Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jefferson and slavery/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Kosciuško's bequest to free slaves

Apparently Merrill Peterson also decried Jefferson's failure to carry out his friend's will and free some slaves; Kosciuško hoped Jefferson would free his own. The Tadeusz Kosciuszko article mentions that, and Gary Nash and Graham Russell's 2008 book also explores Jefferson's failure to use the money to free his slaves. Edmund S. Morgan also notes it. Parkwells (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's freeing some slaves

This is so complicated that it is probably better not being covered in the Lede, because the details are important. He formally (and legally) freed only two slaves in his lifetimes: Robert and James Hemings, in the 1790s; they got freedom papers. In 1822, he let Beverley Hemings and, later that year, his sister Harriet Hemings, escape or "walk away". They were said to be his natural children by his concubine Sally Hemings. He even had his overseer give Harriet $50 for her journey. Because he didn't free them, these two young slaves in their 20s were legally fugitives until after the Civil War; he had not manumitted them. They both were said to enter white society for safety and likely changed their names. After Jefferson's death, by his will, he freed Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings, considered the last two of his natural children by Sally Hemings; and three older men, all slaves related to the Betty Hemings family, who had worked for him for decades. Parkwells (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe mentioning Jefferson freed two slaves in the lede is appropriate. The other slaves were not formerly freed, just let go. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Was explaining it for another editor who had wanted the Lede to say: Jefferson freed several slaves in his lifetime. The differences matter in terms of his giving legal papers to two, but not to the other two.Parkwells (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've read that the reason more slaves were not freed was because of Jefferson's massive debt and that they were possibly already encumbered with mortgages and notes? If that's true, this would change the tone since it seems like there is an attempt to impute a different intent ... in other words, the implication is that because he freed "only" two slaves there is something fishy going on. If the "only" is not explained by his massive debts (assuming that is the case) -- then the reader is left to assume that Jefferson didn't really care about freedom for his slaves. If he was deep in debt and his assets (including slaves) were encumbered then that's a very different explanation. All of this would hinge on whether his debts included liens on his slaves.Lordvolton (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Jefferson was in debt, and that likely influenced his decision. He was also tied to the lifestyle of a southern gentleman farmer, which simply required slaves at that time. Another problem is that the Virginia state legislature at one time enacted a law that forced freed slaves to leave the state. IIRC, Jefferson applied for an exemption for one or two freed slaves, but it certainly did complicate matters. If the Hemings could pass for white anyways, just letting them go was a lot simpler. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, the VA law was strict. Slaveholders had to petition the legislature specifically for manumission and to get an act to allow freedmen to stay in state (Jefferson's will included that provision for the five slaves he freed in his will.) But, another interesting take on the debt question. Historians have written again recently that Tadeusz Kosciusko left Jefferson his estate in the US for the express purpose of buying slaves to give them freedom, including Jefferson's own. TJ never carried out the intent of K's will, which would have enabled him to free all his slaves at no cost to himself. Jefferson passed on the responsibility to someone else several years after K's death, and the second man also failed to carry it out. The remains of the Kosciusko estate were finally transferred to heirs in Poland in the 1850s, and it was still $50,000.Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
In his writings, Jefferson opposed slavery, but after 1789, he did little about it. He seemed more worried about his belief that the two races could not live together in freedom.Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I would not mention, in the lead paragraphs, that Jefferson freed those specific slaves unless I were prepared to explain that they were all related to his sex slave Sally Hemings. Jefferson wanted to fight the British. He had no trouble doing that but could not free slaves? He simply refused to do so. Jefferson's failure to act as executor to Kosciusko's will is not a sensible argument. The estate went into litigation and was settled after Jefferson died, so it was never up to Jefferson to use, something honest historians would point out - yes, some of those cited are known to have misled the public on Jefferson's role with Hemings, among other things. Take their words with chunks of salt.Studyhard12 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The historians Merrill Peterson, Edmund S. Morgan, and Gary Nash, who span decades of publishing, all noted that Jefferson failed to execute Kosciusko's will and are cited, so apparently thought he could have done it. Find another RS that explains why he did not do it rather than having editor's opinions on this topic. It ended up in litigation after TJ had passed it off to someone else, who also did not execute it.Parkwells (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I never knew about K's will until the past month at the main TJ article, but have learned some things by looking.
Nash and Hodges in 2008 say that TJ basically refused to execute the will because he didn't want to offend his fellow aristocrats; Nash and Hodges lay heavy blame on him.
Albert C. Cizauskas in the Spring 1986 Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences explains more fully, "Unfortunately, conflicting claims to the American funds arose after his death due to Kosciusko's uncharacteristic carelessness in drawing up later wills in Europe. Undergoing protracted litigation, the bequest to Jefferson remained legally blocked until 1852. . ."
Louis Ottenberg definitively treated the will in the Jan., 1958 American Bar Association Journal. To summarize, K left 4 wills. As TJ began to realize how complicated the situation was and have moneys demanded of him from K's investments counter to the will in his possession, he realized that at the age of 75 (besides being old and tired for such a difficult job) he would not live to see the will settled. In other words, complications made him decide not to handle it, not vice versa, although TJ's withdrawal did occasion a flurry of litigation.
Another point from my own head: There was not enough money to buy and fit for freedom (educate, train, provide necessities) very many Negroes, surely well less than half those he owned. TJ turned over $26,000 to the court-appointed administrator.
Editors here and at the main TJ article have suggested TJ should have just freed his slaves. How, then, would he have run his plantation? Yopienso (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that mentioning that Jefferson freed only slaves related to Hemings in extremely important. The subject is complicated. I do not have any issue with mentioning that the slaves freed were related to Sally Hemings in the lede or article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is complicated, and it is a hot-button issue that naturally attracts POV-pushing. For example, I don't think the pejorative phrase "sex slave" (as one editor used above) is accurate, because Sally Hemings, while in France, voluntarily came back to Virginia with Jefferson. (She could have stayed in France as a free woman.) The situation, as far as Jefferson's mind was concerned, was further complicated by his promise, on his wife's deathbed, never to marry another woman. It appears that creating a "shadow family" with a willing woman who was a slave in name only was the solution that Jefferson found to a rather impossible situation, and from this premise it is natural to imagine that Jefferson promised freedom to Sally's children as a condition for her agreement the relationship. This is the reading of E.M. Halliday's Understanding Thomas Jefferson. According to this reading, Jefferson wasn't exploiting a powerless woman, but of course other reliable sources have different takes on the subject.--Other Choices (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1820 manumission proposal

Who did Jefferson propose to manumit the slave children and bring or deport them to Haiti? I take that deportation was a requirement for manumission. Is their a document that can be read where Jefferson proposed such a legislation? Jefferson wrote to Gallatin that he had made such a proposal. Was this a private verbal proposal to Virginia's governor, Jefferson's son-in-law, or a private letter? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there a letter from TJ to the governor? I have not seen one but TJ was in close touch with the governor (The gov's wife was TJ's daughter and she and the grandchildren spent a lot of time at Monticello), so the best info we have is what TJ wrote to Gallatin. online at http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl264.htm Gallatin was US minister to France, which had a major role in Haiti affairs & it would have to approve the plan. TJ wanted tax dollars spent for the state gov't to buy the babies and raise & train them & then settle them in Haiti. He believed they could never be equal in Virginia, but could be full citizens in Haiti. The Va Legislature voted the governor's proposal down by 67-60. TJ in 1824 wrote abolitionist Jared Sparks that " The second object, and the most interesting to us, as coming home to our physical and moral characters, to our happiness and safety, is to provide an asylum to which we can, by degrees, send the whole of that [black] population from among us, and establish them under our patronage and protection, as a separate, free and independent people, in some country and climate friendly to human life and happiness." TJ noted, "By doing this, we may make to them some retribution for the long course of injuries we have been committing on their population." [from Bergh edition of TJ Writings vol 15 p 8-9 copy at http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl276.htm The entire 19 vol set is online free at http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-categ.htm ] Rjensen (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced POV sentence

I am removing this unreferenced POV sentence. While I agree that Jefferson was silent on domestic slavery after 1785, I believe this statement is conjecture and POV. I believe Jefferson was an obstructionist to manumission without deporation. Many slave owners were releasing their slaves under the liberal 1782 law without Jefferson's assistance or approval. To blame Jefferson for the slavery of millions of African Americans is unfounded and irresponsible. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Whether by decision or reluctant indeterminance, Jefferson's failure to bring the weight of his leadership to end slavery contributed to millions of African Americans being held in slavery until 1866, after the end of the American Civil War."

Thomas Jefferson and Haitian Emigration

Is there anything left at Thomas Jefferson and Haitian Emigration that could help this article? If not it's time to redirect the article to this one as the majority of TJaHE does nothing but repeat what's already here. Some discussion was had on this several months ago and their was agreement to merge. Brad (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge completed and article redirected. Brad (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ordinance of 1784

Rodriguez states that Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784 would have prohibited slavery both North and South territories including what would become Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. I put this in the article. I am going by the source Rodriguez, Junius P. (1997). The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1; Volume 7. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. p. 380. Rodriguez seems to be a thorough historian. Does any source contradict Rodriguez? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

that's correct. Jefferson lost by one vote. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Then Jefferson's Ordiance of 1784 was much more extensive then only the North West, since territories that would be Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi were included. I wonder if this one vote rejection caused Jefferson to believe the South would never reject slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Henry Wiencek

This article is rather incomplete. It does not include information from the book or article by Henry Wiencek, who also discusses how Jefferson's financial situation precluded him even having the right to free his slaves at the end, but also that his behavior before that time was, considering his reputation, apparently reprehensible. There is also a critique of the book at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/what-did-thomas-jefferson-really-think-about-slavery.html

No matter what, this issue will remain controversial, but it cannot be ignored, and this Wikipedia article does not do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to add sourced content. Wiencek is claiming originality, but other historians, such as Paul Finkelman, made the point about Jefferson's economic stakes in slavery much earlier; and Annette Gordon-Reed presented a nuanced account of Jefferson's conduct. Don't rely on Wiencek too much. Annette Gordon-Reed reviewed Wiencek's book in Slate; he has been strongly criticized by her and other historians, such as Lucia Stanton and Jan Lewis for his use of materials and the conclusions he draws. Lewis said that he profoundly misread Gordon-Reed. By the way, this Wikipedia article includes documented cites (by Gary Nash et al.) that Jefferson was made executor of his friend Kosciusko's US estate, including money explicitly to be used to purchase the freedom of his slaves. That is, he could have paid himself/his estate their market price and freed them before his death, but did not.Parkwells (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wiencek has a journalism degree while Annette Gordon-Reed has a BA in History and is an Attorney. Gordon-Reed is labeled to be a Professor of Law and History. I can't find any reference to the college she obtained her PhD, or can you be a Professor without a PhD. I would say that in terms of academics, Annette Gordon-Reed may have priority over Wienceck, since Gordon-Reed has a BA in History and apparently Wiencek only has a BA in journalism. I don't think we should disqualify Wiencek because of critism from Gordon-Reed. Lucia C. Stanton may have bias in her criticism toward Wiencek since she is the senior historian at the Monticello Thomas Jefferson Foundation. I don't even know if Stanton has a Ph.D. in History. I do not believe that being a journalist neccessarily rules one out as a reliable source. The main Thomas Jefferson article does state that Jefferson was one of the wealthiest slave owners in Virginia, implying that he was wealthy because he owned slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
the reviews by scholars of Gordon-Reed have been highly favorable (including the Pulitzer prize) and those of Wienceck (on the TJ-slavery book) have been quite negative. Rjensen (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a journalism degree does not hold allot of historical weight, but I believe that the academics of other historians and/or biases such as being the senior historian at the Monticello Foundation is ethically signifigant. I am not defending Wiencek. I have been doing research and I beleive Herbert E. Sloan's, Principle and Interest: Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Debt, is extremely useful for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Annette Gordon-Reed and Lucia C. Stanton have an authentic Ph.D. from a University? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why don't people know the academic status of Annette Gordon-Reed and Lucia C. Stanton? Why are they accepted but Wiencek is not accepted? Do historians practice bullyism against other persons who write history books? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia

Why is there so much written on Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Because its where he most clearly lays out his views on race and slavery.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

definition

I changed the definition in accordance with this guide which tells us to avoid "refers to" in definitions becaçuse the article is not about the phrase "jefferson and slavery" but about Jefferson's relation to slavery. Please dont change it back with out providing a good reason for why this article shouldnt follow this otherwise very sound advice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That essay is not a policy or guideline. I have conformed to the standard WP practice of using the title (or a close approximation, sometimes expanded) of an article as the first phrase of the article, bolded. Just hit the "Random article" link at the left of the page to see that is so.
You have removed any definition and launched into a nonsensical argument that the relationship between a WP article and nothing has been extensively debated. I have restored the long-standing introduction. I suggest this proposed change: Thomas Jefferson and slavery deals with Jefferson and his views of chattel slavery and miscegenation in colonial American and the Early Republic and with his relationship with his own slaves. His ambivalent stance has been extensively debated by his biographers and by scholars of slavery.
Should you insist on launching into the fact that TJ was ambivalent about slavery without defining the scope of the article, please separate TJ and slavery. Suggestion: The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and slavery has been extensively debated by his biographers, and by scholars of slavery.
If you really prefer to say, "the practice of slave masters freeing their own slaves" in place of "manumission," I'm not going to quibble with you.
I've left all the choppy little 5th-grade style sentences starting with "He" and "His." Yopienso (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The usage you advocate violates WP:DICTIONARY, because the article is not about the words "Jefferson and slavery"User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Your proposed wording is acceptable. I think a better one would be: The issue of Thomas Jefferson and slavery regards Thomas Jefferson and his views of chattel slavery and miscegenation in colonial American and the Early Republic and with his relationship with his own slaves. His ambivalent stance has been extensively debated by his biographers and by scholars of slavery.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't see a substantial difference between "refers to" and "regards." Stylistically, "refers to" seems better. The introductory "The issue of" seems redundant to me.
I seriously urge you to hit "Random article" 25 times to see what customary WP practice is.
I'm short of time, but hope to work productively with you. Yopienso (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Words "refer" to topics. Topics regard other topics. Articles are about topics not words. Try reading the essay I linked to to see why refer is stylistically deprectated, and routinely removed. You will not find a single FA level article that begines with "refers to". That is the practice we should aim to follow, not random articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the assertion that since the article is not about the phrase itself, it should not open with "Thomas Jefferson and slavery refers to ..." Note that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and its WP:TITLEFORMAT guidelines do not actually say that the title should appear at the beginning of the opening sentence, or especially early within it. In fact, it is not actually necessary for the title of the article to appear within the article at all – see WP:BOLDTITLE. The WP:BOLDTITLE guideline actually discourages distorting the phrasing of the lead section in order to optimize the location or enable the inclusion of the title phrase. (These are references to the Manual of Style guidelines, not to an essay, although my impression is also that the above-referenced essay is generally highly regarded on Wikipedia.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


NPOV issues everywhere

This article needs a lot of attention and cleanup. Finkleman, someone who has expressed open hostility towards Jefferson in books and Op'Eds, is used as a ref 18 times -- and is further mentioned by name in the text 7 times. This article discounts Jefferson's attempts at abolition legislation, ala Finkelman, one cherry picked source, doesn't say much at all about Jefferson's benevolent treatment of slaves, doesn't mention the debt that prevented Jefferson from freeing slaves and Virginia law. While it mentions Jefferson turning down Kosciuszko's will, it doesn't say a thing as to why Jefferson declined getting involved in the contesting of the will by family matters, etc. The article also claims that "Jefferson authorized his overseers to use physical violence against the slaves", when in fact there is plenty of sources and witnesses, including other slaves and overseers, that say otherwise. It presents the Sally Hemings controversy as fact and cherry picks and gives lip service to sources like Onuf to this effect. It even goes as far as to claim that the only reason Jefferson wanted to repatriate slaves to Africa was "Jefferson may have supported colonization because of concerns for his unacknowledged "shadow family." This article is obviously placating the Finkelman choir and is not at all consistent with the Thomas Jefferson main article and is in dire need of corrections and clean up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your evaluation of Finkelman and Onuf is, to state it cautiously, peculiar. People who don't agree with hagiographic views of Jefferson and see the man for what he was (a man, very accomplished, quite arguably great, with a long and lasting influence, but neither perfect nor perfectly good) are not, therefore, "hostile" to Jefferson. They try to take in the whole picture and give us a balanced view. Jefferson's debt did not stop him from buying a whole sequence of pianos and harpsichords, or from importing French wines (for which he basically invented the transatlantic wine trade). He may have been an abolitionist in theory, but in practice he, sadly, decided to maintain a planter's lifestyle that depended on slavery, and to cave in to popular opinion in the South on the abolition of slavery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Insert : @Stephan Schulz: - Actually, Finkelman's evaluation of Jefferson is what's peculiar. He claimed that "Jefferson hated the negro" and expressed the same divisive sentiment in a New York Times Op'Ed entitled The Monster of Monticello. Calling someone who strove for abolition, frequently wrote of the moral wrongs of slavery and treated slaves very well, a "monster", is what's peculiar. Jefferson bought the piano, etc early on in his life. His debt didn't amount to much until the later years of his life. He believed that his slaves were far better off at Monticello, et al, where they were well provided for and were worked no more than free farmers, who btw, often had to struggle just to make ends meet and often didn't eat as well as slaves did at Monticello and elsewhere. Releasing unprepared slaves (and their children) in that day and age into "freedom" in 18th-19th century America would be no different than placing a white man in the middle of a tribal village in Africa. That is the reality that seems to have been glossed over by Jefferson's moral critics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Gwillhickers has identified three items which need additional reliable sources: Jefferson’s benevolent treatment of slaves, settling the Kosciuszko will, and Jefferson’s proposal for voluntary emancipation, training, sponsorship, repatriation with family and colonization in Africa. Those three items can be balanced with alternative reliable sources. Some author speculation challenged by a preponderance of reliable sources might be trimmed or reduced to footnotes in their source citations.
There does seem to be a blindness to the fact that the abolition movement in the United States was not monolithically for universal immediate emancipation of all slaves state by state, but that there were several proposals, including a) the gradual removal of black populations in Northern states into perpetual slavery under the guise of emancipation at age 16 in the new nation period, (notwithstanding the sizable free black wage-earning and craftsmen populations which existed in port cities, North and South) and b) those of the American Colonization Society proposed by Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln in the antebellum period.
Overall, it seems to me that the article communicates a narrative of Jefferson’s ambivalence on the subject of slavery, with many reliably sourced specifics to show his multifaceted views and practice over a long career and under many circumstances. Gwillhickers should make his copy edits with reliable sources, perhaps trying out proposed language at Talk first to tweak the introduction to better reflect the ambivalence conveyed in the entire article. No wholesale recasting of the article is called for in my opinion, but I agree it should not be an hagiographic piece to promote Finkelman. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Stephan meant this WP article shouldn't be a hagiography of TJ. Finkelman villainized TJ.
Meanwhile, I've boldly edited the lede. Also removed a long-standing assertion that TJ believed slavery was bad for both masters and slaves. I thought that was in Notes on the State of Virginia, but couldn't find it. I did find it in a book by Erik S. Root. Yopienso (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In Notes, he writes "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other." [1] - it's what I was thinking about when I read your comment, and maybe that's what was the source of that comment in our article. But we really should have a secondary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the passage from Notes that I thought might lead into what I deleted, but it doesn't. I removed "and believed slavery harmful to both slave and master." Root, p. 148, says "Emancipation advocates asserted that slavery was harmful to both the master and slave." But now I've found it--just as cited. (Whoops!) "Jefferson believed slavery corrupted the faculties of both master and slave." Howe, p. 74. Will restore. Yopienso (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
(Insert :) @Yopienso: -- Thanks for restoring the context in question. Just a passing bit of advice, I would recommend that we all be careful if and when we make 'bold' edits about a controversial topic. If an edit (directly involving Jefferson) is supported by more than a couple of sources and is consistent with other facts I'm sure most of us here will go along with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be moral faculties. Slavery does egregious harm to the very nature of man in both the master and slave. Jefferson did not have to be autobiographical to make this general observation. But in any case, slavery as an institution is not a problem of the intellect, but of moral sensibility, and Jefferson was right to condemn its practice and to seek ways to emancipate God-created individuals from under its thrall, however impractical his proposals made variously throughout his lifetime turned out to be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Kosciuszko's will

For some reason someone elected to place coverage of Kosciusko will in the Following the Revolution (1784–1800) section. The affair took place just before and after Jefferson's death in 1826. Not surprisingly coverage of this affair was skewed and didn't include important context, which is now included. Opinion about 'what Jefferson could have done' was also removed. Coverage of this topic is now consistent with both the Jefferson main article and the section in the Tadeusz Kościuszko article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed in The Hemingses of Monticello, using her experience as a lawyer, actually backed up TJ's decision to not oversee the will because of the complications involved and TJ's age and health at the time. Those who wanted to blow the Gordon-Reed horn about Sally need to blow the same horn for this Kosciusko business.
You have to remember that this article was in bad shape several years ago. It covers some issues twice in different parts of the article. A lot of the current content was probably dumped here from the TJ article. Brad (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete some duplication

Agree it needs trimming; removed the 2nd paragraph under "Callender's accusations" in the chronological section that goes on to refer to later aspects of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, as this is covered later in the article. Will also work to trim the Sally Hemings section.Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Use sentence from Thomas Jefferson Lead

Since several editors agreed on a sentence re: Hemings and her children for the Lead in the Thomas Jefferson article, why not use it here? I have put it in.Parkwells (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this difficult project, Parkwells.
A quote you deleted was from a contrarian source, not a RS. It's found at PBS, as cited, but PBS identifies it as a "dissenting memo from John H. Works, Jr., a Jefferson descendant and a past president of the Monticello Association." It's discussed in a RS-book. Yopienso (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I was familiar with the Frontline summary, and it seemed inappropriate to cite one of the dissenters when dealing with the topic of consensus. I had used him as a source in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, while fully identifying who he was and where it came from - among the voices/views represented on PBS, not as an historian.Parkwells (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Maintaining balance

If we are going to begin adding lip services for outfits like PBS, a broadcasting org, not a historical org, and a highly partisan org when it comes to politics, then we should also include notes/commentary that reflects other 'significant views', that opinion about Jefferson's paternity is largely socially and politically motivated and peer driven, as was demonstrated at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, where the research committee had already made up their minds before they even began evaluating evidence, as witnessed by one of their own committee members, Dr. Wallenborn. What's also troubling is that there is not one solitary piece of evidence that comes close to proving Jefferson was the father of any of Hemings' children, and "taken together", all this circumstantial evidence also points to other viable paternity candidates, esp Randolph and his sons. We should either remove the PBS self grandising note in the lede (of all places) or we should add a note that reflects other significant views. Tired of this "most historians" game used in an obvious attempt to smooth over the facts, such that they are. i.e.Inconclusive. The PBS assertion is a partisan claim, nothing more, completely unsubstantiated and flies in the face of too many scholars and historians who haven't followed along with the politically correct flock. Legal scholars have noted that if this paternity case was brought to court it would never even make it to trial, which only further demonstrates the lack of objectivity too often used to evaluate the evidence, and lack thereof. Removing the PBS note by itself would return some balance to the lede. Adding a note reflecting other significant views would do so also. We need to do one or the other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Weren't we exactly here two years ago? PBS is one of the few half-way reliable media outlets in the US. Wallenborn's claim is weird - of course the members of the committee will have followed the evidence, and may indeed already have formed an opinion, but that's why you ask experts - because they know stuff. That does not mean that they cannot be swayed by evidence. Now, if you move the goal posts far enough, facts are always inconclusive - see The Matrix, or, given your affinity for older sources, Descarte's Evil demon. I won't repeat our previous discussions here - you know how to find them in the archives, I trust ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes we were here two years ago, and then some. PBS, a media forum in the public eye and dependent on donations, a reliable source? All one has to do is accuse PBS of "racism" and they can kiss the bulk of their donations goodbye -- as such they have no choice but to cave into pressure from the many political and pressure groups out there who have this sort of thing down to a science. Wallenborn comments "wierd"? Thanks Stephan. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
At wp:reliable sources, we have, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Television broadcasts are not found at wp:verify.
However, the citation with PBS is double noted, and the phrasing seems carefully worded, "Historians now generally accept that after the death of his wife, Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her children."[10][11] Investigating the “Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: paradox of liberty”, we find no reference to Jefferson’s paternity of any description. So the search for a reliable source is on.
Yet I am sure there is a source for the conclusion “and he or one of his family fathered some of her children”. or even as a tease line in the introduction, "and he may have fathered one or more of her children." with room for sourced explanation of the evidence in the body of the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Anette Gordon Reed it would seem should have something that covers this POV. Wonder what her source(s) are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Evaluations by historians

The Evaluations by historians section is also in need of attention. While it typically tells us what some historians think, it even goes so far as to tell us what some historians think of other historians -- and uses Finkelman to do so. It also makes outlandish claims e.g."Jefferson ... officially advocated slavery's expansion", which I tagged both for citation and for [how?]. There are several other things not mentioned, like the bias of the Jefferson Foundation and in much of academia. Other significant views are not fairly represented (not even close) in this section. Btw, nowhere, in any of the articles, does it mention that Sally Hemings never claimed Jefferson was the father of any of her children. There is no mention of this in "oral history", which as we've seen is either embraced or ignored outright. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson permitted the expansion of slavery in the Louisiana Territory after a one year moratoreum. Jefferson was quiet on slavery concerning the LT while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notes' section too long and mostly tangential

Once again The Notes' section is way to long and goes on about many tangential things regarding Jefferson and slavery itself. For purposes of the Jefferson and slavery article, all we need do is say that Jefferson wrote in Notes' that he had suspicions about racial differences that were common place throughout most of the world in those days and wasn't sure if the supposed condition of Africans was the result of time and circumstance or because of nature. Also keeping consistent with the main Jefferson article we should mention any ideas contained in Notes about colonization. We don't need four pages of text crammed into one section to convey these simple ideas. Btw, this article also needs to convey the idea that Jefferson was among the first, if not the first, to advance legislation to abolish slavery. We should remove the bulk of the Notes' section and, consistent with the main article, add a Attempts at abolition and colonization section. Since this is the dedicated article for Jefferson and slavery, we should also included a section devoted to slave life and treatment, where we can adequately cover these details, presently ignored in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia

The Notes on the State of Virginia section is aprox four pages long. i.e.Too long. Once again, Finkelman is picked to make statements in the article like this:

"The historian Paul Finkelman argues that any concerns Jefferson's expressed about slavery within Notes was for
the damage it did to whites and white society, not the damage it did to blacks".

Yet in a passage almost immediately following it gives us a quote from Jefferson written in Notes' which says:

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions,
the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. "

where he indeed expresses concern (i.e."degrading submissions") for slaves. Hello? Finkelman seemingly makes the statement in a vacuum, as if Jeffersons deeds, actions and writings have never expressed his deep concern for the welfare of slaves, and apparently, this is what Finkelman attempts to make the reader believe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone is using Finkleman's name in vain. I cannot believe he made such an error. The inept statement from whatever source should be dropped from the article. The article over-names him as an authority in any case.
But, wait. Bad sourcing. The passage is not found on page 222, it is found on page 160 of "Slavery and the founders", and is available at an on line view at Google Books boisterous passions. Finkelman’s conclusion is not supported by the evidence cited in the very paragraph of his conclusion, the conclusion is contradicted by the internal evidence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning. Finkelman writes "Jefferson emphasized the dangers of slavery by describing how it affected whites", followed by a list of examples. He does not write "only whites". He can acknowledge the effects on blacks without being significantly concerned with them. However, this is really not our call to make. Finkelman is a widely published and recognized expert on Jefferson and the history of slavery. The book is published by a well-regarded academic publisher. We can, of course, form our own opinions. But on Wikipedia, we go with the sources, not our own interpretation.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Insert : @Stephan Schulz, TheVirginiaHistorian, Yopienso, Rjensen, and Cmguy777: -- Some of Finkelman's claims are fringe (i.e."Jefferson hated the negro", Jefferson "the monster"), and as we've just seen from his claim about Notes', (i.e.Jefferson's anti-slavery concerns were for whites only) are often in error. As such we need to use more objective sources when it comes to this controversial topic. The idea that this individual is mentioned by name more times than I care to count is absurd, POV pushing, and needs to be corrected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, our article misconstrues Finkelman's thought. We say, "The historian Paul Finkelman argues that any [all] concerns Jefferson's expressed about slavery within Notes was for the damage it did to whites and white society, not the damage it did to blacks," but he says, "Throughout his life, as he condemned slavery, Jefferson almost always implied that, however bad it was for slaves, the institution was somehow worse for whites. His concerns about the institution had more to do with its effect on whites and white society than on its true victims." Note almost always and however bad it was for slaves. Yes, TJ here emphasized more the damage done to whites by slavery than that done to the slaves themselves, but he did not say no damage was done to the slaves. Nor did Finkelman make that claim. (Yes, Finkelman is certainly biased against TJ, but, as Stephan points out, the academy holds him in high regard.) Yopienso (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well said, Yp, but I would also note that Finkelman is also proportionately held in contempt, probably more so than any of the other Jefferson critics who've never made near as many outlandish claims. I would recommend that we look to other sources for citing Jefferson's real views towards slavery, emancipation, etc. If we must use Finkelman, let it be for citing the basic established facts e.g.Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves in his life time. When it comes to Jefferosn's thoughts about slavery, treatment, etc, Finkleman's rant needs to be put out on the curbside for collection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This entire article is a pitiful example of editorship, filled with truncated out of context statements, misrepresentations and flat out 'untruths'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The passage should reflect the characterization made by Yopienso that Jefferson believed slavery was "somehow worse for whites" and/or by Stephen Schultz in the passage “Jefferson emphasized the dangers of slavery by describing how it affected whites”. The copy edit “not the damage it did to blacks” is misleading. The misleading pagination and the copyedit misstating an editor’s WP:OR as the Finkelman's needs to be reverted, Finkelman's meaning should be correctly conveyed. —
Generally, Jefferson the practical politician does not emphasize the interests of non-voters in his political writings, it is true, although his political operatives double the voter turnout nationally from 1800 to 1804, principally by his partisans in the states allowing those enrolled in militias to vote without property in a time of compulsory militia service. But that observation may be afield from this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It would seem, in light of all the misinformation, and space devoted to it, in this article, we could find room to add this important historical context, easily conveyed with a single sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried to fix the over-reliance on Finkelman by bringing in Cameron, a more recent (2014) scholar who provides a much fuller quote from TJ along with annotation. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that Jefferson could be very ambiguous concerning slavery. He would say slavery is degrading to blacks but then later state whites were the caretakers of blacks as slaves. The central issue is always Jefferson --- his own words versus his own words and his own actions concerning slavery. I agree that Rjensen is correct in adding Cameron (2014) as an alternative source. I don't think Finkleman is fringe. He is strongly opinionated but that is not fringe. We have to remember Jefferson bought and sold slaves in the very system he was supposed to be against. Weincek notes that Jefferson tabulated how much money he made from slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The central theme concerning Jefferson, slavery, and Notes is that Jefferson strongly opposed African American citizenship in the United States. That is why Jefferson always advocated deportation of freed blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned Weineck as if he had uncovered some profound hitherto unknown truth. Does Weineck also tabulate how much it would cost to buy a plot of land big enough to sustain a family, along with the costs of building a log cabin on it, complete with a fireplace, living utilities and furnishings, along with the cost of adequately feeding and clothing a family of four for one year? Ten years? Twenty? Jefferson ran a plantation and kept a record of almost everything, including overhead v profits. You should learn someday that Jefferson would have done so if he had hired paid labor. These out of context statements (i.e."boom, boom, boom") are obviously thrown in for effect and only appease the two-dimensional views typical of the Finkelman choir. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: Jefferson bought and sold slaves among local friends and family to unite black families, not to break them up them up by exile selling them down South. His estate did the same at an opportunity cost. Caretaking was an ideal, as opposed to the sugar plantation practice of working to death without natural increase, replacing losses by international slave trade. The calculations were to prove there was owner advantage to ameliorating the worst conditions of a degrading circumstance.
Jefferson strongly opposed race war, inevitably brought on at universal emancipation by his understanding of white racism and black resentment as he understood them in his time. Some scholars such as Eric Foner view the atrocities of White Leagues and KKK terrorism during Reconstruction as an extension of the Civil War. Jefferson strongly believed African-Americans were capable of self-governing themselves in an economically prosperous independent republic away from white racism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

edit break1

This article doesn't mention anything about Jefferson's continued effort to bring and keep slave families together. The only thing the readers are handed on that note is something that occurred after Jefferson's death, but here also, the account is divisive and bogus :
"Slave families who had been well established and stable for decades were split up, with some members sold to the Deep South.",
...which is almost completely false. Notice also how mention of the "Deep South" was thrown in for effect. Most slaves sold after Jefferson's death remained in Virginia or relocated to Ohio. Almost all of them remained in the north. See : Sold slaves after Jefferson's death. -- Whoever is sticking these distortions into the article needs to stop. It smacks of racial agitation. I've tagged the Posthumous (1827–1830) section for its questionable writing style. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Your considerations have merit but tend to present Jefferson as a humanitarian after the best interests of African Americans. Obviously Jefferson worked all his slaves including children whether the slaves were purchased locally. Slaves were whipped. Monticello was a for profit business as his calculations proved. How is buying and selling slaves "ameliorating the worst conditions of a degrading circumstance"? Washington stopped buying and selling slaves and finally freed his slaves in his will. Carter freed all his slaves while living and gave them paid jobs. Jefferson freed two slaves in his lifetime. One had to pay for their freedom and the other had to find a replacement as Finkleman points out. Jefferson opposed African American sufferage. He did not believe blacks could take care of themselves. Jefferson wanted blacks to be deported and replace them with white workers. During Jefferson's lifetime only whites could be citizens. Jefferson believed American blacks would attack white owners. Jefferson was correct as Gabriel's Rebellion proved. Deporation was the practical answer for Jefferson. However, at the outbreak of the Civil War there were no slave uprisings as Lincoln and Grant had feared. As far as I know there were no slave uprisings during the entire Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cm', I'm sorry but you're starting to sound like a parrot with a bad attitude with your continued use of divisive out of context statements. Unable to address issues and cope with the whole truth, it would appear this is your only recourse. Well, we may as well use your out of context distortions for educational purposes:
  • "Slaves were whipped." -- This was rare, used only in extreme cases, and testimony from overseers and slaves support this. Corporal punishment was used on white prisoners, and on white sailors and soldiers in those days. IOW, slaves were treated equally when it came to punishemnt for crimes and other offenses.
  • "Monticello was a for profit business as his calculations proved." -- No one contests Jefferson made profits, much of which was used to provided (very) well for his slaves. Slaves were completely supported by Jefferson's "profits".
  • "He did not believe blacks could take care of themselves." -- Actually, he believed slaves could take care of themselves in their own country, but as Carter's experience demonstrated, freeing slaves a that time this was not a probable prospect, esp since most had no skills, shelter and means to take care of themselves. We've been through this on the Jefferson talk page.
  • "During Jefferson's lifetime only whites could be citizens." -- Another divisive statement, thrown in for effect, which has nothing to do with Jefferson's treatment and buying and selling of slaves.
  • "Deporation was the practical answer for Jefferson." -- Recolonization was considered a practical alternative, as the Haitian and Garbriel's revolutions and Carter's experience demonstrated.
  • "Carter freed all his slaves while living and gave them paid jobs. Jefferson freed two slaves in his lifetime." -- We've been through this extensively. -- Jefferson's debt prevented him from freeing slaves.
  • "How is buying and selling slaves "ameliorating the worst conditions of a degrading circumstance"?" -- Very easily, When Jefferson bought slaves he brought families together and provided for them very well. He gave them Sundays off, allowed them to grow their own gardens, raise chickens, much of which was sold, for cash, to the Jefferson family. Some slaves were allowed to travel into town for supplies or to visit relatives. Sally Hemings could have remained in France. She preferred to return to Monticello.
Let us know if there is anything else we can clear up for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: My comments were directed at TheVirginiaHistorian not Gwillhickers. You skipped one of my statements that Jefferson was correct in predicting a race war, ie Gabriel's Rebellion, but that would make me look undevisive. Picking apart every statement I make in my opinion is devisive. I would hope you allow editors to express their views in the interest of the article. I do not have to defend myself. Will you respectfully allow any critcism of Jefferson in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson believed American blacks would attack white owners. Jefferson was correct as Gabriel's Rebellion proved. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In Gabriel's Rebellion blacks were planning to attack whites in Richmond. No whites were actually attacked. But Jefferson was correct in assuming blacks would attack whites. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
As an experienced editor you should learn someday that any comment made on the talk page, regardless of whom it was addressed to, may be addressed by other editors. Jefferson was correct about most of his views -- it's about time you overcome your apparent emotional block, throw away the old hat, moved forward and tried to appreciate this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I expect a certain amount of decorum when discussing Jefferson and this should not be turned into personal attacka on any editors including myself. Sometimes you speak as if you knew Jefferson personally. We can only rely on established sources. I am all for admiration of Jefferson, but to chastise an editor in the talk page is unnecessary and unproductive to discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Insert : @Cmguy777: -- you have tried my (and I'm sure other's) patience to no end with your repeated ignoring of recent discussions and your deceptive out of context statements thrown in as distractions and for the effect. If you don't want to get poked occasionally show some respect for the talk page, fellow editors and the discussions, and at least acknowledge what other editors have taken the time to explain to you, repeatedly. You don't have to always agree, who does, but kindly don't carry on like you just found out about Jefferson and slavery yesterday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Insert: @Gwillhickers: My initial response was due to myself being pinged. Editors should be allowed to express themselves freely without having to be approved by other editors. You can disagree with what I stated. I don't mind that. I do mind being singled out where every word I state is being methodically analyzed. When I created this page on the Fourth of July I was honoring Thomas Jefferson. I am not the bit ashamed of Jefferson in any way as a founder of this nation nor should I be. I am an American born and raised here. I am not ashamed of America's past. The initial article was meant to be a chronocological record of events concerning Jefferson and slavery. Commentary was meant to be minimal while the readers could decide for themselves who Thomas Jefferson really was and what he actually represented. There is too much commentary in the article. I am all for reducing commentary going back to the original format. No historian can be Jefferson's spokesperson. We can only allow the reader to make up their minds concerning Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Well, yes, Jefferson should be presented as a humanitarian slave-owner who thought freedom for all slaves held in Virginia would benefit both them individually and the state politically and economically. Even in his day it was apparent that greater agricultural wealth was being generated by free labor in the north and in western Virginia, and their land was increasing in value, not declining as in slave-worked plantations run for extraction profits in cash crops. This was not the fault of persons held in slavery, but in the slave system as administered in the South at the time, not in the theory of those justifying perpetual slavery. Freed slaves in their own independent republic could commercially prosper beyond their circumstances in an enslaved condition.

Jefferson believed that the causes in human nature for rebellion by the African-American held in slavery did not go away with Gabriel’s rebellion. Even with "benevolent" care-taking on the part of masters, “innumerable" slights and injustices were suffered by those held in the condition of slavery. If blacks were not removed from slavery, there would be more race-based rebellions, has did happen after his death in the case of Nat Turner in 1830. This in the face of slave-owner sponsored patrols and militias. The white retribution would be disproportionate, leading to indiscriminate revenge killings of blacks, as was the experience in the aftermath of Gabriel’s Rebellion. Revenge killings in a race war against blacks was not beneficial to freed blacks in Jefferson’s view, nor did it contribute to the prosperity of whites, nor to good governance on ethical or moral grounds.

The solution in Jefferson’s eyes was beneficial for African-Americans, it was freedom for volunteering blacks or to slaves born after a certain date, but without white racism indigenous to early 19th century Virginia. First Jefferson proposed Virginia buy land in Ohio for individual black family resettlement, then settlement west of the Mississippi, then colonies to become independent republics in the Caribbean or finally advocating a theoretical scheme for freeing an entire generation for repatriation to Africa. My point is that Jefferson’s views and proposals over time and circumstance should be reflected in the article. In our discussions, we should try to stay focused on Jefferson and his times. I mean to withdraw my heated remarks directed at Cmguy777. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

let's stop the bickering & cool ourselves off

It's diverting attention and making people hot under the collar. Can we just please stop for a couple days to cool off? Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree Rjensen. Thanks. In my opinion keeping the article in a chronological format rather then adding a myriad of divergant historical opinion will keep the article focused and less contentious. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chronology focus approach

I suggest a chronology focus approach to the article. This would alleviate reliance on the myriad of opinions both pro and con concerning Jefferson and slavery. I hope we can discuss this issue with civility and decorum. I am personally approaching this article with a blank slate. There is too much opinion in the lede. The article should focus on Jefferson and slavery from 1767 to 1826 and what happened to his slaves after Jefferson's death in 1826. Opinions should be kept neutral and minimal. Any objections or suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sample lede first paragraph that focuses on chronology:
Thomas Jefferson throughout his lifetime owned hundreds of slaves acquired by inheritance, marriage, births of slaves, and trade. Starting in 1767 at the age of twenty-one, Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres of land and fifty-two slaves by his father's will. In 1768 Jefferson began construction of his Monticello plantation. Through his marriage to Martha Wayles in 1772 and his father-in-law John Wayles inheritance in 1773 Jefferson inherited two plantations and 135 slaves. By 1776 Jefferson was one of the wealthiest planters in Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lede and focused on the chronology of Jefferson and slavery. I purposely left out pro and con opinions of Jefferson from the lede to create a neutral format for the remaining article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a reminder: Facts by themselves don't effect neutrality. If Jefferson did nine good deeds, and one not so good deed, we would still be obliged to mention of all these deeds. We wouldn't mention only one good deed and one not so good, leaving out eight good deeds, and then call the account "neutral". Anyways -- lede looks nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I made a few small changes to lede, esp re criminalizing the international slave trade in 1807 3 weeks before the British did so. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen and Gwillhickers. I am not against adding opinions but to keep them minimal. My view has always been to let the reader decide if Jefferson was pro or anti slavery or both. Part of the issue is establishing dates and Jefferson's actions. For example Governor Jefferson gave a "healthy negro" to those who fought for American independence from Britain. I can't find the date for this nor the actual language from the law. The lede needed to be cleaned up. The Notes section is almost a book and full of opinions. That information should be transferred to the Notes article. Should there even be an evaluations section in the article? That seems more arguementative then factual. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest reducing the amount of evaluations in the article and possibly combine a few segments. Why is there a need to put "controversy" in the Sally Hemings section? A possible retitle would be "Sally Hemings and her children". The controversy only exists among historians and Heming's later generation of children. Honestly I am not sure why having children is controversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I made changes to the Sally Heming's section; changed title; added information, context; and references. Rephrased with neutral wording; removed POV-Section tags. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson blamed the stereotype that blacks were theives on their condition of slavery rather then any moral depravity on their part. Better context. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources needed

Sources are needed for the following information. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's 1820 gradual abolition plan
In 1820 Jefferson worked with the governor of Virginia, Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr. (his son-in-law), who had proposed sending free blacks and those convicted in the United States of rebellion to Haiti. Jefferson suggested that Randolph's proposal did not go far enough in developing a rational solution to deport the black population. He suggested that slaveholders should be required to free all the newborn slaves in Virginia, and later send them to Haiti at an appropriate age. At that time, Haiti was recruiting free blacks to emigrate from the US. More than 13,000 American free blacks did emigrate there in the 1820s. (Thousands returned to the US because of the harsh conditions.)
Jefferson considered compulsory manumission and resettlement of newborn slaves to Haiti to be a practical solution to abolish slavery in Virginia. He wrote to US minister to France Albert Gallatin:

"My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the state, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo [i.e. Haiti]. There they are willing to receive them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of [Virginia state] taxation aided by charitable contributions."[citation needed]

The governor agreed and called on the legislature to endorse the plan, but it refused.[citation needed]
  • Governor Randolph is praised for his courage in endorsing the plan in one of Jefferson's letters, and the legislature is reported as not agreeing, but I cannot remember which letter of Jefferson's it was... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Can you tell me what page numbers for the Cohen article where Jefferson's emancipation plan is mentioned. The other issue is that Monroe was president and Congress began colonization funding in 1819. Colonization was actually taking place in Africa. Monroe and Lincoln I believe were the only Presidents who had funding for their colonization plans. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I got it right, p. 23 on the PDF? Jefferson has at least three plans, p.23 has the last iteration in the 1820s with federal funding. By then he has given up on Virginia sponsoring a plan by its own financing.
Instead of funding family emigration of free blacks elsewhere in the United States (Ohio or west of the Mississippi) or in Haiti, a new African colonized nation of a larger scale would require international sponsorship by the United States government. The article should convey the evolution of Jefferson's thought over the course of his career. By the 1820s he despairs of any practical solution, even while putting his federal program forward in private correspondence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the real question is why Jefferson did not implement colonization when he was President for eight years and had the power to do so. President Monroe did. Madison had to contend with the War of 1812. Jefferson did not mention colonization in any of his Inaugural or State of the Union addresses. We can put his transformation in terms of colonization in the article. Jefferson did put a moratorium on the slave trade for one year in the Louisiana Purchase and he ended the international slave trade. That was about all he did as President as far as I know. He may have put down a slave rebellion in Louisiana. Jefferson privately tried to get an African colonization program while President but that failed. Jefferson's 1824 colonization plan was innovative because federal compensation to slave owners was mentioned. Lincoln during the Civil War advocated compensation to slave owners. Lincoln established the Department of Emigration to colonize blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If the real question is why Jefferson did not implement colonization when he was president and had the power to do so, where was the support for such a measure? a) What newspapers in what parts of the country were calling for colonization? b) What groups petitioned Congress for which scheme of gradual emancipation? c) Who were the floor leaders in Congress holding hearings?
Jefferson recommended to Washington that although he was personally opposed, Washington should follow the dictates of Congressional majorities in the matter of establishing Hamilton's First U.S. Bank if Washington found himself of divided mind. Surely there was no veto on Jefferson's part in the matter of national gradual emancipation.
Jefferson seemed intent on retiring the national debt on the one hand. On the other hand, were there northern anti-slavery forces arrayed to promote national debt for a comprehensive emancipation and repatriation scheme, to put their money where their mouth was, so to speak? Who were they? If the time was not ripe in Monroe's time, how was the political environment more auspicious in Jefferson"s? Both were before the advent of King Cotton and the tripling of the value of a field hand. I think that raising the possibility of Jefferson's implementing colonization as president is pure speculation in a sort of What If history, not appropriate for the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Repectfully I would not lightly discredit Jefferson's power as President particular when Congress followed the President's initiatives. The President was the one who initiated the laws during Jefferson's times, particularly during the first presidencies. Congress was more then willing to debate slavery. The Louisiana Purchase is an example. Federalists did not want to extend slavery into the Louisiana Territory. Jefferson remained silent. A one year moretoreum on slavery in the LT was reached by Jefferson and Congress. Then there is the slave trade. Jefferson wanted to end the international slave trade and he merely asked Congress for legislation to do so. Congress responded quickly to Jefferson's request. We do not know how Congress would have responded to Jefferson on colonization since Jefferson did not bring up the subject publically while President for eight years. Jefferson as President could have turned colonization into law and got federal funding. President James Monroe did in 1819. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Jefferson did not initiate objections to the international slave trade, they were ubiquitous. Most of the policing throughout the Atlantic and Caribbean was done by the British navy, at little expense to the U.S. government, although I believe a frigate was on station in the Bight of Benin in the Jefferson administration and thereafter. Paul Johnson gives an account of slave ships intercepted by the U.S. Navy having their cargo deposited in British Sierra Leone to freedom, and the crews turned over to British Navy ships for hanging, rather than return them to the U.S. for trial in the Supreme Court dominated by slave holding justices.
I agree that federally funded gradual emancipation in the Jefferson administration is an interesting What If in the absence of any evidence outside Jefferson's private correspondence. But I wonder at the idea early presidents had the executive initiative of an FDR. Other sources have said FDR was the first administration with such wide-ranging initiative. Washington was called a traitor to his face over the proposed Jay Treaty, and he and subsequent presidents did not personally appear to defend their policy in front of the assembled Senate again.
As Meacham points out, Jefferson's general disposition was to accommodate legislative majorities both as governor and as president, it was not to buck them with "unripe" innovations. According to Meacham, Jefferson seems to have been greatly affected by the humiliation suffered by his cousin on the floor of the Assembly when proposing an emancipation scheme in a session of the Virginia legislature, which Jefferson had timidly co-sponsored in his youth. What we have reliably sourced are the several iterations of Jefferson's various plans for emancipation considered over time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson was extremely popular in his first administration and he held on to his leadership in the Republican Party during his second administration although the Republicans were not as united because of the Jefferson's 2,000,000 plan. Colonization was a reality in 1819 under President Monroe. The American Colonization Society started in 1817 admittedly after the Jefferson presidency. One would think that Jefferson could have mentioned colonization publically since he wrote about colonization publically in 1785. Congress was willing to talk about keeping slavery out of the LT and Jefferson kept quiet. When Ulysses S. Grant in 1869 took office his first initiative was to annex Santo Domingo, the country Jefferson mentioned, and to give Santo Domingo statehood. This was to alleviate the plight of African-Americans in the United States after the American Civil War. Grant wanted Santo Domingo to have a safe haven for African-Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Did FDR want to annex Santo Domingo? Maybe we are going around in circles. When reading the Declaration of Independance Jefferson does not sound like a timid person. I am not sure we will know why Jefferson was publically silent on colonization while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources needed for the following information. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The sale attracted national attention. According to a 2008 history by Graham Russell Hodges and Gary Nash,

"a small-town editor in a Susquehanna River town asked how Jefferson, 'surely the champion of civil liberty to the American people,' left 'so many human beings in fetters to be indiscriminately sold to the highest bidder.' In biting words, the editor wrote: 'Heaven inspired Jefferson with the knowledge 'that all men are created equal.' He was not forgetful—in his last moments he 'commended his soul to God, and his daughter to his country;' but to whom did he commend his wretched slaves?'"

This is so tangential to the subject of the article and so rhetorical, that I do not think it appropriate to encyclopedic treatment here, even were it sourced. I am more reluctant to speculate on the ultimate salvation of Jefferson’s soul than the unnamed small-town editor in the unnamed Pennsylvania river town. Is it meant to be representative of Federalist eulogies of Jefferson’s career at his death? Without more context, the passage seems to suffer from lack of WP:DUE weight, even if it were sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is opinion...The language is POV "In biting words". We can keep the quote in the talk page so the article can remain neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Evaluations section

I am trying to clean up the evaluations section. Making progress. Any help is on this section is appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality review

Is the article neutral enough to drop all the remaining neutrality tags? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Favor : I believe the article is neutral enough to remove the neutrality tags. The lede has been rewritten and reflects a neutral tone. The chronology approach has been implemented to reduce opinion. The evaluations section has been cleaned up. The Sally Hemings narration has been edited to create a neutral tone. Removed the word "controversy" from the title segment to reduce POV. The "controversy" is among historians. Jefferson was reelected in 1804 despite the rumors spread by the Federalists. The evaulations contains information both complimentary and critical of Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Since no editors have disagreed I am going to remove the remaining neutrality tags. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hemings controversy section

The Jefferson-Hemings controversy section needs attention. It only has two paragraphs, one of which is completely devoted to what a few cherry picked historians and other orgs think. While it briefly notes the Jefferson Foundation rejecting the conclusion of others, noting Randolph, it doesn't mention the Thomas Jefferson Foundation committee being exposed for bias, or mention Edmond Bacon who says he saw other men leaving Sally's room several times very early in the morning, among other things. While this section was once several pages long on the Thomas Jefferson main article, it is curiously brief here in the dedicated article for Jefferson and slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have pasted in the version from the main TJ article because it's well sourced and balanced. Again, there is an entire article about the subject and that's where readers should be pointed. Brad (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Harvest days at Monticello

When it was time to harvest the wheat at Monticello all slaves young and not too old were required in the fields. They worked long hours for several days in order to get it finished. After the harvest a designated day was chosen and slaves were given a day off and supplied with high quality foodstuffs for a celebration and the men were allowed whiskey. Malone V3. That's TJ, The Monster of Monticello. Brad (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brad did you want to add this to the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually no, it's more fun to smack you in the face with it. Great George (Granger) was the expert tool sharpener. He rode a wagon in the field so that the workers would always have a sharp tools. Brad (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes on Virginia again

The above thread went wildly out of control so I'm starting a new section. As already stated, the section is too long, biased and filled with incorrect referencing. Also to keep in mind, that an entire article Notes on the State of Virginia exists where slavery portions of the book can be fully fleshed out. Notes was not a book about slavery and that must be kept in mind. TJ never intended for it to be published, as it was a response to a certain individual whose name I forget just now. It was published in France without his permission. Brad (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Notes section in this article is 512 words
  • Jefferson and Slavery section in the notes article is 455 words.
  • = Serious imbalance.
This resembles the earlier Burr Conspiracy or Lewis and Clark sections...most can be transferred to the Notes on the State of Virginia article. The book is of note in all its provisions as a book, so it is well to have a separate article. But as Jefferson meant it as a kind of narrow cast among his inner circle in Paris, it is rather a footnote here except as those in the antebellum period made use of it, which still may be beyond the scope of this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

First Barbary War

I find it lacking that there is not explicit mention of the First Barbary War. Would it perhaps make sense to mention this event briefly under the context of "As President (1801–1809)"? Further, it may be prudent to mention that at the conclusion of the war, American citizens were freed by means of a $60,000 ransom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avochelm (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Banning the Import of Slaves NPOV

Jefferson's legislation to ban the import of slaves is repeatedly mentioned in a pro-abolitionist context. It is widely argued that this law was just as much an economic protectionist policy, removing foreign competition for Virginia's fantastically profitable slave-breeding businesses. 152.10.217.56 (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe this may be a time line miscalculation. If you look at your source for "fantastically profitable slave-breeding business", I believe you will find it arose after Jefferson's time, so it could have no effect on Jefferson's decisions at the turn of the 19th century -- before the cotton boom in the Old Southwest Territories. The expressed intent was to limit slavery so as to bring about its end, as sourced. Later Jefferson subscribed to a sort of dilution thesis, since anti-slavery sentiment was greater in Virginia where there were fewer slaves. Then there was an interest in colonization as removal, and then Meacham observes, Jefferson uncharacteristically "gave up" on a major issue, the question of ending slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Federal legislation on slavery was prevented by the US Constitution until the year 1808. So this importation ban was the first Federal law passed regarding slavery. Brad (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
British antislavery historians focus on the 1807 British law (passed a few weeks after the American law) to ban the international trade. They treat it as a great antislavery achievement and also praise the American law. The anti-Jefferson critics seem to be opponents of the US law, which aligns them with the slave traders--an odd position indeed in the21st century. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that make that claim? My understanding is that it was believed that the slave population would diminish out once the slave trade ended. TFD (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Another nugget is at the time of the Federal legislation only the state of South Carolina was still involved with international slave trade. All other states had passed their own legislation. Either way, the 1808 Federal legislation didn't change much and was likely used only as a 'final word' on importation. Brad (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The population of slaves was taking place naturally by "breeding" since slaves were not allowed to be married. Jefferson's action in banning the international slave trade was anti-slavery. But it really did not matter to the American slaves who were enslaved as well as their children perpetually. There were no laws that protected American slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Views on race

@Yopienso: I think if that quote/assertion is going to be retained ("Jefferson did not change his views"), it's better off as a new paragraph which showcases some of the ambiguity about Jefferson's views on race. The preceding quotes of Jefferson clearly show a changing view on race, as in his "Notes on Virginia" he asserted that blacks were in fact inferior in body and mind. Jefferson's malleable and conflicted legacy makes summing him up as either for or against black equality very challenging, and I think it gives the reader an inaccurate view of the topic to end with such a decisive summation. Monolith2 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to this, please note the "Views on race" subsection is part of the section "Notes on the State of Virginia (1785)" and has only to do with his views on race as presented in Notes; it's a snapshot of TJ's thinking at that point in time. YoPienso (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree if the passage confined itself to discussing Jefferson's view of race within the Notes on Virginia, but it does not. The entire preceding paragraph discusses an exchange with Grégoire in 1808, 23 years after Notes on Virginia was published, and nearly 27 years after it was written. Either we need to remove that section as well, or give more context to his nuanced views. Monolith2 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't actually see more than the first page of the cited ref, but maybe the source is erroneous or it was misinterpreted. Here's a primary source that does show a change of heart. YoPienso (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the letter discussed in the article. Appended to the end, in the original unedited version (as of several days ago), was the quote "but he didn't change his views" which was a quote from a modern scholar appended to this discussion of the Grégoire letter. His views on race absolutely changed throughout his life, and I think we shouldn't end that section with any notion that they didn't. If we want to include that sort of interpretation (as there are obviously some scholars who think that), then it should be within an expanded context which lists other viewpoints. i.e., that he did change his views. For now, since I'm not currently in a position to update the article to that standard, I think the best solution is to remove the offending line entirely, with the goal of returning at some point to integrate it into an expanded passage. I do not think the average reader of this page will lose any important information by its omission, as its merely one interpretation of the facts listed on the page, not a pertinent fact in and of itself. Monolith2 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

OK; I've taken a rather drastic stopgap measure--an excision--until you or I or someone can do some reconstructive surgery.
Does anyone have access to the cited journal I removed? I don't, so can't tell if it supports the text or not. YoPienso (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There maybe other sources on Jefferson and race. A direct expanded quote from Jefferson in his letter to Grégoire in 1808 might be best. That let's the reader make up their own mind. To many historical views can cloud up what Jefferson's actual view on African Americans or blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a link to the actual letter: To Henri Gregoire Washington, February 25, 1809. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I added more from the letter using a reliable primary reference. The source links to the direct letter. The reader should be allowed to make their own interpretations of Jefferson's letter to Gregoire. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

@Stephan Schulz: Wrt your recent edit on the article, Notes says, "They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour." YoPienso (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Aha! I searched for "smell" and "odor" - my mistake. But we should find a proper secondary source to attribute it to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure a section titled "Notes on the State of Virginia (1785)" can cite directly from the source. We're only showing what the source says, not extrapolating any principles. But if you disagree, there is a multitude of secondary sources to be cited. YoPienso (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the existence of the statement, but I would only include it in this form is there is significant support in the secondary literature. I suspect that such a statement still aggrieves people (it shocked me, and even though MRCA estimates make it likely that I have some recent ancestors of recent African origin, none of these have left obvious genes...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've reverted your edit. I tried to insert this link to Notes: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/jefferson/ch14.html, but couldn't do it right.
I'm going to add a secondary source, even though I think it's unnecessary. There are countless. Many of the most academic are subscription-only. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-citation

This is an explanation of my potentially contentious reversions, and removal of cited content. Following this edit [2], a large amount of content was added by an author who repeatedly cites their own books. This is not disallowed, per WP:SELFCITE, but the degree to which they did so, and their tendency to view their own interpretations as primary, strikes me as undue. Additionally, content cited from the historian Lucia Stanton's analysis was rewritten without clear consultation of the source, in the process misrepresenting it. I've removed and reverted what I can, but there may be more. Please let me know if my edits were inappropriate. Thanks! Darthkayak (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been watching you make edits and the ones I checked made sense to me, so I stopped checking. I think that some of the removed content was speculative and affected the tone of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect grammatical usage of "enslaved"

Thomas Jefferson did not "enslave" 600 humans. He owned 600 humans who had been enslaved, and probably enslaved a much smaller number of infants who were born to those enslaved humans whom he owned. It is simply incorrect usage of the word "enslaved" as currently written. To say he "enslaved" them is to claim that he captured formerly free humans and made them his property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.144.37 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery/Archive_3&oldid=1112612368"