Talk:Thomas Jefferson and Native Americans

Untitled

I'm interested in expanding this article, and would like to begin with some work on Jefferson's work in the Doctrine of Discovery and how that relates to Indian removal. Any ideas?Studyhard12 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of Thomas Jefferson's policies and views regarding the Indians: August 15, 2014

This article, and the repeated deletions of germane material from it, are highly problematic.

It claims, among other things, that Andrew Jackson was merely following the advice that Jefferson gave to Harrison in a private letter. It nowhere states, demonstrates, shows, or attempts to argue that Jackson had access to that private letter or that any of Jefferson's views had an impact of Jackson.

The thesis that this article advances lacks scholarly and academic backing. In fact, this article itself, as it is, is an example of ORIGINAL RESEARCH as Wikipedia defines it. Even the quote from the 1803 letter in question references an online source that shows only a small portion of the entire letter. In the rest of Jefferson's letter (which I have tried to give the reader a taste for with just a short additional quote from it, with a citation which DOES show the entire letter on Yale University's site), he also expresses compassion for the Indians and a desire to see to their "happiness" and "tranquility". Why are you making such a concerted attempt to distort what he said, and further to claim without support that Jackson was mimicking or copying Jefferson's policies, when a fuller survey of Jefferson's policies would show otherwise? I am not deleting any parts of it, unlike those who insist upon keeping this unscholarly tome the way it is without the proper grounding in the wide spectrum of Jefferson's actual policies towards the Indians.

If your purpose is to show Jefferson in a negative light by selectively quoting him and censoring all context for his words and views, then that is what your farce of an article does. If the purpose is to educate readers about Jeffersonian policy, then I recommend including the material that I have been trying to enter and which vandals are removing and giving consistently poor and ridiculous justifications for doing so.

I believe there is no "consensus" to keep out the material which I have added. Rather, there are just a few individuals who keep deleting it without giving sound reasons for doing so.

What objection or argument do you have? Is there any good reason that anyone can give for keeping the quotes from Jefferson out of this article? "Consensus" makers, let's hear from each of you...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.228.41 (talk • contribs)

Please review WP:AGF and WP:VANDNOT; this is a collaborative project and you are going to convince no one of anything with civility violations. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we base our articles mostly on secondary sources - not extensive quotes. Since your repeated insertion of this material has been reverted half a dozen times by various editors, I do not see how you can possibly support your contention that there is no consensus to exclude the lengthy quote section.

Of the two substantial quotes existing in the stable version of the article only one (letter to Humboldt) is referenced only to the primary source (the letter itself). Most of the content of the article is correctly based on secondary sources, which appear to match the article in general tone and content. If you believe the secondary sources have been selected in a manner that results in overall bias, what secondary sources do you propose using to expand or rebalance the article? VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply from 71.106.228.41 16 August 2014

Thank you, VQuakr, for your reply.

First of all, at least two of the "editors" who have repeatedly reverted the material in question are "2605:6000:8343:5400:78b5:480c:a396:eeea" and "2605:6000:8343:5400:52c:6f88:df55:1d2f". Note that they have also deleted the contributions of Alatari of 16 July 2014, not just mine. The record in Wikipedia shows that these two have done little more than delete things wholesale and have contributed and edited nothing. Please have a look. Secondly, as I stated in my original post, my point is that the PRIMARY, rather than secondary, sources have been selected in a manner that results in overall bias. The quote from Jefferson's 1803 letter makes Jefferson appear to be an Indian-hater bent on their extermination, when in several places in the same letter he expresses his concern for their welfare, their safety from harm caused by others, and their happiness and tranquility, and that the project of teaching them agricultural trades is motivated by those intentions. I have merely been trying to insert a two-line portion of the same letter which reaveals some of this, with a reference to the whole letter as preserved on the Yale U. Avalon Project website. Moreover, the entire thesis of the article, that Jefferson's letters influenced Andrew Jackson's policy of forced removal, is nowhere established, be it with primary or secondary sources. For that reason, without disturbing any of the significant material that others have contributed, I have tried to state in the opening paragraph that the aforementioned thesis posited in the article is controversial. Additionally, I have endeavored to include succinct quotes from Jefferson's other official writings and official acts as president (again, referring to reliable academic websites which contain the primary source material) to balance out the biased longer ones, whose bias towards portraying Jefferson in a negative light vis-à-vis his actions towards the Indians I have tried to explain above.

Not sure why you think the IP address comment is relevant. The article currently uses mostly secondary sources, with a few quotes sourced to primary documents. The very first reference in the article (Miller) supports the claim that Jefferson influenced Jackson. The only way for you to show that this claim is disputed by historians would be to provide secondary sources - using quotes in the manner you propose is not compliant with WP:PRIMARY. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

First, regarding your statement "Not sure why you think the IP address comment is relevant." On the article's history page, those two IP addresses are listed as the identifiers of two "persons" (assuming they are different people) who have reverted my additions without contributing anything to this or other articles on Wikipedia. This comment is relevant because you stated that "this material has been reverted half a dozen times by various editors", and thus, "I do not see how you can possibly support your contention that there is no consensus to exclude the lengthy quote section". Can you now see that these two individuals who have repeatedly reverted my material have not been editors of or contributors to this or other articles?

Secondly, I now see that this article is essentially a condensed version of the cited sections of Miller's book, complete with all of its biases such as the question "Thomas Jefferson - Hypocrite or Political Spinmeister?". Miller has done with Jefferson's letters exactly what this Wikipedia article does, which is selectively quote Jefferson's words shorn of the larger context of his repeatedly expressed aim to promote peace and friendship with the Indians and to secure their future in a new and rapidly expanding United States. Just as this Wikipedia article presents primary sources - namely Jefferson's letters - to make its point, I have proposed primary sources as well - namely, other parts of the same letters and other letters by Jefferson - to expose the overall context of the former material and to reduce the bias inherent in the article's thesis. (Jefferson's 1803 letter to General Andrew Jackson, which Miller refers to, nowhere hints at forced removal of the Indians. See here: http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/1803.html). If it's a slanted and deceptive article that is desired, then, it appears that that's what we currently have. Whereas the primary sources that I'm citing do the job of providing the aforementioned necessary context, I'm not aware of secondary sources that make the point that I'm making, but I am open to other suggestions as to how to balance out this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.228.41 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

First - no, editors with few edits still have a say. There is not exception at WP:EW (or elsewhere) that discounts editors that way. Second, I'm not aware of secondary sources that make the point that I'm making - then we are done here. As noted at WP:PRIMARY, which by now you have hopefully read: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. You think the article is slanted based on your own person beliefs and synthesis. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to forcing unsupported changes into the article based on that opinion. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, you are purposely ignoring and distorting each of my points and arguments, which I need not repeat as they are recorded here and plain for anyone to see. All of my edits have studiously followed the guideline of avoiding attempts to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source". The Wikipedia policy further states, "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." As is very obvious to anyone reading this, I have merely quoted primary sources and provided the most bland and reasonable introductory statements to accompany them merely to assist the overall readability of the article, and I left it at that, without analysis or deeper interpretation. While quoting from primary sources is clearly acceptable per Wikipedia's published guidelines, I have said that I am open to other suggestions as to how to address the bias in the article. You have not yet responded in this vein.

Moreover, I have taken pains to explain why the material is biased, and further, why the so-called "editors" on whose behalf you are speaking are behaving as miscreants and not as serious contributors or editors, as their record shows. (Apparently their "say" as wholesale removers of uninterpreted primary source material outweighs and cancels the "say" of others.)

You are avoiding all of these points, and along with your dismissive and petulant tone, it would appear that you are not acting in good faith and that another agenda is being served here. You have the power, so proceed. Be the dictator that you aspire to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.228.41 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit 15 August 2014

Suggested introductory paragraph:

Andrew Jackson is generally credited with initiating Indian Removal, having pushed for the Indian Removal Act in 1830 which led to the ethnic cleansing campaign in the American South known as the Trail of Tears. Some have cited a series of private letters by Thomas Jefferson beginning in 1803 as antecedents to this policy. This view is controversial and complicated by the fact that, before and during his presidency, Jefferson strenuously emphasized the need for respect, brotherhood, and trade with the Indians.

Compassion and admiration

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson defended American Indian culture and marveled at how the tribes of Virginia "never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government" due to their "moral sense of right and wrong". He would later write, "I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman."

As President, Jefferson made sustained efforts to win the friendship and cooperation of many Native American nations. He repeatedly articulated his aspirations for a united nation of both Whites and Indians, such as the following from a letter to the Seneca spiritual leader Handsome Lake dated November 3, 1802:

"Go on then, brother, in the great reformation you have undertaken.... In all your enterprises for the good of your people, you may count with confidence on the aid and protection of the United States, and on the sincerity and zeal with which I am myself animated in the furthering of this humane work. You are our brethren of the same land; we wish your prosperity as brethren should do. Farewell."

Jefferson's personal nonsectarian religiosity appears to show in his references to the Great Spirit, as in the following letter to the Choctaw nation dated December 17, 1803:

"I am glad, brothers, you are willing to go and visit some other parts of our country.... we thank the Great Spirit who took care of you on the ocean, and brought you safe and in good health to the seat of our great Council; and we hope His care will accompany and protect you, on your journey and return home; and that He will preserve and prosper your nation in all its just pursuits."

President Jefferson also sought full U.S. citizenship for those Indian nations which desired it, including the Cherokee. In his Eighth Annual Message to Congress on November 8, 1808, he presented to the nation a vision of White and Indian unity:

"With our Indian neighbors the public peace has been steadily maintained.... And, generally, from a conviction that we consider them as part of ourselves, and cherish with sincerity their rights and interests, the attachment of the Indian tribes is gaining strength daily... and will amply requite us for the justice and friendship practiced towards them.... [O]ne of the two great divisions of the Cherokee nation have now under consideration to solicit the citizenship of the United States, and to be identified with us in laws and government, in such progressive manner as we shall think best."

Years after the Jefferson presidency, the U.S. government again offered citizenship to the Cherokee who lived east of the Mississippi River, along with 640 acres per family.

As other writings illustrate, his general compassion for the Indians at times gave way to impatience with nations which responded unfavorably to his communications with then, and to his frustration with the limited success of his efforts.

For inclusion after the lengthy quote from Jefferson's 1803 letter to Harrison

[...]

However, elsewhere in the same letter, Jefferson spoke of protecting the Indians from injustices perpetrated by Whites:

"Our system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate an affectionate attachment from them, by everything just and liberal which we can do for them within... reason, and by giving them effectual protection against wrongs from our own people."

Narrative is incomplete and one sided

I agree with most of what has been proposed above. Jefferson wrote extensively about the American Indian in his 'Notes on the State of Virginia, where he regarded the American Indian as equals to European settlers. Jefferson on numerous occasions showed admiration for and defended the American Indian culture. Much of this perspective has been neglected and is well covered at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.

• American Indians
• President Jefferson and the Indian Nations
• Thomas Jefferson's Enlightenment and American Indians
• Jefferson the Virginian and American Indians

Also, his addresses to the Indians are most revealing and need to be read by anyone who is interested in the whole truth regarding Jefferson's views of the American Indian.

• To the Brothers of the Choctaw Nation, December 17, 1803
• To Brother Handsome Lake: Washington, November 3, 1802
• To Brother John Baptist de Coigne, Charlottesville, June 1781
• To the Chiefs of the Cherokee Nation, Washington, January 10, 1806
• To the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, Washington, December 30, 1806

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming

@Cmguy777, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Rjensen: This article needs to be renamed to something neutral and more encompassing like Thomas Jefferson and the American Indian. The existing title is very narrow in its scope and suggests that Jefferson's only views towards the American Indian was "removal", which no doubt will very often be interpreted by the uneducated (or mis-educated) as extermination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are no viable and pressing reasons not to, I'll be renaming this article to the above mentioned title ::in a couple of days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Eight days later:  Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)