Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Structure

No mention is made of the fact that Jefferson inherited all his slaves and tried repeatedly to free them during his lifetime including attempts to change state laws in Virginia to resolve the problem.

Having worked with the National Geographic's DNA lab, I learned that the DNA studies purportedly verifying a Hemmings-Jefferson relationship were speculative at best since no DNA of Jefferson exists not to mention the wild assumptions that had to be made in order to make any connections with the Jefferson family at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.3.53 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrt to TJ's "official" bio, I did not, in fact, specifically mean the White House website when I said that. I meant any brief bio that concisely records the salient points of his life. See, for example, InfoPlease. The WH site, I think, gives the best possible examples. Monticello.org does not include TJ's relationship with either Cosway or SH in its "official" bio. (By contrast, his marriage is treated chronologically in the second of twelve paragraph.) One nod: Jefferson freed two slaves in his lifetime and five in his will and chose not to pursue two others who ran away. All were members of the Hemings family; the seven he eventually freed were skilled tradesmen. In fact, it took me awhile to find Sally at monticello.org. "Hemings Family" lists her third of eleven after noting: The Hemings family occupied a special role at Monticello, with many of the descendents of Elizabeth (Betty) Hemings serving in important positions within the household and mountaintop. They were cooks, butlers, seamstresses, weavers, carpenters, blacksmiths, gardeners, and musicians. Jefferson freed, or allowed to go free, three of her sons and six of her grandchildren in his lifetime or in his will -- the only slaves to whom he granted freedom. Finally! Nps.org puts Martha near the top of the page (chronologically) with Maria and Sally at the bottom; this is what I'm advocating. (The article is abruptly truncated, I have sent a note to the NPS.)Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many different sections at the Monticello website, but the following quote summarizes the TJF's position: "Ten years later [referring to its 2000 report], TJF [Thomas Jefferson Foundation] and most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison and Eston Hemings."

Thanks for the link to the GA review! I'm confused by Cmguy's appearance there. He said, I believe the Article needs structure. The first section should be just Jefferson's biography, from his birth to death with time line periods. Any subject areas such as Slavery, Sally Hemings, or Presidency should be seperate [sic] from the main biography. I agree.

Whoa! No, I don't agree about the Presidency; that, imho, should be chronological. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The peer review says, The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - while the current lead is fairly well written it is not complete. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example, Slavery and Monuments and memorials are not in the lead. This makes me reiterate my point above, that the structure of the article should follow the structure of the lede.

Also from the peer review: The lead should be a summary of the whole article so nothing major should be only in the lead - for example the JFK quote. I'm guessing this quote was about there was never such a gathering of wit except when Jefferson dined alone. If so, I disagree with the comment, believing that quote would be an excellent clincher to the lede. (It could, I suppose, be mentioned in the body, but would be unuseful, redundant, and anti-climactic.) Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That quote was taken out some time ago by editorial consensus, as the Lede was getting too long and there was concern to pack more facts in the Lede, which were more important than the quote. Such types of quotes are generally considered more appropriate in the body of the article. It seems most suitable for his "Reputation" section. The current Lede was written after many changes in the article, including the acknowledgement of changes in scholarship over the last decade related to acceptance of Jefferson's likely paternity of all of Hemings' children. As the DNA study and changes in thinking of major biographers and institutions has led to a dramatic change in much Jeffersonian scholarship regarding this issue, after nearly 180 years, the "J-H controversy" needs to be included in his Personal Life.

• In terms of using the Peer Review from 2008 or delisting from 2009 as a guide, my impression is that standards continue to change. There is much emphasis on using RS. The specifics of any review will depend on the editors doing it. As you have seen, there are active editors on this article who have opinions, too.
• Please remember to bring your ideas first to the Talk page, as there are many strong opinions and active editors on this article. Just be aware that there is a consensus to have a Personal Life section, to include Marriage & family, Maria Cosway, and J-H controversy (if they are treated in chronological order), as well as Later years. There have been suggestions to have this section include all his post-presidency activities as well - in the sense of Personal Life after Public Life. Editors earlier had wanted the several sections on his political/public life to exclude personal life (although Chester Arthur's marriage and family events are integrated with his public life in chronological order, to refer to one example of those noted by you and Cmguy.) In this case, Jefferson had other relationships following his marriage. Parkwells (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would like to insert the JFK quote (from Wikiquote) into "Historical reputation," as you suggest, if others agree it should not clinch the lede.

I am seeing WP:UNDUE here wrt to Cosway and particularly Hemings. They counted for nothing to the public during TJ's lifetime and for generations afterwards. Certainly today we (including me!) have been fascinated to see this old rumor being debated and nearly proven, but in writing the man's biography, we should not make such a big deal of it; that's for the J-H controversy article. Yopienso (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, doubly. First, at least Cosway has been discussed by Jefferson biographers for a long time. His "Head and heart" letter to her is a classic. It's not material that you will find in primary school books, but it is in any serious scholarly biography. Secondly, we deal primarily with Jefferson's life, not with with his public image. His relationship with Hemings was, like very many similar relationships at the time, hushed up and ignored in polite society. As a result, it was not particularly widely known. But of course we adapt our history to the current best state of knowledge, not to the level of knowledge by a 1950s country bumpkin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And who is the "1950's country bumpkin"? The person who wrote the White House bio? the one who wrote the Monticello.org bio? the one who wrote the NPS bio? me? Wrong on all counts. Yopienso (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if the choice of words is unfortunate. The point I want to make is that there is a long tradition of sanitising Jefferson's biography - especially in the popular realm, but, for the first 150 years, also in the scholarly realm. As a result, said country bumpkin (through no fault of his own) probably "knows" that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (which is the Constitution), was President after George Washington and as President, lead the Rough Riders up the shores of Tripoli, freeing first the Barbary pirate's slaves and then his own in the famous Gettysburg Address. Modern scholarship paints a much richer and more differentiated picture of Jefferson, and that is what we should present. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between sanitizing a biography, removing facts, and simply protecting it from the unsubstantiated libel/slander various individuals try to throw on it, esp when motivated by personal and/or political reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets not forget, we are not dealing with established facts, at all, so treating the issue as a given, like Marriage and family, is entirely inappropriate and sort of insults the intelligence of the readers. Even if it was a given, Hemings would be just be some lady, slave or not, on the side that Jefferson was never serious about, and lets face it, had she been a woman who was all white, people like Reed and Dianne Swann-Wright of the TJF whose main interests are racially motivated, would never have looked at Hemings twice, and the issue would not nearly be the 'Controversy' it is today, if at all. This should be kept in mind when deciding where to place the section and how much weight it actually deserves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your opinion; it does not represent the widely accepted scholarly views of the issues. This is not a forum for your opinion of what an alternative history might have been, if the figures had been of different races, or for your speculation on how it would have been covered. The awards made to the numerous works of social history of the last 40-50 years, about soldiers, workmen, laborers, women, etc. show that historians are interested in the people on the side, regardless of their race. Jefferson needs no "protection" from his own acts; he exercised his discretion.Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking in terms of what we should and should not present to the readers and why. The activities and preoccupations of Reed and Swann-Wright speak for themselves and are a matter of record that anyone can check on and see for themselves. No opinion changes that. And the scholarship also varies considerably, as can and has been demonstrated and is why the articles has had the POV language removed regarding "most historians". As user 'Kk5000' just pointed out in edit history, Jefferson remains one of the top rated presidents, after he reverted your edits where you recently attempt to say otherwise. Historians have always been interested in "people on the side", it brings context to the historical accounts. But they usually deal in established facts, not one sided opinion based on sketchy evidence that supports varying views. -- And you're doing it again, you go into your own dialog asserting opinions while at the same time telling me I shouldn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The activities and preoccupations of Gordon-Reed ... speak for themselves"...yes, she's won a Pulitzer Prize and 15 other awards, a MacArthur Fellowship, and a national Humanities medal, in recognition of her contributions to scholarship on the Jeffersonian era and early American history. Not bad.Parkwells (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break4

Please stop misinterpreting my work; I did not "attempt to say otherwise" about Jefferson, but made changes to the Reputation section to improve the English and represent current scholarship. Perhaps Kk5000 is the editor who added Ron Chernow as a source, despite the fact that none of his major works deal with Jefferson.Parkwells (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the following statement back to the Lede, as it is fully supported by the content of the article, including in the Reputation section, written by editors other than I, and it accurately represents changing opinions of Jefferson, while people still think he is great: "since the mid-twentieth century, he has been criticized for his stand on slavery." Parkwells (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, I don't know the source off hand, it was some time ago, but I have read where Jeferrson was criticized for slavery by a few of his contemporaries, and I think it's safe to assume various historians in the 19th and early 20th centuries have also, esp during the American Civil War period. Now you need to stop speaking of the "current scholarship" as one unified body of monolithic thinkers who are locked in goose-step with Reed and company. When Foster broke the news of DNA evidence and disproved the Carr theory and found a connection to Eston there was a big rush to jump on the 'Jefferson-paternity' bandwagon with publications like 'Nature' asserting the idea as established fact, in spite of Foster and others saying that the evidence was not at all conclusive about Eston, much less the other children. And when the TJF committee was exposed by one of their own committee members for their inherent bias, having an established opinion even before all the evidence was considered, slowly but surely the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. Here we are in the 21st century and now there are many historians and professors from major and leading universities across the country and others who indeed have considered all the evidence and are not at all convinced that Jefferson would be involved with such activities, esp while he was a standing president with the eyes of the nation, and the world, not to mention his family and many friends, upon him. The article needs to reflect this. Thanks for keeping an open mind on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

The section here is all about the committee assignments, and changes of language; it doesn't give a reader much sense of what the document says and why it is considered important; or why Jefferson had it as part of his epitaph. I think this section should note why historians and others think it's so significant - how its statements related to others. Why did people find it important then or since?Parkwells (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree a summary of the Declaration's importance on American history would be appropriate for the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite the catfight going on below I too have always been under the impression that the signers could have been hanged for treason and they all knew that when they signed. I think the keyword here is could have been hanged. Which is the same thing as breaking any law could result in a penalty. I think GW's question was a legitimate one and it should be sorted out for inclusion here as well as the main article. Brad (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could have resulted in severe punishment, but so could the rebels' many actions of war for the previous year (as I noted below is covered in the main article). thus, many steps of "treason" had already taken place that might have been punished if the Americans had lost, and many states had already issued declarations of independence. In that sense, signing this Declaration may not have had singular significance. Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, all that would be included was the idea that signing was considered treasonable. No one wants to speculate, as has been done with other topics, about 'what could have happened', only that there was a genuine concern and fear that signing the Declaration was treasonable. It was, after all, an open declaration of not just revolt, but a document that outlined a litany of wrongs committed by the British crown. The fact that other colonies issued declarations doesn't change this. There are many sources that support the idea. Don't quite understand the fuss. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, has real good information on Jefferson and the DOI. I believe Ferling is a good source for the article and propose making edits in the DOI section. I believe "Declaration of Independance" is a better title, then "Drafting a declaration". Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TOC Fix

The TOC for the bibliography sub-sections doesn't connect you when you click on any of them:

16 Bibliography

16.1 Biography

16.2 Politics and ideas

16.3 Religion

16.4 Legacy and historiography

Because the above sub-sections are tucked away in a nav-box clicking on a given sub-section in the TOC doesn't bring you there. At least not on my browser, and I'm using Firefox. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's something odd. When you open the nav-box to the additional bibliography and then go back to the TOC, you then can click on a sub-section and it will take you there -- however, once you go to the additional bibliography and open the box there's of course no need to return to the TOC. As the bibliography was quite long it seemed like a good idea to tuck much of it away, however we do have a TOC issue now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really a Whiz with Wikimarkup. There are two alternatives I'm aware of. One is to unbox the extra bibliography. The alternative would be to exclude all but level one headers from the TOC. I've made a demo version of that here. If there is consensus, we can pick that version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Was anyone paying attention to Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Bibliography_again? It's a work in progress and will eventually be fixed. In the meantime the collapse bar helps me to keep things straight. If the non-navigable subsections really bother people then just eliminate the subsections within the box. Brad (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any criticism intended - certainly not by me. It's just an unfortunate side effect of your good work detected only now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed them. Brad (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography again

A couple of months back I split the bibliography off to its own article. I did not however, delete contents from here. See the linked article to grasp the idea. Sources that I know to be recently used are placed directly under the bibliography section and those that I just placed within the blue bar should be considered not used. Only books that are cited belong in the bibliography section. Brad (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Choosing a citation format

A consistent citation style and format is required for articles going toward GA and higher. This should be chosen now because as the article develops it's easier to maintain a style from the start rather than trying to shore it up later. There is of course the {{harv}} style citations which seem to be popular these days but I'm not very fond of, or several types of manual citations that can be used. I did play around with harv style citations here to some extent but it was more to familiarize myself in working with them. One example of manual citations can be seen at Abraham Lincoln which I instituted there. Brad (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there were no comments I decided to go with the harvs. Brad (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes section

While we're on the topic of order, style, and as I mentioned earlier, we should place the notes, some quite lengthy and currently mixed in with page ref's, to their own section. While we're at it, we might want to be a bit mindful of how long these notes get also. Seems they should only be a couple of sentences, tops. Don't want the equivalent of a sub-page for a note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already dispensed with one lengthy note and there are others that I will eventually get rid of too. They go off topic and contain material irrelevant to TJ. A well written article should only have a minimal amount of notes attaching them to the citations rather than a separate notes section. A note would be in order if say a truncated quote were used; the entire quote should be attached to the citation etc. Brad (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has a different point of view; I have noticed that lengthy notes used to supplement the text in many articles in this way, and not only to have a fuller quote. The main article of Declaration of Independence uses them to add to historiography of issues.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I used notes here to add information that was interesting, if kind of tangential. As to cite format, I hate Harvard style, but if it's what people want I can deal. I'll start separating the informational notes from the citation notes, if you want. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, the notes were lengthy and off topic. There was no reason to go into the "slaves of the Eppes'" topic on a page about TJ. Another lengthy note I removed only rehashed the Sally and TJ children when an entire section is devoted to that. Notes should be short and sweet to clear up possible confusion; not take the reader on a history trip. The notes that Coemgenus placed in the Arthur article are appropriate but I would have suggested attaching them to the citations rather than have a separate section for them. In retrospect I removed too much and will replace the gift of slaves that TJ made to Polly for her wedding back into the article text. Brad (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A formal note section is alright even informally in the reference is OK. However, my view is that if the information is important enough for a note, then the information need to be worked into the article. Notes can become distracting to the reader, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Signing as an act of treason?

I noticed that the Declaration' section doesn't mention the fact that signing the Declaration was considered an act of treason by the Crown, and had the signers lost the war, they would have been hung. Can't cite this off hand, but I've read that more than once in my travels. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that the main article doesn't mention this either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a common myth, but there is no evidence that it is true. Note that e.g. Richard Stockton (the first signer I randomly checked) was captured by the British and explicitly rejected an offered amnesty. He was then imprisoned and mistreated, but not hanged, and exchanged after about 5 weeks in prison. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you basing this assertion on the circumstances of this one man, or do you know of a RS that explicitly says this? After a quick search I came up with this source, (p.137) its PD, that says it was treason. I suspect if I continue searching there will be others. After all, the colonists were turning against the Crown. If not treason, then what would you suppose it was considered as? No doubt signing was considered treason but nonetheless Stockton was exchanged for other reasons. Will have to dig deeper. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there ever was a lawsuit that established the fact that signing the document was treason. Thus, this is a matter of opinion. There certainly was a risk that the British would interpret it that way. But they were well aware that the American revolution was also fought on the propaganda front. Two words of advice: First, please try to use more modern sources. And secondly, there is a serious problem if one searches for sources only with the aim to support a pre-formed opinion. There has been so much written about both Jefferson and the War of Independence that we can almost certainly find some material to support nearly any argument and position, not matter how eccentric or mainstream. To be able to evaluate this in context and to see in how far it represents mainstream scholarly opinion, it's much better to start by reading one or two standard works (wich can be recognised by wide use and positive reviews). If you are interested in the broader topic, Yale University has it's introductory class on the American Revolution online here. I listened to to it a while back on the podcast (i.e. no visuals, and not parallel reading), but it still helped me get some insights. Professor Freeman has a list of books she recommends for the course in the syllabus here. In my experience, all the OpenYale courses are excellently done, and their lecturers are among the best I've ever seen. You can get the lectures via iTunes (if you use it) or directly from the web by following the Class sessions link, all free (although they now are asking for donations). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Any source can be good or bad, regardless of age. If you are not evaluating a source by its own merit and are simply going by the assumption that modern sources are somehow automatically better then you are not doing your own thinking it would seem and are discounting a whole era of humanity based on nothing more than the time period they happened to live in. Not very wise. I asked you if you knew a RS that explicitly supported your opinion. Instead you told me about visuals, lectures etc but somehow never answered the question. As I said before most modern sources copy the older sources and use the same primary sources as did the older sources, when it was possible that is, as older sources often had direct contact with primary sources. It certainly is no leap to figure that turning against the Crown in open revolt, a Declaration no less, was treason. If you know of any source that says otherwise I'd be more interested in that than I would an unsubstantiated lecture on source integrity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of whether signers were at risk for treason. If there is any place for that discussion, it would be at the main article of Declaration of Independence. Please assume good faith. Schulz was sharing some sources he found valuable for general learning. More recent sources generally provide better footnoting, for one thing, which show where the content comes from, and for that reason are considered more reliable. If only one 1904 historian has this point of view, it must not be something that succeeding biographers of Jefferson or historians of the age consider important.Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

More recent historians have the advantage of having more access to sources, both primary and secondary. Yes, some sources get lost. But nowadays, that is a very small number of documents - most have been duplicated and stored in many locations. On the other hand, new sources still get discovered. But much more dramatically, the access to sources is much better. I can now browse e.g. the full Jefferson Bible from my computer at home, including his hand-written annotations. I can see Jefferson's actual handwriting on the title page - that sends a shiver down my spine! In 1904, if I wanted to read the letters of e.g. Jefferson and Adams, I would have to travel to some (or, indeed, several) museums and archives, negotiate access, and probably make manual notes. There would be little to no chance of reading them all in-order, or of referring to letters available at different location more than once. Nowadays, Amazon.com will send them to me, chronologically ordered and prettily typeset, for [http://www.amazon.com/Adams-Jefferson-Letters-Complete-Correspondence-Jefferson/dp/0807842303 US$ 21.09], and they thrown in Abigail's letters and an apparatus for free. This collection was first published in 1959, and many of the letters have not been published anywhere else. And, of course, in addition to the easier physical availability of the sources, there is a much greater awareness of which sources are available at all. Scholars have combed the archives, tracked down the sources, and described not only what they found, but also what they found interesting and relevant. Thus, each new generation can build on the work of the previous generation. No-one can read all the relevant primary sources - one must rely on the work of others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the access online is amazing - also to many parts of recently published academic works, so we can read for ourselves among various authors. Incredible resources at the Library of Congress, and many universities as well, and through the Gutenberg Project.Parkwells (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, Stephan Schulz, I began with a simple statement about treason not being mentioned with the intent of helping that section. S.Schulz comes in and says its a 'myth', and when I do a quick search and find a source that happens to be PD that supports this idea he claims "there is a serious problem" and goes into other topics. Parkwells comes in and claims this is not a forum and then, as usual, follows with his own opinions -- S.Schulz follows suit and leaves yet another lengthy dialog, once again, failing to cite his 'myth' claim, still. Now the topic has turned to PD v modern sources, again, a topic not initiated by me and I am lectured on that. And I have seen plenty of old texts with footnotes thank you, and though we have the internet, the Library of Congress has been around for a long time, along with public libraries, college libraries, etc. The primary sources remain the same, many lost to time as people die, places change and things simply get lost over time -- and you should learn someday that peer review is nothing new, btw. Historians, professors and scholars have been reading and critiqing each other's works long before we came around. If you would like to get back on track and help the article/section that would be nice. The two of you have done everything but that here. There are plenty of sources that supports the idea that turning against the Crown in open revolt/Declaration was a treasonous act. Citing this to help the section was my only intention in the first place. Below is an array of recognized sources that clearly support the idea that open revolt against the crown, and the Declaration was a treasonous act. Thanks so much for your help.

Herbert Hoover Presidential Library

Declaration of Independence Was 'Illegal,' Grounds for Treason, British Lawyers Say

The Regents of the University of Michigan

Treason in the Revolution {See footnotes/sources)

Honorable treason, 1976, by David Freeman Hawke

The Connecticut Society of the Sons of the American Revolution

Thomas Jefferson: an intimate history, p.106 Fawn McKay Brodie

The Declaration of Independence, 2003, By Karen Price Hossell, p.25

Smithsonian Center for Education, John Adams, 2nd paragraph "the signers of the declaration were committing a dangerous act of treason"

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Parkwells. This is not a discussion page according to Wikipedia policy. There is a place for discussion on Wikipedia called the Reference desk. This is the appropriate place for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cm' I began the thread with the idea of helping the section. It was not I who initiated all the other topics. I didn't turn the thread into an off topic forum. When you say you agree, does this mean we should only be discussing the Declration here with the idea of improving that section? If so then we are in agreement. Seems Parkwells should have availed himself to all the wonderful modern sources he lectured me about to begin with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, you did not "begin with a simple statement about treason". You began with an absolute statement of fact that signing the declaration was considered an act of treason by the Crown, and that the signers would have been hung. No "might be considered treason", no "would have been liable to be charged", no, "would have been hung". As I wrote in my second reply, yes, the risk was there. But, as the story of Stockton showed (and, BTW, at least one of your sources mentions more examples, and explicitly rebuts the point that the British treated signers as traitors), that risk did not materialize in the cases where it could have, and might not have materialised at all. I have no beef with the basic claim that the signing could be considere treasonous (in fact, Freeman, who I linked to, made the same point). I won't go through all the links you provided, but they show exactly the risk of looking only for confirming sources, and then reading them only very superficially. One is a report on a modern day mock debate, not a reliable source on history. One is from a student project. One discusses treason against the newly formed United Colonies, not by the signers. One is book title, of all things. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Not a 'simple statement' but an 'absolute statement'?? This is ridiculous. Anytime you can come up with a source backing up your claim of "common myth" I would be interested in reading what it actually has to say. Also, try to read what I originally said at 'square one', that signing was considered an act of treason. Your 'did not materialize in the cases where it could have' doesn't begin to refute this fact. How many signers were ever caught by the British to begin with?? Laws of treason against the Crown were in place prior to the Declaration' as Fawn Brodie points out, and I have presented an extensive list of sources that also support my original claim. Thanks again for all of your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. My point was that discussion and consideration of sources re: the issue of treason and its consequences would be appropriate at the main article on the Declaration of Independence, as the risk would apply to all signers, if it was substantial. Whether it is worth including in every article on someone who signed the Declaration? perhaps that could be settled by consensus at the article on the Declaration. My concern has been that Jefferson is known for the Declaration and named it as one of three things in his epitaph, but the section on his participation in it seems lacking and doesn't show why it was different or inspirational. Parkwells (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, I merely pointed out what was missing in the section. If you want to get a consensus for mentioning this in the section or elsewhere I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is being subjected to lengthy lectures about off topics and then being told this is not a forum and by another editor's denial of what should be obvious and in the face of overwhelming sources, as outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, it's a difficult way to work. I'm disappointed that no one responded to my work to improve and clarify the section on Jefferson as legislator and governor after the war; I added considerable content and cites. Also, no one responded to my comments on improving the section on Jefferson writing the Declaration - in order to have some idea of why it has been considered such important writing. Instead, there is a whole different issue about whether their participation was treason (but that would affect all of their efforts related to opposition to Britain.) But that's what we get in this project. Re: the issue of treason - since it appears to have affected all signers equally, it seems as an issue to belong to that article, rather than to use precious space to address it for each of the signers individually.Parkwells (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"each of the signers individually"? Not sure what you mean. My idea was to simply make mention that signing was considered treasonous, adding historical context and revealing the highly charged atmosphere of revolt during this time to the readers. The idea can be related with one sentence. I'd add the comment and a cite myself if I didn't think it was going to create a mud slide. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it perhaps be better to take this on at the main Declaration article instead of trying to hash it out here?Shearonink (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to suggest some time ago. The main Declaration article notes that the colonies had already been at war with Britain for a year before the Declaration was issued, and numerous colonies had made their own declarations of independence by that time. It makes no mention of the issue of treason or risk for punishment for it. My thought was, that because the risk applied to all signers of the Declaration, perhaps any discussion of treason, if it is to be included, should be at the main article on the Declaration. Otherwise, a note should be put in each of the articles of each of the signers for consistency. Parkwells (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break5

To any lingering doubters: To assume that plotting and turning against the Crown in open revolt was not treasonous seems rather naive. If not treason, then what -- an exercise in diplomacy? Anyone who does a simple search can't help but fall over the sources -- and there is not one that even suggests that the Declaration was not treasonable. Here are yet some more sources:

• Alexander Hamilton, 2005, By Ron Chernow: "No colony had ever succeed in breaking away from the mother country ... and the Declaration signers knew the odds were heavily stacked against them. They further knew that treason was a crime punishable by death"
• Thomas Jefferson: author of America, 2005, By Christopher Hitchens, p.22
• Madison and Jefferson, 2010, By Andrew Burstein, Nancy Isenberg, p.16

This should be a matter of simple deduction. Btw, the Declaration'/treason discussion is just as well placed here as it is on the main page given Jefferson the author and the fact that there is a main section for it here. All the other argumentative and lengthy side stepping about PD v modern, "serious problems", etc, etc, should be taken elsewhere. Still waiting for a source that supports the "common myth" assertion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea of treason can easily be mentioned here and on the DOI main page. As for individual signers, such mention on their page may not be needed so long as it's mentioned that they had signed and there is a link to the main page. OTOH such mention might not be a bad idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think this discussion would be better served by having it elsewhere. This whole discussion, however, has gotten me thinking... Is there any sourced/verifiable proof that The Crown and its legal agents held that the Declaration was high treason? Are there published examinations of the documents of that time with the British authorities writing that this document was treasonous, that the people who signed it were traitors and that they would be hung/shot/dealt with accordingly? Are there verified published accounts where signers were treated as traitors? I am simply asking these questions because I do not know myself, I don't remember seeing documentation of 1776-era British authorities actually stating the Declaration was treasonous. Present observers can say "Of course it was Treason and Treasonous!" and maybe that observation is technically correct (it seems that the colonists certainly thought the Declaration was codified treason on parchment) but in my opinion what should also matter in this instance are the statements and actions of the British authorities/courts/Crown of that time. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

All interesting questions the material of which would give added context to the idea of treason, which as I mentioned can easily be arrived at by simple deduction, however we are required to provide sources and there are surely enough of those to make such a simple statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there is no way to know how the British would have treated the Founding Fathers had they won the War of Independance. Benjamin Franklin suggested that the Founding Fathers would be hung, however, there is no indication, as far as I know, King George III had the intention of hanging anyone. If there are sources that state the British would have hung the Founding Fathers that is fine, however, none of the Founding Fathers were hung, the Americans won the war. That is why this discussion belongs in the reference desk. What can be discussed is what the Americans did to the British loyalists. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There was more than a good chance the signers of the Declaration would have been executed, as a war resulting in the death of many British soon followed. Unless they were incredibly naive the signers had to of known that their actions, open revolt with a signed document asserting that idea, would be considered treasonable, as many sources have indicated. Mentioning this idea in the DOI section would seem appropriate as it was certainly a consideration to be made before signing a document that for all practical purposes amounted to a confession. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To be discussed at the main article for the American Revolutionary War, we hope, and in appropriate state histories.Parkwells (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Franklin mentioned the part concerning hanging the signers. Gwillhickers, unless there is evidence that King George the III planned to publically hang Thomas Jefferson, how can Franklin's statement be substantiated? Franklin believed the signers of the DOI would be hanged. You could put that in the TJ article, however, that might belong in the BF article or the DOI, if not already in those two articles, rather then TJ article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to include Franklin's statement in the section, only that it was considered and feared by the signers that signing a document of open revolt was an act of treason, as Franklin himself feared and as many sources have maintained. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What source specifically states that Thomas Jefferson believed or feared he would be hung by the British authorities if captured? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In Malone Vol 1, pp 220-231 cover the DOI period and nothing is mentioned about treason. I also perused the index and saw nothing about treason listed there. Brad (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cm' if we want to make a statement in the DOI section about what Jefferson personally feared, specifically, getting hung, then we would need a source that says that. To simply state that it was considered treason we already have a number of sources offered to support that idea. Btw, is this something you want to do? I'm getting the impression that some editors are looking for any possible way to keep the idea out of the DOI section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely that editors are "looking for any possible way to keep the idea out..."; remember good faith. Perhaps they just don't think it's necessary.Parkwells (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is on Thomas Jefferson, not the DOI. Jefferson was the primary author of the DOI, however, the document went through extensive editing by the DOI Committee. There is no need to mention that signing the article was considered treason in the Thomas Jefferson article. If Jefferson, himself, believed that signing the document was treason or that he would be hung, then that would belong in the article, however, there are apparently no sources that Jefferson himself stated or claimed signing the document was treason. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say the signers knew. Jefferson was one of those signers. Unless there is a source that says 'signing was not treason' then we can easily conclude that Jefferson was well aware, esp since he was also the author. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't conclude anything, Gwillhickers. There were many signers to the DOI and at differnent times. There needs to be something that directly links Jefferson signing the DOI and treason or hangings. Apparently there is nothing in Jefferson's extensive writings that mentions treason against or being hung by the British Crown. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

'Can't conclude anything'? As the colonies were already at war with Britain when the DOI was being drafted and signed we can easily conclude the signers were well aware they were committing treason in the eyes of the Crown, and hence Jefferson knew, and there are many sources that assert the same idea. Doesn't matter if some signed at "different times" or not. Also, the DOI section as a whole is pretty scant. The DOI is a cornerstone topic to Jefferson's legacy. Seems it should be better covered, in summary, even if we don't decide to mention treason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there were no warrants of arrest for Thomas Jefferson from the British Crown. There is nothing in the writings of Thomas Jefferson that states he was committing treason and could be hung. Jefferson, Washingtion, and Adams, according to Ferling (2000) believed they were slaves to the British government, not having any rights. Franklin apparently is the only Founding Father who mentioned being hung. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, right before signing Franklin said "We must all hang together, or most assuradly we will all hang separately.". In any event do we need a primary source from Jefferson mentioning treason and hanging just so we can mention that Jefferson and the rest of the signers knew they were committing treason when they were signing? I'll see what I can find. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate being pedantic about this, but this quote is probably not Franklin's, although its frequently attributed to him. It's been first brought into connection with Franklin in 1840, more than 60 years after the fact, and had previously been attributed to others. See q:Benjamin Franklin. I'd also maintain that this was a figurative statement calling for unity between the newly independent states, not a literal statement about the signers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the emphasis is supposed to be a secondary source: a scholar who says the signers were aware of and worried about treason related to this issue. We're not supposed to be doing OR in primary sources.Parkwells (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It would have been my intention to use any primary source in conjunction with a secondary as is allowed on WP. In any case, all I have found is a litany of secondary sources that indicate that the signers were well aware of their surroundings and knew full well what their actions amounted to, as I have maintained from the beginning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break 5.1

I was not emphasizing the use of primary sources over secondary sources. That was only for discussion. If a secondary source states the Founding Fathers believed they could be hung, that is fine. What biographer of Jefferson stated that Jefferson believed he would be hung? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the sources do say the signers knew they were committing treason, which was punishable by death, usually by hanging (was the firing squad ever used during this time for treason?) As I pointed out above, we have sources that mentions punishment by death and hanging.

• Alexander Hamilton, 2005, By Ron Chernow: " ... They further knew that treason was a crime punishable by death"
  
• The Declaration of Independence, 2003, By Karen Price Hossell, p.25: "...those responsible for the rebellion would surely be hung for treason."

Mentioning treason will illustrate to the readers that the DOI signing was not a matter that was casually entered into. The signers, esp Jefferson, Franklin and the other committee members, had to of had deep convictions to defy the Crown in a treasonous capacity by signing and mentioning the risk of treason IMO certainly makes the point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hossel's book is a childrens book ("Ages 8 and up"), and not useful as a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Herbert Hoover Presidential Library: Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence, all fully aware that the punishment for treason was death by hanging or dismemberment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

From your very own source above (which copies some of the same text used by the library): NO SIGNER WAS KILLED OUTRIGHT BY THE BRITISH. [...] Five signers were indeed captured by the British, but not necessarily as traitors. [...] The British undoubtedly put a price on the heads of rebel political officials (not just signers) and the signers no doubt feared that the British would make good on the threat. The reality is, however, that none were executed for their treason.[...] So there you have it. A grain of truth in everything, but some broad wording that makes for a good story but an inaccurate portrayal of our founders.[1] Sorry about the caps - they are in the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

{e/c}

Insert : Yes, as you mention, "the signers no doubt feared that the British would make good on the threat." And despite the fact that none were ever hanged it doesn't chnage the fact that the Hoover' source clearly says -- "Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence, all fully aware that the punishment for treason was death by hanging or dismemberment."-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I had earlier found that email rumor at the Hoover Library, and was dismayed; I will write them a note. (It may be best to strike that post, Gwillhickers.)

Stephan is correct about Hossel.

Chernow, however, is unimpeachable. I think the fact that signing the DOI was treason is so evident most scholars don't make the point.

The BBC reported that barristers from Grey's Inn concluded, "The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable." They do not specify the punishment for treason, but we know it was typically hanging, often with drawing and quartering.

The National Park Service calls it treason, but I don't know who the author, David Maxey, may be. Yopienso (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks S.Schulz and Yopienso. I had already pointed out the BBC article and The National Park Service source above -- and the NPS is used as a source for other topics on the Jefferson page, not that we need it, as there are just too many sources altogether to ignore the idea any longer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Chernow would be good for the DOI article, if not already in the DOI article. Chernow says, "They". To change Chernow's word from "They" to "Thomas Jefferson" would be inappropriate, in my opinion, kind of sneeking in the back door. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree. Nobody's "changing" they to Thomas Jefferson. They is a plural pronoun; its antecedent is the plural noun, signers. There is no question whatsoever that the statement applies to TJ. Now, if you just think it's unnecessary to note in this article that Jefferson wrote and signed with a degree of trepidation due to the gravity and audacity of the undertaking, that's another question altogether, and one I won't opine on at the moment. I will insist it cannot be omitted on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced. Yopienso (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the point being made by Cmguy777 is that you cannot deduce from "Humans build the great pyramids" that "all humans" did, and in particular not that you, or I, or Jefferson did (to avoid confusion: In fact, I didn't. I'm fairly sure that neither you nor Jefferson did, baring some strange conflagrations of spacetime). Anyways, I also think that this fact is particularly useful here. At the time of the declaration, the colonies were already in rebellion, and any acts of treason could be claimed on that basis. Indeed, several colonies had issued individual declarations of independence. And, on the other hand, Jefferson was certain that the revolution would succeed (or at least publicly said so): Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. — We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. (1775). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The analogy to "all humans" is hardly that, as all the signers were involved with signing -- unlike all humans who are all over the world and certainly were not all involved with any building of the pyramids. It can still be said, just like many RS's have said, that the signers knew they were committing treason. Given Franklin's remarks "...or' we will all hang separately", it is no stretch of the imagination that Jefferson, the principle author, was keenly aware of the risk also. While we are on the topic of the DOI, this section should be one of the longest and most elaborated on the Jefferson page. We should be looking for ways to build it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I recently expanded the DOI section of this article. I added more information on Jefferson's involvment in writing the DOI and Congress editing the DOI. I added a summary of the DOI. My question of appropriateness concerning signing the DOI and being hung, is that Chernow was speaking of the signers as a whole, not specifically Jefferson. I could say the signers loved vanilla ice cream and strawberries. Does that mean that Jefferson loved strawberries and vanilla ice cream? The Chernow statement is valid in the DOI article. I reassert my original question: what biographer of Jefferson specifically stated that Jefferson himself believed he was under the threat of being hung? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well most of the accounts don't mention 'being hung' to begin with -- that is not what I had in mind for inclusion in the section. Only wanted to briefly mention that the signers, all of them, entered into the advent of signing the Declaration knowing that doing so was an act of treason. No Cm', I have not found an account that specifically mentions Jefferson being afraid of getting hung. Given the sources we still can say they all, including Jefferson, knew it was an act of treason. As this is the Jefferson page, the statement might read like this: i.e.Upon signing the Declaration of Independence Jefferson and the signers knew they were about to commit an act of treason ... etc, etc. To give the section a little color and historical context we could include Franklin's comment also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with your edit except to remove the phrase, "Jefferson and", since the source Chernow does not mention Jefferson specifically and I believe his book was on Hamilton. I do not believe that the inclusion of Jefferson was Chernow's intent, since his book was on Jefferson's political enemy Hamilton. Chernow only stated that the signers knew they could be hung for treason. Even though the statement concerns the DOI rather then Jefferson I would modify the statement to "Upon signing the Declaration of Independence the signers knew they were about to commit an act of treason." This would be an accurate Chernow reference. I do not believe the appropriate edit is to work backwards from a book on Hamilton. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Stephen Schulz's comment above, let's not repeat the folk tale about Franklin's quote, and even it it were true, it does not necessarily seem appropriate in this context - he was talking about the new states.Parkwells (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Only here could an argument like this take place. Mention of treason is of minuscule importance in the life of TJ and the overall business of him writing the DOI. Please take this entire thread off to the DOI article. Brad (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Insert : I have to disagree that "treason is of minuscule importance in the life of TJ". Treason was an idea that very possibly could have ended Jefferson's life had the war turned out otherwise. It was also a major consideration before the signers put their 'John Hancock' on the DOI. Or are we to believe they all signed on a whim with no considerations to speak of? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree this discussion can be moved to the DOI article. Unless Chernow specifically mentions Jefferson, then I believe mentioning the signers were under threat of being hung in unwarranted for this article. As Shulz mentioned, none of the signers were hung, after signing the DOI. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Brad, please remember that it was you who said above that the question was legitimate and should be worked out here. Cm' you say you agree with Brad (about moving discussion) but then turn around and repeat the same arguments of which I have addressed several times now. Early on I've provided an array of sources supporting treason and have even provided a source that is used extensively elsewhere on the Jefferson page.. One editor comes in and calls it a "common myth", an other editor lectures me on off topic issues while an other editor repeats issues already addressed. It was not me who has kept this discussion going around in circles. If there are no more objections we should mention treason in the DOI section and use Chernow and the NPS as sources. We don't have to mention Jefferson or getting hung per Cm's request. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree this thread should be moved to the DOI article and suggest that an explanation/discussion that all signers were at risk for treason is appropriate there. The section in this article should focus on why his contribution and the DOI are considered significant.Parkwells (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I do not own the Thomas Jefferson article. Edit consensus is neccessary, I believe for the edit that you proposed. Let me make my position perfectly clear, I accept this edit, "Upon signing the Declaration of Independence the signers knew they were about to commit an act of treason." I do not accept this edit, "Upon signing the Declaration of Independence Jefferson and the signers knew they were about to commit an act of treason." The Chernow source is valid and appropriate for the DOI article and the Hamilton article. I do not believe back door edits are appropriate for this article or any other Wikipedia articles. If Chernow mentions Jefferson directly, then I believe his book could be used as a source for the TJ article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is necessary, which is why I brought the topic to the table before adding it to the article. As for sources, it is perfectly legitimate to source an item from a book whose title may be that of a different person or topic. It's like you're saying we can mention slavery but not an item concerning Hemings because the item was sourced from a book whose title was not Hemings. Also, we are not copy-rewrite bots. As self-thinking editors we are allowed to make reasonable and obvious deductions based on the RS's. Having said that, I am okay with mentioning 'treason' without mention of Jefferson for now if no one else feels we should, as he was a signer, principle author and because this happens to be the 'Thomas Jefferson' page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break 5.1.1 vote

The following edit is proposed for the TJ article in the Declaration of Independence section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Upon signing the Declaration of Independence the signers knew they were about to commit an act of treason."

Statement is backed by numerous reliable sources, a few mentioned here

Kevin J. Hayes: The road to Monticello: the life and mind of Thomas Jefferson, 2008,
National Park Service : Treason in the Revolution
Ron Chernow : Alexander Hamilton, 2005

Please vote YEA or NAY. Any reasons for your respected votes would be appropriate and are encouraged. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• NAY - Although the above edit comes from a valid source, I believe the appropriate area for this edit would be in the DOI or Alexander Hamilton articles, if not already in those respected articles. I believe the TJ article needs to focus primarly on Thomas Jefferson rather then diverging onto the topic of treason and the signers of the Declaration. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The added sources are valid, the edit is valid, however, in the DOI article, not the TJ article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nay This is the end result of KB's of argument over this issue. A broad and generalized statement as the one proposed does not in any way improve reader understanding of Jefferson and the DOI. Also, citing the quote from a book about Alexander Hamilton is stretching and grasping for legitimacy. Brad (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• For - Mention of treason qualifies and provides historical context for Jefferson's document and no more 'diverges' from Jefferson than do many other topics discussed at considerable length on this page. No double standards please. Idea of treason also conveys to the readers the gravity of the DOI. DOI section needs much more historical context. Section currently reads little better than a dictionary account. With numerous sources, including NPS and many yet to be presented here, no one is "grasping for legitamcy". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since a vote was withdrawn, this vote then is null and void. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia

Where did the section go on Notes on the State of Virginia? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Governor; it was moved out of the Governor section but I see it mentioned now in the slavery section. Brad (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I have read the NOTSOV is only mentioned in passing and their is no context for the book. The reader may only view NOTSOV as a book on slavery. The previous section that was taken away from the article added context to Jefferson's NOTSOV. In my opinion, there is no context for this book in the article. I understand not having the book in the Governor section, however, I believe NOTSOV needs to have a seperate segment for context. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry and my apologies, Cmguy, that was my error in one of those editing changes: I intended to move it to after the Governor section, as that is when he did most of the work on it, but then "lost" it in trying to adapt it for the Slavery section as well. In keeping with WP and our agreements on other sections in this article, because there is a Main Article on it, I adapted the Lede of the "Notes" Main Article to use as a Summary for the section here. The main article is distinctly lacking, as it has almost no discussion of the contents except of his views on blacks and slavery. I made some changes to try to set up a structure that might work. Will try to find your previous text (in editing changes here) to add to that article, as that is where a lengthier discussion belongs. Since you're really familiar with it, can you explain why the Main Article said it was first published in 1784, when other accounts have 1785? Also, it said first edition in English was in 1787. Thanks. Will try to fix my error.Parkwells (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

His work was first published in Paris, 200 copies, on May 10, 1785. The source is Shuffleton (1999), Notes on the State of Virginia, Introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia

In the Fall of 1780, Gov. Thomas Jefferson was given a list of 22 questions, by Secretary of the French legation to the United States François Marbois, intended to gather pertinent information on the American colonies. Jefferson's responses to Marbois' "Queries" would become known as Notes on the State of Virginia. Jefferson, scientifically trained, was a member of the American Philosophical Society and had extensive knowledge of western lands from Virginia to Illinois. In a course of 5 years, Jefferson enthusiastically devoted his intellectual energy to the book, which discussed contemporary scientific knowledge, and Virginia's history, politics, and ethnography. Jefferson was aided by Thomas Walker, George R. Clark, and U.S. geographer Thomas Hutchins. The book was first published in France in 1785 and in England in 1787.

This is good. I'll add most of it back to the section in the TJ article, and also into the "Notes" main article, where it is really needed.

• This was the only full-length book which Jefferson would publish in his lifetime. Can this be correct? He also published his auto-bio. That statement doesn't make sense. Brad (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Took it from the article on Notes, so did not add it personally and can't vouch for it. Parkwells (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the passage. It just doesn't make sense. Brad (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense? What was so confusing? The Shuffleton source is valid. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement doesn't make sense when TJ wrote his auto-bio and published it. That would mean NOTSOV wasn't TJ's only published book as is claimed. There has to be an explanation somewhere. Brad (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I understand you were concerned over the statement that this was TJ's only published work. I thought you had removed the entire summary on NOTSOV. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote

Cm' (and others). Hardly any one, aside from a few editors involved in the prior debate, have voted, two of whom have been involved with personal issues with me recently, and not so recently. I didn't realize that we were going to conduct a vote for making a simple statement, one sentence, and I would have preferred to of used the NPS source. You took it upon yourself to base the vote on using Chernow and then tried to make an issue with using the Hamilton bio as a source. That is not very fair. Usually a vote is appropriate for a major change of some sort, not for making a simple edit. Is this the way everyone is going to work from here on -- conducting a vote every time someone wants to makes a simple addition or deletion in historical content? Another one of the votes made issue with the "legitimacy" of a source, yet this page currently has fourteen 'no citation' tags, along with other types; additions that have been allowed to stand, and ones that were made with no vote. Yet to mention treason, one of the main elements of the DOI and one that is sourced by numerous RS's, the same few usual editors line up to oppose it. This vote revolves around a double standard, and IMO is personally charged mostly. Now that the vote has been initiated, not by me, we need to call in more editors, and we should base the vote on using other sources as well. This way this 'vote' will be fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Other sources have now been added to the above call for this vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As this issue was developed as discussion on the Talk page, several editors suggested that mention of treason belonged with the DOI main article, as it was associated with all the signers and appropriate to highlight there (where no editor had yet thought it important enough to include). A related question on process is why that wasn't sufficient as a conclusion to the informal process of the Talk page? Then all the signers would get credit for taking the risk of the DOI.Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One editor said the question was legitimate but later said I was 'grasping' in spite of the numerous sources offered, however another (who has not voted) said he would "insist" that such a statement not be omitted and I have squarely addressed the other issues. Thought that would have been adequate, but to circumvent that, Cm', who beforehand said "I accept this edit," (treason w/ no mention of Jefferson) turns around and conducts this 'vote', thinking the same couple editors who currently dominate this page will go along, as they have. All this for one statement. Okay. This was not my doing, nor were all the different reasons for the length of this debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I do not own the TJ article. Yes. I accepted the edit as written, but believe the edit belongs in the DOI article, not the TJ article. That is why I submitted the article for vote to get editor consensus. You have been outvoted for the edit with the Chernow as source. You can add other sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a biographer of Jefferson that stated Jefferson himself was under threat of being hanged by the Bristish crown, then I would be for inclusion of the edit in the TJ article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hayes source stated there was "dark humor" concerning the signing of the Declaration that the signers would be hung and that Jefferson recalled one account during the signing of the Declaration. This is close, I admit, to a direct statement that Jefferson himself was under the threat of being hung. However, the appropriate place for the edit is the DOI article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If mention of treason is appropriate for the main article it is appropriate here. In fact it is more appropriate here as Jefferson authored this document with the express intention of turning against the Crown. Treason. It's like you're saying we can't mention that Sally Hemings was a slave because this is not the slavery page. Nonsense. Other topics have been given great latitude on what can be said. Keeping this definitive item about the DOI out of the section only tells me some topics get privileged treatment while some are given less than standard allowances. This is Jefferson's cornerstone topic. It should be given the most latitude and after all of these years it should be one of the longest sections in Jefferson's biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The editors here and yet to be heard from can decide what you want on the treason topic/sentence. I'm finished with giving my opinion; it's not worth continued discussion. Secondly, Gwillhickers and other editors, it's not clear if people have read the entire DOI main article and its Lede.

Issues: does all of the Lede deserve to be in this DOI section as the summary section, or are you going to add to it and the article, or do you think it should be better summarized? People care about the DOI topic, so it would be useful to know what everyone is thinking about the main article and whether it is appropriately summarized in the Lede. Remember, please comment at that Talk page if you're going to work on the DOI main article. I've gone over it just for review. IF that Lede is used as the summary here, the articles can have some consistency. Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, I appreciate you withdrawing your vote, but if that is the way you felt/feel you should leave it. In any case, I am very skeptical about doing any edits to either page at this point, given the fuzzy reasoning and double standards that are occurring here. I would like very much like to add a few things to the DOI page and of course expand the DOI section here, but if I have to go into a debate over adding a simple statement that definitively qualifies the DOI and listen to these 'issues', ones that are not applied elsewhere on the page, then address these issues only to be ignored, I don't know how that is ever supposed to occur. As I said, other topics have been given great latitude on what is allowed. Very disappointing to see that less than standard allowances have been made for the DOI section, Jefferson's landmark topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Although Parkwells is allowed to withdraw from voting, the vote, however, then is null and void. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to? I went along with the vote just to go on record and to leave reasons 'for', but I too had second thoughts. We do not need a vote every time a simple edit is made. Votes are appropriate for major changes. This 'vote' was your idea, and it was skewed from the beginning as you tried to narrow the prospect by including only once source and then attempted to make an issue out of the source being a Hamilton biography -- not that this amounts to anything because RS's do not have to be title specific. i.e.Info on Hemings doesn't always have to be sourced from a Hemings biography so long as the source is reliable in of itself. These 'back door' arguments have done little more than prolong the discussion, are not applied elsewhere on the page and are not based on policy or guidelines. If the vote is now null and void then you should be fair and support your arguments, intellectually, and by citing policy. Yes, Cm' you do not own the page. If you can't support your arguments then we should include basic and missing information to the DOI section. While we're at it, mention should also be made for the various clauses on abolishing slavery and other items that Jefferson originally had included in the DOI. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a main article on the DO[I] - the Lede or a summary of that article is supposed to appear here, which it does. It does not go into the detail of what was put in and taken out in the Lede, nor is it appropriate here. We've already summarized that.Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should merely be copying the lede (in essence or word for word) from the DOI main to the DOI section here. Since this is the Jefferson biography it should concentrate more on Jefferson's involvement with the DOI. As such mention of his treason (i.e.people commit treason, not documents) and his original inclusion of clauses calling for the abolishment of slavery, etc, and that he resented their exclusion should also be mentioned. If the lede of the DOI main doesn't mention these things then they should also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Voting/Polling

I think it's time to throw WP:VOTE and m:Polls are evil into the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

All in the interest of keeping the discussion focused on the issue at hand and not repetitious and lengthy. Right? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Source clarifications needed.

If you're placing cites in the article please provide the entire source so that it can be listed in the bibliography. It's likely I'll post other questions here as time goes by. Brad (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Info is needed for the following

resolved issues hidden

• The cite: Ferling (2000), pp. 131–137 has too wide of a page spread. Please use specific pages for each required cite. Brad (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferling (2000) references modified.  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• The Ferling (2000) cites

• There are two three versions of the Gordon-Reed book being used; we should only stay with one version if at all possible. Which one?:

• Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, University of Virginia Press, 1998 (reprint, with new foreword, first published 1997)
• Gordon-Reed, Annette (1997). Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 9780813916989. OCLC 35192332.
• Annette Gordon-Reed, The Hemingses of Monticello, Hemings Family Tree-1, 2008 Note: Eppes and Hemings had a son Joseph and daughter Frances.

There were two Gordon-Reed books referenced: one on TJ and Hemings: An American Controversy (1997/1998) and the second (2008) on the Hemingses of Monticello. They were referenced for different things. I think using the 1998 version of G-R's Controversy is better for material related to that; other cites came from her 2008 book. Will fix the references.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferling (2004) Adams VS. Jefferson

• The Ferling (2004) refs.. What is being cited here? Cmguy is this you? Brad (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have recently sourced Ferling (2000) in the Declaration of Independance section. The Ferling source needs to be (2000), not (2004), if the reference is to Setting the World Ablaze. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that I don't know where Ferling (2004) is coming from. Ferling published a book in 2004 but it's about the 1800 election. Current citation numbers 46 and 53 are citing to Ferling (2004). Can you check your (2000) book and see if 46 and 53 should actually be changed to (2000)? Brad (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand what is going on. Ferling wrote Jefferson VS. Adams in 2004. Possibly his book in (2000), Setting the World Ablaze may overlap with Jefferson VS. Adams. I only have a copy of Setting the World Ablaze. I can attempt to fix any cite errors using the Setting the World Ablaze book. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you added Adams VS. Jefferson to the bibliography and placed more cites from it. You don't have the book at hand? Brad (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The edits I added were from the Google version of the book with limited viewing access. The book I believe is good source for this article. I am not sure who made the initial (2004) edit. I don't have access to the complete book. I believe Ferling's (2004) book adds context to the article. Ferling was the one who mentioned Jefferson desired to reform the Virginia after Independence had been taken. Page 27 in Ferlings (2004) Adams VS. Jefferson book may verify the (2004) ref. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Picking citations from a Google limited view is not the best way to go because it doesn't allow an entire look into the context of the book. I suppose they're ok for temporary use but the book in whole should be used without limits. Brad (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I used the Google book in order to find the Ferling (2004) reference source. I believe the book, Adams VS. Jefferson is valuable to the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers too broad

• Currently the citation number 131 is: Wood (2011) pp=220–227 and is covering a lot of text. The page range is too broad. More specific page numbers are needed. Brad (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate issue on DOI- changes reflect Lede of main article

I've moved some of the details that had been here into the main article, where I think that level belongs. Have also added content from the Lede of the main article, which we're supposed to use as the basis of a summary here, into this section on the DOI. It is important that this article reflect why Jefferson's contribution is considered so important - so we need to focus on what was written, not all the maneuvering around it.Parkwells (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Does mentioning that Congress edited Jefferson's draft manuscript improve the context of the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary in this one.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

From reading the article, is the reader led to believe Congress passed Jefferson's draft without modification. Would this be accurate? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How about adding that they modified it, cutting it down, but perhaps not go into extensive detail about that. He is credited with the result, even if others participated along the way, and the additional detail could go into the DOI main article.Parkwells (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A semi-off topic comment. What exactly was edited out of and into the DOI is mostly unknown, as only a few drafts pieces are known to exist. Even Malone was vague as to what editing took place. As the DOI article claims, the original signed copy was lost. I don't think there is very much to include here about editing the DOI; TJ wrote it and then it was finally rewritten. Brad (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we're looking for something related to Jefferson and the DOI I just remembered that he wrote up the DOI on his writing desk that he designed himself and had built for him. A lot more relevant than mentioning treason. Brad (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The main article shows a picture of his writing desk and mentions that, so it could be used here - maybe not the pic, as it might get too crowded.Parkwells (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, was fairly specific on what Congress did to the DOI. I believe Ferling had good resource availability at West Georgia University. Jefferson said that Congress "mangled" his draft of the DOI, so Congress must have done something. Ferling writes that Congress improved Jefferson's version. I suggest putting in the article that Congress modified Jefferson's DOI. The current version of the article in my opinion supposes that Congress took Jefferson's draft without any revisions. Congress went over the document for two days (July 3-4). Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay.Parkwells (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The DOI passed by Congress on July 4, 1776 is primarily Jefferson's document and Jefferson does deserve credit as author of the Declaration. I believe there is importance in letting the reader know that Congress modified or toned down Jefferson's document in order gain acceptance in Britain. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I added that Congress modified Jefferson's Declaration and this apparently was deleted. I was going by the Ferling (2000) source. I do not believe editors can pick and choose information from sources or misrepresent what the source is stating. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Parkwells for adding the Ferling source on Congress and the DOI. The DOI is definately Jefferson's primary contribution to the United States, however, I believe there is value in letting the reader know Congress reviewed the document. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) As for the writing desk being used and Jefferson being chosen to draft the DOI because of his well known pen should be mentioned in the section. The "well known pen" was added as a note instead. Brad (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DOI section needs to be expanded greatly, not only concerning Jefferson's personal involvements but with basic historical context. There was also no mention of Jefferson's resentment towards Congress for sweeping omissions. As Ferling puts it "Jefferson was mortified as the wrecking ball tore down sections of his creation." (p.135) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Section on Slavery and views on blacks and slaves

What about just using the Lede for the main article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery for this section? This would be in keeping with WP, and it would keep the articles aligned. This section in this article goes into considerable detail with many, many historians' quotes that really belong in the other article (and most appears there.)Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good start but of course we don't need another paragraph about the TJ/SH relationship. I still think there are passages in the section that should be moved to a chronological position. TJ's legislation and the like. Let's go slow and easy so nothing of value gets deleted from either article. Brad (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree - not another paragraph on TJ/SH. CmGuy had included that in the Lede of the Slavery main article as he wanted to show that TJ's private actions: freeing his slaves, and that, except for Harriet, TJ freed only men related to her (most of them served him for decades.) I think most of the data about legislation is included now in the main chronology; perhaps lesser detail could be in this section. I understood CmGuy wanted to give an overview of how all that fit together in relation to TJ's stated ideas about slavery.

I propose then, that I will go through the section as it currently is. If I find things that belong elsewhere or are already mentioned elsewhere then I'll delete mention of them from the slavery section. In that manner we can see what was redundant. Brad (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok; I don't see anything in that section now that I want to transfer elsewhere. Would posting a revised version here on the talk page and allowing comments be the next step? Brad (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan - let me see if I get inspired tonight.Parkwells (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought in the lede section from TJ&S and slammed it into that section. It's at least something to build on for now. Brad (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The slavery/views sections take up approximately three and a half pages -- and while this section mentions Jefferson's draft of the DOI calling for abolishment, the actual DOI section, about a page long, says nothing of this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably need to choose one place or the other.Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) I have unhidden the draft version which was taken from the lede of TJ&S and hidden the old version of the section instead. From there it can be polished. The difference between the old version and the new removed about 1,500 words from the article total. Brad (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Haitian Emigration

I don't know how many were aware that the article Thomas Jefferson and Haitian Emigration exists. It was created by a one hit wonder nick back in 2007. It's essentially a parrot of Thomas Jefferson and slavery which already contains a paragraph about Haitian emigration anyway. So we can just do a simple redirect or put it up for deletion. Brad (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

!Thanks for letting us know. Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a simple redirect; sometimes it seems hard to get a delete. Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has some interesting sources and insights re: TJ and his policy related to Haiti, as it changed in relation to his trying to keep France out of the Western Hemisphere, and has links to fuller Atlantic relations. TJ was also having to deal with a southern-dominated Congress alarmed by the violence and massacres in Haiti.Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the article is salvageable then or should we now consider a merge to TJ and slavery? But also, as the Haitian thing was an incident of his presidency there should be a mention here and also check the Presidency of TJ article. I thought this would be an easy redirect ;) Brad (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas Jefferson and slavery (main) article was meant to be in chronology form and expanding on the slave life on Jefferson's Monticello plantations. The Hemings-Jefferson "relationship" was meant to be a summary, although expanding on Jefferson's activities in France concerning Hemings, as suggested by Parkwells, in the chronology would be appropriate. The historical analysis was an attempt to give Jefferson a fair assessment of Jefferson the slave owner and Jefferson the Champion of liberty. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Then what should we do about the Haitian Emigration article? The only thing worthy there seems to be the exact incident of Haiti. The rest of the article contains things already related to TJ and slavery. Also, could you address the latest question about Ferling at the bottom of Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Source_clarifications_needed.. Brad (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is to incorporate the Thomas Jefferson and Haitian Emigration into the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Then delete the TJAHE article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's about more than slavery, I think. I've incorporated relevant Haiti-related stuff (about foreign policy and recognition) into the TJ and Presidency main article, as there was another good source. Fears of American emigration to Haiti and the success of a freedman-led state are double-sided, but probably related most to his role as president. Will review again and let you know when done.Parkwells (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say the Haitian ordeal reveals Jefferson's views on slavery and blacks and his conservative nature to keep blacks in slavery in the U.S. A side view is Jefferson's relationship with the Emperor Napoleon. Was Jefferson a French agent? That goes beyond the scope of this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The cites make it clear this was not just his personal opinion - southern slaveholders were fearful of the results of the rebellion and potential for similar uprisings in the US; he was also carrying out Congressional policy/position. With the uprising beginning in 1794 and continuing until independence in 1804, there were years of news of massacres of the planter class in Saint-Domingue. I think this is another reason why he backed off from emancipation after return from France in 1789. Southerners paid more attention to the Caribbean colonies then, and these events horrified them. Parkwells (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. Yet, Jefferson did nothing to help slaves in the U.S. and reluctantly helped the Haitians, when he believed Neopolian had designs on America. This was the author of "All men are created equal." Are you, Parkwells, saying that Jefferson was submitting to pier pressure or did Jefferson actually agree with his Southern brethren? I believe the latter is more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the sources as reminding us that Jefferson was not acting alone; as President, he had to deal with his constituents, many of whom were represented in Congress, where the South dominated. Yes, I think his writings show that he shared southern fears of free blacks and possible slave rebellions, but think the international issues also need to be mentioned. It also shows how important the events in Haiti were to southerners. Once Napoleon was out of the picture, Jefferson went along with Congress in opposition to Haiti, showing the limitations of his thought. Parkwells (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why the Haitian part was placed in the slavery section. That happened during his presidency so should be up in that section. I noticed that Haiti was added to the Louisiana Purchase section; now it's Haiti and Louisiana purchase. Brad (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably confusion between the articles - added more to Presidency/LA Purchase section here, also to LA Purchase main article, and to TJ and Slavery main article because of his being influenced in relation to slavery - as well as his effects on the new republic.Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

'Trimming' the section?

I agree on narrowing down the Slavery section since most of the subject matter is discussed in the TJAS article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the slavery section has been greatly reduced, at the same time I think we should not be striping it down in a robotic like manner excluding anything that may be mentioned on the TJ'slavery main page. There should be a healthy area of contextual 'overlap', esp since many readers prefer to stay on one page. Many articles on WP share the same information. Because info may exist on one page does not necessarily mean it should be striped down to the bone on another page. And because this is the Jefferson biography, some topics need to be expanded in their own right, regardless of where the info may occur elsewhere. The slavery section should mention Jefferson's treatment of slaves and might even mention the Hemings family once at least and it might elaborate a bit more on how Jefferson dealt with slavery at different times during his political career, as again, this is Jefferson's bio. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree Gwillhickers, as long as the section is kept focused on slavery and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)