Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about Thomas Jefferson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

As was said, the article can read : historians, slaves and overseers have noted...slaves were not over worked and were treated well. Whippings by overseers will be mentioned only in the context that Jefferson told them to use it as a last resort in exceptional cases. I'm speculating, given Jefferson's instructions to Edmund Bacon, Jefferson's long time business manager and overseer, that any whippings mostly occurred while Jefferson was away, but until a source can peg that idea we can't say this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Other considerations regarding slave's lives at Monticello...:

• A former Monticello slave, Peter Fossett recalled that “slaves were seldom punished, except for stealing and fighting.” Most recorded incidents of brutality came from overseers and stewards.
• While slave marriages were illegal in Virginia, enduring unions were the norm at Monticello. To protect their families, couples asked Jefferson for “a house by themselves” when they had children. In 1818, an enslaved woman petitioned for a home for her own family, and Jefferson instructed his overseer that “Maria now having a child, I promised her a house to be built this winter.”

It's unfortunate that this perspective has been largely ignored by much of the 'modern' scholarship. This can happen when peer-pressure sets the tone and when academics blindly follow along with a couple of highly visible professors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that Mulberry Row was a 'demonstration project', Jefferson's guests were known to have visited the cabin lane to barter items grown and crafted by the residents, who were articulate, courteous tradesmen in their own right. This corroborated Jefferson's belief that slavery debased men, and that the remediation was education and improved conditions, evidenced on Mulberry Row. Sort of like the contemporary experiment by Robert Owen at New Harmony, Indiana in 1815. As I have mentioned before, Jefferson was a student of the Scottish Enlightenment all his life. Surely scholars have explored this connection, and we can reflect their work here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As you may have gathered I am in no particular hurry to rewrite the paragraph on Jefferson's involvement with slave's lives, but it should be written. Still working on ideas for a draft. Jefferson was involved in many capacities with his extended family and community, or his slaves if you prefer. These people were indeed slaves but obviously they were much more than that and it would seem Jefferson was painfully aware of this. Also, some of the "ugly" language/sniping in the 'Slavery section needs to be fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cm' I'm very disappointed with your last major edit. Inside the space of a few sentences Ambrose is used four times as a ref, so all the talk about 100's of historians and round sourcing with you was apparently a waste of time. You also went ahead and put Jefferson on horseback brandishing a whip which more than implies that Jefferson did the whipping while presenting him as someone who used the whip as the rule -- regardless of the discussion we had regarding Jefferson's policy to the contrary, freak exceptions and isolated details OUT OF CONTEXT, so there again, talking with you proves to be a waste of time. The whip brandishing on horseback was referred to by Volney, an associate of Layfette. You need to read the entire account Brodie is referring to, acknowledging that slaves knew Jefferson was acting so in front of his distinguished guests. Brodie on p.288 writes that Volney likened the scene to ..monkeys and dogs dancing to the baton of a master ... and that the slaves recognized it as such. In other words Jefferson was acting completely out of character, and his slaves knew it. Also, the French refugee who followed Volney to Monticello in 1796 noted His negros are nourished, clothed and treated as well as white servants... ...Jefferson animates them by rewards and distinctions ... You ignored these items, there on the same page. Your 'Jefferson on horseback' edit is a skewed and deceitful piece of writing and needs to be removed and flies in the face of all the sources that note Jefferson's policy and treatment of slaves. Overall, all you have done is snipe at things like Orangutans, whippings among other things and now this, ignoring all the other qualifying facts that exist on that page. You have also ignored fair questions regarding the "ugly" reference you added earlier, another stunted statement stuck in the text, chronologically out of order, in your obvious attempt to close the section on a sour note, another one of your isolated details with no qualifying effort whatsoever made on your part. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I appreciate you concern for Thomas Jefferson, however, there is no need to bark orders at me like you own this article like I was your lap dog. I made that edit because no one else made the edit. No one was moving on this issue so I took the initiative. The article lists the items given to the slaves. I put in things that Jefferson did to let the reader make up their minds. Brodie found Jefferson shaking the whip at the slaves troubling. I mentioned this before. You can add that Jefferson fed his slaves. There was nothing deceptive concerning the edit on the whip. Brodie added the commentary on jesting, how would she know Jefferson was jesting? His slaves certainly took this seriously as they began to work harder. I see now, you let me do the editing and then stand on the sidelines without making any edits of your own. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the (your) edit in question:

To increase productivity on his plantations Jefferson shaked a
small whip, a fouet, at his slaves while inspecting his fields.

Jefferson did not ride around using a whip to increase productivity. The edit, by itself, with no context was completely deceitful and could easily give the reader the impression that this was something Jefferson routinely practiced -- because YOU claimed this is how he increased productivity. Brodie did not say this and scores of other RS's again have noted Jefferson's anti-whipping policy, that whippings were rare and used in exceptional cases and only on "extremities" (as Brodie also mentions) -- not as a routine policy as you have attempted to depict. Again, this was all a show in front of distinguished guests, even Volney recognized it as such noting slaves would just "...slip back into lassitude as soon as his back was turned." while on the same page his friend noted how Jefferson animated them with rewards and distinctions. And I have not given you any orders, so again, please don't revert back to your horn-blowing routine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What you need is a RS that says slaves were whipped to increase productivity and also whipped when they didn't meet productivity quotas. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not say Jefferson whipped his slaves to increase productivity. Brodie stated that Jefferson slaves worked harder when he shaked his Foulet whip. That is increasing productivity. I was not deceitful. I do not object to you taking that part out of the article. If you want an apology I will give you one. I apologize for any edit that created any misunderstandings. The edit was inaccurate, but not deceitful. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I will also add that the edit was done carelessly. Discussion was needed. I believe the edits were good up until that last sentence on Jefferson and the Foulet. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I will also add that the edit was done carelessly. Discussion was needed. I believe the edits were good up until that last sentence on Jefferson and the Foulet. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology? What I would like better is for you to take two giant steps back and look at the greater picture, for a change. That by itself would avert much of what goes round and round in these discussions. The way Jefferson interacted and treated his slaves could fill a volume, but for some reason squeezing out a few sentences to this effect here on the page has proved to be a trial, even with RS's as backing. You made comments about me sitting on the sidelines letting others do the editing. Just think of the alternative approach. Seems to me thanks are in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the Foulet edit out, Gwillhickers. Thanks. However, to state that the edit was devious is not true and unfair. One source states that slavery operated under the terror and violence of the whip. I don't believe Wikipedia needs to Romantisize slavery. The current version of the Slaves and Slavery section does not. I did feel no one was taking any interest in the subject of whipping slaves, so I put in the edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• File size: 511 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 113 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 19 kB
• Wiki text: 154 kB
• Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12322 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1261 B

The slaves and slavery section is 778 words which is about 100 higher than the last check. Brad (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am about to make a few additions to the slavery section. As the word count for this section is high I will make efforts to keep things brief, but as I've always maintained, this area of Jefferson's biography affords the reader some of the best insights into Jefferson the man, the thinker, so I am hoping some allowances will be made for this topic.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As anyone following edit history can see Cm' has initiated an edit war by making sweeping deletions, removing well sourced content, not opinion, all of which has been established and backed by numerous RS's and testimony from slaves, overseers and others. He has not even cited one example but has instead made general and vague claims about 'neutrality'. Now he has accused me of making "threats" and seems to have abandoned all rational discussion as he continues to not address specific items and is ignoring fair questions: I suspect he is going to make a 4th revert at any time if he hasn't done so already, which will violate the 3RR, taking the matter to the next level. That's just great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is really the pot calling the kettle black! But I'm chiming in to say I think I'm the one who added, or maybe who cited, the "ugly" statement that you, I presume, have deleted. Lemire says it on pp. 28, 81, and 131, once ascribing the opinion to TJ and twice to whites of the day in general. (I'm not necessarily suggesting the sentence be restored.) Yopienso (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It was not a Jefferson quote, was out of context and poorly placed in the section. My apologies to Cm' if indeed he did not make this edit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It came from a secondary source, not primary. Thomas F. Gossett quite boldly asserted, "Jefferson argues, first of all, that the Negro is ugly." Lemire and Gossett summarize TJ's writings. Yopienso (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Yopienso made the initial edit and I accept your apologies Gwillhickers. I recently edited that Jefferson viewed that blacks were inferior in beauty to blacks without mentioning "ugly", however, even this was deleted from the article, including the hierarchy of race. Gwillhickers, you need to allow other editors, including Yopensio and myself, to make edits from valid sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cm' you need to step back and look at all the edits I, uh, 'did allow'. Then take a good look at my edit history and compare it to some of the edits/bursts of enthusiasm that occurred just recently. I also went along with "economically dependent on slavery" (highly debatable) the 'Orangutan' comment, I did not delete, among other items. When I first added some content about slave's lives it was promptly deleted. Then I discussed and then waited at least a month to include a few simple sentences about slave's lives/treatment and despite all the discussion and postings of sources I was faced with your repeated deletions with no discussion anyway, so I believe the shoe is on the other foot. It would seem you need to concede a few realities regarding slavery and allow editors to include some of these important facts. Did you know Jefferson was greatly admired by most of his slaves and was often greeted with cheers when he returned to Monticello from the Whitehosue? (Randall, 1994, p.494) I was about to include that item/insight the other day but because of all the 'agony' over how slaves were treated I stopped before doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I was the one who put in the specific "good" things Jefferson did for his slaves such as distributing cooking supplies, clothing, and housing. The difference was I let the reader decide that those were good things without forcing opinions on people. You deleted those edits and references. I was the one that put in the edit that Jefferson kept additional blacks from being hanged in 1800 during Gabriel's Rebellion. The reader is smart enough to figure out that Jefferson was protecting blacks without specifically stating in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've placed the NPOV tag in the section again. Do not remove it until everyone is satisfied with the section ie: probably by 2026. Brad (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I was for its inclusion before and should have objected when it was recently removed. As far as I am concerned, the tag needs bigger lettering. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any direct quotes of Jefferson about the "greedy" traders and their lack of "republican virtue" re the Embargo Act or the Non-intercourse Act, so have adjusted that line accordingly with this edit. If anyone can find a reliable source that backs up the asserted "greedy traders" quote, that would be very helpful. I do not have the source at-hand that the sourcing for the article says this statement is from (Burton Spivak's Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution, published in 1978), so I am unable to check the exact wording. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Checked over a dozen well known sources, including letters, none of which mention "greedy" or "Republican virtues" regarding the embargo. Anyways, there seems to be a lot of basic content missing in the section. There's no mention of bitter opposition from federalists or that the bill was signed by Congress with almost no debate. (Merwin, 1901, pp.141-142) There is also the perspective, not mentioned, that if the Embargo was faithfully observed by all citizens of the US that its intended effect would have resulted, and would 'starve' the wealthy class in England bringing pressure on its government. There is also no mention that the Embargo knocked the bottom out for support among farmers and the working class, one of Jefferson's largest constituencies, and that the greatest opposition and occurrences of smuggling came from the New England states. (Peterson, 1960, p.290) Also, imo, the section is not written very well. Good writing involves more than stacking one fact/comment on top of another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI for all interested editors...

The apparently erroneous 'quoting' of Jefferson (supposedly writing "Greedy traders" in combination with "republican virtues" when describing businessmen's reaction to the Embargo Act) from this Wikipedia article has crept into and contaminated almost every single online source I checked. In my research, I even started just looking for Jefferson quotes with the words "republican virtues" & "traders" or "merchants" in any sort of combination and (so far), have been unsuccessful. If I can find a physical copy of the source for this characterization of Jefferson or for the reputed quote (all of Chapter 1 of Burton Spivak's Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution), then I'll be able to check the asserted source material for the quote or for Spivak's pertinent synthesis of Jefferson's words. Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing an entire chapter of a book will not do. The specific page number/s need to be cited. This might be a good reason to boot the statement. Brad (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't intend to cite the entire chapter, just thought it was odd the reference had no page numbers. Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one can find the quote, removing it was in order. While we can't find these quotes it's not difficult to determine which group(s) TJ was most angry with. We know the brunt of opposition to the embargo came from Federalists, who were in line with the banks and other major players in the trading business. Hence the term, 'greedy'. Seems we can still relate this idea without using that quote. Section is missing much. Peterson, 1960, pp.288-290 is worth a look. Have just added some content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My sense is that the quotation marks are not intended to indicate a direct quote, but are "scare quotes." Not encyclopedic. Yopienso (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the quote marks were most probably unencyclopedic. I like it to be very clear when a statement is a direct quote and when a statement is instead a source's synthesis of the subject's thoughts (no wonder quote marks have guidelines written about their use on Wikipedia...) And booting that sentence is fine by me. Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The recent edits in slaves and slavery have been written in a defensive commentary style rather then neutrally stating Jefferson's views and actions on slavery and the condition of his slaves. Also, many solid references have been obliterated and now the Slaves and slavery section has sentences without references! Each sentence needs references. Also some references that are listed are faulty. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. We've been though this. Reporting established facts backed by RS is neutral. Blocking the few sentences used to convey this is pushing pov. I have just made the edits. Don't know how you can make all of these determinations inside a few minutes. I am restoring. Please address issues on a per item basis. If corrections in ref's are in order, these can be fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you have declared war on the neutrality of this article. STOP. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit's Gwillhickers, although with good intentions have been sloppy, since especially you castigated me over the Foulet addition. Please discuss. This article needs to be in an encyclopedia format in neutral wording. The reader can imply that Jefferson cared for his slaves in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have only included established facts not opinions. I have not even said that historians have noted Jefferson treated his slaves well. I have also not cited anything out of context as you have done many times before. Please discuss issues on a per item basis. I have only added brief content giving insight into slave's lives, as backed by MANY RS's and testimony. Your POV efforts otoh are and have been obvious starting with your skewed depiction of Jefferson riding around with a whip (he never used) and your focus on isolated details like the Orangutan observation not to mention your long history of inserting other isolated details, usually chronologically out of order. I am again restoring content stripped away by your sweeping deletions. Do not start an edit war by repeatedly deleting well established and roundly sourced content. Again, you need RS's to say the sort of things you want to say. Try that approach instead. Again, talking with you is a waste of time as you turn around and make sweeping deletions without discussion anyway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you expect the reader to form an accurate opinion when you want to block numerous important facts regarding Jefferson's interactions with slaves?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't take threats lightly Gwillhickers and am well prepared and willing to fight and defend myself physically and on Wikipedia. I believe in the right to bear arms. You best back down. How do you expect the reader to make good decisions when you force your opinions on them. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your first two sentences suggest you're beginning to lose it. "fight and defend myself physically and on Wikipedia"?? What "threats"? What opinion? I have only included established and roundly sourced content. What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with this discussion? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, how do you expect the reader to form an accurate opinion when you want to block numerous important facts regarding Jefferson's interactions with slaves?? That you have ignored this question and others clearly reveals you to be not at all interested in neutrality, esp since we have seen your idea of 'neutrality' already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you made vast edits without discussion and then make threats not to remove edits as if other editors have no opinions. You castigated my Foulet edit and then make sweeping edits in the article removing references through your edit first ask questions later policy. That is a great insult to myself and other editors here on Wikipedia. I have not lost it. Maybe I misinterpreted your intentions, but I don't take threats lightly. I have no intention or desire to pick a fight with anyone. I hope we can continue to discuss rationally and constructively. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Vast edits"? "Without discussion"?? I see you have not reverted a forth time. Not yet anyway. Thanks for that. If you have an issue with an item say so, please. The article already says Jefferson bought and sold slaves, it acknowledges differing views and mentions whippings. Actual treatment of the slaves is needed. Seems the news of Jefferson's treatment of slaves would be well received, but for some reason this proves to be very troublesome for you, why I don't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, talking requires a certain respect for other editors. People do not like to be personally insulted or threatended. Bullying opinions is not talking and only agitates an already controversial subject. I don't like to be bullied by anyone. If I over reacted I apoligize. I have cooperated with your edits before and believe we can in the future. You have made good points concerning the article and I believe if you had discussed your edits before making them, things could be ironed out. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"No discussions"?? Cm' you have a habit of forgetting, not just a detail here or there, but complete discussions. -- All of them. I took the time to outline numerous RS's and have indeed discussed MANY items. I was also in no hurry to rush in and make edits -- yet after long and detailed discussions and after only adding a few statements, you came ploughing through and made sweeping deletions. Btw, if I've actually threatened someone in any way, please point to the example or kindly apologize. "Bullying": I have been subjected to all sorts of horn-blowing, accusations, for some time, and in the face of a prolonged and troubled edit history on the TJ page, so at this late date I don't quite understand how you can expect me to wear a bag over my head with a smiley face painted on it all the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I did apologize Gwillhickers, "If I over reacted I apoligize." I apologize again. However, you have deleted my neutral editing in the article three times, you call me a horn blower, you claim I am POV because I want to the reader to interpret on their own rather then being forced your opinion on Jefferson, and you castigated my Foulet edit. There was no discussion before your sweeping edits were made. I took that as a personal and threatening tone. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting Jefferson on horseback shaking his whip to increase productivity is not neutral -- not after discussing Jefferson's policy towards treatment of slaves and how he got them to produce by (many) other measures. I removed one sentence and you concurred and my edit regarding slave treatment was brief and was discussed at length on several occasions. And no one is "forcing an opinion". Only a few defining well established facts have been included, well sourced. You complain about the horn-blowing comment and in the same breath accuse me of "forcing an opinion", and right after accusing me of making personal threats. (!) This is getting a little ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article now has an NPOV tag after your most recent edits Gwillhickers. There was no POV prior to your editing. Now who is pushing POV in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I put the tag on again because of the constant bickering here on the talk page and consistent edit-warring which has been going on for a very long time. You should not have removed the tag in the first place. The tag stays until some sort of agreement comes along; not just when Cmguy thinks it meets his standards. Brad (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There will never be an agreement as long as personal threats and attacks are being made. Gwillhickers has personally attacked and threatened myself and will not only allow editors to edit if he does not agree with them. That is against Wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How can you expect anyone to take your words seriously when you make statements like this? Or how about this item, which you later struck for obvious reasons?: "I believe in the right to bear arms. You best back down." I did not threaten you and any 'personal attacks' were directed at your behavior and for making the same skewed statements as you are making right here. Please apologize for this comment and put this sort of talk under a hat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I personally felt physically threatened and intimidated by your tone and level of hostility towards my edits and insinuations that went beyond mere academic criticism of the article and that you would not allow other editors to edit or put input into the article. Forcing your opinions on other editors is threatening. I would appreciate if you back down on your personal attacks, rather, discuss the issues and allow other editors to edit in the article without banning those editors or edits you disapprove. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're being completely ridiculous not to mention quite vague. If you feel "physically threatened" over my 'tone' then you have some serious issues you need to deal with sir. I have seen far worse from you, and from others towards you, so stop with your transparent nonsense, please. No one has included opinion, as was done with the parade of commentary you once had no objections to. You need to get some RS's if you want to contest any widely sourced content or take your complaints to a noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I sincerely apoligize for the above statement and I admit was uncalled for. I can not defend what I said. I have put things under that hat. I will not be editing on the Jefferson page anymore and let you and Brad take over. I ask for your forgiveness and thanks for your understanding. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to hide in the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, here's the real. None of the editors involved with this article have been saints for the past year+. I'm guilty of reverting and arguing just as much as Gwill. You however, have made the most outrageous accusations towards other editors when things don't go your way. You've accused editors of white supremacy, pro-slavery, article ownership, bullying, racism and just now have made threats of bodily harm. This is not behavior that contributes to an environment where everyone can be comfortable editing here. Quite frankly I'm considering looking for the proper venue to address your behavior. It gets worse as time goes by. If anything, it's a stall tactic to keep editing in a state of constant turmoil.

Besides all that you have a record of seemingly participating in discussions here and then turning around and editing like nothing was ever discussed. That is a lot of I didn't hear that. You're insistent about adding little out of context and unimportant factoids (like TJ and the whip) to articles. We battled against this at the Abe Lincoln article on several topics. You have this same pattern of behavior at other articles too; even when I'm not especially looking for your edits, I see you interrupting article reviews and arguing on talk pages. Brad (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you noticed, Brad, I have not made any edits to the article. Brad you and Gwillhickers can do anything you want. In the interests of other editors, I have back down to keep the peace. I have had to edit under hostile circumstances. Feel free to address whatever "proper venue" you want. Go ahead and make any edits to the article. I believe personal attacks are threatening whether they are made on Wikipedia or in person, even though they are only words, they deeply offend. I have been called a horn blower, which is another term for hypocrite. I have been told I was stupid and could not count past 1+1. I was told I was devious. I was told to stop making edits..or what? If what I said was out of line I apologize for any defensive statements that could be interpreted as hostile. Again, I have backed down and the article is for anyone who wants to edit, except myself. I have stated I do not desire to pick a fight with anyone, physically or through editing, and I have never desired nor intended to pick a fight with anyone in the article. I admit my words were loose and inappropriate. I have apologized. The article is all yours. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Have just requested semi-protection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just done some copyediting on the Slaves and slavery section. My purpose is to improve the style without attempting to correct factual errors or misleading statements. If anyone disagrees with any of my improvements, please change only the specific things you disagree with--no blanket reverts. That section was an embarrassment of poor writing resulting from our general hodge-podge of fixes. Yopienso (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying the section actually contains 'factual errors'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not going there. Yopienso (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Right.. There are no factual errors -- and the misleading and isolated statements have already been dealt with. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm gun shy about getting back into this section again but my observations atm show that the section is still too long; and the continuity of subjects are scrambled. We also have the "slave disease" again by saying "slaves were" "slaves did" repeatedly. Weasel words abound; two photos etc. Brad (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Insert : No problem with shortening the section. Yes, 'repeatedly' referring to these people as slaves actually does their legacy a disservice. It stereotypes them as meager field workers who wore rags and lived in shacks, with no families or any sort of life of their own. I would think any student of this era knows these people were much more than that. Once in a while the word e.g.'people' should be used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am not editing the section, just giving my opinion. From a readers standpoint having a neutrality dispute tag in the Slaves and slavery section is like having a virtual ball and chain weight over the article. If not everyone will agree, then agree to disagree. Conceding that Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner, in order to improve the article section, would be acceptable. Not every editor may agree Jefferson was benevolent, but for the purposes of article synthesis, this may be a neccessary concession. If one photo is chosen, then I would choose the emancipation statement, rather then the slave list. Put the slaves list in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. The article needs to give credit for Jefferson freeing two slaves legally under manumission while he was alive. George Washington, as far as I know did not manumit any slaves while he was alive, only in his will. What are the priorities for the section? I would state Jefferson's treatment of slaves; his reaction to Gabriel's 1800 rebellion keeping the rest of the rebellious slaves from being hanged; how Jefferson inherited his slaves; how Jefferson sold his slaves to pay debts; his views on white supremacy; the discipline of slaves; the 1784 ordinance limiting slavery in the Northwest; and finally his views on the Missouri compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What will the typical reader think "benevolent" means? That he gave the slaves tea made by his own hand in the morning? I would be OK with saying he was "not cruel," but not with calling him "benevolent," unless it's modified with "relatively" since I suspect many readers would interpret that to mean he treated them better than he did. TJ was relatively benevolent, but, above all, they were his property and labored for his benefit, not theirs. Why did they run away? Because he gave them such a good life? Slavery is not pretty. Yopienso (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned not all editors will agree Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner, and this seems to be the crux of contention in the article. Even stating benevolence I believe the reader with enough information to present historical context will be able to make informed decisions on Jefferson. Benevolence in terms of food, clothing, and shelter. Benevolence in terms of publically denouncing the mass hangings of slaves after Gabriel's Rebellion in 1800 and his attempt to deport the rebellious slaves to Africa. Mentioning that Jefferson's slaves were sparingly whipped would add enough historical context for the reader to understand that slavery was not an amusement park. Jefferson did have a no whipping policy, but his overseers sometimes did not follow or went against this policy when Jefferson was away. I believe that stating Jefferson's views on slavery were complex is primarily important for the Slaves and slavery section in terms of reader understanding Jefferson. Since Jefferson's views on slavery were complex, editors must settle for a reasonable amount of inconsistency in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The section already mentions whippings and the word 'benevolent' is not used anywhere. Also, the very title of the section is 'Slaves and slavery'. This should let the readers, from 2nd grade on up, know that slave life at Monticello was no "walk in the park". If you still think mentioning how slaves were treated is going paint such a picture it would seem you're still standing on the same square you were when we last heard from you a few weeks ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article does mention Jefferson "felt" he had a moral obligation to protect his slaves. I would call that benevolance. I believe the current section with the acception of paragraph two is neutral. I believe after fixing that paragraph the neutrality tag can be removed. Here is the second paragraph with sentences I believe have neutrality and claryfication issues.

" Jefferson was opposed to slavery during his youth, a conviction that became even more firmly entrenched as he got older.^[1][2][3]...His 1784 proposal to ban slavery in all the territories was not enacted by Congress.^[4]

The first sentence may not be accurate. Jefferson believed that allowing the spread of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase would decrease slavery. The sentence is general. When did Jefferson start to oppose slavery or specifically at what age and how did he specifically oppose slavery? When Jefferson got older he told Coles to keep his slaves for the sake of his country Virginia. In the second sentence more needs to be expanded. Jefferson's 1784 proposal was for the North West Territory, not all territories. Congress did eventually limit slavery in the North West Ordinance of 1787. Please, I am not here to pick a fight or have endless unproductive arguementations. I believe, somehow, editors can work together on paragraph two and then remove the neutrality tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose adding Paleontologist to the Categories. From the Wikipedia article, Vertebrate paleontology:

Thomas Jefferson is credited with initiating the science of vertebrate paleontology in the United States with the reading of a paper to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia in 1797. Jefferson presented fossil bones of a ground sloth found in a cave in western Virginia and named the genus (Megalonyx). The species was ultimately named Megalonyx jeffersonii in his honor.^[1][2][3] Jefferson corresponded with Cuvier, including sending him a shipment of highly desirable bones of the American mastodon and the woolly mammoth.^[4]

He also carried on a well known lively debate and correspondence with Buffon, and engaged others, including Lewis and Clark, to procure specimens for study. He is just as much the Father of American Paleontology as he is the Father of American Architecture, neither for which is he primarily known, nor from which he deign make a livelihood. If cryptographer made the cut, I'm just sayin...

Danny Sprinkle (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Danny, I'll paste this in from my talk page:

Categories

You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy about categories in biographies. There is a general consensus on Wikipedia that a category shouldn't be added to a biography unless it is related to why the person is notable. Please note that WP:COP states "limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right." And WP:BLPCAT states "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." The Jefferson article is kinda over-categorized now, we should probably cut a few. FurrySings (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right; in all my time here this is the first time I've messed with categories. I suppose it was a knee-jerk reaction: "Jefferson was so a farmer!" That's not debatable. But since "planter" is a subset of "farmer," I can let it go. But then we'd have to also delete "American gardeners." (Speaking of which, I see W. Atlee Burpee is in the "Horticulturists and gardeners" category. Shouldn't he also be in "American gardeners" category?

The paleontologist category was a stretch, imo.

Think I won't do much more in categories--too confusing/overlapping/problematical. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, I'm not sure about including paleontologist, even though TJ also carefully excavated an Indian mound. (I don't have the time to look that up and cite it.) As I told Furry, I'm not going to do much with categories, so you two (and anyone else) can hash this out.

I didn't get the cryptic comment. Yopienso (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO at this point in time this tag should be a permanent fixture to the section, given the section's history. If there is a desire to remove it then we need to address the item(s) that have made the section less than neutral. Referring to the tag as a "ball and chain" is empty rhetoric that doesn't even address this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The ref given for Many slaves interacted closely with the Jefferson family and became like family members. says nothing to the effect. Yopienso (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Too much is made of TJ's "providing" for his slaves--farm animals do have to be fed and sheltered, and human animals have to be clothed. Peterson is probably too outdated to cite.
• All but a hint (a "strong suspicion" that the Negro was inferior) of his racism has been removed, and that little hint tacked on after his supposed discouragement of "excessive physical force," never showing the broader picture of the difference between his smooth words and his acceptance of brutality in real life. (I agree the old orangutan bit was over the top.) This section of the article does not convey TJ's attitude toward slaves and slavery. I was raised in the South and have done a lot of reading on slavery, so I know a little about this. This section does nothing to help the reader conceive of the vast gulf between master and slave and of how good people could see slaves as less than human. Yopienso (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Human animals"?? You have just equated slaves to farm animals. Peterson too outdated to cite?? In 30 or 40 more years will Finkleman and Reed be too outdated to cite? I am no longer entertaining this sort of conjecture. Got issues? Cite WP violations and/or produce reliable sources to back whatever it is you would like to assert. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Human animals"?? You have just illustrated why you should not be editing this section: you don't know slaves were equated to farm animals. Varro, whose writings were in TJ's library, divided farm equipment into "the instruments of agriculture which are articulate, inarticulate and mute: the articulate being the servants, the inarticulate the draught animals, and the mute being the wagons and other such implements." Now, in this aspect, TJ was certainly "benevolent" compared to some masters. Still, the master/slave mindset obtained; otherwise, he would have been as incapable of holding slaves as you or I would be. Yopienso (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

[Insert : ]"Master/slave mindset"? What would you like this to mean? You seem to be more absorbed with the modern day stigma of slavery than you are with what actually occurred at Monticello. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops--forgot the question on current scholarship. Yes, unless scholars continue to cite them and their works become standard, Finkelman and Reed will be obsolete in 30 or 40 years. Wrt to Peterson, I'll back away from flat-out calling him too outdated; that's a gross exaggeration; sorry. He's outdated on some points, like Sally Hemings.

Well, it's obvious the neutrality tag needs to remain, isn't it? Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, you're all over the map with a whole lot of opinionated conjecture. Jefferson did not equate slaves with farm animals and you have nothing but your presentist opinion that says he did. That you judge sources by their date rather than by content, irrationally, reveals you to be someone more concerned with trend and opinion than you are with facts and content and as such your edits should be highly scrutinized. If you want to make any changes in content, do it with RS's and consensus, not with conjecture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson held (bought, sold, raised, fed, clothed, sheltered, worked) chattel slaves.

Definition of SLAVE

1. a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

Definition of CHATTEL

1. an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property

2. slave, bondman

Examples of CHATTEL

<at one time, the children of black slaves were also considered chattel>

<packed up all her chattels and moved to a new state>

Origin of CHATTEL

Middle English chatel property, from Anglo-French — more at cattle

Master/slave mindset: "I am your master. I live on a higher plane in a different world than you. Your life is to serve and obey me. If you don't like that, I will sell you. If you are lazy or disobedient, you will be flogged. If you are docile, you will work hard from dawn to dusk and have minimal provisions. You will have Sunday afternoons and Christmas off. If you are a craftsman, you may earn a pittance for your work. If you are an attractive female, one of us may use you for a sexual partner. If you please me, I may still be forced to sell you away from your family if I need the money badly enough. I would feel sorry about that." That's what actually occurred at Monticello.

No, TJ never uttered those words--his actions spoke them. This was normal and accepted; life was like that in the South. TJ was a good man who had a side to him that was uncomfortable with chattel slavery. It is this contradiction that made him so ambiguous, and it is the ambiguity that you, unfortunately, can't see and therefore disallow in the article. And that's why I'm not editing the section for content; it's just not worth it. Yopienso (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[Insert : ] Thanks for your overage about slavery, chattle, etc, and as you say, Jefferson never spoke the words you are attempting to use to make your assertion that he 'equated slaves to farm animals'. His actions spoke these words"? I suppose you could pick a couple of isolated facts that might support your theory e.g.bought/sold slaves -- but what about ALL THE OTHER ACTIONS TJ did that say this whole line is the same old conjecture that never got off the ground before. Why? Because there are simple too many sources, writings, slave's testimony that say Jefferson treated his slaves well and extended them many things to make their lives better. Remember? Enough of this endless 'talk'. Again, you will need RS's that point to Jefferson, not some other account that has nothing to do with the man. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

- That description of slave life resembles a Deep South cotton plantation of over 1000 field hands in the 1850s. What source applies any of that to any of Jefferson's four major phases of cultivation as a master of 50 to 100 slaves growing tobacco one-hundred years before your account, or 100 to 200 slaves growing wheat fifty to twenty-five years before?

- Jefferson owned one to five properties in Virginia of the Upper South, growing tobacco 1740s-1769 with 50 slaves, 1770-1790 tobacco with up to 125, 1790-1808 wheat with 105, 1809-1826 wheat and construction with 200. See Crops at Monticello, viewed September 24, 2012. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Every detail is or has been a sourced statement in this article, if not exactly in that tone; I made it pretty blatant. I'm saying that's what happened at Monticello, not at a theoretical plantation.

• We had TJ's own words about racial superiority of the whites and inferiority of the blacks. We deemed it inappropriate to a brief summary section, but it informed TJ's actions; it was his mindset.
• We had lots of discussion about workloads and provisions; some of that remains.
• Sally Hemings, of course, was used by TJ himself.
• We had lots and lots of discussion about TJ's sales of slaves and reasons for selling.
• You can find verification of much of this here. Yopienso (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say--the link to crops doesn't work; I think maybe it needs a space between "monticello" and the vertical line. ?? This works fine. http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/crops-monticello

I don't at all get your point on the importance of whether tobacco, wheat, or cotton was grown. Your info is true, but I don't see it's relevance to this discussion. Yopienso (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Gwillicker's "insert":

• Surely you acknowledge TJ lived on a higher plane and in a different world than his slaves, and that he had to have a mindset that justified the disparity, that justified human bondage to a man of TJ's sensitivities.

Insert : Conjecture, opinion. Jefferson was no doubt well aware of the difference of master and slave. These are the things that drove him to make exceptional efforts to better the lives of the people who were 'slaves' at Monticello, et al. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Serve and obey: Those Who Labor for My Happiness--"The image of an estate presided over by a benevolent Thomas Jefferson has given way to a more complex view of Monticello as a working plantation, the success of which was made possible by the work of slaves."

Insert : Jefferson was benevolent to slaves in many many ways and there are no established facts or RS's that can conclude otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dawn to dusk and holidays--"Monticello's African-American laborers worked from dawn to dusk, six days a week. Only after their long work day, and on Sundays and holidays, could they follow their own pursuits."

Insert : Many 'free' farmers also had the same long hours and little time to pursue other things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• paid a pittance--". . .encouraged some of his enslaved artisans by offering them a percentage of what they produced. . ." This paragraph also shows TJ's kindness in paying slaves for vegetables, chickens, and fish.
• Sexual partners--not only Sally H. and TJ; possibly other slaves were used by whites at Monticello. "They also stated that Jefferson's nephews Peter and Samuel Carr were the fathers of the light-skinned Monticello slaves some thought to be Jefferson's children because they ressembled him."

Insert : Salley Hemings. There is no conclusive evidence that ties TJ to Salley's children. Best to take that debate to the Hemings page, and if you can get it off the ground come back here and we'll talk. This debate has been mulled over time and again. Please consult/review talk page history before attempting to initiate another failed debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• You agree TJ bought and sold human property. I may as well add, "Many slaveowners, including Jefferson, understood that female slaves—and their future children—represented the best means to increase the value of his holdings, what he called 'capital.' 'I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm,' Jefferson remarked in 1820." Sounds to me like how animals are treated. He even had mortgages on some slaves. (Same page, last paragraph. It's an excellent, balanced source, starting out, "Slavery was an inherently violent and coercive system, although Jefferson tried to mitigate it.")

Insert : "Sounds to me?" Thanks for that insight. Produce a RS that backs your (very) narrow presentist view of Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So, that's how life was at Monticello.

Yup, we'd better leave that neutrality tag on. Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Nice show Yop'. Exactly what statement would you like to make and what RS's do you have to back it up? All you have done in effect is horn blow the idea that Jefferson bought/sold slaves in an obvious attempt to distract from the reality that Jefferson treated his slaves well. Jefferson's 'mindset' is what made him do these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to take a more cooperative approach to the Slaves and slavery section. Endless unproductive arguementation will only lead to endless unproductive argumentation. The second paragraph, in my opinion was two generalized in two sentences, as has been mentioned in a previous talk page section. That paragraph needs to be fixed and then I believe the neutrality tag can be removed or considered to be removed. This is a general summary concerning slaves and slavery and any detail needs to be put or kept into the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Let the reader decide Jefferson's motivations for owning slaves. I would not bicker whether Jefferson believed slaves were human animals. Most likely he believed slaves where human property, just as James Madison did. His views on blacks can be expanded without any judgemental overtones. There going to be an inherent contradiction in the Slaves and slavery section, in other words, Jefferson's views on slavery and African Americans are complex. Readers will understand this. I would say make the section as positive as possible concerning Jefferson without neglecting his views that blacks were inferior or that he sold slaves to pay debts. His public criticism of Gabriel's rebellion is testament that Jefferson did not have any desire to exterminate blacks. Attempting to deport rebellious slaves rather then hang them would show Jefferson acted humanely towards slaves, in that case. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The same ol' talk, talk, talk. What statement would you like to make and what RS(s) do you have to cancel out all the other RS's, testimony, writings, that say otherwise? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Gwillhickers. Junius P. Rodriguez (1997), The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1; Volume 7, page 380 states Jefferson in the 1780's initially favored limits on slavery, but with the Louisana Purchase, Jefferson did nothing to stop the spread of slavery and desired to make the North section of the Louisiana purchase into a large Indian reservation. This contradicts Jefferson statement of founding an "Empire of Liberty". According to Rodriguez Jefferson had resigned to the fact that slavery was an economic neccessity for Southerners. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Joe Fea (2011) Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction, page 213 also states Jefferson failed to stop the spread of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase. Fea continues on page 214 that Jefferson was hesitant against slave emancipation because he believed blacks were inferior and could not live in the same country as whites a free citizens. Jefferson did not want to create a race war. This was why he did not want to free slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Finkleman (1998) Federalists Reconsidered, edited by Doron S. Ben-Atar, Barbara B. Oberg, pages 142 and 143 states that Jefferson Republicans desired to spread slavery in the Louisiana Purchase and that Jefferson was strongly opposed to the Missouri Compromise that limited slavery's expansion. Jefferson did not wish to risk national harmony over slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

- "Jefferson did not wish to risk national harmony over slavery." makes sense to me. He was cobbling together an 'era of good feeling' for the 'Virginia Dynasty' that would lead to his -- Jefferson's -- party to dominate the Congress in all sections and the Presidency for six consecutive terms, Jefferson (2), Madison (2), Monroe (2) = 24 uninterrupted years.

- Also, relative to national consensus building in the Congressional caucus, since Jefferson had made somewhat of a career promoting a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution, he naturally had to give political cover for slave-holding state Representatives if they were to vote for the additional funds required for the Louisiana Purchase (appropriations made earlier for New Orleans only). Napoleon was having second thoughts.

- The deal on the table was now the entire territory. Lose the territory, lose New Orleans for the free-state Ohio Valley. Tie the west to the Union (remember Burr?), buy the French off the continent without war or the threat of war, but peace-nik Jefferson would have to give away slavery in the Louisiana Territory to get Southern votes for the unconstitutional territorial purchase. Cotton doesn't grow in Kansas. One problem at a time. -- sounds like Jefferson was a 'politician' to me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is nothing bad about being a politician, in my opinion. Jefferson was a skilled statesmen. He got the LP without war and the cost, according to the sources, was the expansion of slavery. Lincoln was elected holding similar beliefs to Thomas Jefferson. The LP is specific and needs to be mentioned in the Slaves and slavery section of the article with the above sources. TheVirginianHistorian, or any editor, please feel free to mention the LP and how this affected the spread of slavery in the U.S. No one is judging Jefferson. He was a good president and did what he believed was best for his country. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

- Following Brad's observation that the section had two photos, since the holding of slaves and manumitting them are in some sense, two sides of the same coin, I joined the two illustrations in the section as a 'double image' and tightened up the caption to reflect the document pictured.

- footnote: I believe that any time Jefferson had Monticello under construction (perpetually?), there were more slaves present at Monticello than those he owned. Any confirmation?

- the brackets in the 1795 listing seem to denote families, which benevolent -- there's that Scottish Enlightenment word again, sort of stilted for contemporary usage, isn't it? -- which 'benevolent' masters tracked so as to settle and work relations together because human beings require mutual support for well being and, dare we observe, good productivity. And apart from punitive measures, those masters would keep a record of immediate ties to avoid selling family members apart from one another. In Jefferson's record book, do brackets denote families?

--- An aside relative to the selling away phenomenon: in west African culture, restorative justice sentenced a murderer not to execution but to be sold away into slavery, the proceeds going to the grieving family. Instead of maiming a runaway ala 'Roots' Kunta Kinte to keep up with the Joneses, would a 'benevolent' master sell him away instead?

--- Of course, all men are, by their very nature, meant to be free. Related to runaways, Ira Berlin documents that in the American South, if a runaway were not seeking permanent escape, but merely removing himself from a bad overseer, a good worker might stay away for two weeks while being fed by his family, return to petition the master directly, and so effect the firing of the incompetent overseer, with no punishment to the slave. The great crime as a slave holder saw it, as Frederick Douglass described himself escaping slavery, was the stealing from his master of the slave's person.

- Interestingly, Sally Hemings "73" b. 1773, is not bracketed with anyone in 1795. Was she in earlier record book entries?

- Sorry, I'm still asking more questions than I can answer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Good job TheVirginianHistorian on putting the photos together in the Slaves and slavery section. I would suggest to reduce the size of the dual photos and to put into a corner of the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

- Done. for the article, all illustrations conform justified right per WP:ACCESS, used a consistent image style throughout article:

- relocated to upper right corner of the section to accommodate wide browsers such as Apples without using problematic {{clear}} convention.

- copyedited captions to be more descriptive and concise to meet spacing requirements in wide browsers.

- switched out contemporary North African map with a period 1806 Barbary Coast map from Wikimedia Commons. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

On the list of Jefferson trivia, I don't know where this falls, but in the interests of being the bearers of the Truth, who preceded Jefferson during the Second Continental Congress in 1776? I, for whatever reason, have thought it was Peyton Randolph but our info box says Washington (but didn't he leave during the Congress in 75)? At any rate, does anyone have source(s) they are confident in, to answer this burning question? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was Peyton Randolph specifically. Washington, Henry, Randolph and ? were the original delegates. Randolph went back to Virginia and TJ was chosen because of his eloquent writing in A Summary View of the Rights of British America and he was also Randolph's nephew. This is from American Sphinx by Ellis p. 29. However, the article Peyton Randolph contradicts some of this information. I can't even be sure if it's the right Randolph. Brad (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Are all the items boxed under Personal details necessary? Many items can be or are mentioned in the lede, like DOB, residence, etc. Topics like TJ's Alma mater, Profession, Religion, etc seem to be served well enough in the biography and don't need mention here. i.e. the TOC already has a 'Religion' and other sections to click on to serve any reader who may want to go right to a particular topic. Info box is beginning to resemble a tower. If there are no objections in a couple of days, I'll trim it down a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in line with other POTUS bios. I checked John Adams', Nixon's, and Ford's. Yopienso (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at George Washington's infobox I suppose I should just leave well enough alone -- it's a mile long with a Military service section included. Still think a few items don't belong, esp when they're basic and mentioned in the lede. Just wondering, is there a rule that says we must use an info box? (I ask 'toung-in-cheek' -- I surely don't want to pursue that one.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but IMO this should be consistent with the other presidents' articles. Plus the infobox is easier to look at and find details, which most readers probably do. – Connormah (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Some can be trimmed down (maybe some offices?) but alma mater, religion, dates and all should stay for quick access to that info - IMO it is way easier to find than having to wade through this particularly long article to find. – Connormah (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Gwillickers, there is a rule about infoboxes--it says editors can do whatever they have consensus for. I innocently added one in the classical music portal quite some time ago without realizing that was a veritable hornet's nest. The regulars there staunchly refuse to have them, which I understand is their prerogative. (Too busy to look up the rule.)

Well, if we remove any offices from the infobox, the info will be incomplete, making readers reasonably conclude he held only the offices listed in the box. My druthers are to leave everything there.

Personally, I love infoboxes. Hard-copy encyclopedias often have them. Textbooks tend to have handy little reference boxes, too. They are very handy for students or for users who just want to quickly gather some basic data. Yopienso (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, infoboxes are a means of quick facts but I do agree that some of them get too long. Leave well enough alone here; more important things to worry about. Brad (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well enough alone, given the other articles, although in my view for this article (biography), the personal data would go first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume the standard practice is to put public data first since that's what makes the person notable enough to have a biography. Jefferson and the other presidents are known primarily for being POTUS, not for being a lawyer or peanut farmer or football player or the husband of Pat or Rosalynn or Betty. The other offices held are sometimes important in themselves and in all cases important to track the man's career. (This explains Obama's very short infobox!) Yopienso (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Yopienso on this note, TJ is noted for being primary DOI author and President, and as such these things come first, however I still think 'some' of the basic personal data belongs in the lede only. Seems an Officeholder info-box with collapsible sections would make things less congested and cluttered. Oh well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

One advantage of infoboxes is that the information is structured and labelled. Projects like DBpedia and YAGO can very easily use these to make the information available for automated processes, including reasoning and queries. This makes Wikipedia's content more widely available. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In spite of all the 'end-run' conjecture and horn-blowing, no one seems to have squared off with the item(s), or lack thereof, that actually makes the slavery section less than neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The section will not be neutral until you learn to combine, not try to cancel out, "all the other RS's, testimony, writings." It's not either/or, it's both. You are trying to simplify TJ into good or bad, benevolent or cruel, when in fact he was extraordinarily complex and lived in a world of contradictions. Yopienso (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

More vague conjecture. All along I have said Jefferson was complex in his views etc. I keep saying this -- please review talk page history. If you can't do this then it would seem you don't place much faith in discussion, past or present. The 'flat earth' view of slavery is getting a bit rife. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Neutrality tag section I have noted that three established sources state the Jefferson allowed the spread of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson may have been morally opposed in principle to slavery, but he did not do much as Governor or President to end domestic slavery. Three sources is not talk or idle chatter. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

At least the LP needs to be mentioned, that Jefferson did not prohibit slavery in the Louisiana Purchase. Also Jefferson's opposition to the MC needs to be mentioned since he believed limiting the spread of slavery would divide the nation are cause a Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested sentences:

"Although Jefferson proposed abolishing slavery after year 1800 in his legislative draft of the North West Ordinance of 1784, Jefferson did not not prohibit slavery in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase treaty while he was President.^[1] In 1820, Jefferson opposed the Missouri Compromise, having believed that limiting slavery would lead to violence in the nation.^[2]

Good suggestion. I would slightly reword to:

Although Jefferson proposed abolishing slavery after 1800 in his draft of the North West Ordinance of 1784, slavery was not, in fact, prohibited in by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase treaty.^[3] In 1820, Jefferson opposed the Missouri Compromise, believing that an attempt to limit slavery would lead to violence.^[4]

I'm assuming your refs are good and that I have not changed your meaning. Yopienso (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This would be accurate, Yopensio. Please feel free to edit into the article. These are neutral statements with dates, proposed and passed legislations, and a major treaty. Here are the sources:

• Rodriguez, Junius P. (1997). The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1; Volume 7. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. p. 380.
• Finkelman, Paul (1998). Doron S. Ben-Atar; Barbara B. Oberg (eds.). Federalists Reconsidered. University of Virginia: The University Press of Virginia. pp. 142–143.

Well, it was a little tricky to insert, since it duplicated part of the second paragraph and combined the 1784 draft with the Louisiana Purchase. See what you think. I also made two further tweaks I hope will be acceptable. (Forgot to sign--this is hours later.) Yopienso (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good editing Yopienso. One thing missing, I believe, is Jefferson's banning the International Slave trade in 1807. That needs to be put into the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the third paragraph of the lede and the third paragraph of "Slaves and Slavery." Yopienso (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso. I believe that the mention of the banning the IST needs to be put before his view on the MC. Chronology would improve the section, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a factual error in Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784. Jefferson's ordinance banned slavery in both the north and the south, including territory that would become states, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The Ordinance of 1787, influenced by Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784, only banned slavery in the Northwest Territory. Someone needs to fix this. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question is cited by Miller, 1980. If anyone has access to Wolf by the ears or another RS that articulates this distinction then please, anyone, fix it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the reference: Rodriguez, Junius P. (1997). The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1; Volume 7. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. p. 380.

Rodriguez is very specific. The Ordinance of 1784 was an extremely important anti-slavery Jefferson document. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A reminder, the references to the Jefferson page are in poor shape overall, with various sorts of tags still hanging on some of them. While most of the lengthy notes and opinionated commentary that were stuck in the refs have been cleaned up many sources are still not linked up to and/or included in the bibliography.
Ref's also need to use one format. Citebook / Citeweb are used in the bibliography with corresponding ref tag i.e. <ref>[[#tag-name|Name, 19xx]] p.xx </ref> that should be used in with the text. Currently 'cite web' or 'citebook' is too often inserted into and cluttering up the text. Other formats i.e.'sfn' are used also but this format does not link to to corresponding source in bibliography. Ref's need to be solidified overall. Compare the Jefferson section to the featured article reference section of Rutherford B. Hayes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

- Buried in the discussion above is an editor’s question about why the crop or the century under discussion matters when analyzing ‘slavery and slaves’ held by Jefferson. Are not all crops under master-slave labor relations grown with the same methods across the centuries everywhere in the American South? Well, the short answer is, No.

- A quarter century after Jefferson's death, cotton grown in the mid-1800s was produced in an industrialized manner in quantities to feed three-story factory cotton gins. The labor intensity for slave gangs under the lash of an overseer paid a percentage of the crop was most severe of the three under discussion. The quantities not only supplied the world’s largest British mills, but also a thriving New England textile industry. All cotton was transshipped at the port of New York City, and cotton making up the most valuable export in the U.S., made the customs house patronage there the single most important appointment a President had in his political quiver for most of the nineteenth century until the rise of steel export in the 1880s.

- Second in severity was tobacco in the mid- and late-1700s of Jefferson's time. Some of the milder treatment of slaves found in Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky was directly related to the less-intense cultivation requirements (weeding) of tobacco versus cotton. Also, picking cotton slices into your hands with cuts that never quite heal during picking season, so it is neverendingly painful. That is, the ‘less-severity’ phenomenon in tobacco was not entirely attributable to an Upper South master’s humanity or virtue. Overseers of tobacco workers were paid by plants in the ground, resulting in the destructive practice of maximizing seedlings-for-count during planting season by plowing downhill, speeding erosion and destruction of the soil. Slave quarters gardens -- planted independently of overseers -- used the contour plowing (modern, scientific) technique.

- Of the three crops considered here as an historian might apply them to Jefferson during the early 1800s, the easiest cultivation is found in wheat growing. But the work was complicated because it required more skill, and several aspects were mechanized at the time of Jefferson's cultivation, requiring ancillary support of blacksmiths and mechanics. The markets were tied to food consumption anywhere, freeing the farmer from the NYC cotton brokers, as Washington had turned to wheat to free himself from London tobacco brokers, selling his wheat to the Bahamas. Futures contracts for Jefferson could be written to the Caribbean market or for growing populations of the northern industrializing immigrant cities. Jefferson's wheat could be sold down the James River, up the Chesapeake Bay to Baltimore by free black boatmen such as the Roberts family of Petersburg VA, then by canal to Philadelphia.

-This line of study was suggested to me in the 1960s by a W&M graduate student descended of a free black family of Fredericksburg VA studying the antebellum era. He paid for a summer-session dorm room at universities in Maine (ad. 1820), Missouri (ad. 1821), and Texas (ad. 1845) by working summers in Maine’s cigar leaf-wrapper tobacco, Missouri’s wheat and Texas’ cotton fields. In history, everything is not ideology and speculation; some things are real-life experience and scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

-- “Wheat farming forced changes in the relationship between planter and slave. Tobacco was raised by gangs of slaves all doing the same repetitive, backbreaking tasks under the direct, strict supervision of overseers. Wheat required a variety of skilled laborers, and Jefferson’s ambitious plans required a retrained work force of millers, mechanics, carpenters, smiths, spinners, coopers, and plowmen and plowmen.” See frame 3. [Dark side of Thomas Jefferson].

-- “Planting wheat required fewer workers than tobacco, leaving a pool of field laborers available for specialized training. Jefferson embarked on a comprehensive program to modernize slavery, diversify it and industrialize it. Monticello would have a nail factory, a textile factory, a short-lived tinsmithing operation, coopering and charcoal burning. He had ambitious plans for a flour mill and a canal to provide water power for it..” Frame 3. [Dark side of Thomas Jefferson]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

- @Yopienso, a little help here: are ‘Lego’ and ‘Tufton’ nearby Monticello? How far removed are the properties where abuse was reported? Jefferson owned and worked properties three counties and two-weeks travel away. Can you catch me up?

- We see the article document ‘inventory’ census showing families. And Jefferson sold 100 slaves over 60 years. It could NOT have been two a year for fifty years. When were they sold, WHEN were they not 1765-1825. Which families were broken in Jefferson’s sales? Some references seem to imply groups of twenty were sold on consignment by debt creditors. Is that so? Or were they slaves who wanted to work river boats or apprentice in a trade learned under another master in Fredericksburg met on a marketing trip?

- Or were they new-bought slaves who did not fit in? On a heavy construction job today, if you pick up a hammer while shouting at a co-worker, you are fired on the spot, you wait in the office for your final paycheck before you leave the premises, or you go in a cop car directly to jail in handcuffs. Does not matter who started what where: you raise a hammer at a man, you are gone. Is Finkelman’s “delinquent” slave someone who started a fight in the nail factory? Does Finkelman write as though 19th Century slavery was expected to be a more procedural workplace than a modern Virginian factory construction site? I have not done the research to answer yet.

- The slave fear of sale – usually once a year around Christmas -- is one reason some of my ‘presentist’ friends do now insist on celebrating ‘Kwanza’, recalling a sort of nebulous enslaved past-in-another-life, a season of glowering romanticism in an unscholarly, Shirley-MacLaine-like anger. What can I say, when I find someone who has a passion for history, much is overlooked, much forgiven – seems reciprocal, in a rough sort of friendship way --.

- Stay with me for the employees relations framework. What is the tenure of overseers who could not work with Jefferson’s slaves? When an overseer whipped, carried a pistol for fear of retribution, was poisoned, how long did they last? What was the length of employment of William McGee, Gabriel Lily, and how did it compare with Jefferson’s average overseer, with the longest serving? Where did the longest serving oversee, where were those working under a term of probation?

- We know that a fundamental immorality of slavery was that the rule of law did not extend onto a plantation, and neither slaves for free blacks could testify in court against a white. For instance, the record shows a slave who was a Norfolk ship-captain buying his freedom twice from his owner, but not receiving papers until the deal was struck a third time in the presence of a white captain who could hold the master accountable in a court of law. So,

- Jefferson as a master could create his own little world of jurisprudence on the site where he lived. How that student of the Scottish Enlightenment chose to do so is of some interest. I am nowhere close to catching up to your reading, but I’m working on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrt Lego and Tufton--yes, see note 1 in the Monticello section of the article. Read below the greenhouse picture here.

Without looking anything up, my understanding is that TJ usually sold slaves in lots (family groups) except for runaways. The families broken up were typically those with older children. After they were a certain age (I forget--13-15, something like that) TJ thought it was OK to sell them (or give them away) separately.

I do not know such exact details for overseers, but know TJ had some problem keeping them. Great George, a slave he owned, may have been the longest-serving. (Again, this is from memory only.)

Those are all excellent questions that I would love to research, but don't have the time. Yopienso (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts TheVirginiaHistorian and Yopienso. Section looks okay to me. It's still a bit on the long side but given its content perhaps that's not the issue at the moment. We still need to address, finally, neutrality and the npov-tag. IMO, there seems to be enough context in the section where it is now neutral, more or less. If there are any lingering issues or items that still need to be addressed in this regard we should do it and be done (+ -) with this section. Some of the other sections still need work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One issue of improvement I believe would help the Slaves and slavery section is chronology. To me the Slaves and slavery section seems to jump around Jefferson's time frame. For example, in the third paragraph the narration jumps from 1778, to 1784, then back to the mid 1770s. The third paragraph ends with Jefferson signing the ban on the International slave trade in 1808. Then the fifth paragraph starts with the year 1800 and Jefferson's protection of African American rebels and ends with the 1820 Missouri Compromise. This is what I mean by jumping around Jefferson's time frame in the current section. Following the chronological order would be best and would match the Thomas Jefferson and slavery articles chronology. I believe better narration would be to start with the mid 1770's and finish with his views on the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Chronology would enhance the neutrality of the article since this would stop the appearance that any editors are randomly picking and choosing certain time frames to prove a point. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will remove the npov tag later on this evening -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I think it still omits the grim reality of the slaves' lives at Monticello. Or at least of those who were unhappy there. Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you have just asserted the idea that all the slaves lived a grim life at Monticello. You seem to harbor the presentist view that because they were slaves their lives were 'automatically' a nightmere. As many RS's and testimony from slaves and others reveal, this was not at all the case at Monticello. Do you have more than one source that says slaves at Monticello led a grim, or horrible, life? Does 'Finkelman' even say this? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Or at least of those who were unhappy there. How do you get "all" out of that? I am not a presentist. I'm going to put some excerpts in small print to save space. You can put on your reading glasses, hold the "Ctrl" button and press the "+ =" key, or click here if it's too small for you. First, let me say I agree with Cogliano: Jefferson embraced the role of patriarchal plantation master who devoted paternal care to his 'family' of slaves by means of (relatively) benign treatment. (His parentheses.) There's another side, though--the grim side of belonging to someone else. And, for TJ's field hands (which most of his slaves were), long, hard work under threat of the lash. Forthwith:

Insert : IOW's Finkelman doesn't give us a specific example of how slave life at Monticello was "grim". Belonging to someone else is what provided slaves with food, shelter, clothing all the while they were allowed/encouraged to form and live together as families -- basic things many 'modern day thinkers' seem to take for granted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Property

HOW WERE JEFFERSON’S SLAVES TREATED?

Slavery was an inherently violent and coercive system, although Jefferson tried to mitigate it. “My first wish is that the labourers may be well treated,” he wrote to his overseer Manoah Clarkson in 1792. Rather than force a slave to work under the threat of the whip, Jefferson attempted to motivate slaves to perform tasks with incentives such as “gratuities” (tips) or other rewards. He experimented with “new modes of governance” of enslaved people, which was intended to moderate physical punishment and to capitalize on the human desire to emulate and excel.

Often absent from Monticello, Jefferson did not always succeed in lessening the violence of slavery. Several slaves were whipped at the hands of Monticello overseers. For example, William Page, an overseer at Lego farm for four years, had a reputation as a “terror” among slaves and was characterized as “peevish & too ready to strike.” William McGehee, an overseer at Tufton farm for two years, was “tyrannical” and carried a gun “for fear of an attack from the negroes.” And Gabriel Lilly, a nailery manager and overseer at Monticello for five years, whipped James Hemings three times in a single day, even when he was too ill “to raise his head.”

Next source, a PBS interview with the Monticello historian, Lucia Cinder Stanton; click here.

Can you talk a little bit about the differences between the kind of slavery that was practiced and occurred at Monticello and the American stereotype of slavery, which is sort of a monolithic brutal institution? . . . Particularly in reading your work, I see a much more complex practice of it here.

I think that's true, and it's because we know more about the people in this place. You can fill out lives and experience and make it seem not such a monolithic institution. We can put a more human face on slavery at Monticello because of the vast amount of material that helps us understand it there. But we can't forget that, in many ways, it was absolutely typical of slavery across the South. At the edges of this envelope of the enslaved experience was violence and force, and it was brought to bear at Monticello as well.

Jefferson spoke about having scruples against selling slaves except at their own wish, but he sold almost 100 in his life. The sale and the fear of sale were a daily presence for the slaves at Monticello. He spoke about wanting to moderate harsh punishment that was usual in other places, such as the use of the whip, but in his absence, this would be continued by his overseers. So all those aspects of the violent side of slavery were present at Monticello. But Jefferson certainly tried to moderate them.

As Joyce Appleby said, He treated his slaves as possessions. . . And, yes, Finkelman says, For his slaves, however, punishment could be swift, arbitrary, and horrible. . . His determination to sell "delinquent" slaves was calculated to create terror in others. (Not that I'm a fan of his, but you asked.) Ask yourself why a slave would take the enormous risk of running away if he was so happy. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There were runaways from Monticello and another slave that tried to poison an overseer. You'll have to be patient; I'm busy these days but recently got a look at the latest "slay TJ the evil slaveholder" publication. Brad (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The slavery section already mentions that whippings by some overseers occurred on occasion, (add: but doesn't clarify) usually when Jefferson was away at the Whitehouse, but if we need to make clear that some ran away on occasion we can do so. The attempted poisoning of an overseer? If this sort of thing, a freak exception, was the norm, provoked by routine cruel treatment encouraged by Jefferson, then it might be worth mentioning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The October Smithsonian Magazine has a long article by Henry Wiencek called "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson" that goes into abuse of slaves, mainly in the nailery at Monticello (not by him, personally, but with his knowledge--even though he tried not to think about it) and his slave-breeding. Opening blurb: A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder. Wiencek does not demonize TJ, but shows how "by looking closely at Monticello, we can see the process by which he rationalized an abomination to the point where an absolute moral reversal was reached and he made slavery fit into America’s national enterprise." Yopienso (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the one I was referring to. I get the print copy in the mail. Your version is sugar-coated. Weincek is telling us that the reason TJ was so silent about slavery after 1785 is because he figured out a way to monetize it for his own financial gain. Paraphrasing: "TJ was the first slave owner to realize the profit potential." This work is nothing but another Oprah-Reed type of reinterpretation to fit an agenda. He excuses one man's behavior of hitting another in the head with a hammer by claiming that the man was scared of being whipped or sold. Weincek goes on to point out the pious George Washington who freed his slaves and that evil TJ who didn't. Granted this Smithsonian article is only an excerpt of an upcoming book so we may not be seeing the total picture but I've seen enough already. Brad (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't sugar-coat it. Neither did I critique and analyze it--I just gave the briefest summary and pointed you all to it.

For the record:

• If I had to be enslaved in TJ's day, I would have preferred to have been at Monticello than at many other places. TJ was not cruel, but he did try to get his money's worth out of his slaves.
• I disagree with the contrast Wiencek makes between TJ and GW since it omits so much context.
• Wiencek may be wrong about why TJ was later silent about slavery, but TJ certainly did figure out breeding slaves was profitable.
• Wiencek is a respected historian who alleges Edwin Betts suppressed negative information in TJ's Farm Book 50 years ago. (See Smithsonian, p. 5 online.)
• Wiencek has a similar but broader article this month in the Oct. 2012 American History journal, Vol. 47 Issue 4, pp. 26-33--"Thomas Jefferson Slave Master," Yopienso (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Note: I have removed an unusable link. Yopienso (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Here's a link that's not very usable. I read the article online through my institution's subscription. (Not Villanova.) :-( Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

- So, armed with Ira Berlin's work, we know enough context to see Jefferson followed west African customary law, selling off a murderer [or one debilitating another in an attempted murder] into slavery. "Once, a missing bundle of rod had started a fight in the nailery that got one boy’s skull bashed in and another sold south to terrify the rest of the children—[from doing murder in the nail shop]." See frame 2, [Dark side of Thomas Jefferson].

- As a scientist who opposed international slave trade, how to make an argument against it in a world where fabulous sums were made working 20-something year-old slaves to death, their replacement found in the international slave trade to Brazil, Cuba, Haiti or at that time, Jamaica? Jefferson calculated it was better to keep slaves alive and in families, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” Frame 2, [Dark side of Thomas Jefferson].

- How can this fairly represented? Jefferson punished murders [or attempted murder] not with the death penalty, but by selling away. He did not work his slaves to death, but kept records of families, and allow children to grow up and live together on the place. The article observes all of Jefferson's artisans and house servants were related "—an extended family and network of related families that had been in his ownership for two, three or four generations.

- So, when was who sold where? INSERT: Not in the figure of 100 slaves sold by Jefferson over 60 years, "after Jefferson’s death in 1826, the families of Jefferson’s most devoted servants were split apart." Frame 8. [Dark side of Thomas Jefferson]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good conversation, but please keep focused on the article. The Slaves and slavery, section is not suppose to judge Jefferson on slavery, rather state how Jefferson treated his slaves. Yes. Doing back breaking labor in a nailry or agriculture field is undisputedly harsh. Slavery was terrible. However, this article is on Jefferson and his treatment of slaves at Monticello plantations. The everyday slave life of slaves is extremely important and needs to be in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. The article mentions whippings. The article mentions child labor. The article mentions the sale of slaves. Everyone is entitled to have their own views on Jefferson. I believe the wording could be more neutral. I would rather state that Jefferson did not work his slaves on Sundays and Christmas, rather then days off. But for the sake of unity, stating "days off" is acceptable. The Slaves and slavery section needs to give space for the reader to make their own view on Jefferson and slavery. Weincek's article, The Dark Side of Jefferson is a valid source, however, his view that Jefferson figured out a system to profit from slaves needs to be put in historical context. Jefferson was bankrupt. Monticello had to be sold by his grandchildren. Jefferson was a lavish spendor and he used slaves as collateral. Jefferson freed James Hemings, one of his skilled slaves, and lost around ($6,000 - 2011). Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "transatlantic" has been one word and NOT hyphenated - for a long time. Please replace trans-Atlantic wherever it appears.
Likewise in our modern English language:
"transpacific", "transpolar", "transcontinental", "Transsiberian Railroad", "transcutaneous", et cetera.
98.67.175.254 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

- Done. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article The Dark Side of Jefferson is a good article, however the title may be biased. Jefferson's calculation of slaves needs to be put into perspective that Jefferson was massively in debt. Jefferson used his slaves as collateral for his debt. Also, Jefferson freed two of his most valuable Hemings slaves, James and Robert, who at open auction could have been worth around $300-450 ($6,000 to $8,000 - 2011). Robert paid Jefferson $296.4 ($6,030 - 2011) fair market value for his freedom. Skilled male slaves who were black and white ancestry were worth the most. The article tends to make Jefferson the sinister calculating slave owner, however, in actual financing practice, Jefferson was bankrupt. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

James Hemings was freed by Jefferson without having to make payment. Jefferson then lost between $296.4 to $450 ($6,000 to $8,000 - 2011) by freeing James Hemings in 1796. James Hemings, a French chef, had to train his brother Peter Hemings, to be a French chef at Monticello, before Jefferson freed James Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

'Wiencek's summary is almost all speculation and conjecture and mulls over the same sort 'details' that have been discussed in length here on the talk page. After all this new and lengthy talk over various details no one has yet to square off with the actual item(s) (assuming there are any) in the slavery section that makes it less than neutral -- nor have they articulated anything important, with RS's, that is missing in the article. -- ' Not enough black overseers' ? -- 'Jefferson owned slaves to make a profit' ? -- 'Different laws for blacks and whites'? (this is Jefferson's fault?) -- Is that it?
Reminder: any attempt to 'fix the neutrality' of the section needs to be done with established facts and RS's not modern day peer-driven speculations from afar based on isolated out of context details. Any 'new' facts introduced should also be presented in context. For example, the article doesn't mention that most slaves greeted Jefferson with cheers and welcome when he returned to Monticello from the Whitehouse, and there are RS's and testimony that say so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I believe Wiencek is a valid source, however, his article The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson needs to be checked within full context in the Slaves and slavery section. Jefferson set free two of his best slaves, Robert and James Hemings. Jefferson lost money when he set free James Hemings ($6,000 to $8,000-2011). One can argue that slavery is bad or corrupt, but that does not mean profit motivation is corrupt. I am sure Wiencek got a substantial payment by the Smithsonian to write an article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Henry Wiencek (October, 2012) article: The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson I believe this article has allot on Jefferson, Monticello, and slavery and could be used to expand the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. However, Wiencek's views need to be checked by the historical context of the Slaves and slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new in human history. It was often practiced in civilian life as well as in the military i.e.In China school children were whacked with a cane, of various thicknesses depending on the offense. Soldiers throughout history were whipped, shot, by overseers, uh, commanders, for any number of infractions and many soldiers and seaman were impressed into service only to be ordered to walk head on into a hail of gunfire. Many had no idea what they were fighting and dying for other than what their commanders told them. Corporal and capitol punishment were the norm on most if not all ships of this era. i.e.If you so much as slapped the commanding officer you were hung in short order. Was that slave who tried to poison an overseer hung? Or was he only whipped? None of this justifies slavery, so don't even go there. We must be careful not to take the issue of slavery out of context and distort it by speculations that can only stand when taken out of context. Since whippings were rare (over a 50 year period) and they are already mentioned in the section, I'm not quite understanding why there is so much talk about these same sorts of things all over again. What exactly is the 'new' issue? After all this new talk and cut and pasting, that remains unclear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of corporal punishment, I believe all that is needed is to state whippings seldom took place on Jefferson's plantations. That is a neutral simple statement that neither justifies nor condemns slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the Slaves and slavery section, much improved. Most of the section is neutral. Here are two areas in the section that I believe have neutrality issues. If these issues are resolved, the POV tag needs to be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2 states Jefferson's opposition to slavery became more entrenched as he got older. Jefferson's opposition to the Missouri Compromise suggests Jefferson become more conservative as he got older, especially around 1820. In 1784 Jefferson opposed slavery in all territories. In 1820, Jefferson opposed limiting slavery in any territories. Also, the Louisiana Purchase did not prohibit slavery in the existing territories. I suggest removing the sentence that Jefferson become more firmly entrenched against slavery as he got older. I believe this would make the article more neutral. One source states that the hieght of Jefferson anti-slavery action was 1784. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to put Jefferson opposed the morality of slavery from his youth, without mentioning whether Jefferson became more entrenched in his oppostion towards slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6 states slaves at Monticello were Jefferson's family members. This could be misleading, since Jefferson had the power to sell his "family" members to pay for his debts. Also, members of the Hemings family, appeared to be "family" members or closer to Jefferson. This has not been stated. I suggest to put that Jefferson, himself, viewed his Hemings slaves as family members. This would be more neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least you're squaring off with the actual issue, however, there are several RS's that says Jefferson's opposition to slavery increased throughout his life -- while paragraph six doesn't say "slaves at Monticello were Jefferson's family members" -- it simply mentions that 'some' slaves "became like family members" (emphasis added). That seems clear enough. What would you suggest other than the outright removal of this idea? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the first issue, opposition to slavery, could be explained better to the reader. This question needs to be answered in the article: Why was Jefferson in 1784 opposed to expanding slavery in all U.S. Territories, yet in 1820 he was opposed to prohibiting slavery in all U.S. Territories? This seems to contradict Jefferson becoming more entrenched in his opposition to slavery. The second issue on "family" maybe the narration can reflect that the Hemings who worked at Monticello were Jefferson's family. The Hemings were related to Jefferson's wife Martha. I am not opposed to the use of the word family, but rather clarify what family means. Mentioning Jefferson as the patriarch of his Monticello estate would be good, meaning he believed he was a father figure to his slaves. This would give a better understanding to the reader. In a modern family, all members are considered as equals. In Jefferson's "family" Jefferson was at the top controlling all the activity at Monticello, including running slave plantations. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nearly every RS notes Jefferson's decline in opposition to slavery after 1784.

Jefferson called all his slaves "family," irrespective of biological relationships. Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Political, national and foreign matters prevailed over what Jefferson would have preferred to do. There were still large slave holding interests, from France and elsewhere, in the Louisana and other territories. Rushing in and making radical changes so soon after acquisition of these territories would have greatly worsened already strained relations with France and would have complicated the already heated debates over slavery in Congress. I don't think it was because Jefferson, a man of principle in many realms of human affairs, digressed in his assessment of slavery. Esp since there are so many other actions he took to oppose it during his lifetime. Yes, historians note Jefferson's inconsistencies, however, these usually occurred in a political capacity, not in the realm of human morality. More than enough RS's have outlined how prevailing political circumstances determined TJ's decision making in these areas. Any 'inconsistency' or 'decline' is political and academic and imo doesn't impeach the idea that Jefferson remained principled and opposed to slavery all his life, and saying so is neutral. [Add:] The section already mentions differences of opinion, however I have no objection with toning down the language. In a few minutes I will replace "firmly entrenched" with something else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good addition Gwillhickers. I believe your edit makes the article more neutral and avoids the political aspects of slavery such as the Missouri Compromise or the Louisiana Purchase. Readers can make their own assessment of Jefferson's opposition to the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The "family" issue needs more definition for the reader. I believe that can be fixed by adding Jefferson was the patriarch of Monticello. Servants, slaves, children were all under Jefferson's authority. Today, family has so many definitions, that I believe claryfication in the article would help the reader understand Jefferson's treatment of slaves on his Monticello plantations. Jefferson's immediate family, I suppose, included his children from Martha, Sally Hemings and her family. I suppose Jefferson was a father type figure, protector, for all of his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Merrill D. Peterson (1970) refers to Jefferson as the patriarch of Monticello, "The Randolphs and their children, reaching the number of eleven in 1818, lived with the patriarch at Monticello." Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography, pages 924-925. Cynthia A. Kierner (2012) states "As the owner of Monticello, father or grandfather of its most priviledged residents, and master of 122 others, Jefferson was the patriarch in this household." Martha Jefferson Randolph, Daughter of Monticello: Her Life and Times, page 152. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's family:

In 1776 Jefferson made a census of the "Number of souls in my family." His Albemarle County "family" numbered 117, including, besides his wife and daughter, sixteen free men (his overseers and hired workmen), their wives and children, and eighty-three slaves. Throughout his life Jefferson used the word "family" for both a group of people connected by blood and--according to more ancient usage--all those under a head of household, or, in his case, plantation owner. In 1801 he vaccinated "70 or 80 of my own family" against smallpox; in 1819 he spoke of the voracious appetite for pork of "our enormously large family." At times this usage required the addition of qualifying adjectives. Jefferson wrote that his son-in-law's "white family" had recovered from a prevailing illness in 1806, and, in 1815, he noted the surprising number of sick "in our family, both in doors and out"--making a neat spatial distinction between the Jefferson-Randolph family inside the Monticello house and the black men, women, and children living in cabins on the mountaintop and adjacent farms.

Peter Onuf included this essay in a 1993 book. Scroll down to "Perhaps the most valuable single contribution to Jeffersonian Legacies is made by Ms. Lucia Stanton. . . in this review for what it says about Stanton and her views. Yopienso (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, I agree that Jefferson viewed his slaves as his family. No one is disputing this. Families today, however, can have many meanings. Jefferson was the patriarch of his family, not only slaves, his relatives the Randolphs, all of his children, and the Hemings family, including Sally Hemmings. A patriarch is one who makes all the decisions. Two sources stated Jefferson was the patriarch of Monticello. The reader will understand that Jefferson was a patriarch. Jan Lewis and Peter S. Onuf (1999) refers to Jefferson as the "patriarch of Monticello", in discussing a potential sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture, page 215. Annette Gordon Reed (2008) refers to Jefferson as a "mentor, advisor, confessor, and patriarch.", The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, page 294. Everyone at Monticello relied completely on Thomas Jefferson. His family had to sell Monticello after Jefferson's death. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

INSERT: Rats, in a section above, it looks like I stepped on a Cmguy777 contribution. my add-on is posted two minutes after his, but I composed online, and instead of catching the 'edit conflict' the software posted my entry ahead of his. not good. the newbie is struck by bad luck to look more bumbling than he is already bumbling. apologies. I should have copy-pasted my late posting below his. rats.

- on another housekeeping note, above, on re-reading my discussion on the Smithsonian article's valuable insights into labor relations on the plantation, including the suggestive counterpoint of Jefferson's TWO sources of overseers -- following Washington's example before him -- I think I failed to communicate clearly the distinction between "overseers-who-were-free-whites-engaged-by-conract" versus "overseers-who-were-enslaved-by-their-mother's-status". I wrote, 'white overseers' v. 'slave overseers'. I should have used white overseers v. enslaved overseers ?

- also, it seems to me of some interest for the section that Jefferson used blacks and whites competing in his overseer recruitment, AND his nail factory of black boys competed with the white adult penitentiary nail factory. The scientific mind at work testing the capacities of the races issue? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the addition that Jefferson was the patriarch of Monticello would be appropriate for the Slaves and slavery section. This would add claryfication and neutrality to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While 'patriarch' seems to be the accurate (+ -) term I'm not sure if it's the best choice. It almost suggests that everyone at Monticello, et al, were treated the same, and as slaves go we know that's not true, regardless of how well Jefferson treated them. After all, they were slaves. If used out of context or without other qualifiers the term could very easily give the impression that slaves were not slaves at all. It would seem the term should be used in conjunction with existing text. Still not sure about which way to go with this one. It looks like we need to see some draft sentences. He is the existing sentence:

Many slaves interacted closely with the Jefferson family
and became like family members. [174]

Here is a proposal:

At Monticello Jefferson acted as a patriarch and considered slaves, whom he referred to as 'servants', part of his 'extended family'. Many slaves interacted closely with the Jefferson family and became like family members.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that is good Gwillhickers. As long as patriarch is mentioned, that would be good. I would mention the Hemings family, since they seemed to be the closest slaves to Jefferson. Here is a modification. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

At Monticello Jefferson acted as a patriarch and considered slaves, whom he referred to as 'servants', part of his 'extended family'. Many slaves, including the Hemings family, interacted closely with the Jefferson family and became like family members. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I object to the "and became like family members" on two grounds:

1. It's redundant since we're already saying TJ referred to them as extended family.
2. Anyone not familiar with the subject would be ill-equipped to interpret it correctly--no equality there, but always the slave/master divide. Even the Hemings were by no means treated like Jeffersons or Randolphs. Yopienso (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Insert : The Randolph's and Jefferson's were immediate family. Of course the Hemingses were not treated the same. And there is really no redundancy. 'Extended family' is mentioned in reference to the entire work force. Otoh, 'like family members' is in reference to 'many' 'some', not all. The reason we need to make clear that some were like family members is simply because some of them indeed were, and there is plenty of RS's besides TJF/Monticello that articulate this in no uncertain terms. It's quite established. e.g.TJ's wife, Martha, at her death bed, called for two of her long time servants, dear friends apparently, to be present. Sally Hemings herself was entrusted with the lives and welfare of TJ's daughters and acted as their nanny for many years. Instead of introducing all of these items into the section it seems best to simply make clear that some were like family members. If 'redundancy' is an issue then perhaps we need not mention the Hemingses in Cm's proposal, while the word 'slave' should only be used once or twice in the section. (!) Otoh, mention of Hemings provides a definitive example of this 'like family' advent so we should go with that. Before adding/replacing anything in the section we should wait a bit for any further comment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Yopienso since Jefferson considered his slaves family members. The term "became like family members" could be open to interpretation or mixed up with a modern family society. I do not believe a battle is neccessary over this at all. Here is a suggested modification. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

At Monticello, Jefferson acted as a patriarch and considered his slaves, whom he referred to as 'servants', part of his 'extended family'. Many slaves, particularly the Hemings family, interacted closely with Jefferson's family and grandchildren. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point about getting things mixed up with a "modern family society", is ambiguous to say the least, so on that note I would disagree -- however, in spite of your reasoning, your last proposal gets the point across and looks good enough. Let's run with it. Before we do we should wait a bit for any last comments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I am for putting the sentence into the article. Please put the sentence into the article, Gwillhickers, if you feel the sentence is appropriate for the section. The Hemings and the Randolphs seemed to be Jefferson's close family. I suppose what I meant was that the term "became like family members" seemed undefined. Could any slave enter or leave the Monticello mansion without permission? Were slaves allowed to eat food at Monticello or were invited to any of Jefferson's large parties? In a modern sense, Olive Garden has a slogan, "When you're here, you're family!" I am not sure what that means, since at Olive Garden you have to pay for your meal. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Have just added the proposal with a couple minor changes. i.e.Instead of ' many slaves interacted closely' it reads some slaves interacted... Also, 'grandchildren' is not included as 'family' covers that. Added a new cite (Kierner, 2012) for an extra source for 'Patriarch'. -- btw, refs still need a lot of attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job Gwillhickers. I admit I have been uneccessarily negative on Jefferson in the past. My views on Jefferson changed when I read that Jefferson had no intention of violence towards blacks after Gabriel's Rebellion. The Slaves and slavery section I believe is neutral, or neutral enough, for the neutrality to be removed. Concensus might be needed to remove neutrality tag from editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

- (1) In aggregate in a study by an economist Richard Stutch the average female to male ratio was 1:2. In ‘selling states’ among ‘slave breeders’, the ratio was reversed and greater, women to men 4:1. [footnote #12 in Slave breeding in the United States. From Richard Sutch.] "slave breeding" as it is used in American historiography CLEARLY does not mean "slaves with children".

- -What was the ratio for Jefferson’s plantations? In our one document sample, for 1795 by my count for the 160, Jefferson’s ratio is 1:3, that is NOT the ratio an economist would posit for a “slave breeder”.

- (2) The historian E. Franklin Frazier, in "The Negro Family", stated that "there were masters who, … mated their human chattel as they did their stock." Ex-slave Maggie Stenhouse remarked, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. .... A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from." [note #10 in Slave breeding in the United States. WPA, Slave Narratives.]

-- Who was the rented stockman at Monticello? We have the label to characterize Jefferson as a “slave breeder”, but NO RESEARCH to back it up from any named sources to justify associating “slave breeder" with Jefferson. There are NO reports of children of Jefferson’s slaves sold off in 20-child coffles as is sourced for mid 19th Century Virginia “breeding farms”.

-- There is ONLY the speculation that since Jefferson saw no economic advantage in working slaves to death in their twenties, he “made no death calculation” for replacement by the international slave trade of the 1790s. Jefferson rather found an economic reason in addition to any ethical beliefs he may have held mentioned elsewhere, to allow families to live to conceive and raise children to a productive age on his properties, a circumstance not available to slaves on many cash crop plantations in the Deep South, Cuba or Haiti. The observation master owned "slaves with children" is not historiographically interchangeable with "slave breeder".

- Conditions that allow slave families to raise their own issue beyond infancy is not "breeding" them except in the eyes of those who will not admit to the dignity of humanity under duress. The WP style/policy should admit the existence of families within the institution of slavery of the American South in ways there could never be in Andean silver mines.

- (3) It may be that the widower Jefferson sired a child or children by Sally Hemings. But if he then educated, trained and freed all of his purported children, regardless of their parentage, how is that to be considered “slave breeding” by considered scholarship, if the outcome is none of them were to be sold, and ultimately none were to be slaves? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone incorporate into the text some of the facts in the October _Smithsonian_ article "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson"? It cites documents to show some disturbing facts about Jefferson as a slave owner, facts pertinent to the article. ("Pittsburgh Poet" at work.) 128.147.28.69 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

- There are certainly some disturbing things about Jefferson as a slave owner hiring white overseers, and at LEAST that frame of reference should be addressed, even if there is no documented connection to Jefferson, other than speculation. -- unless the untoward episodes are related to overseers who were sent off to lesser properties, or let go altogether -- as always, historical context is everything.

- What was the ratio of white overseers to slave? Did slave overseers make more cash money (salary, gratuity, percent profits) at Monticello than white? It is notable from the Smithsonian article that the nail factory is a training ground for artisans and slave overseers. But out of the direct oversight of Jefferson, something goes wrong among the boys.

- There is "whipping" of 10-16 year old boys who are truant to their place of training. Is it the "whipping" with a sapling stick like that of white sons of plantation owners, received for tardiness in a country grammar school of the 19th Century, or is it the permanently debilitating lashing meted out to white thieves on a whipping post before the 'common man' reforms of the Jackson Era confined the punishment to slaves, soldiers and sailors after about 1830-40?

- There is a frosty morning slowdown of production in the nail factory reported in the article under one white overseer.

- (a) One of the disjunctions between agricultural society and industrial society is that in the agricultural, laborers work dawn to dusk, 19th Century white or black. In a factory lit with whale oil lamps, hours of production are on the clock, all-season, all-year. The hot environment described in the article as a bad working condition in summer would be a BONUS in the winter, unless all the 'field boys' 10-16 were still asleep when the winter nail factory hours began.

- (b) The article mentions problems at the nail factory while Jefferson was away, losing him the stream of slave overseer recruitment among the nail factory boys also described in the article. When no boys qualified for advancement, there were more management jobs for the white overseers, more pay for them. I hope any comments use available RESEARCH to sort some of this out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson is a good article. Jefferson was a maticulous slave owner, yet his views on slavery are complicated. That is the whole point of the Slaves and slavery section. One has to remember that Jefferson was severely in debt upon his death. This was because he was a lavish spender. Jefferson was figuring out how to get out of debt. I am not sure if there is a record but his 130 slaves were said to have sold for a high price at the 1827 auction, possibly over $165,000.00 in 2011 prices. The articles title is somewhat biased. One has to remember slaves were divided into categories, skilled, laborer, and household. Male skilled "Creole" slaves were worth the most at $10,700.00, possibly because they were both Black and White ancestery. If Jefferson was such a great mastermind on making millions from slavery, he obviously was a failure. Jefferson calculating the value of his slaves needs to be put into perspective with his massive debt. Here is a link to Slave prices from succession and bankruptcy sales in Mauritius, 1825–1827 I used this as a rough guide as to what slaves could be worth in the United States during the 1820's. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another perspective. Jefferson set free his most valuable slaves on the plantations, since both Hemings were skilled male laborers of black and white ancestry. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

- I wonder, Why the nail factory cash-flow fall-off? To your point, I wonder if Jefferson's using the capital value of his slaves to extend his debt was during the flush cash flow days when the nail factory more than fed his extended household? 1800 is about the time of factory cut nail production outpacing blacksmith hand-made nails. Did Pittsburg nail factories supply down the Great Valley and take away Jefferson's early market when his overseers could not maintain a consistent production allowing for contract sales? That is, can we see a relationship from cash-flow to credit-worthiness to loss-of-sales to indebtedness requiring estate sale of slaves after Jefferson's death? Somehow, Jefferson's consumption imported madeira does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation on the face of it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question, TheVirninianHistorian. I believe Jefferson's nail factory had lost money or for some reason he had to shut down his nail factory. Possibly a combination of his nail factory not having enough cash-flow and his spending habits contributed to Jefferson's reliance so much on how much his slaves were worth. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the cite book template is used/stuck in the text for a total of 14 times. cite web is stuck in the text for a total of 27 times. If one were to copy and paste all of these cite book/web refs it would fill a couple of pages of text. 'Cite book' belongs in the bibliography and 'cite web' should be replaced with book/author sources whenever possible. With all the sources for Jefferson, this should have been done from the start. Most of the cite book/web 'refs are not represented in the bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best way to resolve citations would be a top down approach starting from the lede section, doing one section at a time. That way editors will not get confused as to what section is to be worked on. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever approach is used there are too many cite book/web and Url ref's stuck in the text. One of my last edits involved a web-cite ref for 'abolition of the foreign slave trade' in 1807. This is of course one of the corner-stone topics for Jefferson and covered in most sources, yet the editor here chose to link to a web page article. Url's should only be used for refs's when there is no other choice, not as a first choice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But as a oldie-newbie, in addition to the first choice, more enduring, book sourcing to references readily available at universities and large library systems everywhere in the continental U.S., can the web cite links ALSO be carried forward for ease of access and Kindle/Nook tablet download/purchase for those of us who are semi-shut-ins? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that ideally the primary format for references needs to be this: Ferling, p. 161. Another option is to put the title in the original reference Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze, p. 161, however this could be cumbersome if the title is very long. If an author has more then one book or work on Jefferson then using the Ferling, p. 161 would be appropriate. Here is an example how an online web source can be referenced: Finkelman, p. 193.

Cite book is the standard used in GA and FA president's articles, where the ref only displays the name of the author, and page number (and sometimes the year date to distinguish between different titles from the same author). i.e. (Smith, 1998, p.123)
Once again, here are some examples 1, 2, 3 of reference sections that employ this method. Nice, clean, simple, easy to read/navigate. When you click on the ref it takes you to the corresponding source in the bibliography where all the other info is displayed, once. i.e.Title, publisher, isbn #, number of pages, etc. A Url for the entire book is sometimes added to the bibliography/source (not used a page ref) if the book is available on line for viewing and/or buying. Best way to become familiar with Cite book is to read up on it and look at the examples where/how it is used. Right now, the important thing is getting ref's cleaned up, eliminating Url's as in-line citations whenever there are better RS's to use. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree Gwillhickers, inline url links can be cumbersome in the article. Best to put url links in the sources section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there enough concensus for the neutrality tag to be removed from the Slaves and slavery section? I believe Jefferson is presented in the best historical context and the neutrality tag can be removed. Does anyone have any objections to the removing the neutrality tag? The only issue for myself is using the term "days off" rather then "did not work" in describing Jefferson allowing his slaves to celebrate Christmas and worship on Sunday. However, this is not an imperative issue in order for the neutrality tag to be removed, only a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a few minor improvements I would like to see also, but as neutrality goes the section is neutral imo and we should finally get the npov tag removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Gwillhickers. Where are the other editors on the neutrality issue? If nobody objects to removing the neutrality tag, I would say the neutrality tag needs to be removed. Seems as if editors have lost interest in the Slaves and slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To other editors: now is the time to make comments on the neutrality of the Slaves and slavery section. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The section makes Monticello seem like one big happy family, which is how TJ intended to be, and how it may have been for some; he was not cruel. In my opinion, TJ was far more exploitative of his slaves than the section indicates. Although it mentions runaways, it does not suggest they took that huge risk because they had reason to be overwhelmingly unhappy with their situation.

That said, I will not object to removing the tag for two reasons: 1. The daughter article, linked at the top of the section, portrays a more accurate picture. 2. There is such an improvement in the collaboration among editors now I believe editors may voluntarily paint a more accurate picture as they read more broadly and see it themselves.

I do truly appreciate the more collegial tone that has emerged. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems no one had any notions about 'one big happy family' until it was pointed out how slaves were treated. The section has a long history of isolated, indictment like comments, stubs, that played on ignorance and other modern day notions that slaves were kept in irons, routinely whipped, wore rags, fed slop and lived in shacks. The title of the section is 'Slaves and slavery', so that by itself should expel any notions about 'walk in the park', or what have you. The section also mentions whippings, other punishments and run-aways, which, btw, was an uncommon event at Monticello. Do we need to say run-aways were unhappy or that TJ used ("exploited") slaves to make a profit? I would think that's understood. The section also mentions Jefferson bought/sold slaves and par-took in the domestic slave trade. It also mentions Jefferson's silence, etc. Perhaps the section seems as you say because the modern view of slavery has been largely shaped by activist/agenda types, the media and college professors (e.g."Jefferson hated the negro") and for many people their view of slavery is still the product of emotion and habit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Main TJ slavery article: For openers, Finkelman is used for an inline citation 18 times and typically is used for bogus claims like most American colonists at the time of the Revolution "had been willing and eager purchasers of slaves". The ref section on that page is filled with lengthy commentary, opinion and is rife with web-page media type accounts, refs, on slavery. To be fair however the Monticello slave life section on that page is not half bad, however using that page as a model for this one seems ridiculous given some of its content and frequent references to individuals like Finkleman. If anything, the slavery section here should be used as a model to improve the main article. Page just needs the usual clean-up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I'll take care of that misleading quote right away (or at least modify it to reflect the source). I wasn't suggesting that article be used as a model, but as a supplement. Yopienso (talk)

Good to know editors are discussing the "Slaves and slavery" section again. Gwillhickers makes good points and I agree that this section needs to be used to improve the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. I believe that chronology adds to neutrality and that the Slaves and slavery section could be improved in that area. With that said, there is no mention that slavery was a picnic or good for African American slaves. Jefferson is listed as acting as a patriarch and I believe the readers will understand that Jefferson was the master of his own household. I believe from a readers stand point Jefferson being identified with being a patriarch allows the reader to understand their was a "heirarchy" at Monticello. In addition the readers understand that Jefferson profited from the sale of slaves, even though he humanely treated his slaves. Taking away the neutrality tag would be good for the whole Thomas Jefferson biographical article. Any other edits for the "Slaves and slavery" section needs editor consensus and approval. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Yopensio's concern over "slave exploitation" has been addressed in the "Slaves and slavery" section since Jefferson's selling of slaves has been linked with payment of Jefferson's debts. Readers then will be able to make their own conclusions. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You keep adding new expectations. Like any other form of cheap labor, slaves were exploited. This is elementary. Do we really need to say slavery was no picnic? If we say that then we should also say that slavery under Jefferson wasn't that bad either -- or we can do as you originally suggested and let the readers decide. Are we ready to remove the tag? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I am ready to remove the neutrality tag. I was addressing Yopensio's concern on Jefferson and exploitation of slaves. There is no need to specifically state Jefferson exploited his slaves in the article or state the harsh conditions of slave labor. The reader can make these conclusions on their own. I have no new expectations. The article as written is neutral and the neutrality tag needs to be removed. The comments I made on chronology and narration context, i.e. "did not work" rather then "days off", concerning Easter, Christmas, and Sundays were only suggestions, not mandates. I am all for the reader to decide their opinions on Jefferson. The current Slaves and slavery section allows this and that is my criteria for neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Using 'days off' or 'did not work' is saying virtually the same thing -- don't quite understand the difference and it would seem the readers are not going to 'read into' either term any differently. In any case, I'll remove the tag in a few minutes. If there are any other issues it seems someone would have said something by now. Let's be done with this. From here on I hope the same enthusiasm given to this section will also be given to the rest of the page which still has numerous issues throughout. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job Gwillhickers and Yopienso! Thanks Gwillhickers for removing the neutrality tag from the Slaves and slavery section. As mentioned, the "days off" and "did not work" suggestion was only a matter of preference, not mandated. The reader will understand what is meant by "days off", that the slaves remained in slavery unless manumitted. I agree, the rest of the article needs renovation and clean up. I believe that any potential changes in the Slaves and slavery section of the Thomas Jefferson biographical article needs to have editor consensus and discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

96.8.149.189 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Guest96.8.149.189 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Jefferson is NOT the father of the slave's children. A later DNA test confirmed the one mentioned in the article to be incorrect and a hasty statement was made as a result of bias, the previous one was plastered on the news, and sadly the second test never made it on TV due to bias by radicals.

I have been monitoring the Article Feedback on this article. One thread of comments that has emerged is that schoolchildren seem to be having difficulty trying to negotiate it. I know that there is linkage over on the left to the Simple English version but these new and young users are unaware of it. If you want to look for it, the linkage is on the right left of the article under Languages, sitting between the links to the Sicilianu/Sicilian version of this article and the Slovenčina/Slovenian version. I have therefore added linkage to the Simple English Wikipedia in the hatnote section. Feel free to delete it if you think this is a stupid idea or whatever, but let's discuss it further here if you don't mind. If people find the hatnote linkage jarring or annoying, I understand that but I do think that providing linkage to a simpler version of this subject is a possible way to make the subject and the entire Wikipedia family of projects more accessible to all users. Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For those interested, two new sources have just been added to the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson (not to be confused with the bibliography for this article).

• Lerner, Max (2013). Thomas Jefferson: America's Philosopher-King
• Levy, Robert (2007). The First Emancipator: Slavery, Religion, and the Quiet Revolution of Robert Cater

Like other publications, Levy's book about Carter is included because it mentions Jefferson extensively throughout the text, almost as much as Carter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section:

We have enough content to move forward with the section. It doesn't come right out and claim "Jefferson was an abolitionist" while still touching on the facts concerning Jefferson's many attempts at and approaches to abolition and colonization. It also acknowledges the inspiration and impetus Jefferson provided for the A.C.S. and similar efforts while also mentioning the mixed reactions towards these involvements. Re:Sources. This shouldn't be difficult. I'll begin by sourcing the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian, since you authored the 2nd paragraph mostly I'm hoping you can expedite matters by providing the sourcing here. As for the examples, these are already covered generically in the slavery section, but if anyone wishes to enumerate them they'll get no objections from me at least. At the same time we should make efforts to consolidate any appropriate facts that exist in the section into the proposed subsection, avoiding any redundancy. Any further suggestions that have not already been addressed are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The above text does mention abolition at the end. The reader would conclude Jefferson was an abolitionist. Also the sentence is general statement rather then specifics. I would mention gradual emancipation and expatriation. I would also state Jefferson Land Act of 1784 would have ceased slavery in the West after 1800. Jefferson's training, emancipation, and colonization program was developed in 1779. The American Colonization Society was founded by Robert Finley of New Jersey. I have looked up to see whether there was any correspondence between Finley and Jefferson. I could not find one letter. Also there is no mention of Carter, his emancipation of his slaves, and the hostile reaction from the Virginia conservative citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In Jefferson’s Letter to David Bailey Warden 12.26.20 from Monticello, we have Jefferson’s take on the Missouri Question, "the spreading [slaves] over a larger surface adds to their happiness and renders their future emancipation more practicable.” and on Virginia Governor Randolph’s proposal, "Mr. Randolph is at present our Governor, & of course at Richmond. He has had the courage to propose to our legislature a plan of general emancipation & deportation of our slaves.” Although not yet ripe for passage, Jefferson believed the proposal along with the Missouri Question debate, would get serious attention if the public kept in mind the dangers of St. Domingo’s race war. Recall Jefferson's contention that the races living peaceably together would be made problematic by both white prejudice and the memory of countless injuries done each individual undergoing slavery.

Jefferson is acknowledged by Finley and the American Colonization Society as a precursor to the ACS in the first organizational meeting, as cited in Henry Noble Sherwood’s article in Woodward’s Journal of Negro History. Gradual emancipation and colonization proves Jefferson was an moderate and practical abolitionist.

We must be freed of Galdo’s ideological blinders which artificially limit our ability to distinguish between John Taylor of Caroline who promoted slavery as a positive good and sought its expansion, and Thomas Jefferson who condemned slavery as a moral evil to master and slave, opposed its concentration to bring about emancipation, and sought its limitation and gradual abolition from the American republic.

It would be difficult in a time when U.S. citizens use "African-American" to use the ideological "emancipation and expatriation" when today's widely accepted usage indicates "emancipation and repatriation" from the wrong of a forced exile from Africa. My preference would be a more neutrally descriptive, "emancipation and resettlement", or "emancipation and colonization" because that is more inclusive of Jefferson's various proposals for purchase of land in Ohio by the state of Virginia, national land grants west of the Mississippi, and U.S. sponsored colonization in the Caribbean and finally Africa.

Aside: Voluntary migration makes sense for an individual and their family, not so much the ideological proposal for wholesale removal of a race, a failing of the "theoretical mind" as Madison once described Jefferson's limitation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative paragraph: Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a first reaction to this draft alternative, I like the counter-points in Cmguy's specifics. They strengthen the proposed passage, without lengthy duplication of information found elsewhere in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Cm', after all your foot dragging you now surprise me. Good work, though your opening sentence presents the statement as absolute fact, rather than 'widely held', which I restored. I added a couple of other tweaks and replaced 'African Americans', a modern politically correct term that all blacks are not in agreement with, with 'freed slaves', which is the more accurate term and is what these blacks were considered as. Let's get some sources lined up.

• Helo, Ray (2013). Thomas Jefferson's Ethics and the Politics of Human Progress: The Morality of a Slaveholder. Cambridge University Press, 280 pages.

• Hanson, John; McPherson, Thomas (1891). History of Liberia. Johnson Reprint Corporation, 63 pages. E'book

• "Thomas Jefferson and slavery". Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Retrieved February 25, 2014.

---

Reminder, when we add this subsection to the Slavery section, we'll have to delete some redundancies that will occur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian. The paragraph looks great ! My only concern is the term "abolish slavery" Is there another way to rephrase the sentence? Possibly the phrase "to end slavery" or "to reduce slavery". Why not just mention Jefferson opposed slavery and then list his actions against slavery. For compromise sake, the paragraph can be added to the article without any changes. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not referring to TJ as an 'Abolitionist', though he's generally regarded to be among the first, and was a central figure behind the idea. We shouldn't try to disassociate him from this idea. We've come this far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have accepted the paragraph as is in the interest of compromise. However, the Baptist and Methodist Churches in addition to Carter's emancipation were the central figures behind abolitionism, that is the end of slavery and black citizenship. Jefferson was against black citizenship. Jefferson was influencial in founding gradual emancipation and colonization. Finley stated he was influenced by Jefferson, however, I have yet to find a letter that Jefferson endorsed Finley's American Colonization Society. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship for freed slaves didn't have anything to do with abolitionism. Slavery's abolition could have occurred regardless of citizenship. Methodists and Baptists were each one voice among many but were not exactly central, as they were not involved in the actual drafting and effort to advance abolition before Congress and the courts. Besides, the section makes no claims about who was central. Here also, we'll let the readers decide. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The 1782 law that let slave masters free their slaves by deed was passed when Jefferson was out of the Virginia legislature. Blacks were treated as equals in Baptist churches and Methodist churches were handing out these deeds to slave owners. Carter led the way by example and is known as the first American emancipator. The height of Jefferson's anti-slavery legislation was 1784. Carter released his slaves in 1791. Jefferson only released two slaves under this law while Carter freed hundreds. With that stated this article is on Jefferson and not on Jefferson vs Carter. Apparently the two were friends. Again. You can go ahead with the current paragraph. No need to get bogged down in discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In a different way Jefferson also served by way of example, time and again, and needless to say would have supported the 1782 law had he been present in the Virginia legislature at the time. Remember, Jefferson was unable to free his slaves and felt releasing unprepared slaves and their children was a risky venture, to say the least, and we have Carter who serves as a classic example of this. Again, releasing slaves required more than just a pat on the back and good luck wishes. Even with resources, the prospect of releasing slaves was pitted with danger. This is something modern day idealists fail to appreciate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources/citations have been added to the first two statements, so far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Thomas Jefferson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change that Thomas Jefferson was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, because I was visiting the national archives on a fieldtrip and the guard there said that Thomas Jefferson didn't write most of it, because he was the ambassador of France at the time. 72.53.178.6 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done. Your guard was confused. Jefferson was in Philadelphia and wrote the Declaration of Independence - we have several of his drafts. He was ambassador in France when the US constitution was written (and was not too happy with the result). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, put another way, the National Archives tour in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom includes a) the Declaration, b) the Constitution, and the c) Bill of Rights in that order. a) Jefferson was a Congressman in the Virginia delegation in 1776 at Philadelphia, and on the drafting committee for the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson is acknowledged as its principle author. b) James Madison of Virginia is generally given credit as "Father of the Constitution" although he should probably share the honors with James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Jefferson was ambassador to France during the writing of the Constitution. c) James Madison is generally given credit for writing the Bill of Rights because he was was the principle author of draft legislation and the House floor leader getting twelve proposals passed. The Senate concurred, and the proposals were sent to the states for ratification. Then only ten were ratified, so those are the first ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was Secretary of State to President George Washington in his first term when the Bill of Rights was ratified. I hope this helps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope the guard get's a little education out of this also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)