Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Further reductions

Now that we're all agreeable about reducing content, the Jefferson–Hemings controversy section is now larger than the Slaves and slavery section. Btw, the 'controversy section should be a sub section to the slavery section and whose size should be in proportion to it. About one paragraph, not five. -- Gwillhickers 22:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

{e/c} Agreed.

Thank you. I have just trimmed a few more words and sentences for style or redundancy. The only controversial edit was to remove the assertion that TJ didn't make his slaves work harder than free farmers. First, slave labor and free labor are not analogous. Second, the experiences of free farmers were so varied the statement is too over-generalized to be meaningful. I left the superfluous references at the end of the second paragraph since at this point I think I have no business messing with citations. They need to be trimmed to two, though.

I removed the following as redundant, but paste it in here in case anyone wants the citation, which may be better than the citation to the same information that I left it. Jefferson drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of slaves. (Peterson, 1986]] pp.152–153, 285) In 1807, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law a bill prohibiting the transatlantic slave trade beginning on the first day of 1808, the earliest date permitted by the Constitution.

Cheers while you lift a pint, Gwillhickers! Yopienso (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The slavery section and the Hemings sections seem to be equivalent in size. Reducing the Hemings section to one paragraph is too much.--Joe bob attacks (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In chronological order, Martha (wife) and Martha (daughter, whitehouse hostess) and Sally (concubine/common law wife) should get about the same amount of coverage, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, in the same sub-section, domestic relations of Thomas Jefferson. --- with links to the articles on the three women. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Historians have written far more about Sally than Martha and Patsy put together. We give the same weight mainstream sources do. Yopienso (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, your statement is actually an indictment against the objectivity and neutrality of many modern historians who feel a theory is more important than Jefferson's factual wife. We need to include factual material more than we do trendy opinion. If it was an established fact that Jefferson fathered every one of Hemings' children your claim might carry more weight. Imo, it's sort of unethical to try to push a POV by citing rules and regulations. Thank goodness there are other rules that can be invoked in the event someone games the system to advance a socio-politically motivated POV. In any event, we finally have the sections scaled down to sane proportions. Let's try to keep them that way. -- Gwillhickers 17:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the very crux of the problems with your editing, Gwillhickers, that (I suppose) prompted Binksternet to take you to ANI: You fail to realize that what you (and I, for that matter) call "trendy opinion" is, in fact, the mainstream academic consensus. Wikipedia is not the place for you to argue with the experts, but to summarize their views. You are correct that, weighted properly, we should also include the reliable dissenters. There are blogs and independent publishers that would welcome your "indictment against the objectivity and neutrality of many modern historians," because that has been the essence of your pages and pages of comments at this article. You want it to reflect your views rather than the current academic trends. Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Yopiendso, your statements above are rife with assumptions. First, I wouldn't be referring to the failed ANI hearing to artificially prop up other failed statements. The so called "experts" you broadly refer to comprise a body of professors and historians who stand on both sides of the controversy fence. I have outlined this reality time and again. Though some sources say "most" historians (i.e.PBS, a media source; TJF, with its agenda; Smithsonian, a government source; etc) we really don't know how much "most", or if indeed it is true at all, as the claim has never been proven -- not even qualified with an explanation, anywhere. Have you ever noticed? Discounting sources simply because of age exercises the worst sort of prejudice and should not resorted to in a forum like Wikipedia. Sources should be judged on the truth and objectivity they enfold within their pages. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the crux. Gwillhickers pushes the advances of modern historiography downward in importance relative his own opinion which appears to me to be founded on 1950s-style biographies and even hagiographies.[1][2] Our readers deserve more than a rehashing of the greatness of the Sage of Monticello—they should be introduced to modern discussion of how TJ was not such an avid fighter against slavery.

Specific to this conversation, I think if we accurately balance Sally Hemings in relation to the amount of literature discussing her we will end up somewhat lopsided in her favor. Certainly there is more written about her than about TJ's wife or daughter, so the proposal of covering them in 1:1:1 ratio is not feasible. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with [Binksternet] on this one. As this "controversy" has raged on for more than 200 years, it is evident that more has been written on the Hemings' than his wife or daughter. Perhaps that is a disservice to those ladies, but it's just the way it is. It's not Wikipedia's job to right that wrong. Joe bob attacks (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : It's not WP's job to perpetuate that wrong either. Editors are the one's who decide what sources are reliable, as is done all the time throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a list of sources to 'use' or 'not use'. Editors simply can't look at the date of publication and claim that a given source is 'automatically' reliable. Well, at least you admit the wrong. Sally Hemings has been exploited as a victim with no mind of her own in many "modern" history texts like few other woman. Few of them entertain the idea that she may have seduced Jefferson or that Jefferson was in love with a woman who was mostly white and whom he may have considered as such. Further, Sally was hardly a slave by conventional standards and there are modern sources that entertain such ideas.

• Ishida, 2010
• Tillet, 2012
• Brooten, 2010
• Haliday, 2009
• Onuf, Lewis, 1999
• Woodson, 2001

-- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what you're driving at. Are you saying Sally had a mind of her own or didn't? that she did or did not seduce TJ? that she was held in bondage or that she wasn't?

Do you realize your first two sources discuss fictional narratives of TJ?

Do you realize that Mia Bay, whose essay you link to in the third source, is an aggressive feminist scholar of African-American history?

Do you realize Halliday's psychohistory has been panned by the academy? Yopienso (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen clearly above, I maintain Hemings has often been written off as a victim with no mind of her own, and that the possibility that she may have seduced Jefferson, a lonely widower, is not often advanced -- no doubt for the fear that it would reduce the scandal on Jefferson's behalf. Btw, the narratives are only fiction inasmuch as the theory itself may be a product of fiction. Like many others, they discuss the viable possibilities, narrative or not. Are you also suggesting that African America feminists are not reliable as sources? There are other sources, some of which I've just added. If you are concerned about missing content in the controversy section we should mention that Jefferson could have been seduced and that his relationship with Hemings could have been loving and consensual. After all, we are discussing theories, and there are many modern sources that entertain this likely possibility, that is, if there was an affair at all. -- Gwillhickers 21:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion above helps clarify at least two variations in emphasis or scope for this article. Gwillhickers seems interested in writing a biography that admits sources prior to 2005 and includes those after. Others argue to exclude all sources prior to 2005.

I suggested Martha wife, Martha daughter and Sally be given equal weight because they were equally the center of Jefferson's domestic life at three different stages of his life -- which goes uncontested.Now it is explicitly said that the article should reflect the interests and weights of current historiography, (not Jefferson's life ?) --- Sally with the widower at Monticello --- more than both earlier Martha wife and Martha daughter, hostess in the White House, combined. So, among 'professional' historians in the last decade, what weight is to be given Eleanor Roosevelt or Mamie Eisenhower at the White House?

At some level the contention on this page is related to a desire on the one hand to write a encyclopedic biography of Jefferson using a balance of reliable sources, including authors who are dead, --- and on the other hand, a desire to write an encyclopedic digest of recent historiography on a subject, limited to living authors over the most recent ten years. --- But it happens that at different times culture and society seize on different aspects of Jefferson's life to remember or commemorate as it relates to themselves, and modern publication is not free from the ethos of its own ephemeral celebration. The encyclopedia should be able to write a concise summary of the subject using various reliable sources in the literature. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your observation is correct. Who wants exclude sources prior to 2005? But I certainly want older sources to be considered in light of current research, and weighted and evaluated accordingly. Modern interest in Sally Hemings really started up after Fawn Brodie's Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, which was published in 1974 - that's about two generations by Jefferson's reckoning. I certainly don't want primary sources from 1862 or hagiographies from 1901 to be given equal weight to modern scholarly biographies, or indeed for them to be used as a source for non-trivial facts at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on hagiography. One of Gwhillickers sources was impeached because the author had died after 1974 but before 2005, so some here do seem to argue for a narrowly modernist cast. But there is a difference between writing a narrative of Jefferson's life, and writing a digest of recently published material of living scholars. The digest cannot give equal weight to the three major periods of Jefferson's domestic life. Meecham would add Jefferson's time as a lawyer lived with his mother as a fourth period, I suppose. That would give us four significant women in Jefferson's life, with Sally' portion of widowerhood per se as a one-quarter of the domesticity topic of Jefferson's life. I acknowledge that the cottage industry publishing on Sally surpasses that on long-term liaisons of FDR or Eisenhower.

But Wikipedia allows us to link to details of Sally's life with Jefferson in Sally's article under her domestic arrangements, so as to keep her part in his life in proportion with three other equally important women (and only equally as important) helping his professional career at each stage of his life, mother, wife and daughter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned comments, TVH. One thing to keep in mind was that TJ was married to Martha for 11 years and allegedly was in a relationship with Sally for almost 40. And of course Sally was in TJ's life during his marriage. Changes the weight a bit, imo. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of discussion, were Sally to be three times more important than any other woman in Jefferson's life, she would have a proportion of 3:1:1:1, or one-half the narrative concerning the domestic arrangements of Thomas Jefferson by word count. That implies we can trim the Sally Hemings section as the article narrative is now written, and punch up some of our women's history for mother, wife and daughter in the White House. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in a very general sort of way. The caveat here is that history can't easily be reduced to mathematical formulas.

• Merrill Peterson said of TJ and his mother, "By his own reckoning she was a zero quantity in his life" (Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, 1970, p. 9). Fawn Brodie, on p. 43 of An Intimate History, rejects that assessment and imagines TJ disliked his mother. In any case, TJ's mother doesn't have the same weight in his bio as, say, FDR's mother does in his. (Or Washington's, for that matter.) Jon Kukla, on pp. 6-7 in Mr. Jefferson's Women (2007), writes, "There is scarcely any evidence from which to speculate about Jefferson's youthful relationships with his mother and sisters."
• Martha Jefferson was the wife of a lackluster governor, not a POTUS, so she has less weight than a First Lady.
• Patsy Jefferson was her father's hostess in the White House and was the surviving daughter of a POTUS and his devoted supporter in his old age, so she has more weight than her mother and grandmother combined. Yopienso (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Sally Hemings wasn't a first lady either. And unlike Jefferson's wife, her relationship remains a theory, the evidence of which supports other paternal candidate. Even the freeing of Sally's children can be attributed to the idea that Jefferson did not want any family blood to remain a slave -- and he could have very well freed them at the request of his brother, Randolph. And remember, he never freed Sally. If he had strong feelings for her children it goes that he would have same for their very mother. Again, he never freed Sally. That alone reduces the weight of that particular piece of evidence considerably. Again all evidence is and remains sketchy and full of holes and inconsistencies. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

TJ apparently instructed his daughter to give Sally her freedom, with her last two sons, after his death. The theory is, he didn't want to name her in his will or have to petition the legislature for her to remain in the state. He wanted her to be freed on the QT to avoid scandal. She was listed on the 1830 census (actually a couple years later; it's complicated) as a free white. Yopienso (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. Meacham takes the same stance on mother, Jefferson uses the family library as a beginning lawyer, then loses it and all his casework in a fire. Looks like we are on the right track, if Sally can be put in context of domestic relations over all; there is no modern need to segregate her when she was de facto a part of Jeffersons intimate daily household life. An interpreter at Monticello a few years back said she resided in the home during Jefferson's later life, not in slave quarters? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mythbuster here

During TJ's tenure in the White House he was only visited by Patsy once and only for a few weeks or months. It's a worn out myth that she was the hostess of the White House. There is no evidence that Sally lived in the main house regardless of what some Monticello tour guide spews out. If Sally was part of the household staff then she lived wherever the household staff did. At one time TJ had a house built for the Hemings family so it may have been there. The house burned down at some point and I forget exactly when. Stop spreading myths. Brad (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just popped in and what do you know the same conversation. The last time (what, ages ago?) you said "no evidence" of where she lived (or maybe it was the time before that), I believe I pointed you to this evidence. Not that it matters to this article, like so any of these rabbit holes, so will visit in another couple months and we can discuss it all again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. Monticello.org and the White House perpetuate that myth, which hinges on definitions. Malone, Ellis, and W.S. Randall show two stays in the White House, during which Patsy did shine at dinners (and also bore a child) but is not indicated as hostess. Dolley Madison sometimes helped TJ but he mostly hosted guests himself. I've edited my comment above. Yopienso (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, you're the only one that got my point, which had nothing to do with slavery or Hemings. It's commonly bounced around that Patsy was 'first lady' but there is little historical evidence of her presence at the White House. However, the official Order of Precedence of the US may in fact grant that title to the oldest daughter of a president who is a widower. I don't know about this for sure. Andrew Jackson's niece served as hostess since Jackson's wife died just prior to his Presidency. This shouldn't be such a big deal here but I get tired of seeing things repeated as fact when they are quite cloudy. Brad (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert (Can't believe I'm doing an "insert!") Just an interesting point of trivia. I found a possible source of the "myth" about Patsy being a hostess in the White House. Virginius Dabney, in The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal, (NY: Dodd, Mead, 1981), p. 85: "The latter [Patsy] was often in charge at Monticello, and for part of her father's second presidential term managed affairs at the White House." Yopienso (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Insert. Also Meacham notes an extended stay at the White House over that first winter of the second term with her U.S. Representative husband. Then she took sick and returned to Monticello, and the two brothers-in-law had a falling out, which Jefferson characteristically did not confront. Thanks for the opportunity to reconfirm. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

All comments point to reducing the current coverage of Sally on the Jefferson page, especially since Jefferson's domestic arrangements seem to have so little to do with the significant chapters of the man's life, Jane, Martha, Martha, Polly, and Sally --- as is so well sourced in this discussion. No need to segregate Sally out, as she seems alike the others, of little direct influence on Jefferson, whether he was single, married or widowered, achieving accomplishment or suffering failure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My reading of this discussion shows one initial comment about reducing and the rest explaining why we shouldn't reduce the Sally Hemings part. Yopienso (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We are writing the Jefferson biography where we entertain the established historical facts first and foremost. If the Jefferson-Hemings topic was not controversial theory and was indeed an established historical fact your argument for greater coverage over Martha Jefferson might be warranted. What kind of biography would it be if we went at length discussing theory in the middle of a biography? The theory may have been written about more than Martha Jefferson in the last couple of decades, but it still remains a theory and as such is not something that should take a front seat compared to Jefferson's factual family. We must of course acknowledge modern opinions (many of which vary and differ) but we must also keep policy pertaining to biographies in mind. Look how the John F. Kennedy page deals with Marilyn Monroe. i.e.One short section. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How many of his children is she alleged to have borne? Does she have living descendants claiming to be Kennedy family members? Yopienso (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there are no such people using JFK as a coatrack for socio and political reasons today. Theoretical claims made 187 years after TJ's death are not what give justification for the sort of coverage you seem to be advancing over Martha Jefferson and family. Again, we are discussing theory here, not established and universally recognized historical fact. -- Gwillhickers 19:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wife Martha, -- (not Martha sister, not daughter Martha (Polly)) bore six children; Sally bore six children. Martha -6: Sally-6. Martha and Sally deserve equal word count on that point. But that would not be good history-biography of Thomas Jefferson properly weighting his domestic relations in the context of his intellect, politics and statecraft.

Descendants from both sides claim relation to Jefferson. But how much should WP be a memorabilia of genealogy, and should WPs ancestor worship emphasize one side over the other, and on what grounds the discrimination? Some have suggested here an historiographical digest of articles limited to the "current historiographic scholarship", so Sally should edge Martha in an open-ended way by journal-cite count, or alternatively, Jefferson had a marriage ten years, and a liaison for thirty, so Sally should be 3X Martha. I disagree with the current weighting, as all the technical discussion of DNA probabilities belongs in Sally's article, and this one can just summarize the liaison with (for the sake of collegiality) 3X word count for Sally as is given over to wife Martha. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect to write about Sally Hemings, someone who is passed off as a conventional black slave, rather than a white housekeeper and nanny, and someone who could have simply stayed in Paris if she so chose, sells more books in modern times than the otherwise boring Martha Jefferson, regardless of her significance to Thomas -- esp with all the promotion/distortions coming from activist and agenda types. That's why Hemings is written about more than Martha, lately. If Sally was all white and not a slave she would be an unknown in most of the black community and among many of the various academics. Hence the topic, and the significance of the controversy, has and continues to be artificially inflated. Playing a song 100 times on the radio doesn't make it any more better of a song than one that is only played a few times. To be fair to the history, we must enter this element into your above algorithm. -- Gwillhickers 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So we can drop all the DNA technical specs to a footnote or to Sally's page altogether, and simply summarize the liaison in the TJ article narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA should be summarized in the section, and clearly, as it is at the heart of the controversy during modern times. In the lede however the controversy is due mention but the commentary and details should go. It is the only topic in the lede given special treatment. Not even the DOI, abolition of slave trade or the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson's biggest accomplishments, are treated in such a manner, with Hemings mentioned three times:

Since 1800, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings.
Historical research, bolstered by DNA tests showing that a Jefferson family member was the father
of one of Hemings' sons, has led to a consensus among most modern historians that widower
Jefferson fathered Hemings' children.

Once this is finally accomplished we can all move on with getting the rest of the article in better shape also, as I know all the other topics are just as important to editors as this topic is. -- Gwillhickers 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede proposals

Here is my version: Historical research and DNA tests suggest that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children. The sex part is implicit in the children.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(Took the liberty and bolded your version) Not bad, word count wise, but you didn't mention controversy letting the readers know there has been major disagreement since 1800, while the wording is a little unclear, as it suggests DNA supports Jefferson paternity of all her children. It's sort of difficult to be clear about DNA while trying to make a low word count summary statement for the lede. I suggest we just mention the controversy per the slave Hemings and her children and leave the details about historical research, DNA tests and clarification to the section. With this in mind, here is another suggestion which still refers to all her children:
Since 1800 there has been a controversy over whether Jefferson was the father of his slave Sally Hemings' children.
-- Gwillhickers 18:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA should be in there as it is an important element of the new historiography. The literature has totally changed since 1998; we now have a split resulting in pre-DNA Jefferson biographies, and post-DNA Jefferson biographies. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Many details are important for many of the other topics too, which are all well covered in the sections. The above proposal lets the readers know there is a controversy, that it began in 1800, that it continues to this day, and that it involves all of Hemings children all the while the word count is kept to a minimum, consistent with the treatment of other topics in the lede. Adding scientific details is not appropriate here, as again, this would be giving the topic more attention than all the other more important topics. DNA tests (that point to Easton only, not all six children), along with historical evidence, changing historiography, etc, are details that belong in the section. Mentioning DNA in a summary lede statement would imply that it points to all six children. We should be just as summary minded here as we were about the section. Let's be consistent. -- Gwillhickers 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You are expecting that nobody will be able to write a summary statement which brings DNA into play without implicating all six of the Hemings children. I see no reason why none of us will be capable of doing exactly this. Per WP:LEAD, the most important points of the article should be summarized. DNA is the most important point about the Hemings controversy. Absolutely critical. It must be in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Can you come up with a lead statement that includes mention of a controversy and DNA that connects to only one child without getting into too many words or details and deals with the topic in the same manner as the other topics in the lede are treated? An actual attempt at a proposal would have been nice. -- Gwillhickers 22:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with implicating all six? I disagree with including the arbitrary date 1800 because there were rumors before that and Callendar published in 1802. No need for a date in the lede. Suggested final paragraph:

As long as he lived, Jefferson expressed opposition to slavery, yet he owned hundreds of slaves and freed only a few of them. Historical research and DNA tests suggest that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children. Although he has been criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery, Jefferson remains rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents. Yopienso (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That works for me. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok for me, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yp', there's still no mention of a controversy, i.e.one word that lets the readers know up front there is major disagreement, which, btw wasn't a controversy until Callender went public; we still have details that are not afforded to any other topic; we are still implying a DNA connection to all six children, which we all know is not so. We can mention all children, as I have done, but please do not try to attach DNA significance to them. This ploy, this distortion, has been tried time and again and it's sort of surprising that you are trying to do so here at this late date, and in the lede no less. No special treatment for the Hemings topic. Well, at least you only mention Hemings once. Other than that it's almost like you haven't even read the prior discussion. -- Gwillhickers 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are some more possible renderings for the troublesome second sentence.

My favorite new proposal:

Historical research and DNA tests support the controversial allegation that Jefferson fathered some or all of the six children of his slave, Sally Hemings.

Second best, imo:

Historical research and DNA tests suggest the controversial allegation that Jefferson fathered some or all of the six children of his slave, Sally Hemings, may be true.

Third:

Historical research and DNA tests partially support the controversial allegation that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children.

Fourth:

Historical research and DNA tests partially support the controversial, two-centuries-old allegation that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children. Yopienso (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to insist we mention what you apparently regard as the 'magic' DNA word, then we must be clear:

• Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy regarding whether he fathered his slave Sally Hemings' children, while in recent times DNA tests have linked a number of Jefferson males to one of those children..

I still would prefer that we use my previous shorter version so we should wait to see what others say. It would be nice to hear from editors who don't have a history of preoccupation with this topic and have worked on or at least have given attention to the entire article in some appreciable capacity.-- Gwillhickers 00:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede sentence should be strictly about TJ; your proposal makes it about Sally. Could we modify it thusly?:

Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy over allegations that he fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998 suggest he did.

Or, Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy over allegations that he fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998 tentatively confirm he fathered at least one. Yopienso (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My latest lede statement mentions Jefferson first, then Hemings. Anyways, your second proposal here is the better of the two, but it says "at least one" while in fact there is only one connection, and it's still sketchy in that it again suggests DNA tests have singled out Thomas. Again, if we are going to included details about DNA we have to be clear, or we should just make the basic summary statement as I originally proposed and let the section make the distinctions. -- Gwillhickers 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason I said it made it about Hemings was because it says, "DNA tests have linked a number of Jefferson males to one of those children." This is about Hemings and her children and their possible father.

I too quickly adopted your dropping of the words "historical research." It is the research together with the DNA tests that point to TJ; the DNA fingering a Jefferson and the research tentatively eliminating all but Thomas. Thus:

Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy over allegations that he fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998 and historical research tentatively confirm he fathered at least one. Yopienso (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "tentatively" strikes the right note, when the various forms of evidence point so strongly to a widely held conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Then we'll have to say "suggest" instead of "confirm," because, although in some scholars' minds it's settled, the evidence is not rock-solid. Monticello.org leaves the decision up to the reader. See particularly the last two paragraphs of "DNA Evidence and Response." Yopienso (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the same tact that is so often used, usually by partisan sources: i.e.Mentioning 'DNA' and 'historical research', side by side in the same sentence, to roundly refer to all of Hemings' children. This is not at all clear. Mention of DNA has to be such that the uninformed reader will not get the impression that DNA tests implicate "at least one" child. The lede is only supposed to introduce the topic. I don't want to get into details at all, but if we're going to mention DNA, etc, in the lede then there's no reason why we shouldn't use my above proposal, which is absolutely clear about DNA. It mentions Jefferson first, that he may have fathered Hemings' children (i.e.all of them), the controversy, mentions DNA while making it clear there are other possibilities -- which btw is the basis of the controversy. My proposal tells the readers why there's a controversy by mentioning Jefferson males along with Jefferson himself. If we're going to get into details, esp DNA, then there is no reason why we shouldn't use it.
Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy regarding whether he fathered his slave Sally Hemings' children, while in recent times DNA tests have linked a number of Jefferson males to one of those children..
-- Gwillhickers 18:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no other issues I'll go ahead and include this statement in the lede. I still feel we shouldn't be including any details about DNA tests, but since this version is clear about that I can live with it. I'll wait a bit for any last comments before adding it to the lede. -- Gwillhickers 19:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion with its "a number of Jefferson males" is not acceptable. The combination of DNA, oral histories, and standard historical research have added up to a widely held belief that Jefferson fathered at least one and probably more children by Hemings. Don't try to mislead the reader otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Another concern is that the DNA only links one of several possible candidates to Eston, no all of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree w/ Bink and SS. Think I'll boldly insert my most recent proposal. Yopienso (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink' I've already addressed your misleading comment. Mentioning DNA side by side with 'research to refer to all children with one summary sentence in the lede is not only misleading, it's underhanded. The fact is DNA tests pointed to a number of Jefferson males and have only linked to only one child. How is saying so "misleading"? Lede should be absolutely clear about DNA while the section can address, "most historians", etc. If you can't get over this then we treat the topic the same as any other in the lede and leave the details to the section. Again, the lede is only supposed to introduce the topic, not try to explain it, esp in misleading terms. -- Gwillhickers 21:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yp' having now read your latest edit/version it seems fair enough at this point. At least we're not using DNA to refer to all children, Hemings is only mentioned once and commentary has been removed, while the section makes clear that other Jefferson males have been implicated. -- Gwillhickers 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC) -- Gwillhickers 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on

We have scaled down both the Slaves' and 'Controversy sections, as was widely agreed upon. Unless either of these sections is missing important content it would seem we need to begin with the task of overall article improvement. The editors who have hovered over these sections, almost forcing the involvement of other editors, while ignoring the rest of the biography, need to give it a rest and stop rehashing the same old failed arguments. -- Gwillhickers 19:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Commentary overload

Gordon S. Wood is mentioned by name for commentary 11 times throughout the article, mostly in the Society and government section. Seems this needs to be trimmed down considerably. -- Gwillhickers 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The following is a first cut proposal which preserves all footnotes but cuts two duplications, and otherwise simply cuts the previous text of redundant sentences or reduces a few to subordinate clauses. Only the comparative intellectual history of Jefferson v. Hamilton philosophy is lost. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso's restoration without italics below.

Society and government [2]

Jefferson believed that each man has "certain inalienable rights" and "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."[154] A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty as a protection against tyranny from the majority.[155] Jefferson's political philosophy was a product of his time and his scientific interests. Influenced by Isaac Newton, he considered social systems as analogous to physical systems. In the social world, Jefferson likens love as a force similar to gravity in the physical world. People are naturally attracted to each other through love, but dependence corrupts this attraction and results in political problems. Removing or preventing corrupting dependence by banking or royal influences would enable men to be equal in practice.[156]

In political terms, Americans thought that virtue was the "glue" that held together a republic, whereas patronage, dependency and coercion held together a monarchy. "Virtue" in this sense was public virtue, in particular self-sacrifice. Americans reasoned that liberty and republicanism required a virtuous society, and the society had to be free of dependence and extensive patronage networks, such as banking, government, or military.[156] While Jefferson believed most persons could not escape corrupting dependence, the franchise should be extended only to those who could, including the yeoman farmer. He disliked inter-generational dependence, such as national debt and unalterable governments.[156] Jefferson and Hamilton were diametrically opposed on the issue of individual liberties. While Jefferson believed individual liberty was the fruit of equality and believed government to be the only danger, Hamilton felt that individual liberty must be organized by a central government to assure social, economic and intellectual equality. [157] Whereas Madison became disillusioned with what he saw as excessive democracy in the states, Jefferson believed such excesses were caused by institutional corruptions rather than human nature. He remained less suspicious of working democracy than many of his contemporaries.[156]

As president, Jefferson tried to re-create the balance between the states and federal government as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. He tried to shift the balance of power back to the states, taking this action from his classical republican conception that liberty could only be retained in small, homogeneous societies. He believed that the Federalist system enacted by Washington and Adams had encouraged corrupting patronage and dependence.[156] Many of Jefferson's apparent contradictions can be understood within this philosophical framework. For example, his intent to deny women the franchise was rooted in his belief that a government must be controlled by the economically independent. He opposed women's participation in politics, saying that "our good ladies ... are contented to soothe and calm the minds of their husbands returning ruffled from political debate."[158]

end proposal [2]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TVH! That's well done. Not real sure about eliminating the term "gender equality," but I couldn't come up with better wording at the end than yours. I do think Hamilton should be mentioned as a contrast. Perhaps reinsert, " Jefferson and Hamilton were diametrically opposed on the issue of individual liberties. While Jefferson believed individual liberty was the fruit of equality and believed government to be the only danger, Hamilton felt that individual liberty must be organized by a central government to assure social, economic and intellectual equality." Yopienso (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal [2] above restores Hamilton narrative, the text without italics. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job! Yopienso (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

To address the tag for too much page range in a citation, I got a paperback copy of Wood's "Empire of Liberty" in a 2009 Oxford University Press edition. The referenced page numbers do not correspond with our subject matter referenced to a 2011 edition, but the treatment of Jefferson is consistent with my recollection of other Gordon Wood treatment of Jefferson's thought...I'm searching through the index trying to find the correlated passage??? Can anyone lend a hand with the relevant chapter name? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Seven pages is not that wide a range. There are cases where the entire chapter is sometimes referred to, albeit in rare cases. We could always investigate edit history and find and then ask the contributing editor to see if he/she could narrow the range down a bit. This would seem to be an issue if we were dealing with a GA or FA nomination, but if you can remedy the situation you've got my vote! -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I propose we remove the tag, which is embedded in footnote code instead of showing at the tagged footnote. I am reluctant to modify the code myself lest I bring massive red letter code fail warnings to the article page, which I suppose is the point of the tagger when he embedded the tag in a footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What tag? I have no idea what you're talking about. Yopienso (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag within the footnote. They used to be at each 220-227 page spread, they are gone, GW may have taken care of them. thanks for the follow up. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson and whipping

Aha! I think I just found where the idea that Jefferson had his slaves whipped only on their arms and legs came from. Fawn Brodie, An Intimate History, p. 288: "specifically forbidding his overseers to use the whip 'but in extremities'." That means only in dire cases, not on their arms or legs. I was always doubtful of that claim, which has been removed in this recent round of edits. The quote comes in the middle of a story about a French visitor being dismayed at seeing TJ brandish a small whip when they visited the fields. Brodie believed it was just "a piece of theater," but still found the scene "troubling." Let's be sure not to restore the arms and legs bit unless someone has a source that says so. Yopienso (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For those who can't seem to leave the slavery section alone and are of the mind to reintroduce select details into this section, again, they'll do well to review the general picture regarding treatment of slaves, and of course for perspective and balance, we'll have to reinclude details on how Jefferson provided for them. -- Gwillhickers 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Yopienso. It sounded weird to me, too, and was contradicted by other sources, including J. himself. It sounds like a plausible explanation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : . How is this contradicted by Jefferson himself? Given Jefferson's character there doesn't seem to be anything "weird" about it at all. In any case Webster's dictionary defines Extremity (singular usage here) as 1. The end - limit, outside, utmost point. 2. A remote part of the body: limb, hand, foot; See appendage. Whereas Extreme is defined thusly: 1. In or to the greatest degree; very great or greatest !extreme pain" 2. to an excessive degree; immoderate. 3. far from what is usual or conventional. And remember, whippings according to slave's testimony and other sources, occurred at the hand of overseers and almost always when Jefferson was away so I don't see this rehashed issue as all that important to the Jefferson biography. Also, when you read an account about "whipping" you have to consider the source. Is it a modern source were there things are frequently hyped and distorted through a narrow minded late 20th and 21st century lens by those who have a remote acquaintence with ideas like hardship, struggle, survival, etc? Another view from the classroom? -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if in exstremis, Latin for grave or extreme circumstances --- has a French equivalent which translates into English as "in extremities" vesus the English "on extremities", the arms and legs. If not, the misunderstanding is confounding sound-alike words among three different languages.

In extremis would be for a severe infraction like running away to escape. "On extremities" would be for a light infraction as with a child. Switching on the arms and legs is how children were guided by the Biblical "rod" in the 1700s, slave and free, bringing a red welt without bleeding.

The whole discussion is easily confused because "spare the rod, spoil the child" of ancient Israel refers not to beating with a rod, but to a shepherd nudging to guide a sheep with his staff, and certainly without blows that would permanently alienate the animal in his care, and so render it uncontrollable in a herd. (I a parallel but not exact way, I am opposed to corporate punishment in schools for fear of permanently alienating children who might otherwise by guided by reason.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson, brilliant as he was, also was known for his rather loose orthography, even considering the standards of the time. Maybe he just used standard hacker generalisation to create a useful plural. And I fully expect at least one mistake in this statement.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

TVH, thanks for your excellent insights. Jefferson's is quoted as saying that whippings degraded the slaves in their own eyes so there was a natural inclination to deal with them, as they generally were, in a manner that would not perminently alienate them. Extreme whippings would seem to be a self defeating practice as they would promote runaway slaves also, which were rare. -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yp' is it your intention to start adding details to the slavery section again? If not, what is the point to this thread? -- Gwillhickers 19:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As Stephan readily discerned, I was catching a former error and making sure it is not restored.

The entire quote is, "I forgot to ask the favor of you to speak to Lilly as to the treatment of the nailers. it would destroy their value in my estimation to degrade them in their own eyes by the whip. this therefore must not be resorted to but in extremities. as they will be again under my government, I would chuse they should retain the stimulus of character," and is from this letter in the National Archives. Yopienso (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks like in extremis to me, were I the editor of the papers. Jefferson is against using a whip, preferring the internal governance of character. Back to love as the mainspring of human action, unless corrupted. And as all men are created equally "free and independent", slavery was unnatural; it had to be coerced. And in its coercion, it corrupted both the one held in slavery and master alike, away from love as the mainspring of human action. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You could be correct, but in either case it would seem to boil down to a similar idea, as Jefferson was obviously opposed to the idea as is evident in his letters and writings and in particular the way he dealt with the slave boy caught stealing nails from the nailry, which seems to be among the most insightful of examples. -- Gwillhickers 18:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes opposed to whipping, hence his selling away a runaway rather than flogging, which maims and can put the victim into shock and lead to death. Flogging is absolutely barbaric to modern sensibility, but not something Jefferson countenanced as I recall, however widespread in practice it may have been among his contemporaries. This concern for the individual held in slavery is akin to his interest in establishing a free republic of freed slaves in Africa, the colonization movement, a concern for the life lived out in complete liberty for the individual in Liberia versus being emancipated into the racist regime suffered by freed blacks in 1820s Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson flogged runaways and then sold them. At least he did in one case, that of James Hubbard, according to his own words, reporte in multiple reliable sources. He may have been lenient among his peers, but he was clearly not the saint some here are trying to make him out to be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor lede work

Just restored a statement that was removed July 10, i.e.banning of international slaved trade, considered one of Jefferson's biggest achievements. Also removed citations from the lede, as topics are cited in body of text. This convention is fairly common. -- Gwillhickers 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your attention to these and other minor details, Gwillhickers; they are real improvements. Yopienso (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of collegiality. Now that we are of a mind to approach the page with 'summary' as an overall objective, perhaps this is the time to remind everyone to be careful before they swing their summary axe, esp in regard to landmark topics such as the DOI, LP, Presidency, slavery and the banning of the slave trade. Because this is the Jefferson page, involving a person who wrote the DOI, was a founding farther, first Sec'State, first VP, a two term President, architect, lawyer, Minister to France, slave owner, not to mention someone behind all the political involvements along the way, this article will have more than a tendency to be longer than that of the average president's article. Page length guidelines are just that -- guidelines. There exist numerous exceptions/exemptions some of which involve FA president's articles. While it's good to see the progress made thus far, we should keep this perspective in mind, imo. -- Gwillhickers 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree (little error--TJ was the 2nd VP), and the article's looking good. Section 3.11 needs copyediting. Yopienso (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement suggestions

• Section 3.11 needs attention because .... Yopienso.
• Overall bibliography and citation work. Gwillhickers 20:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

1804 election and second term

Begin proposal. All notes and links are preserved, edited for conciseness. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's popularity suffered in his second term because the problems related to wars in Europe. Relations with Great Britain had always been bad, due partly to the violent personal antipathy between Jefferson and the British Ambassador, Anthony Merry. After Napoleon's decisive victory at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, Napoleon became much more aggressive in his negotiations over trading and neutrality rights, and American efforts failed. Jefferson responded with the Embargo Act of 1807, directed at both France and Great Britain. This triggered economic chaos in the US and strong criticism at the time, resulting in Jefferson's abandoning the policy within a year.[117]

Domestic politics were embroiled in controversy related to international affairs. Jefferson invoked the Alien and Sedition Acts to counter Federalist attacks, particularly those by Alexander Hamilton.[118] In 1807, Jefferson ordered his former vice president Aaron Burr tried for treason. Burr was charged with conspiring to levy war against the United States in an attempt to establish a separate confederacy composed of the Western states and territories, but he was acquitted.[119][120]

Following the Revolution all the states abolished the international slave trade, but South Carolina had reopened it. The Constitution of 1787 had protected the trade for only the first two decades of the nation’s history, so on his annual message of December 1806, Jefferson denounced the "violations of human rights" attending the international slave trade and he called on the newly elected Congress to criminalize it on the first day possible.[121] Congress passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, effective January 1, 1808.[122][123] While the act established severe punishment against the international trade, it did not regulate the domestic slave trade.

End proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's wasn't and still isn't much of an introduction to this section. The section doesn't even mention Jefferson's running mate, Clinton, nor Pinckney whom he ran against. It just starts off with his popularity suffering which should come after basic preliminary information. While several topics are simply mentioned they're not offered with much context. e.g.Jefferson instructed the navy to take an aggressive role against the slave trade. As this is the Jefferson bio, this section should have good coverage and do more than simply mention topics. The section (existing and proposed) almost reads like a list in paragraph form. -- Gwillhickers 09:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, mentioning South Carolina reopening the slave trade, period, seems a bit tangential to a biography. What was Jefferson's response? Also, the introduction might start off with Jefferson won a second term as President because ... Also, the Embargo section, which covers only one topic, is almost twice as large as the section for his second term as President.
Also, since the banning of the slave trade is considered one of Jefferson's biggest achievements perhaps it should get its own section as does the Louisiana Purchase, his other major achievement. As it is, this major topic is barely more than mentioned anywhere in the article.
Summary considerations are one thing, but it seems we're leaving a lot of big holes in the bio' to achieve this. A well written article with good coverage is what's required for GA and FA and is more important than page length considerations imo. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the banning of the slave trade needs a whole section in this summary biography. What sources give it that weight? Here are five popular, internet sources that don't:

• Official White House bio.
• Monticello.org's brief bio.
• Infoplease.com.
• The first 200 of 9235 words from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
• The above don't even mention it; this one does, with caveats: POTUS.com. Here are the data:

1807 Congress outlaws importing slaves from Africa, March 2.

1808 Slave importation outlawed. Yet, another 1/4 million brought in by 1860.

As far as I know, all scholars agree the Louisiana Purchase was his greatest achievement. TJ himself wanted to be remembered for the DOI, religious freedom, and the U. of VA. Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Insert : The first three above sources are little one page articles -- there are many other topics they don't mention as well. Not a good litmus test. John Chester Miller, The wolf by the ears: Thomas Jefferson and slavery (1980) p. 142, claims it was among Jefferson's biggest accomplishments. Junius P. Rodriguez - 2007 claims Most historians agree that Jefferson's two major accomplishments as president were the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the abolition of the slave trade (1808). There are many others that give extensive coverage to this topic. Speaking of misplaced priorities, on the Jefferson page here the Embargo act, which didn't accomplish much, is given a section larger than the one for Jefferson's entire second term. Banning of slave trade is due a section comparable to that of the LP. In terms of its involvement at sea, banning was a turning point for the Navy also. This is hardly a topic that should be treated with just a mention in passing. -- Gwillhickers 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gwillhickers that reelection needs first paragraph treatment. Louisiana Purchase 1803 is in the first term, not the second beginning March 1805. Banning slave trade, first proposed December 1806 after second term mid-term elections, was the way early republicans and federalists believed slavery could end without further government interference in the states such as SC, before the impact of the cotton gin in the Old Southwest (TN, AL, MS). It is not chronological to denigrate an achievement in January 1808 which did not foresee the 1830s cotton South. More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fact check

Existing paragraph reads Due to political attacks against Jefferson, in particular those by Alexander Hamilton and his supporters, he used the Alien and Sedition Acts to counter some of these political adversaries.[119]

It was my understanding that the Alien and Sedition Acts lapsed in Jefferson's first term and were not re-inacted. Meacham says on p. 409, that in Jefferson's second inaugural, he criticized "the artillery of the press" with "licentiousness". But, Meacham says, "The marketplace, however, should decide. Censorship should be in the hands of the people." --

Is the quoted paragraph here in the article in error? Or do I misunderstand "counter"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Page 668 of Chernow, 2004, is not viewable on line, but given the usage (counter) it would appear to mean, resist, respond or retaliate. Page 667 covers this idea well noting Jefferson's response when he pardoned two Republican editors jailed under the Alien and Sedition Acts then later turned around and prosecuted editor Harry Croswell under those same acts for seditious libel. In Anthony Scott's Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton ...', p.68, he points out that both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans flip flopped on their positions regarding the acts when it suited their purposes. Apparently Jefferson was giving the Federalists a taste of their own medicine. -- Gwillhickers 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think somebody misconstrued Chernow, whose book, btw, is about Hamilton, though it has many details of TJ. This is from the top of p. 668:

In the summer of 1802, Croswell said of Callender: "He is precisely qualified to become a tool, to spit the venom and scatter the malicious poisonous slanders . . . " In another article, Croswell said, "Jefferson paid Callendar for calling Washington a traitor, a robber, and a perjurer . . ." These comments tested Jefferson's reverence for press freedom. The concerns he had expressed about libel prosecutions brought by the federal government against Republican editors under the Sedition Act seemed to vanish when state governors so prosecuted Federalist editors. Yopienso (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So there were state laws against libel used against editors in a partisan way, just as Federalists had used the national Sedition Laws to prosecute Republican editors calling office holders names, and so undermining the authority of government by libel. -

• At Alien and Sedition Acts intro it says, "The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively." -- the passage here should read Jefferson's Republican governors used 'state libel laws', not Jefferson used 'Alien and Sedition Laws', yes? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there were state alien and sedition laws, but I really don't know. I think it's best to delete the material unless it can be clearly supported. Yopienso (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, state libel laws are not national sedition laws, but libel laws were used for partisan effect by Jeffersonian Republican governors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Democracy

Hi All

I am new to this talk page, so please excuse me if I am rehashing old discussions.

The page on TJ says that he was a big supporter of democracy. This should read 'democratic replublicanism.' The founders were opposed to majority rules which is why they passed the bill of rights.

DRGetchell (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This is a tricky point, since the meaning and connotation of the word "democracy" has changed over the past two and half centuries. I've added a link to our article about democracy, which define it thusly: "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws." I think we can all agree that's the form of government TJ promoted. He was clearly against mob rule.

Also, I've reformatted this into a new section. You may wish to go through the tutorial before editing further. Yopienso (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there DRG', thanks for your comments and Welcome to Wikipedia! We would be interested in any further ideas you can offer regarding this topic. -- Gwillhickers 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide sources. Your position appears to be popular with some people, but you need to establish it is accepted in mainstream sources, e.g., scholarly works about Jefferson. TFD (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Second term - Meacham

The following summary is from the Meacham chapters on Jefferson's second term. It includes treating Spain, Quids, Burr, USS Chesapeake war fever, Embargo to election of Madison. Not sure how to shuffle existing separate sections on Burr and Embargo...

Year sub-sections are administratively provided only for ease in making editing comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1805

In 1805 tensions with Spain held center stage, revolving around the exact boundaries of the Louisiana Territory, negotiations over the Floridas, and outstanding financial claims. A mission of James Monroe to Spain failed, and Spain allied with France led some in the administration to speculate over action against Spanish outposts explored by Zebulon Pike, or even an alliance with England. Jefferson sought to maintain neutrality, strengthening harbor defenses, building coastal gun boats and preparing militias for possible deployment at key points such as New Orleans.<ref>Meacham, Jon. “Thomas Jefferson: the art of power” 2012 Random House ISBN 978-1-4000-6766-4, p.412-413</ref>

1806

The domestic political split in Jefferson’s own party came from fellow Virginian John Randolph of Roanoke in March 1806. Jefferson and Madison backed resolutions to limit or ban British imports in retaliation for British depredations against American shipping. Jefferson’s Secretary of Treasury proposed spending $20 million in roads and canals in infrastructure, leading to the National Road west from Maryland. Randolph held that Jefferson had gone too far in a Federalist direction, building a congressional caucus of “Quids”, Latin tertium quid, “a third something”, calling for a purity in republican principles and roundly denouncing both Jefferson and Madison.<ref>Meacham, Jon. “Thomas Jefferson: the art of power” 2012 Random House ISBN 978-1-4000-6766-4, p.415-417</ref>

1807

After Aaron Burr was disgraced in the duel of 1804, he was reported by the British Ambassador as wanting to “effect a separation of the western part of the United States [from the Appalachian Mountains]”. Jefferson believed that to be so by November 1806 because Burr had been rumored to be variously plotting with some western states to secede for an independent empire, or to raise a filibuster conquer Mexico. At the very least, there were reports of Burr’s recruiting men, stocking arms and building boats. New Orleans seemed especially vulnerable, but at some point the American general there, James Wilkinson, a double agent for the Spanish, decided to turn on Burr. Jefferson issued a proclamation warning that there were U.S. citizens illegally plotting to take over Spanish holdings. Though Burr was nationally discredited, Jefferson feared for the very Union. In a report to Congress January 1807, Jefferson declared Burr’s guilt “placed beyond question”. By March 1807 Burr was arrested in New Orleans and placed on trial for treason at Richmond Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall presiding. The weak government case led to Burr’s acquittal, but Burr was never able to mount another adventure.<ref>Meacham, Jon. “Thomas Jefferson: the art of power” 2012 Random House ISBN 978-1-4000-6766-4, p.405, 419-422.</ref>

Jefferson tried to prepare for war following the HMS Leopard attack on the USS Chesapeake off the Virginia coast. He issued a proclamation banning armed British ships from entering U.S. waters. He called on the governors of the states to have quotas for a total of 100,000 militia, and he ordered purchase of arms, ammunition and supplies. The orders went out unilaterally, without prior Congressional approval. Said the former Virginia governor who had fled Tarlton without calling out Virginia militia, “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation [than strict observance of written laws]. The USS Revenge sent to receive an answer from the British government was itself fired upon, including its passenger, Vice President George Clinton. July 31 1807 Jefferson called for a special session of Congress in October.<ref>Meacham, Jon. “Thomas Jefferson: the art of power” 2012 Random House ISBN 978-1-4000-6766-4, p.425-429</ref>

1808

In December news arrived of Napoleon extending the Berlin Decree banning British imports everywhere, including the U.S. George III ordered redoubling efforts at impressment. But war fever of the summer had faded, Congress was in not in a mood to prepare the U.S. for war. Jefferson asked for and received the Embargo Act, the least bad option to war or doing nothing, but gaining time for defensive works, and building up militias and naval forces. Legislation passed December 1807, a projection of power and enforcement which historian Jon Meacham called surpassing even the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. But domestic economic consequences and widespread negative reaction caused an end to the embargo in time for Jefferson's Secretary of State James Madison to win the 1808 presidential election.<ref>Meacham, Jon. “Thomas Jefferson: the art of power” 2012 Random House ISBN 978-1-4000-6766-4, p.429-431</ref>

end Meacham sourcing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Burr-Hamilton Duel

The significance of the Burr-Hamilton Duel to Jefferson's biography is that it allowed Burr's replacement on the 1804 ticket. That is now treated in the first paragraph of the 1804 election and second term. Burr's dueling is now linked to the Burr-Hamilton duel article, so the section in all its detail has become redundant.

Propose deleting Burr-Hamilton Duel subsection altogether. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Have split feelings on this one. The duel involved TJ's vice president and this famous event is sort of a chronological landmark in Jefferson's political career. On that note a subsection seems to be in order and it's short enough, but there should be more said about Jefferson here. e.g.mention of why Jefferson dropped Burr as a running mate just before the duel. After the duel and Burr's subsequent flight from New York (to Georgia) Jefferson did not advance Burr any political or personal support when he finally returned to New York. Your call. If you elect to remove the sub section make sure these things are well covered and placed in an appropriate (sub) section. Jefferson's letter should still be mentioned. Btw, dueling was a common practice at this time so I removed "ancient code" from the sub section, as referring to it as such makes it seem like it was some sort of moral policy that was resurrected and seldomly used. -- Gwillhickers 18:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Giving this one some thought. The existing detail could come under a section on Burr, Burr - duel and treason. That section could account for the Burr duel and then his subsequent movements until trial in a summary fashion adding my draft paragraph on Burr conspiracy with a link to the trial article above. Burr is certainly a significant figure of the age, and he influences events across first and second term. So I would expand the Burr section as a topical one on Burr, the last in the first administration as a transition to the second administration section chronological treatment. Then we could drop the Burr trial paragraph in the second administration section, maybe, since it would be covered at 'Burr'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Humane treatment of slaves a fact or evaluation?

Whether or not Jefferson treated his slaves humanely is not a fact but an evaluation, that is relative to a lot of other things, such as other slave owners treatment, and ones general views of slavery. To say as a fact that he treated his slaves humanely is not possible even when many sources suggest that was the case. We can state that eyewitnesses stated that he did so and that historians have agreed. But that still does not make it a fact. We can also give specific examples of how his treatment compared to other slaveowners treatment of their slaves. But saying that it was human always will be someone's evaluation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. The same can be said for many statements in the article including "most historians", "contradiction", "paradox", "complex man", etc . If we applied this methodology throughout the article it would be a "reported" mess. We report the way the RS's report. -- Gwillhickers 19:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No we dont. When RS give their opinions we attribute that in text. If three sources say that "Jefferson was a good man" then we dont say that he was a good man we say that he has been described as such, and by whom. Likewise if a source says that he was the "Greatest president". The problem here is that it relies on an assumption that it is possible to treat slaves humanely. That is to me, and I would guess a large amount of the worlds population a contradiction in terms. That means that the claim that he treated his slaves humanely is necessarily relative to either other slaveowners of his day, or to the norms of someone who thinks that it is possible to be a human slaveowner. Either way this problem needs to be addressed by in-text attribution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes we do, and have been. Throughout history slaves, POW's, inmates, etc, have been treated humanely. Apparently you find this amazing. There are simply too many "evaluations" to be saying source 'A' says this, and source 'B' says that -- esp when multiple sources say the same basic thing. Btw, you advanced your own POV by saying treating slaves humanely is a "contradiction in terms". Soldiers were marched off to war -- yet they were treated humanely by their commanding officers. By your way of thinking, since they were in a war, they could never be treated humanly. There is a statement that says "most historians" have concluded that Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children. This is an evaluation also. Should we say here that Source 'C' is of the opinion that...? Other statement mentions "contradictions", "complex man", etc. Why did you single out just the one statement? -- Gwillhickers 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is my POV that it is a contradiction in term, one which I know is shared by many. In my opinion there is no humane way that a person can own another person, and exercise ownership of their body. But just as this is my opinion, it is someone elses opinion that it is not a contradiction in term and that one can be a human slaveowner, and I recognize the existence of that opinion. But I reject the notion that this opinion can be presented as fact in an encyclopedia, regardless of how many sources say so. Your comparison with soldiers is irrelevant. The fact that many sources say that he treated his slaves humanely do not make it any less an evaluation, and in any case it requires a point of reference to what is or isn't human which is any all and any cases a question. I will establish an RfC on this issue if you insist that Jefferson's alleged human treatment be described as fact rather than attributed to the sources where it is so described.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are other bad phrasings in the article where an evaluation could do with a better attribution, but I noted this one because it is glaring as it amounts to a tacit acceptance of the legitimacy of the institution of slavery itself. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV, however there are many who also do not share this POV and see matters as more than a 2 dimensional advent. Again, unless you're prepared to treat all "evaluations" in this article in the same way, we present the content the way the RS's present it. I think at this point you need to be citing policy violations if you want to continue advancing your POV. -- Gwillhickers 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are being borderline uncivil in suggesting that I am advancing my Pov by demanding attribution to an evaluation. In-text attribution of potentially controversial statements is standard policy. I am filing an RfC below so that we can let consensus decide the wording. Your claim that all evaluations in the article must be treated the same is absurd.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You admitted your pov and the only thing absurd here is the double standard you are advancing. -- Gwillhickers 20:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded?

This RfC asks whether the article should state in wikipedia's voice that "Jefferson treated his slaves humanely" or whether this claim should be attributed in-text to the sources that make this evaluation. Please choose among the following suggested wordings, or append your own suggested wording to the list.

Suggested wordings are [additional wordings]:

A.[original wording] "Regardless of his views towards race, Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, not allowing them to be overworked"

B. "Regardless of his views towards race, according to contemporary sources Jefferson treated his slaves humanely relative to other slaveowners, for example not allowing them to be overworked."

C. "Regardless of his views towards race, according to contemporary sources Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, not allowing them to be overworked."

D. "Regardless of his views towards race, historians have generally described Jefferson as a humane slaveowner who did not allow his slaves to be overworked or excessively punished."

Survey

1. B, C or D. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Although I find Maunus's POV unacceptable for editing this article, I believe sentence D is an improvement over the current sentence. Maunus, I caution you not to try to insert your personal value judgments as to the possibility that there could be such a thing as "humane slavery." Gwillhickers makes cogent comments in that regard; WP simply cannot digress into philosophical arguments about the institution of slavery in an article such as this one. Yopienso (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
3. B or C based on a quick read of a couple sources. Came here via RfC, so uninvolved. I will limit myself to the RfC (not the length of the section generally or other statements which may need attribution). I don't find the slippery slope claim (if we attribute this sentence, we'll have to attribute lots of others) convincing as a reason to avoid fixing a poor claim. The statement that people held in a violent system of exploitation (held as property) were treated "humanely" requires specific attribution. Other claims may not be such exceptional claims and thus not require attribution. I hope this small fix can be made so that you all can constructively place the claim in a better context. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
4. B or C, but without the "contemporary" bit. Let's just state a summary of what the literature gives us. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
5. B. Despite Yopienso's comments, I find it worrisome to even implicitly suggest that slave ownership could be humane in an objective sense. The clarification that he was humane in comparison to other slave owners is important, specific, and doesn't seem objectionable on its face except to possible objections of wordiness. 24.124.99.189 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please do not single out one statement. Your request should pertain to all evaluations, including those about "most historians" and Hemings. [Add: edit conflict :] If you want to present the idea of humane treatment as opinion then the section should also include facts about all the things Jefferson provided for slaves so the readers can be clear about treatment. It is a fact Jefferson provided slaves with a 12' x 20' log cabin with a fire place and sleeping loft. Gave them Sunday's, Christmas and Easter off. Living as farmers many slaves had much free time during the winter months. They were worked no more than free farmers worked and were allowed to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were well clothed and were given cooking ware, wool and other items to further provide for themselves, etc. -- Gwillhickers 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No it should not. I am concerned with this particular statement. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be about issues, not just what you personally are concerned about. Most of the article has gotten to this stage not because of what one editor wants. You can't snipe at one item, with an admitted pov, and then say it doesn't pertain to the other items. If we treat the one statement as you wish, then all statements should be treated so. -- Gwillhickers 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not how writing is accomplished. Statements are different, their implications and their significance are different and are treated once at a time. We do nt make blanket decisions about sourcing in wikipedia. The difference between you and I is not that I have a POV, but that I am open about mine. But since I am not trying to insert my POV into the article or give it undue importance I would prefer if you would stop trying to discredit my argument by referring to it as motivated by my point of view. Please comment on the content not the contributer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV, the difference is, we go by what the sources say and treat the similar given statements in the same manner. No double standard. If you are going to propose an editing standard it should apply to the entire article -- not just for one particular statement you'd like to see changed. That is indeed pushing a POV. -- Gwillhickers 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That is complete and utter nonsense. Statements and sourcing are discussed one statement at a time. And now if you will be so kind as to shut up with your allegations before I shall be forced to report you somewhere for incivility.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're 'asking' me to "shut up" while complaining about incivility?? The existing statement was well sourced, so this is not about sourcing. My "allegations" only make reference to your admitted pov. That is hardly uncivil. While you are free to discuss one statement at a time, you can't turn around and say the same editing policy can't be applied to other statements of evaluation. -- Gwillhickers 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OF course the editing policy can be applied to other statements, but I am under no obligations to make sure that it is. And yes I had asked you several times very politiely to refrain from making personal comments, and you continued, so now I stepped up the wording to see if you caught the message.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Yopienso, I would encourage you to stop commenting on the contributor and comment instead on the content. Regardles of my POV I have every right to edit any article that I please. I find you your patronizing comment offensive in the extreme and would request you to refactor it. Also if you will note my actual arguments I have not at any point suggested that the article digress into argument about slavery. What I do suggest is that it does not take one controversial POV and present it in wikipedias voice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see some sources have been listed but for the sake of clarity, can someone please provide details for reliable sources that would be cited to support each of the 4 proposed statements, particularly the part of option A that says "Jefferson treated his slaves humanely", using the word "humanely" as an absolute rather than a relative term and without attribution ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I could not access all the three sources used to support the statement currently, only the one in Bear 1967. Here the statement is sourced to a primary source, the testimony of one of Jeffersons overseers who does say flatly that his treatment was "kind and indulgent"[3] (i.e. not using the word humane). There are other primary sources stating it in those terms, but all the scholarly secondary sources that I had a chance to consult stated it in relative terms.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you not see Peterson, 1986 p.535 (actually page 534) via google books e.g. [4] ? Does it redirect you to the page with the 'Search inside' option ? If so, search for "he would not allow his slaves to be over-driven, or whipped unless at the last resort" to see if that brings the page up. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I do get a result for that. I dont think that actually supports the statement, since it describes his generally lenient attitude but does not claim that it was humane.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Like you, I can't see the Halliday, 2009, p.236 source, so it would help if someone could quote the content on that page used to provide WP:V compliance for the statement. As a general comment, I don't think option A is a viable option unless sources can be found that explicitly support its use in that form. Even if option A gains consensus in the RfC, it will not be a valid WP:CONSENSUS without the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, when I included A as an option I was assuming in good faith that the statement was supported by the sources given. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Halliday 2009: Amazon's Look Inside feature allows you to see page 236 (search term: "sexual"). The page is about his relationship with Sally Hemings and is generally not on the topic of his treatment of slaves in general. There is no verification of page #236. However, page 145 (visible with search term: "humane") says this: "There were, however, relatively benign ways to exercise the owner's property rights over his human possessions. In general, Jefferson tried to keep slave families together, and occasionally would make sales or purchases with that as the primary object rather than any material advantage to Monticello. He did, however, encourage his slaves to find mates there rather than on other plantations, so that their interests and his would be in accord.... Despite his humane inclinations, Jefferson was painfully aware after his return from France in 1789 that Monticello was sliding steadily into debt, and economic considerations could not be ignored in dealing with his slaves." The Halliday source seems ill-used to justify that Jefferson treated his slaves "humanely." Hope that helps. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of getting the full context: here is the finish to the Holliday quote onto page 146: "From a modern point of view, he was especially harsh with regard to teenaged children: he viewed them as capable of productive work by that age, and often gave them assignments that separated them from their parents. And in the end, all of his "good" master's solicitude for the welfare of his slave "family" (as he called it) was virtually cancelled by the ineluctable workings of the slave system itself." AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Halliday seems to be a conscientious scholar, in that he explicitly identifies when he is going anachronistic, "from a modern point of view", but his judgement as a writer seems suspect. It was for Halliday untoward for teenagers 13-19 to be worked in gangs apart from their parents and return home together at the end of the day? Slaves did not work unsupervised in gangs, only as artisans (see Harris below). But in the modern era parents ship their children off to school apart from them while they are at work, then return home together at the end of the day without untoward consequences to family life. --- Nevertheless in the time, free teen aged whites and blacks as well as slaves went to work apart from their parents. David Crockett of Frederick, Virginia drove a small herd of cattle to market in Alexandria during his early teens, alone. Even in the modern era, 18-year olds enlist in the Marines apart from their parents, and leave home. Europeans track trade students apart from academic at age 13, boosting their Algebra scores in comparison to U.S. scores whereas some states require Algebra of all students for a standard diploma, and all students are encouraged to try for it. Thirteen is an age of apprenticeship apart from parents for most of history for most populations, slave and free. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The question was "Do the sources provided support the assertion that Jefferson treated slaves humanely?" The Halliday quote was not provided to prove anything, but merely to test verification of the claim. In this instance, that verification failed. No need to think about Crockett's amazing cattle driving skills, that's not the issue here. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Some sources

Cogliano, summarizing the view of Ellis, "Finally, Jefferson embraced the role of patriarchal plantation master who devoted paternal care to his 'family' of slaves through (relatively) benign treatment." (Cogliano, 2008, Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy p.219).

"Compared to his neighbors in Virginia, Jefferson seems to have treated his own slaves relatively well, at least that is what some of his former slaves remembered in their old age. There is no evidence that he ever personally whipped a slave, nor did he separate husbands from wives or mothers from small children, and at times he bought and sold slaves in order to unite families. Some of his highly skilled slaves, such as Joseph Fosset, his blacksmith, worked virtually on their own, without supervision. But he did expect his slave to work for him, he did hunt down runaways, and he did separate teenagers from their families, and he did sell slaves "for delinquency" or to help pay his debts." (J. William Harris, 2008, The Making of the American South: A Short History, 1500-1877, p. 62)

Note how these reliable sources do not make the statement without noting that it is a relative statement and attributing it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Cogliano uses the words "(relatively) benign treatment" which means comparatively humane treatment. And most would agree with Harris, seeing uniting families as humane for the individual under the slavery regime versus general practice at the time separating families. We are agreed at the 'relative' evaluation of Jefferson's treatment of slaves.

Does the article not reflect that? The encyclopedic style does not generally admit to a long list of scholarly attribution for each point, but simply summarizes the point with authority, in WPs case, by use of inline footnotes. The number of footnotes is generally limited to two to avoid visual clutter, so footnotes sometimes contain more than one reference to the same conclusion, such as 'relatively humane treatment', just like in the old days where authors would give a sort of bibliographic essay at the bottom of a page using multiple sources. In the WP case the information is available immediately at the place at the click of a note number. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But it did not originally when I changed the sentence that we are now discussing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey was a ruse?

What was the point of the survey if you just went ahead and edit as you pleased before more editors could comment? You are going against what most of us agreed on in terms of summarizing the section with your selective inclusion of content. Now that you've expanded on slave treatment we have to start including other facts for balance and perspective. We also have to adjust the other statements of evaluation in the same manner as you have. -- Gwillhickers 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I had already edited as I pleased before creating the RfC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus. Because men are created free and equal in human rights, slavery is an unnaturally coercive regime. You have astutely observed that any assessment of “humane treatment” inside that unnatural state can be assessed legitimately only in a comparative way. That this was so for Jefferson is well documented. Avoiding any justification for the institution of slavery itself, it would be enough to simply say in a qualified way, "Jefferson was relatively humane in the treatment of his slaves. [note]”, would it not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is in fact all that I am asking. Though I would prefer attribution (e.g. we have testimonies from former slaves and overseers calling his treatment mild or lenient), and a statement of "relative to what" (i.e. other slaveowners in his own society).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Return the section to a summary

Thanks to our new friend, the section has bloated out while expanding on only one topic -- flogging. I don't want to get into an edit war and of course don't want to violate the 3RR, but if anyone wants to return the section to a summary form where all statements of evaluation are treated the same they have my support. The latest round of edits were done before other editors (with the exception of one) had a chance to comment. I've added other comments for balance but can see this is just going to make the section bigger all over again and will involve the same debates most of us here have been through and are quite tired of. We need to start over and discuss this one step at a time. I'm hoping Maunus will be good enough to initiate the matter. -- Gwillhickers 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The section is not excessively long given the overall weight given to the topic of slavery in the literature on Jefferson. It can be shortened, perhaps, but only if it is done in a way that is consistent with the literature in showing both the flatering and less flattering aspects of his relation to slavery as an institution and to his own slaves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've copyedited the section. Yopienso (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please editors: you make it harder for uninvolved editors trying to figure out the issues when you say that a 1,400 byte reversion of content is "copy-editing." That is not copy-editing, it is deleting content and this should be made clear in the edit summary. Your help on this issue would be much appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is misleading to call that copyedit. But on the other hand I have no problem with Yopienso's version of the section, which seems reasonably fair. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso's version is satisfactory. My one quibble is that we do not need to say "historians have generally described Jefferson"; instead, we can simply give the summary in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect, because all the histories that I had the chance to look over yesterday describe Jefferson's treatment as humane only in relative terms, i.e. that he strived to be mild and avoid harsh punishment, that he was lenient compared to other slaveowners, etc. none of them state flatly that his treatment of his slaves was humane, or mild.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that Yopienso's edit is fair, at best, but the section now is sort of fuzzy in terms of how Jefferson treated slaves. Also agree with Binksternet. Wikipedia's voice -- indeed. Are we going to say "historians claim" or "historians have described..." for every such statement of evaluation? The general and overall treatment of slaves far overshadowed the occasional punishment that was meted out in extreme cases, as Jefferson provided for his slaves in a manner that was indeed humane. (i.e.human) and he was and is noted for it -- not only by historians at large but by his slaves and contemporaries. Jefferson provided slaves with log cabins with a fireplace and sleeping loft, gave 'married' couples (not married in the legal sense) their own cabins, gave his slaves Sundays, Christmas and Easter off, did not over work them, provided them with good food and clothing, allowed them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens, gave them cooking ware, blankets, wool for making their own clothing items, etc, trained many of them in highly skilled jobs and some times paid them extra for their work. Again, we have to look at the picture through the lens of the time period in question where even the fate of freemen was often worse than those under slavery. 'Freedom' is sort of moot when you are struggling to survive. On the surface, esp looking at this through a modern day lens, this reality is obviously difficult for some people to grasp. Several historians refer to Jefferson and others like him as an Abolitionist slave owner in so many words: 1, 2, 3. -- Gwillhickers 21:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedic style does not admit to a list of scholarly attribution for each point, but summarizes the point with authority, in WPs case, by use of inline footnotes. The number of footnotes is limited to two to avoid visual clutter, so footnotes sometimes contain more than one reference to the same fact or conclusion.

In the case of 'relatively humane treatment', the footnote can contain several citations, just like in the old days where authors would give a sort of bibliographic essay at the bottom of a page using multiple sources -- well Gordon Wood, for instance. In the WP case the multiple source information is available immediately at the place at the click of a note number. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is esp so in the case of controversial statements or statements that naive readers or ones with less than average intelligence find hard to grasp. I imagine 200 years from now some people will be absolutely dumb founded that people who drove cars in the 20th and 21st centuries were against air pollution and highway infrastructures that have mangled the landscape. As I said, if multiple reliable sources report something as fact we should do the same and not cherry pick which statements we are going to render as "reported" or "described". -- Gwillhickers 17:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Visual clutter for multiple citations is easily avoided by combining them into a single reference e.g. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good advice but the issue is and has been how various statements of fact are written per multiple sources. -- Gwillhickers 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Jefferson treated his slaves "humanely" as an unattributed statement of fact without any qualifiers so that it can be provided as a potential source for option A in the RfC ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Treatment
• My first wish is that the labourers may be well treated, he wrote to his overseer Manoah Clarkson in 1792.
• Other sources covering humane treatment

If there is a consensus not to use the word "humane" then we can always outline how well slaves were treated and provided for and let the readers decide. -- Gwillhickers 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a much better and more informative way to deal with it, more encyclopedic, providing facts about how he treated his slaves and contrasting it with other slave owners rather than using a word like "humanely" that could leave readers wondering about what that entailed or means exactly. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources seem to use 'benign'. Now some assert that is a synonym for 'humane', but that is a stretch at best. Those sources above (monticello.org) all use Jefferson's own words to provide the assertion of 'humaneness'. It would be fine to attribute the claim to him. The reasonable compromise seems to be that 'humane' needs direct in-text attribution, other terms (benign, lenient) would not. Whether a note or in-text explanation of the ways he treated his slaves (note: Not "how well slaves were treated"--which begs the question) is another issue that need not necessarily weigh on the first. Added: I agree with Sean.hoyland that such an addition would be a great use to the reader. It still wouldn't seem to answer the RfC directly, however. That's my only point--I am not opposed to a footnote with good information added in a due manner. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Embargo

Section edit proposal for conciseness, all notes preserved, but that for an extended quote not in encyclopedic style (at note [134]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A political cartoon showing merchants dodging the "Ograbme", which is 'Embargo' spelled backwards, 1807.

To avoid national humiliation on the one hand, and war on the other, Jefferson encouraged passage of the Embargo Act of 1807 to maintain American neutrality in the Napoleonic Wars under France’s Continental System. In the event, he got both war and national humiliation; the economy of the entire Northeast suffered severely, Jefferson was vehemently denounced, and his party lost support. Instead of retreating, Jefferson sent federal agents to secretly track down smugglers and violators.[130][131] Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin had been against the embargo, foreseeing correctly the impossibility of enforcing the policy and the negative public reaction.[133] The embargo was a financial disaster because the Americans could not export, while widespread disregard of the law meant federal enforcement was difficult. For the most part, it effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. [132]

Shortly before leaving office in March 1809, Jefferson signed the repeal of the disastrous Embargo. In its place the Non-Intercourse Act was enacted, but it proved no more effective than the Embargo. The government found it was impossible to prevent American vessels from trading with the European belligerents once they had left American ports. Jefferson believed the problem was the traders and merchants, who showed a lack of self-sacrificing "republican virtue" by not complying with it. [135] He later maintained that, had the embargo been widely observed it would have avoided war in 1812.[136][137]

Historians have generally criticized Jefferson for his embargo policy. Doron Ben Atar argued that Jefferson's commercial and foreign policies were misguided, ineffective and harmful to American interests.[138] Kaplan maintained that the War of 1812 was the logical extension of his embargo and that, by entering the Napoleonic Wars on anti-British side, the United States gave up the advantages of neutrality.[139]

End text edit proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sample references