Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archives/ 18

Back to basics on the Ferling removal

As Gwill pointed out above here the comment Jefferson attempted to establish himself as a foe of slavery during the Revolution, however, the 21st century historian John Ferling has called this mostly "hyperbole". was removed from the Virginia state legislator and Governor section. This would be a justifiable removal as it had little to do with the topic at hand in that section. The Slavery section of the TJ article as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the proper area to address TJ and slavery.. sort of a no-brainer. Pro and con analysis of TJ and slavery belongs in the slavery section as an overview. There is an entire article Thomas Jefferson and slavery for more detailed complaining and sound bites from Oprah. Brad (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ferling (2000) stated that Jefferson shrank from introducing abolition legislation and that his views and behavior on blacks were exceptional only for their "backwardness and faintheartedness." Page 163, Setting the World Ablaze. Jefferson was more conservative towards slavery then his contemporaries, the Quakers, Baptists, and Methodists. Ferling stated that Jefferson wanted others to believe he was advanced on slavery and race, but this was any where close to the truth. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Brad, Thanks for citing the removal of the "hyperbole" comment in May. I thought Cm' was referring to a recent edit. Cm', you are still trying to base Jefferson's 'lack of action' as something that says he wasn't an opponent of slavery all his life. 'All his life' Jefferson wished to end slavery, and the 1806 speech with reference to "human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa", is indeed an affront to the idea of slavery and the slave trade. (bold added) In any case, Ferling's estimation of "backwardness and faintheartedness" doesn't begin to negate the idea that Jefferson was opposed to slavery his entire life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, with all your good intentions, Jefferson was a violator of those African American "human rights" by keeping them perpetually enslaved on Monticello or through eventual auctioning by his surviving family. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought here, guys -- it's not about what Jefferson actually believed; it's about what the reliable sources say. My understanding is that (1) there are a LOT of scholarly sources on this subject, and (2) there has been a definite continuum among the sources, with earlier sources more likely to paint Jefferson in a positive light and later sources more likely to paint Jefferson in a negative light. Maybe somebody could find a recent historiographical essay on Jefferson and slavery -- that might be a good guide for how to cover the topic here at wikipedia.

--Other Choices (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article Thomas Jefferson and Slavery, which some editors are ignoring and which has fully sourced references showing the reconsideration of Jefferson on the topic of slavery, in terms of what he did and said in public, not just in terms of his once-stated ideals of human equality. Historians were simply evaluating him along different lines. Many cites were at one time included in that section in this article, but some editors found it was too long. Now they have forgotten about them altogether: David Brion Davis as early as 1970 noted Jefferson's "immense silence" about slavery after 1785, and his stepping back from a public role to do anything about domestic slavery; Paul Finkelman and others have noted the same thing. Finkelman compared Jefferson to the actions of his contemporaries, such as Washington, Robert Carter and other planters, and found him lacking in not freeing his own slaves. Gary Nash noted that TJ did not use estate money entrusted to him by his friend Kosciusko to free his slaves. All this is sourced, and much previously was cited in this article. So no one has to start over, but acknowledge the work of historians of the last 40 years. Parkwells (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There really does not have to be continuing discussion on this Talk page about this. The full array of opinion about Jefferson and slavery are adequately, if not perfectly, presented in the Slavery and Historical Evaluation sections, based on RS. There will not be an overarching conclusion, as historians have mixed opinions of him. The ambivalence/ambiguity of Jefferson as slaveholder are also captured in the 2012 Smithsonian/Monticello exhibition: Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: The Paradox of Liberty.Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson has not been called the American Sphinx for nothing ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Opposing slavery

I think we all can agree that TJ could have made a better effort to do something about slavery during his presidency while at the same time he did have strong feelings against slavery from the age of six, which is sort of remarkable as he was born into a slave-using society. Yet still something inside him said 'whoaaa...wait a minute.' We can say he opposed slavery all his life while still noting his "failures". (The idea of 'failure' should be mentioned with the perspective that he was dealing with powerful pro-slavery forces.) As for TJ's apparent contradictions most can be explained. e.g.'inferior people who need protection' was in reference to an alien people in a white-western world -- this is also a perspective not mentioned. Yes, give TJ his due criticism, but it needs to be qualified. At any rate, TJF is not the on RS that says Jefferson was an opponent all his life. Finding other sources that mention this specifically wasn't difficult. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The goal of this article, I believe, is to neither condemn nor justify Thomas Jefferson's actions or statements concerning slavery. I added the Ferling source for balance in the slavery section. The reality is that Jefferson was not as advanced on the slavery issue as his contemporaries. Jefferson's dilemna was that since his perceived backwardness of African Americans was by race rather then any enviromental factors, there was no way that blacks could improve themselves on their own initiative. Jefferson was a complex person. I am not sure anyone can figure him out or completely understand his views on slavery. To reiterate, I was concerned that the article was going in the justification direction of Jefferson's views or actions concerning slavery. There is no need for this article to justify Thomas Jefferson. Gwillhickers, you or anyone else, can have whatever views concerning Jefferson and slavery. The article, I believe needs to be a neutral source of information. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Jefferson was ahead of most of his contemporaries, and at an early age. And Jefferson had many contemporaries; which were you referring to? What about the contemporaries who struck the slavery language from the original DOI? -- There's no need to justify, as you say, Jefferson's actions, but only when there isn't any condescending tone over his 'inaction' or 'failure'. What you refer to as justification is actually historical context. Leaving it out leaves us with a skewed or incomplete picture. Yes, Jefferson was a complex person. He gave much thought to things many of his planter and political contemporaries would rather not think about, much less talk about. As President he had to deal with, as Peterson refers to it, 'the slave power' which would seem to explain why he was generally silent on slavery during his terms. Including this perspective is one way to bring the neutrality you spoke of to the topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, there were the Quakers, Baptists, and Methodists who were more vigilent then Jefferson against slavery, advocating abolition, in Virginia. Robert Carter and John Randolph freed hundreds of slaves purchasing land so the freedmen could make a living in Virginia. Jefferson wanted to deport the freed blacks from Virginia and establish an all white America. I would call that less progressive then his contemporaries. All I understand is that historians have covered up Jefferson and attempted to justify his keeping slaves. Gwillhickers, Jefferson was Virginia slave power, part of the planter elite, forcing children to work in his nailery for profit. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert : I would call that less progressive than a couple of his contemporaries. Like Jefferson, John Randolph also advocated a 'commercial agrarian society' and wanted to set up a colony of freed slaves and was one of the founders of the American Colonization Society. Again, Jefferson's 'failure' to free slaves was due to reservations about releasing them into 'freedom' without any means of support. It would be interesting to know 'how' J.Randolph managed to release his slaves. Did he just cut them loose, give them a pat on the back and said 'good luck'? Like Jefferson, many abolitionists believed freed slaves would not achieve equality in the US and would be better off in Africa. Another legitimate concern in that day was that large numbers of free blacks would encourage them to rebel which would ultimately result in their destruction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What is it with you and this "children in a nail factory" business? Is this somehow different than children who worked in coal mines and textile mills post Civil War through the early part of the 20th century? The only difference is slavery which you keep nailing Jefferson with a hammer over. Besides this you appear to be assuming that we don't already know these things. Please stop blowing your horn. Brad (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, I'm sure various religious groups were perhaps more outspoken on slavery than Jefferson. You're reaching again, Cm'. And Jefferson was not the slave power, he was a private planter who inherited most of his slaves. The 'slave power' to which Peterson refers to is the same one noted by the abolitionists during Jefferson's terms as President. It is what Jefferson referred to in his clause, stricken from the DOI. They were the same 'power' that financed and operated the slave trade. Though the 'slave trade' and 'slavery' are different the former is what gave birth to slavery and allowed it to rapidly grow in dimension, much faster than by natural births. Abolishing the slave trade was an attack on the rapid growth of slavery. Rayner, p.119, Halliday The 'slave power' had vested interests in the slave trade and slavery and were largely represented in Congress, esp in South Carolina and Georgia. With the seeds of civil division already in place Jefferson was perhaps wise to keep abolitionist language out of most of his speeches, exceptions noted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, whether Jefferson inherited slaves, or bought slaves, and he did, does not matter in terms of Jefferson being part of the planter elite or the South's slave power; having one of the largest plantations in Virginia and owning as many a 600 African Americans throughout his lifetime. There is no need to justify Jefferson and slavery in terms of stopping the slave trade. Jefferson did good by stopping the slave trade, if that is what you Gwillhickers are advocating. Slavery, however, increased in the Southern States, i.e. Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, and became more entrenched in Southern aristocracy that resulted in the American Civil War; the South having succeeded from the United States. Jefferson revealed himself when he specifically told Coles to keep his slaves for the sake of Virignia and his country. For someone who is suppose to be a foe of slavery telling Coles to keep his slaves contradicts this historical view of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert Please don't mix words. Jefferson was not the 'slave power' the abolitionists or Peterson referred to -- and Jefferson was at political and moral odds with the "planter elite" because he vehemently opposed slavery and sought an end to the institution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Ordinance of 1784 is intersting in terms of "anti-slavery". Jefferson prohibited the extention of slavery in the Northwest Territory in his document, Report of a Plan of Government for the Western Territory. The plan did not abolish existing slavery in the territory, but rather, the extention of slavery. Jefferson, in 1874, opposed the extention of slavery in the Northwest Territory. After 1784 Jefferson was drastically more quiet on the subject of slavery. Here is my question, "Is opposing the extention of slavery in the Northwest territory "anti-slavery"? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the so called 'extension' of slavery would only allow 'existing numbers' of slaves to come west, lowering the population of slaves in the east. It is not something that allowed slavery to grow in great dimensions inside a few weeks as could the slave trade had it been allowed to operate in the United States. Jefferson's Act of 1807 was a decisive blow against the rapid growth of slavery. Criticizing it because it didn't end slavery is merely academic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Ordinance of 1784 was the most progressive Jefferson got in terms of "anti-slavery". After this Jefferson was publically silent on the slavery issue for the rest of his life. Jefferson deserves credit for the Ordinance of 1784, however, this was not abolishing slavery, only limiting the amount of slaves in the Northwest Territory. Jefferson's silence on slavery after the Ordinance of 1784, in my opinion, contradicts that Jefferson was a life long foe of slavery. To be a foe of slavery implies that there must be some public display of opposition to slavery in the United States. Jefferson did have a life long opposition to the slave trade. Historians tend to mix slavery and the slave trade as one in the same thing. I take that the TJF is mixing slavery and the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a book on the slave population in the United States up to 1850: Slave Population of the United States. In 1800 there were 893,041 slaves in the United States. In 1850 there were 3,204,313 slaves in the U.S. That means slavery increased by 46,225 slaves per year. Stopping the slave trade did not stop the increase of slavery in the United States. From 1810 to 1820, after illegalization of the slave trade, slaves increase by 346,674. From 1790 to 1800, when the slave trade was legal, slaves increased by 195,144. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

edit break

Yes, the slave population increased anyway, as the slave trade continued largely unabated for some years. In any event Du Bois is a good source for info about the few slaver ships, there were many, that were captured by the British and the U.S. starting with the Navy under Jefferson. Had the navy been large enough to patrol the entire Atlantic and Gulf' shores the numbers might be different. Regardless, you still need a source that says Jefferson was "publically silent on the slavery issue for the rest of his life" and another that says he 'was not an opponent of slavery all his life' . You're still trying to say he wasn't an opponent of slavery on the basis of something he didn't do, i.e.speeches, slave trade v slavery, etc. That's a speculation, and in this case unfair, as Jefferson was only one man. Again we have several sources that say he was always an opponent. And attacking the slave trade was one way to attack slavery as it brought new slaves. The plan failed, but that's no basis to make any of the claims you're making here. Once again, and hopefully for the last time, we need sources that specifically outlines what you are claiming, that Jefferson was not an opponent of slavery his entire life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ferling is a source that contradicts Jefferson as a foe of slavery without specifically stating Jefferson was not a foe of slavery. The reader can decide whether Jefferson was a foe of slavery without having to be pressured by any Wikipedia article source. Ferling listed examples of how Jefferson was "backwards and fainthearted" towards slavery. TJF does not mention one instance of Jefferson publically opposing slavery, yet makes the bold claim that Jefferson was a continual opponent of slavery without any evidence to back up such a claim. Gwillhickers, you have yet to answer why Jefferson told Coles to keep his slaves rather then free them. How can you explain that one away? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're going in circles again as this has already been explained. Jefferson felt Africans needed protection in white-western civilization as they had no way to secure food, shelter and clothing for themselves at the time. Ferling: He says nothing specific regarding Jefferson being a life long opponent of slavery and no doubt makes more comments about what Jefferson didn't do rather than what he did in this area. TJF: As you remember, they're a summary source. If you can't find something specific about Jefferson not/speaking publicly then that is all we have. i.e.Something he didn't do. And there is more to opposing slavery than making speeches, so don't think this by itself is something that amounts to anything that confirms Jefferson was not an opponent of slavery all his life. Again, we need specifics, with sources. Again, the reputation section is the place to mention doubts by various historians, along with mention from those who feel Jefferson was always an opponent of slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

TJF quoted Brian Davis that after 1785 there was a "thundering silence". First TJF states that Jefferson was a life long foe of slavery, then TJF quotes Brian Davis, contradicting their own statement, that Jefferson was silent on slavery after 1785. The reality is Jefferson was silent on slavery after 1784. I am not even sure Brian Davis is accurate. The hieght of Jefferson's opposition to slavery was the Ordinance of 1784. After this Jefferson was publically silent on slavery, not the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"thundering silence" does not contradict anything. -- Again, it's a comment on what Jefferson didn't do. I believe this sentiment is well represented in the 'Reputation section already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded the lede and stated that most of his biographers believe Jefferson was a foe of slavery, rather then just the blanket statement that Jefferson was an opponent of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are carrying this too far. Use what the RS say, not your opinion of what they say. Don't misread Finkelman; the full title of his article is TJ and Slavery: The Myth Goes On. He quotes David Brion Davis as noting Jefferson's "immense silence" about slavery after 1789, and yes, that is important from such a leader, who might have been expected to help people find a better road, as did Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1960s, for instance. Davis thinks it is important, as does Finkelman, and they are the sources quoted for this. Finkelman says, "After the Revolution he [TJ] did nothing to help America solve what was clearly its most serious social and political problem...He failed ever to come to terms with the institution on either a political or personal level." His whole article is about the difficulty of evaluating TJ because of his status as an icon. He compares him to his contemporaries and finds him lacking in his actions. As has been discussed here before, Finkelman compared him also to TJ's own ideology and goals, and third, to his portrayal by biographers. Finkelman asks did he "transcend his sectional background and times to implement his ideals", to what extent did he live up to his "values and goals" (quotes on the latter in reference to Peterson.) Finkelman notes that although Jefferson "hated slavery", he did little about it, in contrast to acting on other things he hated. Use other sources to say Jefferson was a lifelong foe of slavery; Finkelman did not find him much of a foe and does not think he lived up to his ideals; TJ did not want to give up the political leverage of slaves under the 3/5 clause of the constitution.Parkwells (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In his revised collection of essays: Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson (2001), Finkelman writes, "In the end, through his deeds as both private slaveowner and public leader, Jefferson sided with slavery and against freedom." (p. 131). This essay is entitled "Treason Against the Hopes of the World": Thomas Jefferson and Slavery". You can read it online. Parkwells (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, Finkelman specifically states that his main biographers believe Jefferson "did everything in his power to end his own relationship with the institution" on page 197. On page 202 Finkelman gives a list of scholars who believe Jefferson was not anti-slavery. I did not put Finkelman's opinion of Jefferson, who ultimately decides Jefferson was not on the whole anti-slavery, understanding that Finkelman looked at Jefferson from his own times, rather then from the present moral standards. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole purpose of my lede revision was to have the reader understand there was opposing sources that claim Jefferson was not antislavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand now - it was confusing to read Finkelman as a source for what major biographers contended about TJ, posed as a question about how to look at Jefferson, when most of the article was about his disagreeing with the position of those biographers. You were using him for both sides. Ok - sorry for my error. Parkwells (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Finkelman did a good job summarizing both views on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I added mention of these other biographers from Finkleman in the ref/notes (ref 6). Remember, there are things, facts, DOI, letters, ideas of gradual emancipation, etc, Jefferson did that has lead most biographers, and TJF, to say he was always an opponent of slavery -- there is nothing but speculation based on what he didn't do that say otherwise. And Finkleman is so absorbed with presentism that his his view is highly speculative and opinionated. He claims that "Jefferson hated the Negro" and believed that Negros had no skills, etc. -- which flies in the face of the fact that Jefferson taught many of his slaves how to be master carpenters, chefs, etc. And he still refers to Jefferson's 'racism' as something that was odd or unusual in that day and age. Getting tired of reading such unsupported and opinionated rubbish from some of these over grown college students. Another view from inside the box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Finkelman pointed out that there were biographers who believed Jefferson was anti-slavery and there were scholars that believed Jefferson was not anti-slavery. The reader can have their own views on Thomas Jefferson. Wikipedia is not endorsing any biographers view point. I believe the job of Wikipedia editors is to look for consistency in an author's view. Finkelman is a source, not a "speculative comment or opinion". What historians are contemplating is to somehow understand Jefferson's "All men are created equal" statement contrasted by Jefferson's ownership of slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Finkleman did point out these things, however his presentation of these biographers were written off as 'writers for the general public', as if this was some menial or lesser effort, as if the general public are idiots and illiterate.
Content covering Jefferson's proposal of gradual emancipation with school and training for soon to be emancipated slaves paid for at public expense was added to the Virginia state legislator and Governor section. Apparently Jefferson saw more potential in freed slaves with an education and/or skills than the likes of Finkleman will ever acknowledge. Very disappointing to see such a credentialed individual spew out so much excess. We can always use him for whatever facts he can offer but as for his insights into Jefferson the man, we should take his assessment with a lot of salt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Jefferson wanted these freed slaves deported from the United States. Jefferson did not believe blacks and whites could live together. Your time frame of Jefferson is also pre 1785. After 1785 Jefferson was silent on slavery. No one is denying Jefferson desired gradual emancipation, but, that is conservative compared to abolitionism of the Baptists and Methodists. Jefferson never called for the end of slavery, rather, that freed slaves be educated and deported. I do not have to defend Finkelman who has been accepted by academic sources. Remember, Gwillhickers, Wikipedia does not endorse any historian or historical perspective. Readers are intelligent to make up their own minds on Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson thought if blacks were freed there would be racial conflict, as I've already explained. Hence his ideas of emancipation and colonization. This was just one of his approaches to end slavery, regardless of what he didn't say during his presidency, an advent that has also been well explained to you, i.e.slave power, an uncooperative Congress, etc, yet you seem to continue with the two dimensional approach. i.e.Jefferson was silent ergo, he did a 180 degree turn on his feelings of slavery. If that is what you would ultimately like to assert we're going to need a source that specifically says this and outlines what 'facts' the claim is based on. Again, all the ta'do about Jefferson not being an opponent of slavery is based on what he didn't do and is an opinion that most often ignores his prior history, prevailing circumstances i.e.the overall opposition to and deep division over the topic of slavery and emancipation. (Ledbetter, 2008, p.146) You seem to think that all Jefferson had to do was snap his fingers and the 'sea would part'. It would be fair to say Jefferson's lack of action during his presidency was not consistent with his views about slavery -- it would be intellectually delinquent to base 'conclusions' on how Jefferson felt about it based on such superficial and circumstantial evidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was the only president to denounce slavery in a message to COngress. In 1806 Jefferson denounced the international slave trade and called for a law to make it a crime. He told Congress in his 1806 annual message that such a law was needed to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights … which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe." Congress did pass the law and he signed it--the only major anti-slavery law passed before 1820. Rjensen (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is sufficient for the article to show RS that have differing opinions/interpretations as to the meaning of Jefferson's actions or lack of actions. It is not appropriate for editors to try to justify or explain the subject, as GW has tried to do; we are supposed to use RS to do that. Numerous scholars (as noted above) of the last generation (or 30 years of academice scholarship) have been cited that they believe TJ did not live up to his stated ideals, even given the constraints of the day, as they compare him to his colleagues and contemporary planters. That is not "presentism." They were well aware of the constraints of the time. They cannot be ignored in this article in favor of editors' interpretations.Parkwells (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Insert : I don't believe anyone has added their "interpretation" other than those who claim that because e.g.Jefferson sold his slaves, that he was not an opponent of slavery. Again, there is historical context involved with much of what you and Cm are trying to base your assertions on. As president with the nation on the brink of political division, Jefferson was mostly silent about slavery. This is not "justification" this is merely the prevailing circumstances and the readers should be made aware of these important perspectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is denying Jefferson was against the slave trade, that he did speak out against the slave trade in his annual message to Congress and signed the bill into law that outlawed the importation of slaves to the United States. Banning the Atlantic slave trade was one step toward ending the cycle of slavery in the United States. However, the international slave trade has to do with the capture and tranporation of people across the Atlantic ocean. Jefferson never spoke out against domestic slavery in the United States while President and as Commander in Chief he had to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. Banning the slave trade did nothing in stopping the increase of domestic slavery within the United States. Jefferson expanded domestic slavery with the Louisianna Purchase, allowing domestic slavery to spread throughout the Territory. Jefferson knew that slaves reproduced themselves and he did nothing to stop the perpetual slave cycle of bondage inside the United States after 1785. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that Jefferson never stopped the slave trade within the United States. Slaves could be auctioned off up until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. After Jefferson died his 130 slaves were sold at a public auction at Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)