Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cmguy777 (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 1 October 2024 (→"individual rights": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleThomas Jefferson was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 6, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 13, 2017, April 13, 2018, and July 4, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

"individual rights"

That, in the first paragraph, jars with the second paragraph, with regards to him having slaves, because there's no way in hell he really cared about individual rights, unless, it seems, he was trying to impress his peers, so... it should either be deleted, or qualified with bits from the second paragraph, otherwise even just those two words are doing some PR nonsense that so many people seem obsessed to have with TJ, centuries later, it seems... also, how in the world can the page be in both Category:American_libertarians and Category:American_slave_owners...? Does everything need to be contradictory? 92.10.199.195 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery was consistent with a belief in individual rights at the time, as explained by Coke and Locke. In fact, involuntary servitude is still allowed under some conditions under the U.S. 13th amendment. TFD (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, though, words might as well have no definitions, and up might as well be down... either way, even if it can be qualified by some chronological context, it seems to need to be said (and, I mean, it's not like there aren't some, right now, who claim to be libertarians, who are really the opposite), and if it's too complex for the first paragraph then, perhaps, "individual rights" don't belong there, as it's not as basic as any straightforward (non-hypocritical) meaning... 92.10.199.195 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this touches on one of the great discrepancies in Jefferson's thought and legacy. Presentism aside, it's more about individual rights versus public order, monarchy, authoritarian government, and what not ... than it is about equal rights versus white male supremacy. Still, if the concept of individual rights is not explained, qualified or linked (and I'm not sure a link to the article on Individual and group rights would explain it satisfactorily), perhaps it is better to remove this from the lead text. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead isn't the place to explain modern criticisms of 18th century liberalism.
Coke and Locke said that a heathen prisoner taken in a just war had no rights. Therefore he could be killed or forced into servitude. Because he was considered an enemy alien, his children inherited his status and could be killed or enslaved. That was the generally accepted view of the law in 1776.
Under current laws, people convicted of crimes can be deprived of life or liberty, and denied other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. There are of course debates about this a well.
All of this is too complex to put into the lead. TFD (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... point is, since "individual rights" need to be explained they should, really, not be in the intro at all, unless, I guess, the article is trying to convey TJ's hypocritic contradictions, by implication... so, ideally, "individual rights" are moved from the intro to some other place, and expanded upon... unless, I suppose, articles are in the habit of presenting the subject's PR look of themselves in the intro, uncritically... 92.10.199.195 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Founders, such as Jefferson, believed their own "individual rights" were being denied by Parliament and King George III. This included taxation without representation and quartering of soldiers. The "individual rights" had to do with the colonists, not the slaves. Maybe add clarification, "individual rights of the colonists", in the introduction. Just a suggestion. One could also say "individual rights of white male citizenship". Basically the Founders were followers of John Locke's rights of man. Source: The Lockean Roots of White Supremacy in the U.S. I am not in any judgement of Jefferson, but I think some clarification is needed concerning Jefferson and "individual rights", in the introduction. I would add this to the introduction, "individual rights of white men". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections for adding "individual rights for white people" to the introduction? Please refer to the above article link. I don't believe Jefferson was a hypocrite, but individual rights only applied to white people. Excluded people were women, slaves, and Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your last clause is why it think it should be "individual rights for white men" or maybe "individual rights for white non-enslaved men". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you view on the matter. I am trying to get editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As 18th century liberals, the Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal and that government had an obligation to protect the rights of all persons under its protection. There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the 1789 constitution or the Bill of Rights that restricts rights to white people.
The King had no obligation to protect slaves because they were not his subjects, but the property of his subjects. Your source btw does not reflect current views. Locke is now thought to have had little influence on the Founding Fathers, who rarely mentioned him. However, they shared many of his views.
The abstract of a recent paper on Locke says,"He had two notions of slavery: legitimate slavery was captivity with forced labor imposed by the just winning side in a war; illegitimate slavery was an authoritarian deprivation of natural rights. Locke did not try to justify either black slavery or the oppression of Amerindians."[1] TFD (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I am not here to argue about the justification of slavery. I am not here to judge Jefferson for owning slaves. The linked article I gave says both Jefferson and Washington espoused Lockes views on white supremacy. I find no records of Jefferson ever supporting rights for women, slaves, or Indians. I asked does anyone above object adding the statement "individual rights for white people" to the introduction. Do you support or reject? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to show that was a consensus view in reliable sources. It sounds like you are taking contemporary views of racial equality and applying them to an historical period. TFD (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking anything from anyone. I sighted a reliable source. The Naturalization Act of 1790 only permitted free whites with two years residency to become citizens. This country does have a history of excluding women and other races. [2] I am not judging the Founders or Jefferson in any manner. It is a simple statement that Jefferson supported individual rights for white people. Are there any sources that say Jefferson supported the rights of women, slaves, and Indians? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe this more as Cmguy777 being mindful of WP:AGE MATTERS and its guidance that in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed. Historians in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have subjected Jefferson and other founders to critical examination on how purportedly universal ideas about liberty foundered on contextual prejudices and power structures. Consider the following:
Jefferson's application of philosophies of individual rights stopped where white men ended and people different from him—like women, Black Americans (enslaved or free), and American Indians—began. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think we are all in agreement that Jefferson supported "natural rights" of men. However, that only applied to white people, not other races, women, or slaves. I was looking for editor concensus on this matter and to add clarification to the articles introduction. Older sources maybe unreliable or prove to be inaccurate. The wording in the article should be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reliable source that says, "Jefferson only supported the rights of white men." You mentioned the Naturalization Act, but naturalization is not a right. If you recall Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court decided he had birthright citizenship because he was born in the U.S. Yet laws that prohibited Chinese naturalization were constitutional.
Views of what human equality mean evolve. Twenty plus years ago for example most people did not know that prohibition against same sex marriage violated the individual rights of LGBT people. Does that mean that Hillary Clinton thought that gay people did not have rights?
Women btw had equal rights but their legal personality was merged with their husband's upon marriage. Unmarried women were allowed to own land for example, could not be forced to incriminate themselves, have freedom of speech, religion, assembly, habeas corpus, could bear arms etc.
Which of the rights in the Bill of Rights did not apply equally? TFD (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were and are rights that aren't in the Bill of Rights. Voting, for instance (not applied equally to women). Or the right to not be banished from the country (not applied equally to Indigenous peoples). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the source link to the article in the above paragraph. The Lockean Roots of White Supremacy in the U.S. Here is the quote: Moreover, the slave question lay at the very heart of the American Revolution, for key leaders like Washington and Jefferson championed the Lockean right to rebel against tyranny and the “rights of man” for white people even as they denied these rights to their Black slaves (and women) — a contradiction that the British did not fail to notice, as when the famous man of letters Samuel Johnson asked, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?” This source says the 1790 Naturalization Act was only for whites.[3] "The 1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only. African Americans are not guaranteed citizenship until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is ratified in the wake of Reconstruction. Groups of Native Americans become citizens through individual treaties or intermarriage and finally, through the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. Asian immigrants are ineligible to citizenship until the 1954 McCarran-Walter Act removes all racial barriers to naturalization. Without citizenship, nonwhites are denied the right to vote, own property, bring suit, testify in court - all the basic protections and entitlements that white citizens take for granted." Women could not legally vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920. [4] Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting and naturalization were not and are not rights protected by the U.S. constitution.

Most legal theorists think that the dicta in Dred Scott was wrong, that the U.S. constitution guaranteed citizenship for freeborn African Americans. However, most liberal democracies base citizenship on descent rather than place of birth. In recent years, the D.C. Court of Appeal ruled against an American Samoan who was denied birthright citizenship.

Can you point to any of the enumerated rights in the U.S. constitution that do not apply to people because of race or gender?

People today may see the protected rights to be too limited. There is for example no guarantee to universal health care. But there is nothing in the wording of the U.S. constitution or Supreme Court rulings that restricts rights to white men.

TFD (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I am not here to argue U.S. Constitutional law. My initial proposal was to add "individual rights for white people" to the introduction. You are apparently against that addition, by your arguements, without saying so directly. I did not say to add "whites only". My addition said "white people". The Constitution does not mention slaves directly or whether slaves could vote. Apparently, 3/5 of the non-free people would add representation to the white slave owners. Here is the source.[5]. We seem to be going around in circles. Are you for or against my initial addition? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Naturalization Act of 1790 is "whites only", as the act specifically mentions white people. The original Constitution does not mention race, but only implies citizenship, is only for whites. The Founders were careful in their wording in the Constitution, not specifically mentioning slaves or slavery by name. Is there any editor consensus for adding, "individual rights for white people" to the article, as I requested? I vote yes. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet these rights were in fact restricted to white men... Or at least so say the sources. So either the sources are wrong or you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Constitution is not specific on race, rather, implies white people citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1990 is specific, that only white people can become U.S. citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians generally hold that it didn't need to be specific, they all knew what they were talking about and they were talking about white men. The idea that they actually meant all adult men and women is some sort of weird alternative history, that isn't held by any mainstream historian I know of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
point to any of the enumerated rights in the U.S. constitution that do not [or rather, we should say, did not, since the conversation is about Thomas Jefferson in his historical moment] apply to people because of race or gender?: You don't think that Jefferson's support for the banishment and extermination of American Indians, as documented by historian Joseph Ellis in the biography American Sphinx (cited above), seems a little contrary to the Seventh Amendment's protection of the individual right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?
In any case, you also ignored the first sentence of my comment: There were and are rights that aren't in the Bill of Rights, and those (as well as others) are among the individual rights for which Thomas Jefferson as a founder, thinker, and president advocated while simultaneously limiting their application to white men. When even the Monticello historic site, generally run and staffed by people who are rather fond of Jefferson and his legacy, agree that Jefferson's advocacy of individual freedom didn't consistently extend to all people (and this in agreement with the balance of current scholarship), I think it's pretty reasonable to expect Wikipedia to acknowledge a similar caveat.
Voting and naturalization were not and are not rights protected by the U.S. constitution.: By way of aside: are not? The fifteenth and nineteenth amendments would disagree:
  • The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
  • The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
But anyway, this is by way of aside, since obviously those amendments postdated Jefferson.
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. As I mentioned, the Bill of Rights does not say it only extends to white men and therefore you would need a good source for that. The Monticello museum is not my go to place for constitutional law or liberal theory.
While the various amendments prevent discrimination against people's voting rights, the right to vote itself is not protected. People for example with criminal records lose their voting rights in some states.
The Fourth Amendment begins, "The right of the people...." The people has been interpreted to mean the citizens of the United States and therefore excludes aliens. Similarly, the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of visitors or immigrants to own guns. Since "Indians not taxed" and slaves were not citizens, the protection of due process did not apply to them. It did however apply to Indians, African Americans and British subjects who became U.S. citizens.
The most you can say is that Jefferson supported different rights for citizens, aliens under U.S. protection and aliens outside U.S. protection. White people came mostly within the first category, while Indians and African Americans came mostly under the second two. TFD (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Monticello museum is not my go to place: It seems like a very reasonable place to go for information about Thomas Jefferson, and this article is a biography of Thomas Jefferson, not an interpretation of constitutional law. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully. I keep saying this. My addition does not say white people only. It says "individual rights for white people". The word only is not in the addition. Do you support this addition to the introduction? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing implies that he supported rights for white people only. otherwise why mention them? TFD (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The source paragraph I gave above specifically names Washington and Jefferson championing Locke's "rights of man" for white people. Are there sources that say Jefferson championed the rights of slaves, non-white people, women, and Indians? I have yet to find any sources that say so. You can find them, then please present them. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making extraordinary claims, you are not providing extraordinary sources. Your own original interpretation of historical documents is not what you would need to bring to the table. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of my claims do you consider extraordinary? TFD (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The core claim... That Thomas Jefferson's conception of individual rights was nearly universal and not limited by gender and/or race. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I haven't asked for it to be included, REDFLAG does not apply, If you are actually interested in Jefferson's theories of rights, post a note on my talk page.
The claim that Jefferson thought only white males had rights is extraordinary, since no such restriction was put into the constitution and he declared that all men were created equal. (The term "all men was understood to mean all humanity.)[6] It would be odd too for minorities to launch civil rights cases if the constitution said they had no rights. TFD (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your source for Jefferson believing that women and non-whites had equal rights with white men is what exactly? That would appear to be an extraordinary claim given that he kept slaves and was openly misogynist. The constitution =/= Jefferson, bringing it up is a red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ulitimately, Wikipedia editors have to go by what the sources say. I have given one source that Jefferson and Washington championed Locke's "Rights of Man" for white people. Maybe another can be found. In fairness, when Jefferson was a young attorney, he represented four slaves in court cases to obtain their freedom. He lost all the cases. Jefferson, himself, was a slave holder. More clarification is needed in the articles introduction. Jefferson was Secretary of State when the whites only Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed. Cmguy777 (talk)• Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a second source: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery: An Analysis of His Racist Thinking as Revealed by His Writings and Political Behavior. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When Jefferson was younger he legally tried to free 4 slaves by court, but failed. From the above source, Jefferson did not want former slaves, black people, to be citizens. In a nut shell, Jefferson, only wanted natural "rights of man", for the white colonists. That clarification is needed for the article. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson&oldid=1248850175"