problems for his Administration. (reference: Ferling (2004), page 87) That was changed by an Amendment to the Constitution. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for things Jefferson was directly invovled with in terms of Democracy and expanding Democracy. This is not getting "bogged down in detail". Also, almost all blacks were slaves, so it's understood they couldn't vote. We don't have to say Jefferson expanded Democracy for "white Americans" anymore than one would have to say the Chinese promoted their politics '-- for the Chinese'. That is understood. Apparently you're still reaching for a way to say 'Blacks couldn't vote under Jefferson', which had nothing to do with Jefferson. "women and blacks remained disenfranchised" is 60's hyper speak, is divisive and ignores historical context and the fact that blacks were still slaves. Let's not get bogged down with tangential details that Jefferson was not responsible for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. We can't assume that readers know blacks and women could not vote during the 1800 election. Ferling did not and that is why he stated in his book. The Smithsonian Exhibit mentioned this as well as Ferling. Democracy was expanding for whites, but not blacks or women. Jefferson in effect was directly involved with every state since he was elected President of the United States in 1800. This theme is presented in lede that states Jefferson was a "spokesman for Democracy". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ferling (2004) page 86 states that after the American Revolution Democracy expanded for whites. Ferling (2004) links the date 1776 to the time when Democracy expanded in the United States. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independance written in 1776. The DOI directly links Jefferson with the expansion of Democracy. Is that acceptable? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed language addition for Democracy section, continued

There's virtually no one over the age of ten who doesn't know that slaves couldn't vote. We're not writing for the incredibly ignorant, people who were locked in a cellar their entire childhood or for third graders and younger, and I am not impressed with Ferling's divisive language. In order for something to 'expand' for you, you must be in possession of it first. Blacks were slaves, they did not enjoy or were in possession of democratic liberties, so there was nothing to expand for them. The section is about Jefferson and Democracy. In fact, if Jefferson was not directly involved in measures that dealt with voting law, etc, we don't need to mention voting much at all, let alone who could and couldn't vote under Jefferson, as if he was involved in who could and couldn't. If there is a source that explains how Jefferson directly effected voting laws and conditions then we can devote one sentence to voting in such context. No general overtures about the political situation in Jefferson's times with a 'btw' statement for Blacks, women, Chinese, indentured servants, etc attached to it for socio-political considerations you or anyone else may still harbor at this late date. Ferling is one source. Evidently we're going to have to look for others with more objectivity and who don't insert an effectual 'whites only' statement at every remote opportunity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is stating "whites only". Democracy did expand for white Americans after the Revolution as Ferling contends, but did not expand for blacks or women. So the article states that Jefferson was a spokesperson for Democracy in the article but then do not add information that supports this contention. Democracy is left undefined. Ferling is a reliable source. There is nothing devisive. You don't have to agree with Ferling, but he is a reliable source. More people were voting after the Revolution. By the way neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence stated the word "democracy". Are you Gwillhickers going to block Ferling as a reliable source? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ferling has in effect stated 'whites only' and that seems to be your objective, as you've made no inquiries as to what Jefferson did, exactly, to expand Democracy. Block? Hardly. I've explained my position. If we can use Ferling, or any other source, to write about Jefferson's contributions to Democracy, and its expansion, fine. This doesn't mean we have to include any side comments about 'whites only' he has to offer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ferling's main point is that Democracy was expanding after 1776 the year Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. This certainly would help Jefferson's repution. Although the expansion was limited, there none the less was an expansion. This would be a success. This would counter the theory that American democracy was a myth when the country first started. Taxpayers were able to vote in the 1800 election, not just the landed gentry. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we don't have to use race, although I have no objections to stating race in the article, rather we could state Democracy expanded as more tax payers could vote in the election rather then only landed gentry. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Draft #3, an attempt to specifically address Jefferson’s personal involvement in the expansion of democracy in America.

Having left Washington's cabinet as Secretary of State, in mid-October 1795, Jefferson’s thoughts turned to the electoral bases of Republican and anti-Republican political coalitions. The “Republican” part of the United States that he would chose to advocate for included 1. "the entire body of landholders" everywhere, and 2. "the body of laborers” without land, whether agricultural or mechanical. Meacham (2012) p. 295. Beginning with Jefferson’s “revolution of 1800”, his democratic electioneering efforts were based on egalitarian appeals. Wilentz, (2006) p. 97-98

Jefferson lost the presidential election to Adams by two electoral votes in 1796, and Republicans united behind Jefferson as Vice President, president of the Senate. He personally became “the rallying point, the headquarters, the everything” of the opposition, the certain candidate for president in 1800. The successfully expansive election practices of 1796 in Pennsylvania were extended nationwide. In Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey, statewide organizations were begun, with local committees and correspondence networks set up. County committees framed local Republican tickets, and promoted partisan Republican newspapers. The Manhattan organization in New York was acquired with Jefferson’s selection of Burr as running mate. Wilentz (2005) p. 85. Jefferson in his later years referred to the 1800 election as the “revolution of 1800”, “as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 76 was in its form”, one “not effected indeed by the sword…but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.” Wilentz (2005) p.97.

Jefferson privately promoted Republican candidates to run for local state offices. Meacham (2012) p. 318. He sought an aristocracy of merit, not birth. For his second presidential term, he chose as his vice presidential candidate a New Yorker, George Clinton, the son of Irish immigrants. Unlike the Federalist take on Clinton, Jefferson "allowed for social and political mobility among whites.” Meacham (2012) p.405. Popular participation grew in both of Jefferson’s terms, exploding to “unimaginable levels” compared to the Federalist Era. Wilentz (2006), p.138. John Quincy Adams noted that following Jefferson’s 1804 election, “The power of the Administration rests upon the support of a much stronger majority of the people throughout the Union than the former Administrations ever possessed.” Meacham (2012) p. 406.

Jefferson continued his campaign to expand the electorate in his retirement correspondence. In an 1816 response to a pamphlet advocating a Virginia Constitutional Convention, he went further than the radical convention promoters. As usual wishing to keep in the background, he still sought a “general suffrage” of all taxpayers and militia-men, as well as equal representation by voter population in the state legislature, not skewed to favor slave-holding regions of the state. He also favored a reform of the country courthouse system to more nearly resemble that of the more democratic townships of New England. Wilentz (2005) p. 200.

I hope this better "answers the mail” for focus on Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Not bad at all. Jefferson's influence and contribution to the expansion of Democracy seems to rest more on the inspiration he effected rather than in any political acts he may have put forward. Are there any famous quotes (there must be) from Jefferson that more or less coin the value he placed on Democracy? Seems a good way to launch the section would be to include such in the first sentence or near the beginning of the section. One comment: Rather than using the somewhat anomalous "Popular participation" I would use the phrase "Voter participation". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That is good information TheVirginiaHistorian ! We do not have to go into alot of detail in the article. I believe stating that Jefferson encouraged Democracy or increased suffrage would be good and that more taxpayers voted since the founding of the nation in 1776. Gwillhickers seems to object to adding race to the issue such as blacks and women could not vote, only white males. I don't have any objections, but we can us the term "taxpayer" instead of adding race. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I've no objection to noting race if used in proper historical context. What I object to is the concerted effort to single out European Americans with no other heart felt objectives in mind. Throughout history almost all countries, humans, grouped together in terms of race, culture and religion and took exception to other races and cultures mixing in. Indians did it. Africans did/do it. Asians did/do it, and Europeans and Americans did it. Many countries today remain this way. The U.S. is one of the few countries that has been historically demonized for such. That is what I take exception to, esp when the effort comes from what I affectionately refer to as the 'friends of America' crowd, esp in academia. Just in case you didn't know by now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
How about the term "white male taxpayers", such as, "voting rights increased signifigantly for white male taxpayers since the founding of the nation in 1776." That in essence was the Revolution of 1800. Mentioning blacks and woman could not vote is optional. I have no issue either way. Mentioning this would allow historical perspective. No one is judging America. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, lets try on a first paragraph addition to those above, with a punchier intro and a Ferling citation:

Jefferson arrived at his final position on democracy by stages. By the end of his career, Jefferson was critical of his home state for violating “the principle of equal political rights”, meaning the social right of universal white male suffrage. Keyssar (2000) p. 37. Initially during the Revolutionary era, Jefferson accepted Blackstone’s dictum that property ownership led to the independent will required in a virtuous republic, he voted for revolutionary property qualifications in Virginia from 40 years prior. But he sought to expand the suffrage further by land distribution to the poor. Keyssar (2000) p. 10, 23. An alternative to make the electorate closer to "the people" was found following 1776 by expanding the franchise from landed gentry to tax-paying citizens owning either their own houses or their own tools. Ferling, (2004) p. 86. Having left Washington's cabinet...

That should cover the entire evolution of his thought and actions on the subject of democracy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The Democracy section is now approximately half that of Jefferson Slaves and slavery section. Further collaboration is welcomed on my part but I thought it critical to see his movement from a) propertied by smaller acreage, to b) tax-payers, to c) tax-payers and militia, -- and his electioneering to increase voter turnout including reliance on newspapers and advocating more elected local officials, consistent with his philosophy of a democratic society, effectively doubling voter turnout of those eligible in an age of expanding electorates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice work! One comment: Upon cursory examination it seems we might want to mention 'Republicanism' in the section at least once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
How about we try to arrive at a completed paragraph. Apparently Jefferson was for property as a requirement for voting but changed his view upon retirement. 02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
" Jefferson initially favored property ownership as a requirement of voting, however, upon later reflection advocated the expansion of suffrage to tax paying citizens. From the founding of the nation in 1776 to the Election of 1800, or in Jefferson's view, Revolution of 1800, democracy had increased in America where several states adopted laws that allowed white male taxpayers the right to vote along with landed gentry. Jefferson favored the distribution of land to the poor in order for them to be allowed suffrage. " 02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: I hope you did not think I ignored your comments here at Talk. When it went to mainspace my effort was really a Draft #4, I reincorporated the second draft Ferling passage as it related to the expansion of the franchise from landed gentry to taxpayers which you had approved. I used Keyssar as my lead sentence in the newly crafted paragraph to read, "By the end of his career, Jefferson was critical of his home state for violating “the principle of equal political rights”, meaning the social right of universal white male suffrage.” I use a direct quote from Meacham, writing, Unlike the Federalist take on Clinton, Jefferson "allowed for social and political mobility among whites.” I think that meets your main points.
But that is just the start of the story. Please read the middle paragraphs to see the evolution of Jefferson's thought. There was not a change of view "upon retirement" as you said.
Please do not take offense, I welcome your input. But the emphasis was on the expansion of presidential voting from 67,282 to 143,029 in Jefferson's two elections. Pinkney in 1804 came within 2,000 votes of beating Jefferson's turnout in 1800, but Pinkney lost to Jefferson in 1804 by over 65,000 in the popular vote. There was a sea change since the inaugural of the Constitution, and that's what I hoped to convey with the John Quincy Adams quote. It sets the pattern for the future of American democracy. See List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin for a graph which begins in 1824 which is of course, the Jacksonian era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Democracy section in mainspace

I suppose I can reword the first paragraph to state "evolution of thought". I don't think the article needs to get bogged down in specific details such as voting turn outs. How about this: "Jefferson's thought on suffrage evolved overtime initially favoring property ownership as a requirement of voting and then later encorporating the expansion of suffrage to tax paying citizens. " Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still afraid we may be talking past one another, but I made an additional phrase modification. The second paragraph in the Democracy section as it now reads in mainspace is,

By the end of his career, Jefferson was critical of his home state for violating “the principle of equal political rights”, meaning the social right of universal white male suffrage.[225] But he arrived at that position by stages. Initially during the Revolutionary era, Jefferson accepted Blackstone’s dictum that property ownership led to the independent will required in a virtuous republic, he voted for revolutionary property qualifications in Virginia from 40 years prior. But he sought to further expand the suffrage by land distribution to the poor.[226] An alternative to make the electorate more closely reflect “the people” residing in the state was found following 1776 by expanding the franchise from landed gentry to include tax paying citizens, those owning either their own houses or their own tools and paying taxes on them.[227]

Could you restate the paragraph as you would like to see it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: I appreciate your effort. I am not sure the reader is familiar with "Blackstone's dictum", "independent will", and "franchise". The Democracy section needed to be expanded. The reader needs to know that Democracy was expanded, not just a theory, and that several states adopted laws giving white male tax-payers suffrage. This would go along more what Ferling (2004) had stated on page 86. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: -- The existing section is overall very good. Yes, there's always room for improvement in almost any article or section, so if you feel certain ideas may need to be added or clarified by adding other details I've no objections. A general precaution. Let's make sure that the Society and government and the Democracy sections are not covering the same ideas more than they should. e.g. Both sections touch on the idea of a "virtuous" society or republic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: -- We can always link or add footnotes to any phrase one may feel "the reader" may not be familiar with. We should talk up to the reader, not talk down to them by dumbing down the prose. Noting the increase of voter turn out is an import detail in light of the general context here. Details make things more clear rather than speaking in vague generalities. Btw, Since there were other races that could vote, esp in the Spanish/French south (and even some Indians had obtained citizenship before the Indian Citizenship Act was passed) we should use the phrase 'male citizens'. Again it's understood that slaves could not vote. If there were other non-white citizens in America in significant proportions but weren't allowed to vote on that basis, then using the phrase 'whites' or 'while male' might be called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Ferling (2004) puts Jefferson and democracy in perspective. Wikipedia needs to be written in a encyclopedia format rather then a book format, i.e. summarized information. I don't understand...you state "one may feel "the reader" may not be familiar with" and then automatically assume that the readers know women and slaves could not vote. I respectfully disagree that reader automatically understands slaves and women could not vote. Ferling (2004) and the Smithsonian Exhibit (2012) did not assume that people knew slaves and women could not vote. I believe we can refer to that in the article. French and Spanish were considered European white people. In my opinion modern reliable research should take precedence in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ferling (2004) is in there and cited in note #227 to the effect that the franchise is expanded after 1776, in the Revolutionary Era and afterward, is he not? Then other sources pick up for the Federalist and Jefferson Eras.
I removed the offending "virtuous" republic, and described Blackstone's "principle"... The Democracy section now has three or four references to white citizens. Two might suffice. I will defer to another editor's ear on the subject, but too much repetition of the same phrase detracts from the narrative style without adding information for the reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777:As I said, there may be a few readers out there, some where, over the age of ten who don't know that slaves couldn't vote, but we don't dumb down Wikipedia just to appease a few who are incredibly ignorant. Btw, Modern sources don't automatically translate into reliable sources. As I've mentioned many times before, sources should be evaluated on a per source basis. To blindly accept a source as reliable simply because it was published recently would be incredibly stupid, Cm'. We've been through this. We also need to be clear about using 'white'. We should specify European-American males which would include any races that are not caucasian or all caucasian. This would also cover the fact that women couldn't vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Certainly the Smithsonian Institute Exhibit (2012) on Jefferson and and Ferling (2014) are reliable sources. Possibly what is presented or stated is not fair to Jefferson however both sources are reliable. My suggestion is to use the term "male Euro-Americans" since that would include whites and European immigrants who had U.S. citizenship and exclude both women and African Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I added "male Euro-American" to the article for context. This statement automatically implies African American slaves and women could not vote. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Diffusion of slavery

The diffusion of slavery remains to be addressed in the article in my opinion. Mentioning there was compromise legislation that Jefferson signed that banned American slave traders from the Louisiana Territory for one year to prevent an influx of the slaves would be appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

An small oversight in the header section

"A leader in the Enlightenment, Jefferson was a polymath who spoke five languages (French, Greek, Italian, Latin and Spanish[2])"

Surely Jefferson spoke English as well, bringing his total to at least six.

75.118.75.36 (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That sentence has long troubled me; I've made a stab at it but it's hard to convey an accurate picture in a few words. TJ didn't necessarily speak all those languages well, but he could read them. He also knew a smattering of Native American languages, English dialects, and German, I believe. Yopienso (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This may be a better reference than the present one. Yopienso (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Over all the last edit to the lede is okay for a lede statement. Jefferson could at least speak French fluently, and no doubt others to one degree or another, as Spanish, Italian and French are all Latin based languages, but we don't need to nail this idea down too specifically here, but we should at least mention he 'spoke several'. I have reservations about listing all the different languages with a note about Anglo roots, etc, in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he eventually learned to speak French satisfactorily after several years living in Paris.
And, yes, it might be better to simplify the passage. Perhaps: "He could speak five languages besides English and was keenly interested in science, invention, architecture, religion and philosophy; he was an active member and eventual president of the American Philosophical Society."[2]
I favor adding He was conversant in French, Greek, Italian, Latin and Spanish, and studied other languages in the footnote, which I would prefer at the end of the sentence instead of the middle. Yopienso (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the lede so we don't need to delineate the several languages Jefferson spoke and read. Do we have a source that cuts it is fine as you have? Also, mentioning "Keenly interested" by itself suggests Jefferson was not 'keenly involved'. If he was involved so it seems we would not refer to this advent as merely that of an 'interest', keen or otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Except nowhere else in the article are the several languages delineated.
  • The source in footnote [2] (scrolling up on it; I propose to make the scrolling unnecessary) says everything I want the article to say. (For my detail here on the talk page wrt French, see this.)
  • The article says "deeply interested"; what is your objection to changing "deeply" to the, um, sharper "keenly"?
  • Think I'll go ahead and make the improvements; they are purely stylistic and non-controversial. Yopienso (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing content

@Yopienso, Cmguy777, and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Yp', in the Minister to France section it mentions that Jefferson taught himself Spanish while sailing for France. Yes, we should mention the languages he spoke in the body of the text with maybe a sentence or two of context if appropriate. Seems the Interests and activities section would be a good place to mention this. Perhaps we can say that knowing other languages helped him while he was in Europe and sometimes proved to be helpful when it involved receiving foreign dignitaries and with other foreign relations matters. It would seem that a number of Jefferson's science and geography texts were written in French, authored by the fair number of French explorers and scientists of the time. In any case, sourcing the general idea shouldn't be difficult. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Interests and activities would be the best place for this information. The Minister to France needs to focus on diplomacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I like the 'Interests and activities' section for listing or discussion of Jeffersons's languages. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's linguistic ability and interest in language at its origins, and the root meanings of words, i.e.human concepts, obviously played a pivotal role in his writings, the development of his philosophy, politics -- maybe even his religion views. It seems we can do more than just mention that Jefferson could speak and read Greek, Italian, German, et al, but that the study of 'Language' and the root origins of words itself played an important role in the way Jefferson viewed and expressed political and philosophical thought. Will look for a way we can source an account of Jefferson's language and philosophical relationship with one or two sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good points, Gwillhickers; TJ's linguistic interests formed an important element of his intellect. Agree details should go in the "Interests and activities" section, but briefly, since it's a constant effort to keep out bloat. Yopienso (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A draft is in the works. May take a day or so longer. Still going through sources. Short paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Just added content covering language and linguistics. Took a little bit more than one short paragraphs to cover. i.e.Two short paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's essay on Anglo-Saxon

For those interested, here's a link to the E'book for Jefferson's essay on the Anglo-Saxon language, mentioned in the Language and linguistics section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Other formats -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking and languages apparent contradiction

I was wondering if there was a contradiction in the article. Jefferson is said to speak five languages, but in the speaking section, Jefferson is noted that he rarely spoke in public. Why? If he did not speak American English in public, then how much did he speak in private including foriegn languages. I am sure he studied the languages but how often did he speak them. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between reticence in public speaking (shyness) and language fluency (competence). Jefferson and Sally Hemings were noted as speaking conversational French in the presence of guests when they did not want to be 'overheard'. Any recounting of Jefferson's fluency in French at Court? At the time French was the universal language of diplomacy, much as English is today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully I would state more then "shyness". Jefferson spoke with a "lisp". This is why he was reluctant to speak in public. According to this source: The American Presidents, Washington to Tyler: What They Did, What They Said, What Was Said About Them, With Full Source Notes Robert A. Nowlan (2012) Page 111. Jefferson apparently mumbled his words. This was why Jefferson did not give any state of the union addresses to Congress. If the lisp affected his speech how often then did Jefferson converse in foreign languages? He limited his public speaking. The current rendition of Jefferson makes him look like a professional speaker. Quote: ""Jefferson destested speaking in public because he had a lisp, and was only able to mumble being barely heard.'" Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The Language and linguistics section mostly concerns itself with Jefferson's study of these things and how they influenced his approach to political philosophy. It doesn't say anything about Jefferson's speaking capacity that suggests he was more than an average speaker. What source does Nowland give for Jefferson's "mumbling", btw? In any case, this would have no bearing on Jefferson's interest and study of ancient languages and linguistics. Also, the biography already mentions that Jefferson was not a notable orator -- once in the lede and once in the Speaker section, which immediately follows the Language and linguistics section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree. Yopienso (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest removing the phrase "with varying degrees of fluidity". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no way to verify Jefferson spoke fluently in other languages. The article should stress Jeffersons interest in language, not his speaking abilities. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The article already stresses Jefferson's interest in language, and we have plenty of sources that cover Jefferson's varying degree of fluidity in different languages. There's no reason why we shouldn't cover this. Btw, unlike Jefferson's speaking ability, there is no way we can verify that Jefferson spoke with a "lisp" and "mumbled" unless there are several primary sources that delineate this claim in no uncertain terms. I asked from what source Nowland based his "mumbling" opinion on. The claim seems like yet another exaggeration. Speaking softly is not mumbling, and I doubt very much Jefferson would have been nominated for and elected president, twice, if he had a real speaking problem. Once again, the article mentions that Jefferson was not a good orator in two different sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what source Nowland used for his statement that Jefferson mumbled. There is no reason to believe that Nowland is unreliable as a source. The term "with varying degrees of fluidity" in my opinion is misleading to the reader and makes Jefferson look like he was a great orator. There is no recording of Jefferson to confirm how Jefferson actually spoke. Historians know for sure that he did not give state of the union addresses. That is the apparent contradiction. If Jefferson speaks with "varying degrees of fluidity" then why not give a state of the union address. TheVirginianHistorian attributes this to shyness. That does not seem plausible. There must be some reason for Jefferson's "shyness". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strawman. No one is saying Nowland isn't a RS, but like any other RS that makes unusual claims that don't fit the bigger picture, it needs to be scrutinized and compared to other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The article says he could "speak" other languages. But according to Conor Cruise O'Brien's book, pp. 35 ff., he was not fluent in foreign languages.[1] TFD (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What a great read. Makes me anxious to pursue Chapter Seven to explore O'Brien's take on Jefferson's "deviousness". I wonder if it matches Meacham's account of "politics", two sides of the same coin. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This all involves degree. (i.e.degree of fluidity; degree of speaking ability). Noting "varying degrees of fluidity" is not the same as saying Jefferson spoke several languages fluently. Once again, the article already mentions Jefferson was not a good orator and should serve to dispel any notions that Jefferson was a good speaker simply because he knew how to read and speak in a few other languages. In the event that there is more than a couple of RS's that say, clearly, that Jefferson was a lisping mumbler, then we can mention this in the Speaker section if the idea is not contradicted or undermined by other RS's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, TFD, for providing a source for something I heard/read decades ago but have been unable to find now--that TJ's French was never so hot.
I fear the section has become too large. I suggest moving most of it to the presidency article where it is more apropos. This page can't hold every wonderful, fascinating detail of TJ's life. (No sarcasm.)
We should avoid conflating "to speak a language" with "to speak in public."
The Miller Center bio says, "Something of a solitary person and embarrassed by his tendency to mumble—which was the reason he stopped delivering his annual address to Congress in person—Jefferson hated appearing in public."
"Fluency" may be a more apt word than "fluidity." Yopienso (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand Jefferson had a great understanding of languages and could speak them. Jefferson was a master of the American English language. I just think the article should tone down on Jefferson's speaking and writing ability of foriegn languages simply by removing the phrase on "fluidity". I am not asking for any major edit changes. I admit the interest section is getting large enough to be an article in itself. That could be another discussion. I believe that removing the phrase on "fluidity" would remedy the contradiction of his "lisp" or "mumbling" in is speech patterns. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Cm', There is not much to tone down and really no reason to do so as the section doesn't present Jefferson as some Noah Webster or other fantastic orator, and it also states that any fluidity, or fluency, he had for a few languages varied and changed as time went on. e.g.Jefferson didn't obtain fluency in French until he was Minister to France and began speaking it on an everyday basis. He had notable levels of fluency in Greek and Latin as he was taught these at a school which also taught math and science in these languages. The passage in question says 'with varying degrees of fluidity'. The Speaker section that follows clearly mentions that "Jefferson was not known as a good orator and preferred to remain silent if possible. Early in his political career ..." It would seem there is no need to cut it any finer than that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yp', The section lends itself to Jefferson's study of language and linguistics, esp as it's related to law and philosophy. This is an advent that has little to do with his presidency, so moving part of an already small section to the Presidency section would be inappropriate. The study of Language (something he could have done almost as well knowing only English) impacted Jefferson approach to issues of law and philosophy in a manner that effected his entire political career, et al.
  • The section size is almost too small, given the broad aspect of this subject. Again, the biography already makes clear that Jefferson was not a good orator or speech maker. Jefferson thought most debate was pointless and consequently avoided it, esp in matters that were controversial where the involved parties were unyielding as they often were throughout his two terms. If we're going to mention that Jefferson was not a good public speaker we might also want to mention that he was however a great and resourceful conversationalist in private company and often lead the conversation in his soft spoken manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear; what I think should be moved is the "Speaker" section. The rest could be trimmed as much for style as length. Yopienso (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Style"? There's an item I'm sure we can all agree on. -- No real need has been offered to move anything to the Speaker section. Bear in mind that the topics of language and speaking do have an area of overlap, so all we'd be doing is making a different section a bit longer. There is very little mention of Jefferson's speaking ability in the Language and linguistics section to begin with. The bulk of the section content covers Jefferson's study of language and linguistics as it effected Jefferson's approach to politics, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I meant the whole "Speaker" section could be moved to the article on TJ's presidency. Yopienso (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We might be getting off track. Nothing has been settled yet. Sources state Jefferson had a "lisp" or "mumbled". Then the article states that Jefferson spoke with various degrees of fluency five foriegn languages. That is a contradiction. That does not make sense to state Jefferson was a poor public speaker and then to state Jefferson spoke with fluency. Jefferson's speech "lisp" or "mumbling" must have remained with him in private conversation or public speech. The whole issue can be resolved by removing the fluency information. I am not sure the "Speaker" section belongs in the Presidency article since Jefferson's speaking ability does not have anything to do with his political views. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we should say, Jefferson had command of five foreign languages, or reading fluency in five foreign languages in that he could read texts in modern and ancient languages directly without translations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If we want to cover the finer details of Jefferson's speaking ability in the different languages it should be done in the Speaker section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Knowing several languages and not being regarded as a good public speaker is not a "contradiction", and the article says Jefferson was not a good or notable public speaker. This business about a "lisp" and "mumbling" remains to be established until we can find at least one primary source that clearly reveals that Jefferson had a serious speaking problem that amounted to more than an occasional or apparent "mumbling" of words. If he spoke softly no doubt some of his speech may have sounded like mumbling to people not nearby. I'm sure we can find many sources that say Jefferson was shy, didn't like public speaking, etc, which the article already mentions, but this lisp business sounds like another modern distortion, so I'm asking for qualified sources that reveal their source. Most sources don't mention this, so apparently Jefferson's speaking problem wasn't anything worth noting. e.g.His 'speaking problem' wasn't anything that prevented him from being reelected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why the article isn't progressing. Cmguy rarely knows what he's talking about and stalls progress by arguing idiotic points that he doesn't even fully understand. My advice would be to ignore Cmguy and carry on. Anyone with an elementary understanding of English would recognize that being fluent in a language has no bearing on them being a great or poor public speaker. In other words, TJ was not among the likes of Patrick Henry in public speaking of the era. Brad (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson was conversant with foreign languages, he had command of them regardless of his verbal enunciation. :) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Brad. I am glad you are back commentating again. There is no need to have personal attacks against myself as an editor. I disagree. The definition of fluency Dictionary.com is this: "able to speak or write smoothly, easily, or readily Jefferson was a poor speaker according to sources because he mumbled or had a lisp. That does not fit the definition of fluency. We are not questioning Jefferson's reading or writing ability. I agree with TheVirginiaHistorian that Jefferson had reading fluency of five foreign languages. That would resolve this issue rather using the word fluency. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers. The article can't state Jefferson was poor speaker and then state Jefferson was a fluent speaker. That is the contraction for the reader. Why not simply add "fluent reader" as TheVirginiaHistorian suggested. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Brad was rude but largely accurate, Cmguy777. Listen to your fellow editors' comments:
  • "We should avoid conflating 'to speak a language' with 'to speak in public.'" (Me.)
  • "Knowing several languages and not being regarded as a good public speaker is not a 'contradiction', and the article says Jefferson was not a good or notable public speaker." (Gwillhickers)
  • "Jefferson was conversant with foreign languages, he had command of them regardless of his verbal enunciation. :)" (The VA Historian) Yopienso (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777:. Thanks for picking up on my suggestions. My favorite is to say, Jefferson was conversant in three ancient and five foreign languages.
A small digression, in the definition link you provided for fluency, it admits ease of speaking OR ease of reading, and it seems you do not want to live with the ambiguity inherent in the word "fluency". That is another reason for using conversant, meaning having knowledge or experience with languages, without any ambiguity about Jefferson's presumed diction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Yopensio. I don't believe Brad was largely accurate and Brad was rude. I have addressed the above quotes nicely chosen. There is no need to repeat myself. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian. Conversant is a better word and avoids the contradiction of Jefferson's speaking ability. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I made contextual changes to the lingistics and languages section and used the word "conversant" suggested by TheVirginaHistorian. Linguistics is the study of languages. The edits avoid Jefferson's speaking ability. The result is that Jefferson's speaking ability can be discussed in the speaking section. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason why we can't mention speaking in the Language and linguistics section in the brief capacity that it was, and the term 'Language' is used as a general subject. Jefferson studied Language, ala linguistics, so there's no need for the 's'. One again, one can be fluent in a language and perhaps mumble a phrase from time to time. You've been trying to construct your own set of rules regarding fluency. Fluency also doesn't mean one speaks a language 100% correctly 100% of the time. Ergo, there are degrees of fluency, and Jefferson possessed varying degrees of fluency in several languages over the course of his life. IOW, he was conversant. I've restored everything with the exception of using the word 'conversant'. Cm', your edits were sort of meddlesome, provocative and not needed (i.e.'conversant' is basically the same thing as fluent). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers I have read the current version of the article and accept your edits. Using the term "conversant" as the VirginiaHistorian suggested is best. From what I have read in the Speaking section, obviously something is going on with Jefferson's speech since he rarely spoke in public. Jefferson was fluent in reading and writing. We need to be cautious about his speaking ability since sources state he had a "lisp" or "mumbled" and that he rarely spoke in public. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As I've said, if Jefferson had a speaking problem in the capacity you seem to be ever ready to accept he wouldn't have been successful as a lawyer, diplomat, statesman, president -- all of which require above average speaking ability and communication skills. He may have been soft spoken and didn't always make speeches but this is hardly anything to suggest that he had a speaking problem of any consequence. We need to see some primary sources. Jefferson was sometimes referred to by his contemporaries as the "silent member of the Congress", and his apprehension toward public speaking has been explained by many sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Evidently Jefferson spoke with such a low tone that many could not understand what was being said -- so it's easy to understand how one could refer to this as "mumbling", if so inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
For Jefferson not to ever speak before Congress is signifigant. I can check for primary sources. There has to be a reason Jefferson was not a public speaker, i.e., "lisp" and "mumbling" as the sources state. Why was Jefferson "soft spoken" in speech? I think best to avoid the fluency of speech issue in the article. Should the information on Jefferson's speech be incorporated into the article rather then a seperate section. Why does the article need to highlight Jefferson was not a public speaker? That is not really an interest or activity. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was Jefferson softspoken? Why is anyone softspoken, shy, loud mouthed, arrogant, whatever. You seem to be trying to do a psychological profile on Jefferson. Jefferson was fluent in several languages, whether he mumbled or had a lisp or not. We've given you several explanations, sources and examples. Jefferson himself offered quite viable explanations for not addressing Congress verbally. (Paragraphs 7 & 8) Done discussing this. Let us know if you find anything that can take the ball further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

University of Virginia

@Yopienso: Your last couple of edits were fine with the exception of the removal of this phrase: 'One of the largest construction projects to that time in North America' . Though the phrase doesn't reflect on Jefferson directly, it does offer excellent historical context of that time as building and architecture goes. I'd recommend restoring it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've put it back it in alongside "survey of members of the American Institute of Architects identified Jefferson's campus as the most significant work of architecture in America," and added a "citation needed" tag. The two together seem a little redundant to me, although they don't say the same thing. And leaning toward peacocky. A footnote telling the year the AIA made that statement would be good.
I also changed my "social classes" to "social strata" because I think "social classes" is an anachronism to TJ's period. Colonial America and the Early Republic were very stratified, though. But maybe not, and maybe "strata" is too prissy. I had originally intended to say, "not among the elite."
"Jefferson's educational idea" doesn't sound right to me but I'm not working on it tonight. Best, Yopienso (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Both statements are sort of similar -- one refers to a large building -- the other refers to architecture. In any case, we can strike the unsourced statement or let it ride until it is cited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical reputation

The Historical reputation section lends itself almost entirely to the subject of slavery and doesn't touch on many of the things that have contributed greatly to Jefferson's reputation (the section didn't even mention the Declaration of Independence), while some of the statements (e.g. "They have noted his views on race and slavery...") are not clear and can be interpreted several ways. I've restored the former more accurate phrase, upgraded the cite, but this section needs to be more balanced in its coverage ('slavery' is mentioned six times in this small section) and rewritten almost entirely -- most of the things that have contributed to Jefferson's legacy (DOI, democracy, many talents and contributions, etc) are not mentioned. At the same time mention of specific authors should be cleaned up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Engraved portrait Comment

Knowing this is a very active article, I wanted to go to the talkpage to see if there were any reactions to using this image, inserted here? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not, there's no image in that section. You might however want to crop some of the white space around the image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'm trying to avoid cropping these portraits, but if you bear with me, I recently discovered a css template that will enlarge the center of the image making it look cropped (I'm just not sure it will work outside of a table)...-Godot13 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Godot13: -- Wow, the resolution for this image was, uh, massive. (7,146 × 8,458 !) I cropped the image, reduced the resolution and uploaded the new version. This is the engraving used as a model for several U.S. Postage stamps of Jefferson. The engraving itself was modeled after a sculpture of Jefferson by Hiram Powers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: With all due respect, why would you massively crop something I've put time and effort into creating and then overwrite the existing file? I've figured out a way to have the same image without altering the original (which is part of a presidential set of engravings)...-Godot13 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Godot13: -- All that white space isn't needed, but if you like, you can always restore the original. This is an extremely large file -- in full view mode, which takes a fair amount of time to load, you can only see a small portion of the image. I'd recommend reducing the resolution for faster load time. Why such incredibly high resolution, typically used for maps and other images where details need to be enlarged to be discernible? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: The original purpose for scanning all the portraits (@2400dpi) is to highlight the art and detail involved in engraving banknotes, and their portraits and vignettes. It's a large part of my Wikicup participation. For example, I added portraits to the first 40 Treasury Secretaries and they are a set currently nominated at Featured Pictures. I would like to be able to do this with the Presidents as well. It is not my intention to use them for info boxes mainly because of their size but rather a good representative image of the individual in office.-Godot13 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Godot13: -- Good imagery is something I well appreciate and I wish you luck with the Wikicup and Featured Pictures. I understand the requirements for such images are demanding where resolution, detail, tone and such is concerned. My only reservation here is that if one decides to view the image (20+ MB!) in full view there will be an appreciable wait involved. If they are at a public library, or using a wi-fi with other parties on board, there's going to be an extra long wait involved. If you are presenting the image as a stand alone item, where the 'image' is the central theme, ala Featured Pictures, then ultra-hi resolution is called for. Very hi res is also warranted for images of maps, pictures of insects, etc. For purposes of this biography however, the reader doesn't have to see the imperfection on Jefferson's nose at a near microscopic resolution to appreciate the engraving and portrait.For an image like this, full view need not be any larger than a page (+ -) in overall size. Just my opinion. Good luck with the pictures. They're top notch in quality, without a doubt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Minister to France

@Djkeddie: -- The Minister to France section is a bit of a mess, including the placement of the latest edit. The section redundantly mentions that Jefferson took his daughter Patsy to France with him in 1784. In the first instance there is a 'note' that mentions Hemings was one of the servants that came along. In the second instance it again mentions that slaves went along to tend after the children, only this time, it's near the end of the section, out of chronological order. Other statements are thrown together in chronological disarray. The latest edit needs to be trimmed down and introduced near the beginning of this section. The section says next to nothing about Jefferson's official activities in France, doesn't mention that he became fluent in French there and doesn't even mention that Lafayette was a friend and guide for Jefferson much of the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to clean up the section by eliminating the various redundancies and providing a more chronological narrative. Djkeddie (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Section still needs a little work, but looks much better. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jon Meacham perspective on Jefferson and slavery

My source is Jon Meacham (2012) Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, pages 173, 474-478. Meacham (2012) presents Jefferson as "practical politician" rather then a "moral theorist" concerning slavery. Meacham (2012) also stated Jefferson was "wrong about slavery". Should these views be incorporated into the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the thesis of Meacham's book, that Jefferson was a practical politician, and Meacham applies it to a host of topics. I should think it is reflected wherever Meacham is cited in the article, including sections addressing slavery. If it is not, it should be, so as to faithfully report Meacham's scholarship.
Jefferson, speaking in 1820s about slavery as a debilitating legacy restricting individual development and expression in the racist society of his day, was certainly wrong in that we now know that the United States by 2014 has been proven to be a well functioning racially integrated nation, politically, economically and socially. I think it is fair to say that is the historical consensus of reliable sources. Though some would assert that there are still some residual race-based problems to a degree, such as in Ferguson, Missouri, last month. How is "Jefferson was wrong about slavery" to be incorporated in the article, in the context of what time? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Meacham (2012) discounts Jefferson's earlier anti-slavery sentiments and legislation. I believe Meacham (2012) is refering to 1819 the time of the Missouri Compromise. Meacham (2013) could be refering to Jefferson's view that racial equality would lead to a race war. There was no race war during the Civil War. Slaves did not rise up against their masters. This probably has more to do with conservative white American society who chose not to incorporate blacks as citizens. Jefferson always had to deport slaves in his emancipation plans. Ferguson, Missouri is another subject possibly beyond the scope of this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Didn't we have discussions about cherry picking one source to make the same sort of statement you've been trying to make all along? Given the divisive speak you've used above it would appear so. When you speak of a ""racist society" would that also include African Americans? Yes, the Fergueson issue has nothing to do with issues 200 years ago, and it seems like you only mention it now to emotionally woo people into support here. Again, we need to speak in terms of established facts. If we're going to start including speculations from cherry picked sources, then this opens the door to all speculations. Got any new facts? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Please direct your comments to specific editors. I did not state "racist society". That was the TheVirginiaHistorian. I also did not mention the Fergueson, Missouri incident. That was the TheVirginiaHistorian. With that said I beleive TheVirginaHistorians comments were in good faith and not intended to be divisive speak. I was not "cherry picking" any source. Meacham (2012) represent highly acclaimed (Pulitzer Prize) modern research. I gave the page numbers of this source. You have not addressed my central question as to whether Meacham (2012) views on Jefferson and slavery should be incorporated into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777 and Gwillhickers: Just so we may be on the same page,
Meacham (2012) p. 174, “After an early legal and legislative life attempting to abolish slavery, Jefferson, now at midlife, made a calculated decision that he would no longer risk his “usefulness” in the arena by pressing the issue…To have pursued abolition, even ... with deportation [to a free and independent life without white racism in Africa], was politically lethal. And Jefferson was not going to risk all for what he believed was a cause whose time had not yet come.“ It was lethal because of Southern fears of race war such as Haiti's, with domestic examples of Gabriel Prosser and Denmark Vesey, along with numerous reports circulated of poisonings and arson attributed to dissatisfied slaves.
Meacham (2012) p. 474, refers to “slave interests” contending for Missouri in 1819, “To Jefferson it was the worst of hours. He knew slavery was a moral wrong and believed it would ultimately be abolished. He could not, however, bring himself to work for emancipation.” p.477 “A multiracial society was beyond his imagination…” On page 478 Meacham refers to the “Southern interest” of Jefferson’s political commitment, “his personal home and political base." I’m not sure Meacham characterizes any governing slave-holder group in 19th century Virginia as “conservative white American society”.
Meacham (2012) p.477-8. Emancipation had been bought about by individual slave holders such as Robert Carter in 1791 in Virginia “in his lifetime in lands he knew intimately. Jefferson was wrong about slavery, his attempts at reform at the beginning of his public life notwithstanding. Here again…we see Jefferson the practical politician was a more powerful persona than Jefferson the moral theorist…And so he did what he almost never did: He gave up.” Seventeen years into his retirement, Jefferson simply conceded in 1825 that his emancipation-deportation plan was not practical for the foreseeable future in a letter to Frances Wright. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777 and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Cm', please accept my apologies, I obviously responded before I noticed the signature, given the many past debates where you have made repeated use of such terms. In any case, we can ponder speculations from both sides of the fence just so long as they don't overshadow established facts and the many actions and writings of Jefferson regarding slavery. Once again, the biography already mentions the divided historians and their many opinions, which is why it's important to include as many established facts as possible. Jefferson did consider both moral and practical factors, and as we know, sometimes conceded moral considerations for practical ones. We also know Jefferson made several attempts to introduce emancipation legislation and was defeated, mostly by Congress, which doesn't change the fact that Jefferson's moral convictions against slavery grew throughout his life, as more than enough sources have articulated. Seems we go down this road at least twice a year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers. Apology accepted. In my opinion stating "historians disagree" leaves the reader in confusion. Why not mention that Robert Carter freed his slaves in article as a contemporary comparison for Jefferson. Meacham (2012) is simply pointing out that Jefferson was practical politician, not wanting to rock the boat of slavery, in effect a conservative. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of the difficulty arises in taking Meacham’s assessment “Jefferson was wrong about slavery” at face value. Emancipation was possible within the slave society, and so in that sense Jefferson got the short run consequences wrong. Although since Carter freeing his slaves in 1791, Virginia statutes required exiling any slave freed by manumission. So Meacham’s parallel is misplaced in time. Jefferson's political environment in 1820 was not as conducive to efforts at emancipation which had been available in Revolutionary Virginia.
For Jefferson taking the long view, individual liberty and potential in the racist 19th century milieu was not attainable for the freed individual in the same way Jefferson imagined for the freedman with emancipation and repatriation to Africa. Jefferson’s concern was not only for the form of freedom, or black removal on emancipation as required under existing 1820s law, but for the practice of freedom by the individual in society, politically, economically and socially over the course of a lifetime. And that would not be achieved until white racism abated, North and South, some time into the future. So in that secondary sense, Jefferson got the consequences of slavery in white society for the freedman right. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson could have freed his slaves in 1791 at the same time Carter freed his slaves. Carter did. Jefferson did not. That would be in line with Jefferson being a practical politician. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually Robert Carter freed 452 slaves in his lifetime. Jefferson freed two slaves in his lifetime. That is a signifigant difference. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a significant difference only if you take it no further than this simple math example. There are other considerations. Many others. If you read the biography carefully, there shouldn't be any confusion. Speaking of (real) voids in the biography, it doesn't say anything about Jefferson's slaves returning from France with him of their own free will -- even when French law allowed them to remain there. Do you wonder why? Not me. Once you get over the 60's stigmas and all the peer/guilt driven hype it brought with it, it's not difficult to figure, given Jefferson and life at Monticello. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Carter was not a politician but Jefferson was. That could be another difference. I believe Carter should be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose mentioning Carter because this article is about TJ, not about manumission. We should tell about TJ, not compare him to others.
But while we're comparing here on the talk page, one of the many "other considerations," as Gwillhickers put it, is that Carter was far wealthier than Jefferson. He freed all his slaves and still died rich. As has been stated over and over here, TJ could not afford to free his slaves. (Trivia: at one time Carter was one of TJ's creditors.) Yopienso (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Yopienso, and I would add that while we're making comparisons to an other individual in some attempt to shed light on Jefferson's character, I would ask how did Carter treat and provide for his slaves? As well as Jefferson did? Or should we evaluate Carter the man without any comparison to Jefferson -- and vise-versa? We should abandon this 'comparison' routine altogether and just present the facts. They tend to speak louder, and more clearly, than opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why should we compare? Because Meacham (2012) compared Carter to Jefferson in his book Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. This is evidence that Jefferson was a pragamatist rather then a moral idealogist, i.e. Carter. I believe the comparisons would work great in the article. Meacham (2012) states that Jefferson did live in a world of abolition and that Jefferson did not hold the contemporary values of his times. He was conservative. Carter was a Founder. The subject is abolition not necessarily how wealthy Carter was nor the way Carter treated his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

boom boom boom goes cm and the slavery drum Brad (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

edit break1

Jefferson, more so than many others, advanced the contemporary values of his time, as is well covered in the biography. He was among the first to advance the idea of abolition. Jefferson was considered a liberal in his day -- not just for slavery but religion and politics also. Your use of the term 'conservative' is, once again, wholly presentist. There is plenty of evidence that Jefferson was a moralist as well as pragmatist as was explained already. The two are not inseparable. In the real world practical considerations often take precedence over moral ones and Meacham, typically, only gives us new opinion, not new evidence. Of course, if you want to sell history books about early American history in this day and age you need to include more than the established facts that have been well documented and articulated by many dozens of other historians. i.e.You need to fill it up with rhetoric and controversial opinion that will turn heads and agitate people. Unfortunately that's what sells in our entertainment addicted and racially charged society. We need to move on, Cm'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Meacham (2012) is not stating Jefferson was immoral, rather that he was a pragmatic politician. Carter would have been the moral idealist. Yet Carter was not a politician. Meacham (2012) discards Jefferson's previous anti-slavery legislation attempts. He does acknowledge that the North West Ordinance of 1787 was a partial victory for Jefferson in terms of anti-slavery response. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Meacham discards Jefferson's previous anti-slavery legislation attempts?? IOW, Meacham cherry pics the facts to suit his opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
But Carter was concerned only with his own affairs. What he did was properly called manumission, he did not advance it as emancipation in a general system reaching every corner of society, as Meacham seems to transform it in his argument. Is it proper to say Meacham discards Jefferson's previous anti-slavery legislation attempts? Meacham notes them with approval. Likewise Jefferson's eventually self-acknowledged unattainable plan of emancipation-deportation might be called more properly emancipation-repatriation, as it sprang from Enlightenment motives of concern for the individual freedman's liberty in self-government away from artificial societal restraints of the past, such as white racism.
As Meacham noted, for the purposes of his analysis and conclusion on slavery, Jefferson himself lived in a racially integrated society at Monticello, so full emancipation and racial integration should not have be beyond his imagining in the larger Virginian society. But some historians will disagree with Meacham's benign characterization of labor relations on Jefferson's plantations. Others may take exception about Meacham's assumption that Virginian society generally in the early 1800s was as fertile ground for such a sweeping reform that Meacham supposes as the happy condition of blacks and whites in Jefferson's extended "family" at Monticello.
In Jefferson's neighbor and political ally, Edward Coles', experiment freeing all his slaves on his immigration to Illinois, Coles chose to remove them into Ohio exile for their benefit rather than chance life in Virginia as freed slaves. Jefferson famously considered spreading out black populations as a means to encourage emancipation. How is Coles example substantially different from Jefferson's proposals from the individual freedman's point of view? Later legislation in Illinois banned free blacks from entering, but not so in Liberia. It may be for the best that emancipation came when and how it did; "what if" history is not good scholarship. In any case, I am not sure we can fairly reflect all the nuances of reliable schools of historiography regarding slaves and slavery here in a summary article on Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Which is why it's best to concentrate on the facts and let readers make their own speculations. -- On my way out the door. More later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Monticello was racially integrated but the African Americans were enslaved and did not have citizenship rights. There were no laws that gave slaves any rights and were considered property of their masters. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
To keep this discussion focused here is a proposal sentence:
Jefferson did not support the ideology of abolitionists, as his contemporary Robert Carter, rather for political, racial, and practical purposes he believed gradual emancipation and deportation was best for slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Alternative 2. Jefferson personally supported individual manumission in Virginia, but the laws limiting the freeing of slaves became increasingly restrictive even at death, making gestures such as Robert Carter's impossible by the early 1800s. Additional Virginia legislation required the forceable expulsion of freed blacks within a year of their emancipation. While his neighbor Edward Coles successfully freed all his plantation's slaves into exile in Ohio and Illinois, by 1825 Jefferson acknowledged his plan for gradual voluntary emancipation, training, funding and repatriation to Africa was not attainable for large numbers in the near future. [note]Liberia's struggling settlement established a Constitution in 1825. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Alternative 2 in my opinion is misleading. Jefferson freed two slaves during his lifetime while Carter freed 452. That is a signifigant difference. Also manumission is not the same as abolition. Jefferson did not support or embrace the ideology of abolitionists. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cmguy777: - Jefferson not only supported the ideology of abolitionists, he contributed to that ideology, evident in his writings and actions, which is what motivated him to advance abolitionist legislation and oppose slavery his entire life. Comparing Jefferson to Carter in such a narrow mathematical sense is grossly misleading, intellectually delinguent and only plays on the emotions of the ignorant who subscribe to the 60's flat-earth version of slavery in America. Jefferson believed releasing slaves, who by an large had no place else to go or any means to support themselves, into American society, was counter productive to their well being, to say the very least. Jefferson also didn't want to burden his family with a tremendous debt. While we're making comparisons, we should also compare Jefferson to those slave owners who treated their slaves cruelly, neglected providing for them in a humane way, didn't release a single slave and never even gave the prospect any serious consideration, as did Jefferson. If we're going to compare Jefferson to others, let's be fair about it. Cherry-picking one wealthy slave owner who could afford to release many slaves is misleading, and Cm, I believe you're smart enough to know this. And what became of Carter's slaves? Did they go out and find jobs and buy farms and ranches? Do you even know? Seems all you want to do here is compare Jefferson to one solitary number out of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @TheVirginiaHistorian: -- I generally agree with you here, and as usual, your depth of knowledge and broad perspective on this complex topic is impressive, but I fear we're getting away from the biography a bit. I believe all the additional info on legislation, laws, etc would be better placed in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article if it's not already there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's not forget the discussion we had back in February.
According to Jefferson's main overseer of slaves, Edmund Bacon, freeing his slaves was something Jefferson had always wanted to do. However, since Virginia law didn't allow slave owners who were in debt to free their slaves, allowing creditors to seize them, Jefferson who was heavily in debt was forced to have his slaves sold after his death.
i.e. Jefferson had no choice. If we're going to add anything to the already large Slaves and slavery section it should be along these lines, not some out of context number regarding one wealthy slave owner who could afford to release slaves and wasn't bound by law not to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Why is there so much hostility to Meacham (2012) as a source. Meacham (2012) compared Jefferson and Carter. Jefferson was under the same laws Carter who used the laws to free over 400 slaves. By comparison Jefferson only freed two slaves. The earlier 1782 law allowed Jefferson and Carter to free slave unemcumbered. This was later restricted in 1806. The article is misleading in stating Jefferson could not have free his slaves even under the 1806 restriction. Jefferson according to Meacham (2012) was a practical politician not a moral ideologist concerning slavery. You can't be an abolitionist and own slaves. I put this subject in the article for discussion and not to be personally attacked. Are your for banning Meacham (2012) from the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As you pointed out, Meacham discards Jefferson's previous anti-slavery legislation attempts and then tries to compare Jefferson with Carter but does so by further disregarding other facts. e.g.Jefferson's debt. Yes, you can be an abolitionist and own slaves. Jefferson provides us with the definitive example, and his writings about slavery show that he indeed held deep ideological reservations about owning slaves. He had quite viable reasons for not releasing slaves unprepared into American society, and he was not able to free them because he used them as collateral for the loans he still had yet to pay off. If Jefferson had sold the slaves regardless, he would have had creditors after him. Comparing Jefferson to Carter by no other way then with the number of slaves freed is underhanded. There is much more to consider and your attempts to ignore it all is frankly getting a little stale. Please stop cherry picking the sources and ignoring important facts to make your isolated and misleading little point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit break 2

Gwillhickers. Editors can't disregard a source such as Meacham (2012) because an editor disagrees with Meacham's (2012) conclusion concerning Jefferson. Is Gwillhickers is banning Meacham's (2012) views from the article? Meacham (2012) comparison of Carter and Jefferson is not underhanded nor opinion. Carter was moral ideologist and Jefferson was a practical politician. Jefferson free two slaves Carter free 452. Jefferson and Carter were both Virginians and under the same 1782 manumission law. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A little chronology. In 1782, Jefferson at age 31 had just finished a one year term as Governor and had returned to Congress where he then shepherded the Land Ordinance of 1784 where Virginia ceded the vast area it owned northwest of the Ohio River to the national government, preparatory to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
In 1791, when Jefferson was Secretary of State to Washington, Robert Carter III, 63 and the richest man in Virginia, began a program of gradual manumission of his slaves, who upon gaining freedom, then worked his lands as tenants. Fellow abolitionist George Mason refused to assist him in a suit at law and Carter’s neighbors shunned him. After Carter was tarred and feathered, he and his daughters exiled to Baltimore. Freed slaves had freedom papers stolen and were returned to slavery. Subsequent Virginia law required masters to post a prohibitive bond for each freed slave against potential vagrancy. No prospect for building a political base and building a nationwide political party for liberal causes here. No, Jefferson did not follow Carter's example, but does the episode belong in Jefferson's biography? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian and Cmguy777: -- Robert Carter is to be commended for his attempt, but apparently he was a reckless idealist in this regard, his actions resulting in a calamity that brought further misfortune to his freed slaves. This episode provides us with a classic and definitive example as to why Jefferson had reservations about releasing slaves into "freedom" in that day and age. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This certainly underscores what Meachem (2012) is stating. Jefferson was a practical politician not the moral idealist as Carter at the peril of the Virginia mob who possibly was tarred and feathered himself and his family and having to flee Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
But the proposal to assert Jefferson did not support the "ideology of abolitionists" is not what Meacham says. There were several means to abolition actively taken over these years and several more under consideration. Many of those extant in revolutionary Virginia were legislatively cut off over time, or they were made practically impossible. Jefferson did in fact support the means to freedom Carter employed, master's manumission, but Jefferson gave freedom at his death and those slaves self-exiled from Virginia as required by law, if they did not, the freed faced re-enslavement in a year. Since Jefferson practiced manumission and advocated for the eventual end of slavery and proposed legislation to obtain eventual abolition, one cannot say Jefferson did not support the ideology of abolition, nor did Meacham say that. It may be that Jefferson did not behave the way one of our WP editors wanted Jefferson to behave, but that disappointment per se does not belong in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian Jefferson embraced manumission and supported expatriation of free blacks. That is not the same thing as abolitionism. He freed two slaves during his lifetime while Carter freed all of his slaves. Jefferson practiced slavery and profited from slavery at the same time he is considered to be an abolitionist. That is contradictory. Meacham (2012) does not state that Jefferson was an abolitionst rather a practical politician. Jefferson also bought and sold slaves. How can the be abolitionism? As President he allowed slaves after one year to be brought into the Louisiana territory. Abolitionists wanted to abolish domestic slavery throughout the entire United States. Please do not make personal attacks against my intentions. I have tried to keep this discussion on Meacham (2012) not myself as an editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777, You have no citation to Meacham to support your proposed “Jefferson did not support the ideology of abolitionists…” The Constitution permitted slavery in the states, so each state with slavery had to find a way to regulate it or end it. Virginian opponents of slavery and its effect on an individual were reluctant to adopt the northern state strategies of gradual emancipation at age 16, because at age 14, the Yankee practice was to sell individuals South into permanent slavery, not wait to emancipate in place. The result as shown in the census was a decline in black populations along with the decline of slaves for the first decades of the 19th century.
Jefferson supported freeing blacks held in slavery who voluntarily chose to accept training and sponsorship of themselves and their families for a new life in Liberia. That is one of the programs of abolitionism under consideration in America by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln.
Gradual emancipation, sponsorship and voluntary repatriation to Africa is a part of the narrative of abolitionism in America, regardless of any original research into what may be “true” abolitionist ideology. Meacham the historian does not mention “abolitionist ideology” in conjunction with Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian Meachem (2012) pages 477-478 compares Jefferson political pragmatism to Carter moral ideology (Carter setting all his slaves free; giving them land to live on and paid employment). That is abolitionism. Meachem (2012) does not state Jefferson was an abolitionist. Daniel Gaido (2006) The Formative Period of American Capitalism: A Materialist Interpretation on page 17 states that Jefferson and Madison, Republicans, represented the Southern slave interests. Additionally "The most popular leaders of pro-slavery Populism were Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.... That is not a ringing endorsement that Jefferson was an abolitionist. Since Jefferson represented the slave interests in the South he could not be an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson was not primarily an abolitionist, but having failed legislatively as a young man and in middle age, in later years he adopted one of the strands of abolitionism in the United States, that of the American Colonization Society. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson the abolitionist

Going over the Jefferson biography, it seems more needs to be said about Jefferson as an abolitionist. I couldn't help but trip over the sources that support this idea. Here is a sample -- there are many others.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How ironic. In my opinion this is blatant cherry picking from google searching. Abolitionists can't own slaves. Jefferson freed relatively few of the hundreds of slaves he owned and profited from. That is not abolition. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not one of the above sources directly states Jefferson was an abolitionist. Padover (1965) is the closest. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There is already enough about his views on race and slavery in the article. TFD (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the exact text from Jefferson's Land Ordinance of 1784:

That after the year 1800 of the Christian aera, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson's 1784 Land Ordinance allowed slavery for 16 years in Western territories. I will agree this is Jefferson's strongest proposed legislation against slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
By contrast the Northwest Ordinance of 1784 immediately ended slavery in the Northwest Territory. However, unlike Jefferson's 1784 Land Ordinance, the capture of fugitive slaves was written into the law. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@TFD The issue is the content and accuracy of the information in the article and that the article needs to reflect modern research of Meacham (2012). Cmguy777 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Cmguy777's By contrast the Northwest Ordinance of 1784 immediately ended slavery in the Northwest Territory." --- No, during the governorship of Edward Coles in the 1820's, Illinois still had former French national slave holders inside its borders. Their neighbors never brought suit against them, so the slaves remained in place decades after the Northwest Ordinance. The Illinois legislature's had a fight whether to allow slavery, since once no longer a territory, a state could authorize slavery. On narrowly abolishing slavery as a state, the legislature prohibited immigration of free blacks into Illinois. The history is considerably messier than ideology allows. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@ TheVirginiaHistorian. The 1787 law did not have Jefferson's 1800 condition thus banning slavery took place immediately. Americans could no longer practice slavery nor bring slaves into the territory. Allowing slavery as Jefferson 1784 Land Ordinance would have created a greater pro slavery sentiment in the territories since there would be 16 years before slavery would be banned. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cm', after parading around with one source, Meacham, in a futile attempt to make one isolated out of context statement, you are hardly in a position to be accusing anyone of cherry picking. One need not search google (your implication that this is somehow wrong noted). All one has to do is check/search the various sources in this or the dedicated Jefferson bibliography -- the above list is by no means complete. Yes, you can be an abolitionist and own slaves. Once again, Jefferson, and others, gives us definitive examples and Jefferson's writings and actions demonstrate the point time and again. All you've been doing here is sniping at superficial inconsistencies where laws and such were written. You have yet to come close to demonstrating that Jefferson had no moral considerations and that he didn't strive for abolition. Though you may not be able to find a verbatim statement that says "Jefferson was an abolitionist", the examples given demonstrates/states this point in a number of ways. e.g.:

" (Jefferson) envisioned a program of gradual abolition..."
"Jefferson was the crucial figure in American history both for slavery and for abolition"
"Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed."

Hello? Your claim that Jefferson's views about slavery were soley practical, not based in moral and ideological considerations, only exemplifies how ignorant, or blind by preference, you've been about this topic. More context about Jefferson's abolitionist aspirations needs to be included. There are more than enough sources to base this premise on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Cm, you are again ignoring the former French nationals who held slaves and persisted in holding them when nationalized as American and Illinois citizens. When the British ceded the North American continent west to the Mississippi River, they had not displaced the previous French (who had settled prior to the French and Indian War) and their slaves on plantations settled in modern Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana.
These were subsumed into the United States citizenship with some degree of urgency on Jefferson's part at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, especially in what would become the Louisiana Territory. The point was to attach the former French nationals to the United States, safeguarding their property claims against the Spanish since the Spanish contested French sale of the Louisiana Purchase to the United States. The press of international affairs did not apparently allow for the luxury of an abolitionist experiment when the security of the lower Mississippi River was in play. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers. I am not the one who is ignorant and blind. Your contention is with Meacham (2012) but you make personal attacks against myself. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@ TheVirginiaHistorian. Yes there were French slave owners in the NorthWest Territory. Jefferson nor the 1787 Ordinance did not address these issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources for Jefferson's abolitionist views

  • . . .

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson thought that the U.S. should be a nation of white "yeoman" farmers. He thought that ending the slave trade would reduce the number of slaves and the remainder could be deported to Africa. The article says that. That does not put him in the same league as Wilberforce, or even Hamilton. let alone John Brown. TFD (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is one of Jefferson's practical considerations, believing that great numbers of freed slaves harboring resentments about slavery would spell disaster for them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, do you support Meacham (2012) as a source ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Meacham is cited 17 times in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Cm', you're typically trying to change the subject with this strawman. I've been more than clear as to what I support and don't support. Suggest you gets your ducks in a row and at least make an attempt to debate the issue honestly. Before that you might want to take a good long review of edit history and see who has used Meacham as a source in the past. Here's a clue or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with TFD: TJ's "abolition" wasn't the same as William Lloyd Garrison's or any real abolitionists'. (See McPherson's definition in the abolitionism article.) You omitted a key phrase in quoting Bernstein: "--denouncing Jefferson because of his opposition to slavery and his supposed support for abolition." Supposed support. I don't think you'll get anyone to agree that a man could work slaves and be an abolitionist at the same time; TJ was conflicted between the two, but his pragmatism overcame his morality. Yopienso (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(Insert :) Regarding the one source that says "and his supposed support for abolition", by itself this neither means that he was or wasn't, but taken together with the other sources (e.g. "Jefferson was the crucial figure in American history both for slavery and for abolition", and all of Jefferson's attempts at abolition, it can be seen that it merely acknowledges the apparent inconsistency that Jefferson was a slave owner yet strove for abolition. There are more than enough sources, including primary sources, that more than support the idea. Any source that says otherwise is, like Meacham, no doubt discarding important facts to support their already made up minds. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are different kinds. The abolitionist as immediate universal emancipation into "racially integrated society, one day, maybe" is not the same abolitionist as "emancipation to freedom" into a self-reliant republic with political, economic and racial equality that Jefferson envisioned for the individual African-American freedman leaving with his family for Liberia after training and sponsorship.
Now it happens, I prefer the good outcomes that we've ended up with, in an integrated society, here, together, though I don't much like the obstacles overcome to get where we are. And I personally would prefer to live in the U.S. society today rather than in Europe or Africa, after having seen both. And I agree with TFD, "There is already enough about [Jefferson's] views on race and slavery in the article." --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the section is large enough and has more than enough scope regarding Jefferson's views, his ideology, his pragmatism, treatment of slaves, and all the attempts at legislation/abolition. It might do well to mention that there were many who were opposed to slavery who took in slaves and took very good care of them, esp in Boston, New York and Philadelphia. Obviously this has dumb-founded the naive and ignorant, presentists who see themselves as 'modern thinkers' and whose views of slavery extend no further than the shores of the U.S. Abolitionist minded slave holders were no more unusual than people today who are opposed to air pollution yet drive a car to a environmental summit -- or someone who shoots a home invader but is opposed to violence. (Gee-wiz -- How could that ever-ever beeeee?) Since the 60's we've mostly been handed the 2 dimensional account of slavery, esp by those who have political and racial motivations and actually become angry and irrational should anyone dare mention anything but the narrow doom and gloom version of slavery in America, which btw, was starkly different from slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil, where the life expectancy of slaves was about seven years. Jefferson, like Carter, wanted to free his slaves, but unlike Carter, was wise enough not to let ideology overshadow the reality of such a risky venture and was not gullible enough to be goaded into doing so. Yes, I too would prefer to live in American society, at any point in time. One of the few places slavery is openly practiced today is in Africa. (1, 2, 3) and it isn't practiced the way it was by and large in America. There are other examples, just for the historical perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhicker's Meacham (2012) presents Jefferson as a practical politician not wanting to rock the boat of slavery. Carter rocked the boat and he suffered the consequences from an angry Virginia mob. With that said to define Jefferson as an aboltionist is stretching the facts since Monticello was a profit making venture made possible by slavery. Possibly Jefferson feared the angry mob or more likely he just did not believe African Americans were ready for citizenship. An abolitionist was for abolishing slavery and for giving blacks citizenship as Carter attempted. The angry reaction had more to do with freed blacks in white society rather then Carter freeing his slaves. Jefferson believed whites were African American caretakers. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson was an abolitionist for moral and' practical reasons, and we live in a three dimensional world, Cm'. There are plenty of facts and sources that cover this rather well. Here also, you are not in a position to be making an issue about "stretching the facts" when you embrace one solitary cherry-picked source that ignores many of the facts. Key facts, no less.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Carter made no attempt to give his freed slaves full citizenship, he attempted to give them physical security as long term tenants on his plantations. This is not "freed blacks in white society", obstreperous white tenants were removed from his properties. Carter gained pecuniary benefit from this arrangement, but you do not deprecate his motives, why be inconsistent and slam Jefferson for advocating emancipation but at the same time benefiting from the labor of blacks? Jefferson freed all the children of Sally Hemings, formally or informally as it is said he promised her, whether or not he fathered them (freeing the master's children was the practice in the French Caribbean). His family disposed of his slaves among owners of related slave families at an opportunity cost to the estate.
“Abolitionist” in American antebellum history encompasses AT LEAST a) gradual removal of black populations in Northern states under the guise of gradual emancipation at age 16 in the New Nation Era, slaves were deported South at age 14 into perpetual slavery, (though there were substantial free-black communities in port cities, North and South in the antebellum era), b) gradual emancipation, training, sponsoring, and colonizing with families to Africa supported by Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln in the antebellum period, and c) immediate comprehensive emancipation with racially constrained citizenship as in the Northern states.
This diversity is a part of the historical fabric of American abolitionism. Is there a preponderance of reliable sources, is there any reliable source which asserts a monolithic "abolitionist ideology" to test for purity at the turn of the 19th century with racial integration and full citizenship in the historical time? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Carter did something to make an angry mob tar or feather himself or one of his families. Carter was banished from Virginia society and he dared not return. Having freed blacks work as paid tenants on his property, rather then slaves, was a form of citizenship that late 18th and early 19th century Virginia white society could not accept. Also freed blacks meant that white slave owners would loose representation in Congress. Contemporary Baptist and Methodists churches or ministers in Virginia during Jefferson's times advocated aboltion of slavery and full equality of blacks. This of course is Meacham's (2012) view that Jefferson did not live in a time when abolition of slavery was non existent. Jefferson was conservative or moderate for his time. Jefferson did not associate with the Baptists and Methodists churches who supported abolition of slavery and citizenship for blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson advocated and end to slavery. This makes him an abolitionist, who as TVH points out, were not all squeezed through the same hole. They differed on various points and approaches to abolition. Jefferson was also a liberal -- a radical by some accounts -- in politics and in religion. He opposed standing armies and was opposed to elitist privilege. These were all liberal tenants. It was the conservatives of his day, esp in the south, who opposed abolition and yes, they would lose representation in proportion to freed slaves. This was only a concern for those who supported slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777, a couple of factual points. Each freed black as a free person was counted as a full resident for Congressional representation, not as a slave at 3/5 a person. This is a part of the antebellum Liberty Party’s reinterpretation of the Constitution as anti-slavery.
Meacham does not say there was only one intellectual tradition of emancipation in American history, as there were several, and Jefferson belonged to one of them.
Jefferson did associate and correspond with Baptists and Methodists, he famously penned the “wall of separation between church and state” to one, and he rotated regular church attendance among three churches in his county and contributed to them, which I believe were the Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Methodist.
And yes, Baptists and Methodists in the antebellum South practiced a “priesthood of all believers” that included worship leadership by blacks and women until their churches divided sectionally in a precursor to the Civil War, and at that division, Southern Baptists and Methodists racially segregated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

boom boom boom boom Brad (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Abolition

Cm', can you tell us how Jefferson "represented the slave interests in the South"? Please don't give us any more conjecture or unsupported stub-statements you like to throw in just for effect. e.g."Jefferson was a conservative." Simply tell us what you know that dozens of other sources somehow missed altogether. We've seen how some sources will ignore key facts to support an opinion, but somehow you seem to have missed almost all the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that Jefferson's term for what he represented was the "Southern interest" and that he had both a near term and a long term view of what those interests entailed. Jefferson's long term interest of the South included an end to slavery in a way which would not precipitate a race war, as he believed freedom for all would benefit all and a race war would benefit no one of any description. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency with this article, multiple NPOV issues

For those interested, the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article is a NPOV disaster and in many instances is not at all consistent with this article. See Talk:Thomas Jefferson and slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

For those interested, two new sources have just been added to the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson (not to be confused with the bibliography for this article).

  • Lerner, Max (2013). Thomas Jefferson: America's Philosopher-King
  • Levy, Robert (2007). The First Emancipator: Slavery, Religion, and the Quiet Revolution of Robert Cater

Like other publications, Levy's book about Carter is included because it mentions Jefferson extensively throughout the text, almost as much as Carter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

Proposed section:


Though Jefferson owned slaves, it is widely held that he was opposed to slavery on moral and practical grounds and was among the first to publicly and officially take action against the institution, making several attempts to introduce legislation for its abolition, both in the U.S Congress and in Virginia.
(examples from failed attempts and successful measures in court cases and legislation, state and nationally)
Following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion in the summer of 1800, Jefferson began to consider a gradual emancipation plan of voluntary training, sponsorship and resettlement for slave families. The concept was eventually taken up with the formation of the American Colonization Society in 1817, endorsed by ante-bellum moderates such as Jefferson's cousin John Randolph, Henry Clay, Richard Bland Lee and Abraham Lincoln. The idea of recolonization was met with mixed reactions from proponents and critics among the many different political and religious groups of the day.

We have enough content to move forward with the section. It doesn't come right out and claim "Jefferson was an abolitionist" while still touching on the facts concerning Jefferson's many attempts at and approaches to abolition and colonization. It also acknowledges the inspiration and impetus Jefferson provided for the A.C.S. and similar efforts while also mentioning the mixed reactions towards these involvements. Re:Sources. This shouldn't be difficult. I'll begin by sourcing the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian, since you authored the 2nd paragraph mostly I'm hoping you can expedite matters by providing the sourcing here. As for the examples, these are already covered generically in the slavery section, but if anyone wishes to enumerate them they'll get no objections from me at least. At the same time we should make efforts to consolidate any appropriate facts that exist in the section into the proposed subsection, avoiding any redundancy. Any further suggestions that have not already been addressed are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The above text does mention abolition at the end. The reader would conclude Jefferson was an abolitionist. Also the sentence is general statement rather then specifics. I would mention gradual emancipation and expatriation. I would also state Jefferson Land Act of 1784 would have ceased slavery in the West after 1800. Jefferson's training, emancipation, and colonization program was developed in 1779. The American Colonization Society was founded by Robert Finley of New Jersey. I have looked up to see whether there was any correspondence between Finley and Jefferson. I could not find one letter. Also there is no mention of Carter, his emancipation of his slaves, and the hostile reaction from the Virginia conservative citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
In Jefferson’s Letter to David Bailey Warden 12.26.20 from Monticello, we have Jefferson’s take on the Missouri Question, "the spreading [slaves] over a larger surface adds to their happiness and renders their future emancipation more practicable.” and on Virginia Governor Randolph’s proposal, "Mr. Randolph is at present our Governor, & of course at Richmond. He has had the courage to propose to our legislature a plan of general emancipation & deportation of our slaves.” Although not yet ripe for passage, Jefferson believed the proposal along with the Missouri Question debate, would get serious attention if the public kept in mind the dangers of St. Domingo’s race war. Recall Jefferson's contention that the races living peaceably together would be made problematic by both white prejudice and the memory of countless injuries done each individual undergoing slavery.
Jefferson is acknowledged by Finley and the American Colonization Society as a precursor to the ACS in the first organizational meeting, as cited in Henry Noble Sherwood’s article in Woodward’s Journal of Negro History. Gradual emancipation and colonization proves Jefferson was an moderate and practical abolitionist.
We must be freed of Galdo’s ideological blinders which artificially limit our ability to distinguish between John Taylor of Caroline who promoted slavery as a positive good and sought its expansion, and Thomas Jefferson who condemned slavery as a moral evil to master and slave, opposed its concentration to bring about emancipation, and sought its limitation and gradual abolition from the American republic.
It would be difficult in a time when U.S. citizens use "African-American" to use the ideological "emancipation and expatriation" when today's widely accepted usage indicates "emancipation and repatriation" from the wrong of a forced exile from Africa. My preference would be a more neutrally descriptive, "emancipation and resettlement", or "emancipation and colonization" because that is more inclusive of Jefferson's various proposals for purchase of land in Ohio by the state of Virginia, national land grants west of the Mississippi, and U.S. sponsored colonization in the Caribbean and finally Africa.
Aside: Voluntary migration makes sense for an individual and their family, not so much the ideological proposal for wholesale removal of a race, a failing of the "theoretical mind" as Madison once described Jefferson's limitation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative paragraph: Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Jefferson remained opposed to slavery on both moral and practical grounds. Starting in 1779 Jefferson proposed a gradual emancipation plan of voluntary training, sponsorship and resettlement for slave families to the Virginia legilature. In 1784 Jefferson proposed to the United States Congress legislation that would cease slavery in the Western Territories in the year 1800, however, this legislation was defeated by one vote. In 1787, Congress passed the Northwest Ordiance, a partial victory for Jefferson, that ceased slavery in North West Territory. During Jefferson's lifetime Virginia society, as proven by Robert Carter's slave emancipation in 1791, was strongly opposed to African-American citizenship, while colonization of freed slaves was viewed as an acceptable less drastic alternative. Following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion in the summer of 1800, Jefferson again proposed a colonization plan for African-Americans to prevent a violent race war. Colonization of Afican-Americans became popular throughout the early 19th Century. By 1817, Robert Finley of New Jersey, influenced by Thomas Jefferson, started the American Colonization Society and was endorsed by ante-bellum moderates such as Jefferson's cousin John Randolph, Henry Clay, Richard Bland Lee and Abraham Lincoln. The idea of recolonization was met with mixed reactions from proponents and critics among the many different political and religious groups of the day.

Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a first reaction to this draft alternative, I like the counter-points in Cmguy's specifics. They strengthen the proposed passage, without lengthy duplication of information found elsewhere in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Cm', after all your foot dragging you now surprise me. Good work, though your opening sentence presents the statement as absolute fact, rather than 'widely held', which I restored. I added a couple of other tweaks and replaced 'African Americans', a modern politically correct term that all blacks are not in agreement with, with 'freed slaves', which is the more accurate term and is what these blacks were considered as. Let's get some sources lined up.

Attempts at abolition and colonization

Although Jefferson owned many slaves during his life, it is widely held that he was opposed to the institution of slavery on both moral and practical grounds.[1] He made several attempts to advance legislation to abolish slavery, and later proposed colonization of freed slaves to an independent country of their own in Liberia.[2][3] Starting in 1779 Jefferson proposed a gradual emancipation plan of voluntary training, sponsorship and resettlement for slave families to the Virginia legislature. In 1784 Jefferson proposed to the United States Congress legislation that would cease slavery in the Western Territories in the year 1800, however, this legislation was defeated by one vote. In 1787, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, a partial victory for Jefferson, that ceased slavery in North West Territory. During Jefferson's lifetime much of Virginia society, as proven by Robert Carter's slave emancipation in 1791, was strongly opposed to freed slaves becoming citizens, while their colonization was viewed as an acceptable alternative. Following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion in the summer of 1800, Jefferson again proposed a colonization plan for freed slaves to prevent a violent race war.[4][5] Colonization became popular throughout the early 19th Century. By 1817, Robert Finley of New Jersey, influenced by Thomas Jefferson, started the American Colonization Society and was endorsed by a number of Antebellum statesman including Jefferson's cousin John Randolph, James Monroe, continuing on to Abraham Lincoln. The idea of recolonization was met with mixed reactions from proponents and critics among different political and religious groups of the day.[6]

References

  1. ^ Jefferson Foundation:Thomas Jefferson and Slavery
  2. ^ Helo, 2013, p.105
  3. ^ Hanson, McPherson, 1891, p. 17
  4. ^ Meacham, Jon (2012). Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. Random House LLC. ISBN 9780679645368. p.326
  5. ^ Jefferson letter to David Bailey Warden 12.26.20 from Monticello. viewed 15 September 20014.
  6. ^ Sherwood, Henry Noble. “The Formation of the American Colonization Society”, The Journal of Negro History, Carter G. Woodson, ed., 1917 vol. II, p. 210-211.

Sources

  • Hanson, John; McPherson, Thomas (1891). History of Liberia. Johnson Reprint Corporation, 63 pages. E'book

Reminder, when we add this subsection to the Slavery section, we'll have to delete some redundancies that will occur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian. The paragraph looks great ! My only concern is the term "abolish slavery" Is there another way to rephrase the sentence? Possibly the phrase "to end slavery" or "to reduce slavery". Why not just mention Jefferson opposed slavery and then list his actions against slavery. For compromise sake, the paragraph can be added to the article without any changes. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
We're not referring to TJ as an 'Abolitionist', though he's generally regarded to be among the first, and was a central figure behind the idea. We shouldn't try to disassociate him from this idea. We've come this far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I have accepted the paragraph as is in the interest of compromise. However, the Baptist and Methodist Churches in addition to Carter's emancipation were the central figures behind abolitionism, that is the end of slavery and black citizenship. Jefferson was against black citizenship. Jefferson was influencial in founding gradual emancipation and colonization. Finley stated he was influenced by Jefferson, however, I have yet to find a letter that Jefferson endorsed Finley's American Colonization Society. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Citizenship for freed slaves didn't have anything to do with abolitionism. Slavery's abolition could have occurred regardless of citizenship. Methodists and Baptists were each one voice among many but were not exactly central, as they were not involved in the actual drafting and effort to advance abolition before Congress and the courts. Besides, the section makes no claims about who was central. Here also, we'll let the readers decide. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The 1782 law that let slave masters free their slaves by deed was passed when Jefferson was out of the Virginia legislature. Blacks were treated as equals in Baptist churches and Methodist churches were handing out these deeds to slave owners. Carter led the way by example and is known as the first American emancipator. The height of Jefferson's anti-slavery legislation was 1784. Carter released his slaves in 1791. Jefferson only released two slaves under this law while Carter freed hundreds. With that stated this article is on Jefferson and not on Jefferson vs Carter. Apparently the two were friends. Again. You can go ahead with the current paragraph. No need to get bogged down in discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
In a different way Jefferson also served by way of example, time and again, and needless to say would have supported the 1782 law had he been present in the Virginia legislature at the time. Remember, Jefferson was unable to free his slaves and felt releasing unprepared slaves and their children was a risky venture, to say the least, and we have Carter who serves as a classic example of this. Again, releasing slaves required more than just a pat on the back and good luck wishes. Even with resources, the prospect of releasing slaves was pitted with danger. This is something modern day idealists fail to appreciate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sources/citations have been added to the first two statements, so far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

Please change that Thomas Jefferson was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, because I was visiting the national archives on a fieldtrip and the guard there said that Thomas Jefferson didn't write most of it, because he was the ambassador of France at the time. 72.53.178.6 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done. Your guard was confused. Jefferson was in Philadelphia and wrote the Declaration of Independence - we have several of his drafts. He was ambassador in France when the US constitution was written (and was not too happy with the result). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Or, put another way, the National Archives tour in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom includes a) the Declaration, b) the Constitution, and the c) Bill of Rights in that order. a) Jefferson was a Congressman in the Virginia delegation in 1776 at Philadelphia, and on the drafting committee for the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson is acknowledged as its principle author. b) James Madison of Virginia is generally given credit as "Father of the Constitution" although he should probably share the honors with James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Jefferson was ambassador to France during the writing of the Constitution. c) James Madison is generally given credit for writing the Bill of Rights because he was was the principle author of draft legislation and the House floor leader getting twelve proposals passed. The Senate concurred, and the proposals were sent to the states for ratification. Then only ten were ratified, so those are the first ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was Secretary of State to President George Washington in his first term when the Bill of Rights was ratified. I hope this helps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's hope the guard get's a little education out of this also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Highest peak in Great Britain

@Stemonitis: re: your last edit. According to Jefferson's autobiography and Fawn Brodie's biography of Jefferson, pp. 33-34, the mountain in question is the highest in Great Britain, which would include Wales. However, as you point out Ben Nevis is the highest in all of G.B. I'd like to restore the edit and specify Wales, but the sources used claim Snowdon the highest in Great Britain, so now it seems like we have a source problem, 'Houston'. I could maintain that the 'sources say so' but I don't like to use sources to perpetuate a falsehood or prop up highly questionable claims which are not consistent with other facts. The statement is a bit tangential to the biography so I guess we can let your last edit stand, but if there are other sources that accurately cite this item it would be nice. Anyone? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we must carefully parse the differences between Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and the British Isles. But that's irrelevant to the BLP--we can just say he came from near Snowdon. This article isn't big enough to note that Brodie quotes TJ himself as claiming Snowdon was the highest point in Great Britain. All we need to tell readers is where he was from, not the superlative geographical claim he made for it. Yopienso (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
We may indeed distinguish between GB, UK and British Isles, but Snowdon is the highest of none of those, and Ben Nevis is the highest of all of them. The authors of the sources mentioned above are, unfortunately, simply mistaken, and there is no genuine disagreement about Snowdon being lower than Ben Nevis (and a few dozen other Scottish peaks, as it happens). Yopienso is right that the only thing that matters is that Jefferson's relatives are thought to come from near Snowdon – I'd like to know more exactly where, if anyone has any sources for that – not what status that one nearby mountain may or may not have.
Actually, the whole story must be a bit more complicated, anyway; the article currently states that (Thomas) Jefferson believed his father to have come from Snowdonia, but Peter Jefferson was born in North America, and may well never have been to Europe, and would presumably have been able to communicate this to his own son. Moreover, even Peter Jefferson was born after the Acts of Union 1707; before that time, Snowdon was at least the highest mountain of something, although that something was the Kingdom of England (an unfortunate title given that Snowdon lies outside what would normally be considered England). Could it have been Peter's father who hailed from near Snowdon, which was – at that time – the highest mountain in the kingdom?
Another factor is that Jefferson is not a very likely surname for someone from North Wales, especially so far in the past. It was, rather, largely restricted to the north of England, including the Lake District, home to the highest mountains in England (in the modern sense). I suspect that the Jefferson family's oral history may not be an entirely reliable source. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Stemonitis, for your valuable input and Gwillhickers, for the way you broached the subject. I've been surprised as I've been poking back a few generations in my own family tree how many discrepancies there are in official records (census records, marriage certificates, etc.). Yopienso (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Snowdon (Hey, I was born under a higher mountain than you!) is mentioned only in passing and mostly as reference. More about Jefferson's ancestry is what the section could use more of. The Jefferson name may not be 'native' to the north, but I suspect even in those days people moved around, and England is a small country, so it doesn't strike me as anything unusual that Jefferson may have had family roots that extended to North Wales and were considered Welch. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations in the "Election of 1796 and Vice Presidency"

Apologies, but I posted this to the Talk page last year and it is now gone without any change to the article. The numbers of the footnotes in question are now 113 and 114 I believe, but the contents of the footnotes I think have never changed.

Net-buoy (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)I went to check citations for fn 77 and 78 and found that in my copy of Chernow (2004) Penguin Press the cited text is at 573-574. This is confirmed as well here: http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA573#v=onepage&q&f=false Can someone confirm whether the pages from the wrong edition were cited (as the course notes both the earlier and later edition.) Net-buoy (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Net-buoy: -- Wouldn't it be much easier if you just used the appropriate page numbers found in your copy of Chernow, 2004, which is the copy listed in the Bibliography? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: -- It would have been easier if some one had answered my question instead of deleting my comment in the first place without addressing my question. As essentially an interloper to an environment where at least two of you are passing enough bandwidth to serve a small city, I thought it most appropriate to pose the question than to make a change, and then, when the comment in Talk was deleted without the change being made, I thought it best to inquire why. -- Net-buoy (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Subsection for Jefferson and abolition

I'd recommend reducing the size of the slavery section to make room for the above named subsection. We have the sources, and this is something that is almost completely lacking in the biography. Once we draft an accurate in context summary and include it here, we can then go to the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article and expand on this idea. There is some context to this effect already in the biography, but it seems it would do better if it was contained in its own subsection with other context to support the idea. Here also, we can mention that some historians have expressed doubts about this idea. At this point we should only do so if we can avoid increasing the size of the section. We could start with a core statement and then build on it as necessary. The new subsection should be no longer than several well thought out sentences. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Though Jefferson owned slaves, it is widely held that he was opposed to slavery on moral and practical grounds and was among the first to publicly and officially take action against the institution, making several attempts to introduce legislation for its abolition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Meacham (2012) does not support that Jefferson was an abolitionist but rather a practical politician. This is NPOV. This also discounts the comparison between Carter and Jefferson. The above statement is misleading the reader that Jefferson was a leading abolitionist in Virginia when in fact, Carter, Baptist and Methodist ministers were the leading spokespersons for abolition. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, to continue with Gwillickers' thought, we know from Meacham p.326 and others,
  • Following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion in the summer of 1800, Jefferson began to consider a gradual emancipation plan of voluntary training, sponsorship and resettlement for slave families. The concept was eventually taken up with the formation of the American Colonization Society in 1817, endorsed by ante-bellum moderates such as John Randolph, Henry Clay, Richard Bland Lee and Abraham Lincoln.
Jefferson was a practical politician who held near term and long term views of what was in the best "Southern interest". In the long run, he believed the best interests of the South was to abolish slavery. He believed freedom for everyone in peace was best for all, and he believed that race war benefitted no one of any description. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source that states Jefferson and Madison represented Southern slave interests. Jefferson and Andrew Jackson represented pro-slavery Populism. Daniel Gaido (2006) The Formative Period of American Capitalism: A Materialist Interpretation Page 17 How can Jefferson be an abolitionist when the party he formed, the Republicans, represented slave interests ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Cmguy777, that is a minority opinion. Gaido can says, "The slave-owners, represented by Jefferson and Madison's Republican Party, were compelled to resort to Populist policies in order to keep together their anti-bourgeois coalition with the yeoman farmers." But it is more commonly seen the other way round, that the yeoman farmers, represented by Jefferson, were compelled to appeal to the Southern planters. And his view that slavery was "pre-capitalist" is in the minority, it's not even classic Marxism. TFD (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "He was among the first to advance the idea of abolition." James M. McPherson in The Abolitionist Legacy (Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 4, defines an abolitionist as someone in the pre-Civil War era who wanted the immediate, unconditional end of slavery.[2] That seems to be a standard defintion and would exclude Jefferson. The movement did not really begin until the 1830s, after Jefferson's death. TFD (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: -- it's inaccurate to say that to be an abolitionist you 'must' want "the immediate, unconditional end of slavery", as many abolitionists approached the idea in gradual steps and were mindful of looming realities awaiting an unprepared slave with no where else to go and no means of support. Esp as concerns slave families with children. You have to look at this realistically, not just academically. Is not being mindful of their welfare an important consideration? One could argue that Carter was just putting on airs and brought calamity and misfortune not only to freed slaves, but to himself and family. Evidently Carter didn't care much about his slaves and just turned them lose so he could hold his pinky up at Sunday ice cream socials. As long as we're throwing out interpretations and speculations let's be reminded that such a venture can work both ways. As I've always maintained, it's best we to stick to the facts and leave the social and political interpretations to the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Why is there such a push to prove Jefferson was an abolitionist? Compared to Carter Jefferson was a moderate to conservative when emancipating slaves. Jefferson was bent on destroying Hamilton's United States bank because this bank served the Northern Federalist capitalists and weakened the economic power of the slave owners. Jefferson by dismantling the U.S. Bank was representing slave holding interests. Jefferson and Madison sponsored states rights to nullify federal law. That was the beginings of the American Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: -- you're the one who started this "push" to prove Jefferson was not an abolitionist, and you're the one who has clinged to Meacham while ignoring many many sources that cite Jefferson and his abolitionist aspirations. Meacham is out of step with most sources, including modern sources, that have cited Jefferson as an abolitionist -- based on the facts that he advanced abolitionist legislation and often wrote about it. OTOH, everything you've offered is speculative and the product of interpretation. e.g.Jefferson was a conservative -- ergo he was not an abolitionist. It's like saying, 'Smith gave to child charities, Jones did not. Ergo, Jones didn't care about children'. i.e. 2+2 does not equal 100. We can easily demonstrate that Jefferson was an abolitionist, by his political endeavors, deeds and actions and his writings. You can't discount that Jefferson was an abolitionist simply because Carter gave away slaves and Jefferson did not. As was explained to you several times, Jefferson couldn't free his slaves without bringing legal consequences down on himself, his family and estate. Also, Jefferson wanted freedom for slaves but wasn't about to release unprepared slaves out into society because he cared about their welfare, as is evident in his treatment of slaves. Sorry, you simply have to ignore almost everything about Jefferson to say he didn't strive or hope for abolition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am just saying that we should explain Jefferson's words and actions, but saying he was an "abolitionist", when most historians do not even use the term to refer to anyone in Jefferson's time, or anyone who favored gradual emancipation, is confusing. I think though that Cmguy777 is wrong in recasting Jefferson as a tool of slave-owners. He opposed the regulation because it meant "yeomen" could not get credit. Yeomen opposed the tariffs because it meant they could not buy cheap farm equipment from England and England would retaliate to U.S. protectionism by putting tariffs on their exports. And there was no social security or farm supports, so the federal government gave them nothing, at least directly. TFD (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Most historians have cited Jefferson's abolitionist aspirations and involvements. See above listings, esp the one that says: "Jefferson was the crucial figure in American history both for slavery and for abolition." To make such a statement Jefferson had to be rather involved in abolitionist pursuits. We certainly can say Jefferson worked for and advocated abolition if you really think using the term "abolitionist" is going to confuse someone, though I don't see how in light of all Jefferson's deeds and writings. "Abolitionist" is not some official title only used for members of some official abolitionist society. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson could emancipate slaves and he did two while he was alive and five after his death. To say that Jefferson could not free his slaves is misleading to the reader when in fact he did in his will despite his finincial set backs. Jefferson believe in moderation not abolitionism like Carter. Gradual emancipation and then deportation. Jefferson did not propose to end slavery in the South his homeland. Jefferson protect planters who had slaves or used slaves on their plantations. That is why he tried to dismantle the U.S. Bank. I suggest the following that the severe antagonism towards abolition in Viriginia, as Carter found out, prevented Jefferson from freeing his slaves, who as a politician and a founder, was more interested in keeping the Union intact rather then dissolving. However, even this is challanged by Jefferson and Madison assertation of states rights nullifying federal law. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

editbreak2

  • Once again, Jefferson could not free his slaves because he was in debt and had used them as collateral. Once again. he also had reservations about releasing unprepared slaves with no place to go or any means of support into "freedom". The two slaves he did release were mostly white, could pass for white and had viable skills to take care of themselves. Like the biography already says, he provided them with "a monetary endowment and trade tools to aid in making a living". He could not do this for slaves that had no such skills and could not pass for white. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: As the Galdo source explains, on p.17-18, “plebeian coalitions led by pre-capitalist dominant classes, with their inevitable mixture of progressive and reactionary aspects, were not an uncommon phenomenon in European history." But then Galdo falls into confusion…"The most popular political leaders of proslavery Populism were the presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson; its most important ideologist was John Taylor of Caroline…”

Well, when we remove the unclear thinking, we can draw a distinction between a) Taylor who painted slavery as a positive good to be enlarged and b) Jefferson who held slavery to be a moral evil to be limited and eventually eliminated without race war for the sake of the individual, which is one of the kinds of abolition traditions in American intellectual history.

This is an approach based on people and events of the time, as opposed to a reified “abolitionist ideology” in academic fiction which does not admit to the historical facts, including the American Colonization Society. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Subsection proposal

So to date, we have copy edits relative to the proposal for a subsection on Jefferson and abolition:

Though Jefferson owned slaves, it is widely held that he was opposed to slavery on moral and practical grounds and was among the first to publicly and officially take action against the institution, making several attempts to introduce legislation for its abolition, both in the U.S Congress and in Virginia.
(examples from failed attempts and successful measures in court cases and legislation, state and nationally)
Following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion in the summer of 1800, Jefferson began to consider a gradual emancipation plan of voluntary training, sponsorship and resettlement for slave families. The concept was eventually taken up with the formation of the American Colonization Society in 1817, endorsed by ante-bellum moderates such as John Randolph, Henry Clay, Richard Bland Lee and Abraham Lincoln.

Is it possible to separate the copy edit work from the discussion surrounding it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, The Four Deuces, Cmguy777, Yopienso, Stephan Schulz, Brad101, and Rjensen:
Looks good. It would seem this section-draft would be acceptable to almost everyone. We are not referring to Jefferson as an abolitionist outright, and are stating that the view is widely held, not stating it as absolute fact. The slavery section already mentions that there's doubt among some historians regarding Jefferson's sincerity about slavery reform, etc. (add : The examples mentioned (in parenthesis) I believe are already mentioned in the article but it seems we can mention them here in passing being careful not to overwhelm the section with such details.) All we have to do now imo is line up a few sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers:Looks like this is already a done deal. None of these efforts were successful and Jefferson did not put these measures into personal practice. Also, Jefferson apparently had nothing to do with the actual formation of the American Colonization Society, at a time when Jefferson was out of political office. There is no need to mention the American Colonization Society. There is no mention Jefferson's Republican party represented the interests of slave owners or the planter class. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The failure of abolitionist legislation was no fault of Jefferson, and to say the "Republican's "represented the interests of slave owners" is a gross distortion, as Jefferson was a Republican and a two term president who held that slavery was contrary to Republicanism and revolutionary ideals. Btw, there were plenty of Democrats who owned slaves, so you need to break the two-dimensional analysis habit and adapt a broader and more realistic view, some day. Last, since Jefferson was among the first to advance the idea of repatriation to Africa it is entirely appropriate to mention the fruition of such ideas without getting into details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There should be some mention that Virginia society was intolerant of African American citizenship such as the case with Carter who was forced to flee Virginia to Maryland. Jefferson did not support African American citizenship. That is not mentioned. Jefferson's "abolitionist" legislation allowed slavery to exist for 16 years in the Western Territories. Jefferson's dismantling of the U.S. Bank was in the best interests of slave plantation owners. The Federalists were the opposition party to Jefferson who viewed Jefferson was pro slavery. The Democratic Party started under Andrew Jackson. The statements above are designed to make Jefferson appear to be a leader of the abolitionst movements. There was no federal funding of Colonization until President James Monroe, i.e. Monrovia. Jefferon was not public about his colonization plan while President. Virginia did not adopt Jefferson's intial 1779 colonization plan. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Jefferson didn't support citizenship and was wise enough to know it would by and large result in the same fashion as it did for Carter. Your claim that "Jefferson's abolitionist legislation allowed slavery to exist for 16 years", is yet another distortion. i.e.How does failed legislation "help" anyone but opponents of abolition? The rest of your conjecture (e.g."funding of Colonization.."; "Virginia did not adopt...") is all over the map and tangential or completely irrelevant to Jefferson's attempts at abolition legislation, writings and his hopes and wishes for slaves. Jefferson was indeed an inspiration to if not a leader in the abolitionist movement, and there are more than enough sources that articulate this. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

The 1787 legislation ended slavery immediately. Jefferson's 1784 proposal gave a 16 year slavery allowance and would have allowed the slave interests to entrench into the West. Jefferson's legislation could be considered pro slavery for allowing slavery into the Western territories. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson's abolitionist legislation, for not producing immediate results, "could be considered pro slavery", for those so inclined to think so, indeed. Thanks for that insight at least. Bear in mind, that the absence of any legislation would have allowed slavery, which was already entrenched, to exist indefinitely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Abolitionists in 1784 supported Jefferson's proposal, which would have covered all the territories & eventually ended slavery in Alabama & Mississippi. The slave interest opposed Jefferson in 1784. Calling the position endorsed by all the anti-slavery forces pro-slavery is pretty bad history. Freehling The Road to Disunion: Volume I says: "in 1784, Jefferson himself struck uncharacteristically boldly against the expansion of slavery into new territories. ... This proposed Ordinance of 1784 would have barred bondage from Alabama and Mississippi no less than from Illinois..." The Garrisonian notion that slavery had to be ended IMMEDIATELY (because it was a sin) was not on the table during Jefferson's lifetime. Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed subsection

Just so the proposed subsection doesn't get buried in all the foot dragging, I'm keeping it 'up front' in the hopes that others will weigh in soon so we can move on.


Though Jefferson owned slaves, it is widely held that he was opposed to slavery on moral and practical grounds and was among the first to publicly and officially take action against the institution, making several attempts to introduce legislation for its abolition, both in the U.S Congress and in Virginia.
(examples from failed attempts and successful measures in court cases and legislation, state and nationally)
Following the Gabriel Prosser rebellion in the summer of 1800, Jefferson began to consider a gradual emancipation plan of voluntary training, sponsorship and resettlement for slave families. The concept was eventually taken up with the formation of the American Colonization Society in 1817, endorsed by ante-bellum moderates such as Jefferson's cousin John Randolph, Henry Clay, Richard Bland Lee and Abraham Lincoln. The idea of recolonization was met with mixed reactions from proponents and critics among the many different political and religious groups of the day.

Comments and suggestions

Not only did Jefferson's ideas of abolition feed directly into and inspire the creation of the American Colonization Society, he, along with Madison, were ardent supporters, so it's befitting that the ACS is mentioned in the subsection. We should also mention that there were notable differences of opinions among abolitionists, some of them feeling that freed slaves had every right to remain in America, so once again, there was no singular criteria required to be considered an abolitionist, save the desire to see slavery abolished. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The page you link to is titled, "Colonization: the “respectable” way to be anti-slavery in early New England." It says William Lloyd Garrison "attacked Colonization [i.e., Jefferson, Madison, and the ACS] as a hypocritical sham" based on "[f]ear, prejudice, and self?interest [sic], not philanthropy." Yopienso (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done Yes, I'm sure the idea had its skeptics and critics, and we can certainly mention this. The concerns or "fears" were not unfounded however, given the Haitian and Gabriel's rebellions and the sort of thing Carter experienced when he freed his slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The article needs to be careful in putting Jefferson in the abolitionist camp especially since Jefferson was a slave owner and his political power was dependant on slavery, i.e. the 3/5 clause in the constitution that gave Southerners more representation. Jefferson was for gradual emancipation and deportation (GEAD) , but none of these polices went into effect until the James Monroe Administration. The GEAD plan was acceptable politically in the South as opposed to Carter, freeing all of his slaves, and paying them to work. Jefferson's vision of democracy and equality did not extend to blacks. Methodist and Baptist Churches accepted blacks as equals during Jefferson's own times. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson's observations and contemporary views about blacks, which he admitted were suspicions, was shared by greater society throughout the world and doesn't change the fact that he strove for abolition, unlike most slave owners throughout history. Regardless of his opinion about racial differences he regarded blacks as humans and creatures of God who deserved freedom and humane, good, treatment. Again, turning slaves and their children out into society unprepared was a legitimate concern. The prospect of freeing slaves was not at all a practical or convenient one in Jefferson's day. It required money, training, living provisions, land to live on, shelter, -- not just a pat on the back and a wish of good luck. Again, Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because of his tremendous debt. He was still considered an abolitionist, a radical by some accounts, and played a crucial role in getting the abolitionist movement started. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is an interesting book. We know that Jefferson knew Robert Carter III in his youth. Here is a book called: The First Emancipator: Slavery, Religion, and the Quiet Revolution of Robert Carter Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Upon cursory examination it appears to be an excellent read. Page 130, 3rd paragraph, actually gave me pause, revealing that both Carter and Jefferson were exceptional people in their time and spent a good deal of their life fighting a relentless uphill battle.
As well, however, Carter was tried by the failure of the great public compromises of the late 1780s to yield a resolution that spoke to his ethical sensibilities. Like Jefferson, who composed one emancipation proposal after another, and who felt great frustration when they failed to inspire consensus, Carter hoped that the will of Virginia would settle the issue of slavery for him: ... Page 62 is also telling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Cmguy777 objected to linking Jefferson to the American Colonization Society, I wanted to reassure him that the passage belongs in this article as a part of Jefferson's legacy and the U.S. abolitionist intellectual tradition. From Carter G. Woodson's Journal of Negro History (1917), we have:
"It requires little effort to appreciate the weight of this Ex-President’s [Jefferson's] opinion, and colonizationists later gave wide publicity to it in order to strengthen their cause.[n. 6] American Colonization Society, First Annual Report (Washington, 1817), 6,7.—Sherwood, Henry Noble. “The Formation of the American Colonization Society”, The Journal of Negro History, Carter G. Woodson, ed., 1917 vol. II, p. 210-211. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The article should not give Jefferson credit for starting the American Colonization Society, since Jefferson, did not start the American Colonization Society. Why not then give credit to Jefferson for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation or Grant's Civil Rights Act of 1875. The whole object seems to be to prove the point Jefferson was an abolitionsit. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The proposal does not give Jefferson credit for starting the ACS, it only reports his public and private support of the idea of gradual emancipation in several forms over several decades (one of which regarding making slave children wards of the state, I object to as lacking moral sensibility), these concepts formed an intellectual legacy adopted by his contemporaries John Randolph and Richard Bland Lee in the American Colonization Society. Straw men and reductio ad absurdum do not successfully argue against Jefferson as participating in one of the abolitionist intellectual traditions in America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Gradual emancipation and colonization only proves Jefferson was a moderate and a practical politician. The first emancipator was Carter who was severely punished by the Virginia public, one of is family members was tarred and feathered, and he was forced to flee his home state of Virginia unable to return. Why do we forget men like Carter who freed all of his slaves and gave them paid work. Carter makes Jefferson look like a moderate practical politian and Meacham (2012) contends. Wikipedia is suppose to present Jefferson in neutral format that allows some criticism, comparison of contemporaries, or critical opinion of Jefferson. To state that the American Colonization society's founding was somehow directly influenced by Jefferson is misleading to the reader. Robert Finley, the founder, was from New Jersey. Is there some letter that directely links Jefferson with Finley and the founding of the American Colonization Society? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The claim that Jefferson was a "moderate", someone who opposed standing armies during the revolutionary and post revolutionary era, is an opinion not supported by any concrete facts. Any sort of advocacy for emancipation and colonization would have put you on the liberal/radical page in those days. Jefferson wanted emancipation to occur as quickly as possible but settled for the idea of gradual emancipation in the face of great opposition and other practical considerations. Again, Jefferson didn't let moral considerations cloud his judgement in his dealings with the real world. The section will not be referring to Jefferson as a 'liberal, moderate or conservative'. Here also we'll just let the readers make that call. And not being "the first emancipator" means nothing, either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I used reductio ad absurdum to make a point. Where is the letter of Jefferson to Robert Finley correspondence that links Jefferson to the founding of the American Colonization Society. Jefferson was a moderate on the slavery issue, not in his rebellion or revolution from King George III. Jefferson did not actively fight during the Revolutionary War, as far as I know, British forces who invaded Virginia. Jefferson's rhetoric fluctuated between liberalism and conservatism. Robert Carter III was the forgotten liberal freeing all of his slaves and paying them for work giving them a form of citizenship that the Virginia society of the times could not tolerate. Their children were no longer slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_35&oldid=967844421"