Talk:Thomas Jefferson and slavery/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lemen

I removed any reference to Lemen & the "secret" deal with Jefferson. There is no evidence for it. Please be careful what you use. This is a major violation of WP:V.Ebanony (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I cited a source for the Jefferson-Lemen compact. Research has been done on the relationship between Jefferson and Lemen. Excluding a referenced segment because it gives an alternate view of Jefferson is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Jefferson-Lemen compact:

• Edstrom, James A. (2004). ""A Mighty Contest": the Jefferson-lemen Compact Reevaluated". Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society. 97 (3): 194+.

• MacNaul, Willard C. (1915). "The Jefferson-Lemen Compact". University Chicago Press. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• Peck, J.M. (June 4, 1851). "Peck's History of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Elen of the Roads suggested: "The way forward is not to fall out, start blaming each other, take bat home etc etc. The way forward is to identify the sections with the issues and do a rewrite, not just of the couple of problematic sentences, but of paragraphs." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading James A. Edstrom's article "A Mighty Contest": the Jefferson-lemen Compact Reevaluated" evidence suggests that the Jefferson-Lemen compact was fraudulent or highly speculative. This should be in the article since other sources continue to perpetuate the myth of the Jefferson-Lemen compact. I suggest putting in a segment title, "Jefferson-Lemen myth". This would add clarity to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree it's important to move forward. That's why I just removed it & warned you (I din't go to the noticeboard). I see you've made a sincere effort to improve the article recently, and I want to work with you. Your suggestion is reasonable & the new edit seems to confrom to the WP:FRINGE: A reference that "debunk[s] or disparage[s] the fringe theory can also be adequate". You've read the article, now you understand why I made the edit, and that's it's not personal. This is the reason why Northwest Territory & 1787 was also removed -it's all the same stuff. Just please be careful what you post. See my post in npov fork 3Ebanony (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the initial Jefferson-Lemen segment. There was no purposeful motive to put POV in terms of the alleged Lemen relationship. A book or paper does not always mean that the source is valid. My mistake. Edstrom warned that other people or web sites acknowledge the Jefferson-Lemen compact. Wikipedia is a good place to warn others on the Jefferson-Lemen myth. To be honest, at times it is difficult to sort out fact and fiction with Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem. And as long as you post good material the article will improve. The article needs addidtional work, and I'd like to work with you to improve it. In segment 3 I put some ideas & have been working on them. We could use some slaves' pictures (Fosset's is out of copyright) & others on the slave dwellings. Your idea to cover more on the slaves, racism & how the slaves lived is a good one. Ebanony (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Language

This article is written in both American English and English English. Which one should I use as I continue to copy edit this article? Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I forget the comments Wikipedia has on this, but I think they prefer consistency. I just happen to use the Queen's, but I'm ok with either use. Thanks for your recent corrections. Do you know how to archive the talk page? Sections 1-13, 16-20, 22-25, 27-29 & 31 need it. That would be a great help.Ebanony (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll set up an automated talk archive process once I'm done copy editing this article. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. Many thanks for your help in the article. We all appreciate your efforts.Ebanony (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosciuszko's Will

Cmgyu777, this "will" seems overplayed. You've cited Nash & Hodges who claim Jefferson missed "an opportunity to free his slaves and to be an example to other slave owners in Virginia". They say "the slaves that could have been freed if Kosciuszko’s will had been honored". They present no evidence for this claim in their article. They admit the court case wasn't settled until 1852, and the money went to relatives. Their facts indicate that Jefferson never had the chance to free any slave by that will (& Jefferson had hundreds & the amount of money was way too small)[[1]]. For a better schoarly article, see [[2]]. Please explain why this info on Kosciuszko shouldn't be deleted as undue weight to a topic that seems irrelevant.Ebanony (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I should also ask why there is a section on the Drafts the 1783 Va Constitution. Seems irrelevant, and should be deleted. You could discuss the actual Constitution he wrote in 1776 (it deals with slavery). The section cites Gabriel's Rebellion: The Virginia Slave Conspiracies of 1800 and 1802 by Egerton. Egerton discusses Jefferson's role in executing slaves trying to overthrow slavery. That's more relevant.Ebanony (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosciuszko’s will is important because Jefferson had no intentions of freeing his slaves. The money from the sale of his estate was meant to free Jefferson's slaves. The 1783 draft is important because Jefferson was caving in somewhat to pressure from the anti-slavery Baptists. It is important for the reader to understand their were ministers Baptist and Methodist, who were racially integrated and preached against slavery. Jefferson was behind the times. The whole point is that Jefferson had anti slavery influences. Taking these out of the article, in my opinion, gives Jefferson a free pass. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Jefferson had people encouraging him to free his slaves (as early as his university days actually), and that Kosciuszko was one of them, even going so far as to write it in his 1798 will. Regardless of being executor or not, Jefferson was powerless to stop Kosciuszko’s relatives from claiming the money. In 1852, long after Jefferson's slaves were sold, the court gave Kosciuszko’s family the money, not to Jefferson to free slaves. Jefferson didn't want to be executor, but that changes nothing. The court would probably still have given his family the money because of the later will. Nash's article conflicts with other scholarly work on the topic. Just think: Free 200 slaves with $17,000? Impossible even if he'd had the money. So please rad this article, and tell me if you still have objections. [[3]] Now when you say, he had "no intention of freeing his slaves", I agree with you. But you don't need this in the article to make that point. Isn't it already obvious? Ebanony (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned "probably". That is speculation and Wikipedia should not be about speculating what a court would rule. Jefferson had the opportunity to be Kosciuszko’s executor, sell the estate, and free his slaves. That is a historical fact and it should be in the article, in my opinion. Jefferson said no to Kosciuszko, even though he had promised him he would. He had many opportunities after 1782 to free his slaves, but did not. Jefferson's stated that his nailry, run by slave children, was equivilant to or surpassed European royalty. That answers why Jefferson refused in addition to being reluctant to freeing his slaves. He wanted to surpass the rich European society in France. That is speculation and should not be in the article. He wanted the best of both worlds, slavery and freedom, and his conscious and the Baptist ministers made him feel guilty. It is not obvious that Jefferson did not want to free his slaves. He purposely wanted to cover the record. He put the blame on King George III on the slave trade, even when Americans were participating in the slave trade. He did not mention that he owned hundreds of slaves at Monticello in the Declaration of Independance. Also Jefferson has had many historians to cover his trail of slavery and supporting Southern aristocracy. That is why Kosciuszko’s will should be in the article. The real Jefferson is the one at the Virginia court house. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Jefferson had the opportunity to be Kosciuszko’s executor, sell the estate, and free his slaves." To be executor yes, he missed an opportunity. But to get the $17,000 in the will? Not according to the article I asked you to read. To free 200 slaves with $17,000? Not at 1817 prices. His slaves were worth more.

How could Jefferson get the money? The reason the Kosciuszko family went to court was to prevent Jefferson from getting the money. The Supreme Court overturned the 1798 will giving Jefferson money to emancipate some slaves; it gave everything to Kosciuszko’s family based on a later will. Who says Jefferson could have used the money legally? If you have other evidence, please show me. Again, please read http://www.jstor.org/pss/20090134 Ebanony (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the other things, I just rewrote some of those sections like the Declaration & discussed the charge against the King. The historians who, as you say, "cover his trail" happen to be the ones who disccuss this will as a lost opportunity. Nash based his claim on a quote from Peterson.Ebanony (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1798 will should be mentioned because it specifically mentions Thomas Jefferson freeing his slaves. Here is the 1798 Will:

"I, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, being just on my departure from America, do hereby declare and direct that, should I make no other testimentary disposition of my property in the United States, I hereby authorize my friend, Thomas Jefferson, to employ the whole thereof in purchasing negroes from among his own slaves or any others, and giving them liberty in my name; in giving them an education in trade or otherwise; in having them instructed for their new condition in the duties of morality, which may make them good neighbors, good fathers and mothers, husbands andwives, in their duty as citizens, teaching them to be defenders of their liberty and country, of the good order of society, and in whatsoever may make them happy and useful; and I make the said Thomas Jefferson executor of this. 5th of May, 1798. (Signed) T. Kosciusmo."

(Source: George Washington Bicentennial Commission - 1932)

What did the second will or testimentary disposition say? When did Kosciuszko change his mind on giving the estate to Jefferson. I am not a legal scholar so I can't say if Jefferson could have used the money legally. I would need to know what the Supreme Court opinion was. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There were two wills, one for Poland and one for the United States. Were there two United States wills? Here is a link to Kościuszko's testament and will:[4]. I had looked at your "jstor.org" link, only one page appeared.

It's complicated; he had several wills. But Kosciuszko didn't change his mind about freeing some slaves (the will is on pg 92-3). The probem is he wrote another will in 1816; he said that earlier wills didn't count (see pg 100-1), which incuded the 1798 one with Jefferson. That will didn't mention Jefferson or slaves. So apparantly he made a mistake (pg 101). See this artice:

What matters is that Kosciuszko's family wanted that money, and they contested the validity of the earlier will with Jefferson. Jefferson gave the job of executor to the court (the job of watching the funds). So maybe he had enough time to use the funds to free some slaves before they contested it, but probably would have ended up in court if he had. The family basically said Jefferson had no legal to use their money to free any slave. Once a person contests a will, the court must rule; the Supreme Court decided in 1852. 26 years later. See pg 101 & the other cited pages here http://www.jstor.org/pss/20090134 This other article you should read too because it discusses the case http://www.jstor.org/pss/20147972 To claim Jefferson could have used that money to free his slaves seems unjustified. Jefferson had many other opportunities to get out of debt & free his slaves, but with this? Anyway, most historians ignore this.Ebanony (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the jstor.com page. I would believe that putting Kosciuszko wills in, Jefferson's decline, and the family contestment would be good for the article. Again, I would have to read the Supreme Court case to get how and why the family contested the will. I would need to read the 1816 will also. When did the family contest the slave freeing 1798 will? Why was Kosciuszko family bent on not freeing slaves? Was Jefferson aware of the 1816 will? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you want to use the information. But if you can read those articles, they will answer some of your questions (do u have access to a university?). Seems the family just wanted the money, not that they had anything against the slaves; the articles don't go into that. Instead they look at the different wills, the court cases, and Jefferson's role. The full text of the 1816 will is not in them, but Pula says it did not include anything on freeing saves (this is why the earlier requst in the 1798 will was ignored). I think Nash's recent book, and the reference he makes to Merril Peterson's older work (in that article) discuss this as some "missed opportunity" - anyone else? If you can find more info that shows he could have freed some slaves legally, despite the court case, but refused to, then ok. If you want to discuss how Jefferson felt about freeing his own slaves, then why not discuss how he treated his runaways? Or see what research has been published on that very question? Seems to me your time would be better spent on researching the slaves themsleves, how they lived and covering more important things like the laws he made concerning slavery.Ebanony (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Update on this: there were 4 wills in different countries. Kosciuszko died in 1817, and Jefferson gave up being executor in 1821 (probate), and the Circuit Court took it & asked Benjamin Lear to watch it. Sometime after this Kosciuszko's family claimed the will of 1798 (with the slaves) was no good, and was replaced by one in 1816 & another in 1817 (nothing on the slaves or American property in tthese other wills). This caused years of litigation, and the Supreme Court in John F. Ennis Vs. J.H.B. Smith, et al settled it [[5]] It's complicated but the Court ruled the 1798 will invalid and that Kosciuszko's American property was "intestate" or without a will, and awarded it to the next of kin - his relatives - in 1852. So it looks like Jefferson had some time to use the funds between 1817-1821 to free some slaves, but did not; it only implies he wanted to avoid years of legal problems, & when he said he "was too old", Jefferson was right. So if from 1817-21 Jefferon had a chance to use it without being liable to repay the money later on, then ok. Do you have anything on that? This information is in [[6]] The American Will of Thaddeus Kosciuszko James S. Pula, 1977.Ebanony (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Section break 1

I currently use questia.com. I do not have access to a University Library. What you are saying, in my opinion, makes the Kosciuszko wills more interesting and should be in the article. Wikipedia is to inform people; that includes students. The added information actually helps Jefferson's case for refuting the will. What we are discussing in his 1798 will could help clear up allot of mystery why Jefferson refused Kosciuszko's offer. The question whether Jefferson could have used the will legally is moot, since he refused. However, putting in the information on Kosciusko's family getting involved would explain Jefferson's reluctance. You are correct Ebanony that "too old and tired" makes more sense for Jefferson having declined the 1798 will offer, in light of the knowledge of Kosciusko's family contestment in 1821. The other reason is that Kosciusko's estate was not worth as much in 1798 then it was in 1817. This would help give the readers better understanding on Jefferson's refusal of Koasciusko's will. Kosciusko himself made the situation complicated by having written four wills. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

When it says "he refused", you mean he refused to be executor. Being executor doesn't mean dispersing funds to release slaves - at least not when a will is contested. Second, he couldn't have been executor for more than a few years; he was too old. Most scholars ignore it, and few know about the will - and the articles directly say that. Why include this?Ebanony (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? The same reason to put in the Jefferson-Lemen compact myth, clarity for the reader. One brief paragraph should be enough. It gives the reader better understanding into the Kosciusko-Jefferson relationship. I would mention that Kosciusko wrote a 1798 will for Jefferson to sell his estate in the United States and free his slaves, however, Jefferson refused to be executor. Then mention Kosciusko's family contested the will in 1821 that resulted in a lengthly legal battle with the court. Also mention Kosciusko complicated matters by making four wills. Mentioning these things helps the reader get a better perspective from Jefferson's point of view. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Kosciusko wrote a 1798 will for Jefferson to sell his estate in the United States and free his slaves..." Not accurate.

"I authorize...Thomas Jefferson to employ the whole thereof in purchasing Negroes from among his own or any others...I make Thomas Jefferson my executor" - Kosciusko's 1798 will. Kosciuscko did not intend to free Jefferson's slaves; "any" slaves was ok. He doesn't mention buying an "estate". As executor, the job was to free a few slaves, but it also entailed any legal challenges as well. Jefferson refused to "manage" the will probably for that very reason (I'm "too old"); that doesn't mean he refused to free his own slaves. An "administrator" or "executor" must follow court directives, & that's why even in 1852 the executor didn't free any slaves; after 1821 only the court could decide. Please read the articles & understand the subject matter. And the main point is this: this was Kosciusko's will & money; he was the one trying to free slaves. This was not Jefferson's idea or plan. Maybe he could have helped it, but you'd have to show that. Have you looked at the articles? Have you read Nash's book? If you can show support for these, then fine. Ebanony (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ebanony, it seems obvious you are against putting Kosciusko's will in the article. The will allowed Jefferson to free his own slaves or other slaves owned by other slave owners. An 1852 court decision does not apply to Jefferson since he died in 1826. Jefferson gave the 1798 will to the court. Jefferson allegedly agreed with Kosciusko to free his slaves with Kosciusko's estate. However, what matters is the Jefferson was named in the will, whether their was a previous aggreement. I have no need to keep arguing over Kosciusko's will. The readers need to decide their own views on Jefferson and slavery. Information on Kosciusko's 1798 will gives the reader the ability to make up their own minds on Jefferson. However, Ebanony, you have taken over this article. Any of my opinions do not seem to matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The things you say matter, and that's why I replied to you so many times. But I'm not against a litte material on Kosciusko's will per se. V policy says you need sources. None of the articles I posted (both from Jstor) makes the claims you did. I've said several times that when you provide these sources, then we can discuss including it. Do you have sources? Ebanony (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The source I had was the one that was deleted from the article on Jefferson allegedly missing a chance to free his slaves. I do not have access to the Jstor source. I have not found anything significant on questia.com. As mentioned before it would be good for the readers at least have knowledge of Kosciusko's will and Jefferson. I would just use the Jstor source and mention Kosciusko's will briefly. I agree that Kosciusko was relying on Jefferson to free his slaves and that Jefferson had no intentions of releasing his slaves at Monticello. It is up to the reader to decide if Jefferson misled Kosciusko. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Better to use Nash's book Friend's of Liberty; that is what the article is based on. [[7]] The Jstor articles don't blame Jefferson for not using the money; they say (imply) he couldn't use it. Based on Jstor, there was a promise & a will; he didn't act before 1821 for whatever reason; after that he didn't want to be executor, and the court settled the business in 1852 becasue of litigation. Please show what Nash's argument is & what pgs in the book so that there is someting meaningful to add to it.Ebanony (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have Nash's book, then I do not object to putting a reference similar to the part I put in italics above (can be modified of course) based on the articles. Then when you know more about Nash's work you can add to it. But this shouldn't get too much space. Is that ok with you or do you have different ideas?Ebanony (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ebanony, you have the major restructuring cite on the article. Have you finished with your edits on the article? I would have to purchase the Nash book or find at local library. The restructuring needs to be removed in order to make more edits. Thanks. Working together on the article would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. The major work has already been done, so I'll remove it. But I'm not not the one who posted it. At any rate, you can make edits, and I'm ok with the edit you want. Put up what you know, and if you get the book, then add more to it later on.Ebanony (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Information on James Hemings

Removed. Already covered:

"..., only after a replacement French cook could be found; James was broke and destitute, but when Jefferson offered him employment as the President's chef, he said no, and committed suicide shortly afterwards. Jefferson kept James's family enslaved at Monticello." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

right, but of more importance was the comment on NPOV Segment Break 3 [[8]] Let me know about a way to impreve the part on the ordinace; it's complicated, but it's currently not clear.Ebanony (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, but there is more to the story than just finding a cook. The reason Jefferson freed him is 100% clear, but it was no act of benevolence, and had nothing to do with a new cook per se. Something had happened before that to cause Jefferson to be compelled to write an agreement. I think Finkelman discusses this.Ebanony (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if the Ordinance of 1784 gets mixed up with Jefferson's attempting to emancipate slaves. On James Hemings, there was contention over whether James was in fact free, according to Finkleman, since he was not a slave while in France. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

All the Hemings were legally free under French law while in France. The problem was getting them to return to slavery, and hence the promises he made to Sally to free her children. Does any other historian contradict this? Seems correct. Now with James he had problems being a slave in the US and had travelled a lot in the US, so Jefferson had some trouble with him. 1784 gets mixed up because the actual one of 1787 had a clause against slavery (actually in practice slavery continued). Now Jefferson did not have an attempt "to emancipate slaves" in 1784 bill. Emancipation means freeing. Prohibiting slaves just means not allowing them in an area. Not that it matters because several historians like Finkelman and William Cohen (if I recall correctly) say the bill, even if it had passed, that part would have been overturned.Ebanony (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Something should be mentioned on Sally and James Hemings being freed in France, if nothing has been mentioned already or could be expanded. Jefferson just prohibited slavery in the Northwest Ordinance. The reasons for this prohibition are complicated. I only put the 1784 Ordinance in because it is documented. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that from 1769 to 1784 Jefferson made attempts to be "associated" with antislavery. However, the real Jefferson, was a slave owner and his own actions reveal he never desired to release any of his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually he made no attempts in that time; he later made that claim. His attempt to prohibit slavery in the territories did not pass, and was impractical. But feel free to address it if you want. As to Hemings being legally free in France, sure. It raises the question "why did she return to slavery?", and "is this why he freed her children in his will?". A Gordon-Reed raises this issue. Ebanony (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is one issue I do not understand concerning Sally Hemings and Jefferson. If Jefferson was so repulsed by blacks as he claimed to be, then why did he have children by Hemings? Could Jefferson himself, secretly been attracted to blacks? Jefferson treated Hemings as a slave concubine. I believe the Baptist antislavery ministers did get to Jefferson in terms of making him feel guilty. Even today Baptists can be very persuasive politically and spiritually. All Jefferson seemed to care about was himself. If Jefferson made no attempts to be associated with slavery from 1769 to 1784, then his whole life was a lie. Ferling supports the 1769 legislation. Jefferson did write the 1784 North West Territory bill. That is documented. What went on at night when the lights went out at Monticello, I would rather not know. Jefferson at times discusses myself and I find his own actions repugnant. I mentioned before that since Hemings was pregnant in France, she really had no other choice but to be with Jefferson. Why did James return to America since he was free in France? I don't understand that one at all. France might be the answer to those questions. I imagine Revolutionary France was an extremely dangerous place to be at that time. If a King and Queen got beheaded, no one was safe. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Hemings wasn't "black" in the sense you're thinking. She looked white, and that is because she was part white. Hemings is "her" surname because the slave ship captain, and the story is a very interesting one...Anyway, this was true with almost all his house servants: mixed with white or mostly white. I'll try to find the article on that if I can. They were so light-skinned that some lived as whites and married whites. I think it was Madison who was tall & similar to TJ, who he says was his father. His memoir is worth reading, and he discusses the slave ship captain Hemings [[9]] Whatever Jefferson's likes/dislikes I can't say, but he surrounded himself with the whitest of the slaves.

It's not that Jefferson claimed to be against slavery, he wasn't anti-slavery though he made a few statements usually used out of context. You see it's the 20th century historians who created this image. Slavery was not too popular, so they couldn't discuss his real thoughts on the subject because they were so blatantly in support of slavery it was absurd. So those historians used that proposal he wrote in 1784 to argue their case that he was anti-slavery. I'd recommend this [[10]], it will answer some of your questions. Glad to see you still working on these topics. You're one of the more serious people here, and I'm sure if you could visit a local university library, you'd be able to answer those questions. Visit ur old univ, they might let you or maybe a friend can help. Keep up the good work!Ebanony (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I believe the Hemings were the "whitest" of slaves. However, Jefferson, must have known she had African American slave heritage. I believe that Jefferson played the field on slavery, staunchly for slavery and yet he through his own writings wanted to be associated with anti-slavery causes for political purposes. I can't prove this, however, one source suggested anti-slavery Baptist ministers made the Virginia elite "uncomfortable" with slavery. I believe the Virginia government was very anti-clerical and Jefferson absorbed some of this anti-clericism. The Revolution brought about the law that said owners could emancipate their slaves. Jefferson was very reluctant to free any of his slaves. Slavery and religion were at times intertwined with each other. Jefferson attempted to use scientific rational reasoning to justify the enslavement of African Americans. I agree with you that "historians" can definately show bias to protect Jefferson. Thanks for the link. I can look into a public library and find out if there are any links to University sites. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradicting behavior

I have been recently making edits to show Jefferson's contradictive behavior towards slavery in the early years. However, Jefferson was determined to be a large plantation slave holder, even though he defended a mulatto slave in an attempt to gain freedom. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede section overhaul

I have overhauled the lede section to create balance and neutrality. Other opinions or suggestions are needed and would be helpful in any areas that need improvement. The lede section is very important and most editors need to be in agreement. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Peterson quote is good, however, the lede needs to be a summary, not a deposition. The Peterson quote needs to be summarized and if needed, expanded in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article: His biographer Merrill Peterson argues:

"the fact that Jefferson was a Virginia slaveholder all his adult life has placed him at odds with his moral and political principles. Yet there can be no question of his genuine hatred of slavery or, indeed, of the efforts he made to curb and eliminate it. In his draft of the Declaration of Independence he denounced the African slave trade imposed by Britain as a "cruel war against human nature itself," but Congress struck this passage. Partly through his efforts, Virginia became the first state to close its doors to this infernal traffic."

Cmguy777 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Free/freed blacks

Changed references to "free blacks", as most in colonial Virginia were born free, descendants of white women and African/African-American men. In colonial VA, these comprised most of the free blacks (Paul Heinegg, Free African Americans in Virginia, North and South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware). Fewer were descended from slaves who had been freed.Parkwells (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistent foe against slavery lede

The statement the Jefferson was a consistant foe against slavery in his writings is unsourced. I went to the Monticello source page. There is no clear source cited who made that claim. There is an ambiguous source link to Lucia Stanton, however, there is no cite or link where Lucia Stanton made that statement. Jefferson became more conservative as he got older. He was against the Missouri Compromise. He told Edward Cole to keep his slaves. He said that to mess with slavery was holding a "wolf by the ear" very dangerous, in essence there was nothing that could be done to stop slavery without violence and the best course of action would be to do nothing. There needs to be a specific source cited who made that statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article:

"All of Jefferson's writings, both private and public, were against the institution of slavery; he has called it an "abominable crime," and a "moral depravity". He was a leader in abolishing the international slave trade, both for Virginia (1778) and the nation as a whole (1808). He sought to abolish slavery in all the territories, a policy that was later adopted for the Northwest Territory. After the 1790's Jefferson's urgency toward abolition appears to have cooled."

The wording is moralizing and POV. No specific source is cited that says all of Jefferson's writings, both private and public, were against slavery. Who stated that Jefferson was a leader in abolishing the international slave trade? This needs a source. Please, just make a statement such as Jefferson voted for the abolition of the slave traded in 1778 in Virginia and signed into law the repeal of the slave trade in 1808. Even this needs a source. Please avoid "preachy" language. I love a good sermon, but Wikipedia needs to remain historically neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article:

"Some historians have suggested that it was Jefferson's debt that prevented him from freeing his slaves."

"and gave his daughter slave Sally Hemings defacto freedom, "gave her time","

Who are these historians who have stated Jefferson's debts prevented him from freeing his slaves? Again that is argumentative. Thomas Jefferson is not on trial in this article. Please be historically neutral. The phrase "his daughter slave" makes no sense. Sally Hemings was Jefferson's slave woman. She never was given formal freedom, not even by Jefferson's daughter. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article:

Historian Junius P. Rodriguez says, "All aspects of Jefferson's public career suggest an opposition to slavery."

Rodriguez is an overall view on the history of U.S. slavery. Wikipedia is not about making "suggestions" or leading the reader to make a conclusion. I repeat, Jefferson is not on trial. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me Jefferson is on trail in this article, on trail for slavery; and you're the judge and jury. Seems that slavery is all Jefferson will be remembered for. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is my whole point Founders Intent. Jefferson is not on trial for slavery. This article does not condone or condemn slavery or Jefferson. The article presents Jefferson as a slave owner. I am not aware of any historian who believes Jefferson was not a slave owner. Jefferson need not be protected or chastized for his actions as a slave owner. Onuf's quote is valid and kept in the article. There is no point repeating incessantly that Jefferson actions or writings were against slavery in order to prove a point. There is no point to be proved in the article. There is no prosecuting and defense attorney nor judge in any Wikipedia article. Jefferson freed 7 slaves. That is in this article. Jefferson owned 130 slaves. That is in this article. Admittedly Sally Hemings is a touchy subject and has been presented with the utmost sensitivity. I could rewrite the first sentence to read that Jefferson's actions as a slave owner were consistant with his view that blacks were inferior. I put the words "at odds", because his views on liberty were not in contradiction with slavery, since he believed blacks were inferior, as one historian has aptly pointed out. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence and source to the lede that state Jefferson's Enlightenment ideals condemning slavery were not inconsistant with his racist beliefs that African Americans were inferior. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article:

"whose actions as a slave owner were at odds with his radical rhetoric on individual freedom and liberty."

First sentence needs to be more direct rather then expository. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a lot of the content you deleted, and was going to get around to citing this week. I agree with user "The Founders Intent" in that the article already had a POV that was very negative on Jefferson, it is a one-sided trial with only the prosecutor listing negative facts. To better balance it toward a NPOV some of Jefferson's achievements to fight slavery should be included somewhere (along with the negative), preferably in the lede. After-all that's what the title of this article is about, yet NONE of his efforts to end the slave trade are mention at all! I've read a lot of Jefferson's letters and I can tell you that I have a far different view of Jefferson & slavery than what's communicated here by this Wiki article... and unfortunately most people aren't going to spend the time to understand the man in the context of history, they'll simply read this article and make up their mind in the negative, because the negative is all that's presented. Jadon (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Onuf statement says Jefferson wrote against slavery. That is in the lede. How can Jadon speak for all the readers on Wikipedia? Has a poll been conducted on whether people view this site as negative? Jeffersons writings need not be taken out of context. To state that Jefferson was a foe of slavery is misleading the readers. He only freed seven slaves and kept 130. He believed that blacks were inferior and need white supervision. This is not a trial. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that the Rodriguez quote be put in the Views on slavery section. I also recommend a separate section on Jefferson's "Writings on slavery". That way Jadon, you can put all of Jefferson claimed "anti-slavery" rhetoric in. Please do not just add snippets that do not give the full context of the letters. The difficulty is in the interpretation of the letters and sources need to be cited. Finkleman counters Rodriguez statement that when Jefferson freed his 2 male slaves he did so with great reluctance. Ferling says Jefferson did not openly oppose slavery. Jefferson himself was an active slave owner and controlled every aspect of his Monticello plantation and nailry. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also propose a separate section on the "Slave trade". Slavery and Slave trade are two distinct issues. Jefferson was adamently against the slave trade. I am in full agreement with that statement. Whether this was for money, political, and protectionist purposes, Jefferson was opposed to the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I added the "Onuf statement", thank you for not deleting it... beforehand the article was devoid of anything of the sort. As for a poll, so far it's 2 vs 1 on this article having a negative POV. Regardless, if you concede that Jefferson was against the slave trade then lets add that and let the readers make up their own minds about his motives. Also, will you delete sourced statements I add showing various legislation Jefferson promoted to end or limit the slave trade and various sources that show Jefferson was for gradual emancipation? Jadon (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind... thank you for adding the Merrill Peterson quote in the lede, that satisfies me. Over-all this article has gotten much better! Jadon (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue that Jefferson desired to end the slave trade and the motivations can be discussed in the article. I am in agreement that Jefferson was for gradual emancipation with deportation. Jefferson did not believe blacks and whites could live together without violence. The lede states differing view points on Jefferson as a foe or not a foe of slavery. Historians are devided on that. In my opinion, Jefferson wanted to be known both ways. His alleged "anti-slavery" rhetoric always seemed to have some loop-hole that allowed or permitted slavery. I have attempted to stress in this article what Jefferson actually did as a slave owner and ran Monticello, not just his Enlightened rhetoric that condemned slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen added the quote by Merrill Peterson. That was a good quote. I do not have any anymosity towards Thomas Jefferson. I have attempted to be neutral in my edits. I have sympathy for Jefferson, a man endowed with such great intellectual talent, was a spendthrift, having died, left his family bankrupt. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jadon made some claims here about npov, but he provided no evidence for them. FoundersIntent has done little to contribute to the article. Jadon's quote "To better balance it toward a NPOV some of Jefferson's achievements to fight slavery should be included somewhere (along with the negative), preferably in the lede."

I'd like to know exactly Jefferson allegedly did to "fight slavery" or what this "balance" is. In terms of "private letters" Jadon refers to, WP:OR is not permitted, and neither is an editor's interpretation of those original sources acceptable. As to the reliance on Rodgiguez quote, that is an error in judgement, and one that clearly fits under WP:UNDUE weight; that scholar is not in the position to be given such a prominent voice on the subject, and quite a few expert historians directly disagree with that quote. They say Jefferson did nothing to end slavery. It cannot be written as it is. Not only that, but I see no discussion for the radical changes made to the lead over the past few months; no attempt was made to contact any of the editors who worked on this. That is a first step before accusing them of bias, Jadon. Some of these changes should be reverted.Ebanony (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Names of shadow family

Despite historians' long denial about them, Sally Hemings and her children had names, which deserve to be in this article, even in the lede. The children were not products of casual sex, but a nearly four decade-long relationship, whatever its character. For those reasons, I have added the names in.Parkwells (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest summary in lede

Generally the lede is supposed to summarize contents/ideas of article, and is not the place to have warring quotes by numerous historians. Many don't have any citations at all, because the cited material is in the body of the article. Perhaps you could summarize their viewpoints in the lede to cover both his statements and contradictions, and make sure to use these quotes in appropriate places in the article.Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The lede should summarize the main points and findings of the article. Do the quotes, all good, need to be put in the article rather then the lede? As Parkwell mentioned the lede can restate the quotes and find a place and put the quotes in the article. That way the lede can read without any quotes. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why there are any quotes in the lead paragraphs. It looks like two conflicting arguments ideologists have made to argue Jefferson opposed or supported slavery. I'm going to post an alternative here, one that summarises the article. Ebanony (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The quotes look better in a seperate paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reordered Lead

I put general content in the first paragraph and more specific content about Hemings and their children in the second.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to take a second look at it today. I'm not too concerned about the lede, though as I see what you mean. What I'm mostly concerned about are some of the quotes in the main sections and the deletion of well researched material. I cannot account for those things in the discussions, so I'm unsure why some of those things were changed.Ebanony (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just reviewed it. The slavery question is similar to the Hemings case: some scholars presented TJ as anti-slavery, and these are the ones who are being relied upon - ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is a serious disconnect between popular writers and serious scholars. Neither the earlier discredited work nor the obviously incorrect popular work should be given the same weight. Sections "evaluations by historians" and "views on slavery" should be condensed into one, and should deal with the earlier pov's and the newer ones. A clear explanation of his views on "emancipation" need to be discussed, and that I admit is not easy to do, but I can give it a go. What is your take Parkwells?Ebanony (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony is mixing up the personal and the political. Are there scholars who say Jefferson favored slavery as a national policy? The consensus is pretty unanimous that he was a leader in opposing the slave trade all his public career, for example. Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, you use the false argument of the slave trade (which had absolutely nothing to do with opposing slavery), as evidence TJ was against slavery. That is just plain wrong. Some of the biggest supporters of slavery also opposed the slave trade. Why? The slave trade threatened slavery and their profits. So whilst you could say TJ opposed the slave trade and signed that law, it does not demonstrate opposition to slavery. I'd say you're confused with that big jump you made linking the two, and your exaggeration of "unanimous" scholarly opinion. These were not abolitionists in 1808, and they sure weren't interested in ending the slave trade to end slavery. In fact TJ vigorously opposed freeing slaves in the US and abroad, a fact you don't want me to discuss.

I have not read intensively on Jefferson and slavery, but think the article should distinguish between popular accounts and serious researchers. Maybe one way to show the reassessment over time would be to state what historians used to say about him and when - as they focused on the Dec. of Independence and his statements, then cover what revisionist historians identified as weaknesses, and summarize serious consensus today - which appears to recognize that his actions and statements were different before 1789 than after, and that he did not appear to make the most of his position of leadership to make a change to the institution. Also some current historians compare his lack of action to what other major planters/leaders did, and that seems valid to include, as that is a way to evaluate him against his own society, rather than ours.Parkwells (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What many scholars say is that TJ claimed to a few friends that slavery was evil, but he did nothing or "very little" to end it. He lived in luxury as his overseers beat them; he himself had sex with their children who increased his own profits (specifically a certain Sally H). So opposed to was TJ to slavery that he made his own KIDS slaves! Now, really I'm trying not to laugh. What TJ really said is that he wanted an all white society with no blacks, not even freed ones. When it came time to do things for blacks, he was "silent". That's what many academics say, though you follow popular biographers like Randall (whose work is severely criticised) and ignore serious research because it doesn't fit in your (apparently) image of TJ being a civil rights hero for blacks; he never was, and Finkelman describes the myth of the anti-slave image of TJ, which you repeat. These articles suffered through this ideological battle with Gwhillickers on Hemings. Is slavery next? Ebanony (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy now - he didn't "make" his children with Sally slaves; they were born into slavery under the law of their time, as their mother was a slave. He did free them, both informally - the first two - and formally - the second two.Parkwells (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson had ties with slavery in terms of marriage and his own family, including Sally Hemings. Jefferson did want to emancipate slaves, and in that sense, he is different then other Virginians for his time, according to Ferling (2000) in Setting the World Ablaze on page 161. What complicates Jefferson, in my opinion, is his racial (anti-black) views get mixed up with his views on slavery. The two issues are intermixed with each other and hard to seperate completely. Jefferson's heavy reliance on slave labor led to fears of slave rebellions and massacres of whites. As a rationalist, Jefferson had no problem with liberty for whites, however, his racial views would not permit a multi racial equal society. I believe the current article points this out adequately. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-slavery claims

Removed from article:

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jefferson was celebrated as a Liberal Champion of the Enlightenment and a Patron Saint of Democratic reform. As the 1960s Civil Rights Movement approached, new scholarships began to question some of the assumptions of earlier academics, and rejected some of their claims, focusing on racism, slavery, and Jefferson's treatment of Native Americans. Although Jefferson made statements that slavery was an "abominable crime," Jefferson remained a slave owner, and did not support legislation to ban slavery.

Sources

It isn't up to WP editors to recommend books, I think, so changed the section header: Recommended biographies to Biographies. Also, Halliday's popular history/bio has been strongly criticized and should not be recommended. From a review on History.net: "Halliday's research seems shallow and his documentation is scant. All of his cited sources, with the exception of a telephone call (p. 266, n231), are published; none are archival. Only once does Halliday cite a scholarly journal article (p. 262, n167). Rarely does he document anything other than direct quotations." He was also criticized for his flights of fancy related to possible aspects of Hemings-Jefferson, and Jefferson's sex life in general. Given the works by academics on Jefferson, Hemings and slavery, his account is not the most reliable. Parkwells (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read through Halliday and I did not find any place where he proposed any unorthodox or fringe theory. His method of research can be debated, however, I would not rule out his work as unreliable. Take for example Dumas Malone. He protected Jefferson concerning Sally Hemings, however, that does not discount a majority of his other research on Jefferson. I would say let the reader decide if Halliday is unreliable. Merrill Peterson, I have read, did not even use foot notes, yet, he wrote a good biography on Jefferson. I am not a Halliday protectionist. Any inconsistencies in his research need to be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Views on slavery and race

I reverted some previous edits. The section that was quoted seemed too long (it was a several-sentence paragraph) and the references that were left were malformed. Contrary to appearances, the former Refs 110/111/112 were actually all to the same letter, just from different sources. Shearonink (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Monticello slave life

The last paragraph appears to rely on Wilstach (1925) for the description of slaves' functions. It would be better to use more up-to-date sources, such as TJF at the Monticello website, which has extensive info on the Hemings Family, as I think some of the info may have changed. The TJF has been doing extensive research on the Hemings for the last decade. Another source is Annette Gordon-Reed's award-winning second book The Hemingses of Monticello (2007), which focuses on the family. Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree a modern source would be better, however, there is no evidence that Wilstach is in error in his assessment Jefferson ran every part of Monticello slave life. Jefferson maticulously watched slave children work in the dangerous nail factory, watching their productivity to make sure who was working to his standards. That is evidence Wilstach is correct in his assessment. Also Jefferson wrote extensively in his diary on slaves at Monticello. He also put in adds in papers for run away slaves. Jefferson was not a laissez-faire slave owner. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Evaluations by historians

I adjusted the second paragraph of this section [11] to reflect the scholarship that exists for and against the antislavery thesis. The rationale is to keep a neutral pov (as opposed to arguing for one side and ignoring the other) and present both pov's. Some of those tests have been in print for decades and I do not feel they were adequately dealt with. Studyhard12 00:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the subject of slavery and Jefferson is controversial, I believe evaluations by historians are important. Nothing can change the fact that Jefferson, the advocate of liberty, owned hundreds of slaves. What could be missing from the article is Dumas Malone's evaluations on Jefferson and slavery. Malone's view on Heming's has been mentioned in the article. The issue with Malone is that he wrote several volumes on Jefferson. What was Malone's overall view on Jefferson and slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An expansion on Merrill D. Peterson's views on Jefferson and slavery would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great George

Monticello had an overseer named Great George who was black although I can't recall if he was a slave or not. The info is on the Monticello website which obviously contains more info than just Hemings. Brad (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2011 (UTI )

Good point; I remember seeing that too at one time. Will look it up. Parkwells (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From one of the new books which Monticello has published, yes, Great George was a slave, who was overseer of 50 men from 1796 thru 1798. From Peter Hatch, "The work is very heavy:" Gardeners at Jefferson's Monticello (2005), one of the works about Monticello and slave life published since the TJF accepted Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children.Parkwells (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rework sections 11 and 12

Reading the sections on Notes on the State of Virginia, Views on slavery and race and Protected legacy, sections 9, 11 and 12 respectively. It would appear that some elements could be combined and others eliminated. For instance, the book Notes is notable for Jefferson's racial remarks; an appropriate discussion of such should be discussed in an sections dealing with his pov on Africans. As to Protected legacy (one assumes this refers to Hemings), a link to the Hemings article (as opposed to the main Jefferson article) would be better. Studyhard12 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've the sections to combine the Hemings material together so that it is not separated. The new section 11 Views on slavery and race should be brought in line with the new section 1 (evaluations by historians). Rather than presenting a particular side (pro or anti slavery arguments by 20th century academics), the section could instead put these arguments into context and show how the opposing schools of thought present evidence to support their claims. I can see no need to mention the 1814 letter to Coles more than once, and absolutely none for not using secondary citations. We cannot say Jefferson "thought or thought that" and cite the original source only.Studyhard12 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

These are good evaluations. Possibly the "Protected legacy" section title can be changed to Protected Heming's legacy. Other information on protected slavery could be incorporated into the article. Evaluations by historians and Views on slavery could be combined into one section or incorporated into the article, as suggested by Studyhard12. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Use Talk page

Since there appears to be much interest in this article and the Lede, editors are encouraged to use the Talk page to discuss the issues, rather than simply changing text. They are also encouraged to try draft versions here of material that is getting frequently changd. Having said that, I tried to improve the sentence on Jefferson as president opposing the int'l slave trade and make it more direct; the wording seemed awkward. Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the following to the first paragraph of the Lede, to give the sense of historians' overview and changing ideas, in part because of changing criteria. "While long admired for his ideals, since the late twentieth century, Jefferson has been criticized by historians who wished he had done more when he was a senior statesman to ameliorate or end slavery."Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The lede looks good and I believe is non POV as possible. I believe there are two distinctions that can be addressed: Jefferson the slave owner and Jefferson the law maker and executive. The main issue, in my opinion, is that Jefferson only freed slaves who were related to Sally Hemings. I believe that needs to be put into the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point - and hers was the only family who was freed, and Harriet (his daughter), the only female slave freed.Parkwells (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Influence between Hemings and public actions

Gwillhickers has repeatedly said (without cites) that Jefferson's relationship with Hemings had no influence on his public life or actions. In fact, historians such as David Brion Davis and Andrew Burstein have suggested that his relationship was the very reason for his "immense silence" after his return from France, when he stopped working publicly to bring an end to slavery, as he did not want any attention called to the institution. That's a rather large influence, where he was trying to protect his private life by retreating on a public position. A more developed discussion of this probably belongs in the main article, Thomas Jefferson and slavery, for those who are interested.Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The relationship did draw public attention by Callender in 1802 while Jefferson was President. His direct relatives emphasized that Hemings got pregnant by one of the Carr brothers, now proven to be false by Dr. Foster's DNA test. The relationship is drawing public attention 209 years later. Jefferson did not respond publically. That is true. Remember in France, it was illegal to rape a servant while Jefferson was consul in Paris. Could his departure have had anything to do with hiding his sexual relationship with Hemings because he could have been prosecuted? The only slaves he freed were from the Heming's family and the Heming's family were treated with priviledge. There was an entrance to his bed room from the slave quarters. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems this speculation is based on the assumption that any relationship with Hemings was not consensual. If Hemings only had children by one father, and gave them names that were all favorites of Jefferson, this would suggest that any relationship she had with TJ had more going on than some people would care to admit. So while we're speculating about any effect Hemings may have had on the fate of US history, we should keep the speculations balanced -- or just confine the article to established facts, with cites to back them up. Parkwells, do you have something that says Hemings had some effect on the course of US history, with cites to back them up? Also, if you wanted this discussion to occur on the 'Thomas Jefferson and slavery' page you should have initiated it there. As it is, you're calling for opinions on at least two other issues and now this. Seems you don't want the Hemings and slavery issues to ever stop dominating the talk/main page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant whether Jefferson shaped his public policies because of his relationship with Hemings, not whether he became the subject of public attention because of it.Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For all practical purposes Heming's was Jefferson's concubine. Was the relationship with Jefferson in France consensual since Heming's was considered free? However, in Virginia, she was a slave. As a slave she only had any rights that Jefferson would give her. In that sense any sexual relationship would not be considered consensual, since she was a slave. If Jefferson forced himself on Hemings in France, then he would be subject to prosecution since it was illegal at that time to rape servants in France. I am not sure if Jefferson's U.S. citizenship would have immuned him from any trials. The reality is that Hemings never mentioned anything publicly on any relationship with Jefferson, only telling her children, at least Madison Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

One also needs to consider the age differences between Hemings and Jefferson. Hemings was very young and Jefferson was advancing to middle age. Were there any "age of consent" laws during Jefferson's times in France or the United States? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If Jefferson began a sexual relationship with Hemming in 1788 in France, Hemings would have been 15 years old. Hemings would have been 16 years old when she got pregnant in 1789. Jefferson would have been 46 years old, a 30 years differnce. Interestingly, Ferling stated that the relationship was probably consensual since the relationship gave Hemings security. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In 1915, that age of consent to be married in Virginia was 14 years old. That is the earliest marriage consent law that I have found so far for Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If I am guessing correctly, then Virginia traditionally has had a very low age range for sexual consent. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

All interesting. And in those days people matured quickly and it wasn't uncommon for girls to engage in such affairs. Regardless of age of consent laws, the alleged affair, for as long it was supposed to have occurred with TJ, given the names of the children, seems most likely consensual if indeed he was involved. Is it your desire to get these speculations, either way, into the article? Seems we have enough going on already -- again, all wrapped around the Hemings issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As justifiably shocking as it is today, Jefferson, in terms of age range may not outside the norm during his times since Hemings was 15 years old. The age difference between Jefferson and Hemings I believe is signifigant and can be mentioned in the article, if not already. In terms of the article, I would put the Ferling (2000) reference that the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson "may" have been consensual, in order to get security for her children. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you and Callender would have gotten along quite well together. You're grasping at straws to try and prove something you're already convinced has happened. Dragging up age of consent issues and laws in France and then adding "As justifiably shocking as it is today" is insinuating some sort of child rape scenario. I don't believe you're capable of unbiased editing considering all this and the discussions that went on over at Abe Lincoln about including a mention of Lincoln's black servants. But really: "There was an entrance to his bed room from the slave quarters" just really takes the cake. Next thing on the agenda will be to discover a secret tunnel along Mulberry Row where Satanic Rituals were held and Hemmings was a high priestess. Brad (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith.Parkwells (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am capapable of unbiased editing, Brad, and I believe your comment was unfair. This is a discussion page. My opinion has never been inserted into the article, if that is what you Brad are inferring. The reader can draw any conclusion from any evidence. I am not insinuating "child rape", but Brad you insinuated I insinuated this allegation. Please do not put words into my edits Brad. The discussion concerned a potential "consensual relationship" between Jefferson and Hemings. Ferling (2000) said that this was more "probable" then any forced sexual relationship. I am in agreement with Ferling that the relationship was most likely concensual, not "child rape". In today's society if a 46 year old politician had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl, even consensual, that would be "shocking". On that note, I will be more diligent to differentiate any opinions with sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Provide more content on slavery in the household

Since this is the main article on Jefferson and slavery, I think it is appropriate to go more deeply into describing his interracial household in the appropriate chronology - that's an accurate description, and the complicated household started early in the Wayles-Jefferson marriage with the Wayles inheritance. For this reason, I've noted that he and Martha inherited Betty Hemings and her 10 children (including six young half-siblings to Martha), along with 25 other slaves, just a year after their marriage. (Question about the number, as the NPS says they inherited "35 slaves", and I thought another source said "more than 100".) The Hemings family was part of life with the Jeffersons from then on, the children growing up and being trained; serving as domestic servants and artisans, later marrying and repeating patterns of interracial families. This was what Jefferson lived with while he was doing his thinking about slavery and blacks, and making laws or whatever.

• Similarly, I think it is necessary to have a paragraph about events in Paris in the appropriate chronological section, as Jefferson had both James and Sally Hemings in his household there, and it was where most historians believe his relationship with Hemings started. Both Davis and Onuf point to his relationship with Hemings as influencing both his later "silence" on slavery after 1785 and his return to the US after France, also perhaps his continuing support for colonization of Africa with freed slaves from the US. Have added cites for these, and will be putting more in. It's not appropriate to have the discussion about Hemings after his death; historians now are bringing her out of the shadows; she bore children who looked markedly like him, and five other of his wife's half-siblings (and all their descendants) were in his household as well.
• On the other hand, to keep the focus on his thoughts, policy and action, perhaps there should be only summary sections here for "Sally Hemings" and for "Jefferson-Hemings controversy," both of which have main articles elsewhere. It would be especially good to avoid reworking the latter - just have the summary and send readers to the main article. That way we can avoid trying to keep large parts of text consistent. Can't remember if it's in here yet, but it is also worthwhile to note that 3 of 4 of Jefferson's children with Hemings entered white society, and Jefferson/Hemings grandsons served in both the regular army (one reaching the rank of colonel) and the USCT during the Civil War.Parkwells (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree on expansion on Jefferson and Hemings in Paris. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Used summaries for Sally Hemings and Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Done. Parkwells (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

I think the article has too much detail on maneuvering on whether to blame the Crown for the slave trade, etc., and blaming the governor for dissension. What most people associate Jefferson with are the grand statements about men's equality, and this is what is called into question by his later actions (or lack thereof) related to slavery.Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article could use some trimming and clean up as long as the main context is kept. The Declaration needs to be put in historical context. This article in on Jefferson and slavery and would include acts of the Crown and governor. Finkleman was pointing out that Americans traded slaves. That is historical context, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Red refs

Some refs have been misplaced, please find them; the References section is lonely (and ugly) without them! Clay^Clay_Clay 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge material frm TJ and Haitian Emigration

Agree; it is underway.Parkwells (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This arrangement is confusing - not all of the references are included under Books (which I changed from Biographies, as it encompasses more than that.) Also, I think it's confusing to have a section for Books and one for Articles in Academic Journals. Third, there are cites that do not have full information and whose full source does not appear below. I deleted the unattributed descriptions of the sources, and deleted two biographies that were not cited. Parkwells (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Tim Matthewson wrote about Jefferson's policies related to Haiti in 1995 and 1996. I have used him as a source on these rather than the later Scherr, from material i'd been working on in the main TJ article, the one of LA Purchase, etc.Parkwells (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

James Madison and Jefferson

I know a lot of work has gone into both the Jefferson main article and this article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Jefferson's close friend, James Madison, may have been overlooked in terms of slavery. Madison owned 106 slaves on Montpelier. Work can be done on Madison's main article in terms of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point - attention has been paid to Jefferson because of the DOI, his presidency and Sally Hemings, but other VA statesmen are worth looking at, too. Madison was renowned for his contributions to religious freedom. Parkwells (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is more in the James Madison talk page concerning expanding Madison's presidential section. Montpelier was a slave plantation similar to Jefferson Monticello. I believe Madison and slavery have been understudied. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Starting to work on the article at Montpelier - there is much archeological work going on, as well as evidence gathered during a major restoration that contributes to knowledge abotu slave life.Parkwells (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - really interesting work going on at Montpelier.Parkwells (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New exhibit at Monticello

"Monticello’s new outdoor exhibition, debuting February 17, 2012, "Landscape of Slavery: Mulberry Row at Monticello," brings to life the stories of the scores of people—enslaved and free—who lived and worked on Jefferson’s 5,000 acre plantation." (Listed at <www.slaveryatmonticello.org> - just what you have been trying to bring to these pages, too.) Parkwells (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good addition! Thanks Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Cites

There are other sources in the article that support assertions in the first paragraph of the Lede, but this link does not work. I've looked at the 5 July 2004 issue featuring TJ on the cover and can't find this article: . It needs to be fixed.Parkwells (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)