Talk:Jefferson Davis

Inconsistency

From this article: "When Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, the Union government implicated Davis, and a bounty of $100,000 (equivalent to $3,600,000 in 2023) was put on his head." Also from this article: "After two years of imprisonment, Davis was released at Richmond on May 13, 1867, on bail of $100,000 (~$1.79 million in 2023)"

My quick search shows $100,000 in 1965 would be about $1.9 million today (2024). So the 3,600,000 number seems to be the one needing correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.251.0 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done There was a typo in the conversion template. The two numbers still won't match up, as one is for 1865 dollars and one for 1867 dollars, but the difference is much smaller. Wtfiv (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Treason

@LesbianTiamat We cannot state that Davis committed treason in wiki-voice because he was never convicted of the crime. We are not allowed to make claims of fact based on our interpretation of events, laws etc. See WP:SYNTH. The most that can be done is to note that some sources have labeled his actions as treasonous with appropriate citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's total nonsense. Does the sun revolve around the Earth because Galileo was convicted? Get real.

I'll get some sources to cite him as a traitor in actual fact, despite him not being convicted ~150 years ago. LesbianTiamat (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat No, it's not nonsense. It's how we operate. We don't get to convict people of crimes no matter how strongly we may feel they are guilty. To state as a matter of fact that he was guilty of treason, a defined criminal act, he would have had to been convicted of that crime. Again, the most that can be done is to note that some persons/entities have described his actions as treasonous. As for Galileo, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. You are not required to agree with all of our policies and guidelines. There are some that I disagree with quite strongly. But we are not free to ignore them. In short; "themz the rules, until they aren't." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We actually are free to ignore them. There is no policy or guideline more important than WP:IGNORE. See WP:COMMONSENSE. LesbianTiamat (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to make a WP:IAR argument that Wikipedia should hold Davis guilty of treason, you are free to open a discussion or WP:RfC and make your case. Speaking as an experienced editor I don't think that would fly. But introducing such claims, absent a very strong consensus, would IMO be disruptive. I would point out that when Fidel Castro died the community had a massive discussion over whether or not we could call him a dictator in wiki-voice. There were scores of reliable sources that had used that term in reference to Castro, in addition to commonsense. But the community said we could not do so because he was not universally described as such. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Or I can just find citations. RfC not necessary, Mr. Administrator & Experienced Editor. LesbianTiamat (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can find sources that will state that so and so believes him to be guilty of treason. And you can state that with a citation. But you can't make that statement in Wikipedia's voice. To state definitively that someone is/was guilty of a crime, that requires a legal determination from a competent entity (i.e. a court of law). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

"... doom African Americans, who he called an inferior race ..."

That should be "... doom African Americans, whom he called an inferior race ..." 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2D1B:D570:47B9:F7AF (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also: "He was accompanied by his personal servant James Pemberton, an enslaved African American who he inherited from his father." That "who" should be "whom". 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2D1B:D570:47B9:F7AF (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wtfiv (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Davies was not pro slavery

Jefferson Davies was an abolitionist. One of his first acts as the president of the confederate states was an executive order illegalizing the import of slaves. He couldn't tell the 4 pro slavery states in the south to follow suite, because the underlying philosophy of the confederacy was self determination for the states and THAT was the real cause of the civil war. Note that Ulysses Grant owned slaves and 4 states in the north were pro slavery. 2604:3D09:418F:CE00:66A4:5A9E:C6FC:1F71 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is simply and flatly untrue. The importation of slaves from anywhere other than the United States was actually banned in the Constitution of the Confederate States. Davis was a slaveholder as well as a lifelong and unrepentant apologist for the institution, even long after the war. The decision to support the prohibition on the importation of slaves was largely political. He knew the Confederacy might need military aid from Britain and/or France. In both countries slavery had long since been abolished and the institution was deeply unpopular. Further, the British Royal Navy maintained a permanent naval squadron tasked with interdicting the Atlantic slave trade. Davis understood that whether he liked it or not, the Atlantic slave trade was more or less dead as a matter of law and saw no point in antagonizing a nation whose aid he was hoping to secure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And importation of enslaved people had been illegal in the US since 1808. The domestic slave trade was booming, and business owners in the Southern states (and the politicians they supported) had plenty of economic reasons to keep the foreign trade illegal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Treason again

Moved a recent edit stating with quotes Davis "had obviously committed treason" to a footnote, citing it as a claim or opinion of an author, as the quotes make clear. It's possible that at the time had Davis been tried by an appropriate jury that considered the charges he might have been found guilty. The postbellum Supreme Court ruling Texas v. White in 1869 denied the legality of succession after Davis had been released. However at the time of his arrest, Davis wanted to argue that the right of succession was built into the constitution. Davis's case never went to trial, in part because the Federal government did not want to stir up the controversy at the time. So the case was never made either way. However, the footnote makes the contemporary claim part of the article. Wtfiv (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we summarize the findings of the best sources, in this case historians of the Civil War and of 19th century America. To disregard the findings of historians seems like to drift into an inappropriate case of original research, as well meaning as it might be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is disregarding the opinions of historians. They can and should be included with proper citations. But not as statements of fact on a legal question that no court ever ruled on. This is not the same thing as "Tobacco products, especially when smoked or used orally, have serious negative effects on human health," which is an incontrovertible and objective fact. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While one can't put history in a test tube, reducing it to mere opinion is too postmodern. Historians agree that Jefferson Davis was president of the Confederacy and did lead a war against the country and constitution he had previously sworn as a legislator and cabinet member to serve and protect—i. e. he did do things to betray the United States. For the same reasons (i.  e. summarizing high quality secondary sources), we do not say he was convicted of treason, and the reality that the government didn't follow through with prosecuting the case remains in the article, but it's quite a different thing to treat the character of Davis's activities between 1860 and 1865 as if they were some great mystery, especially when softpedaling the Confederacy and arguing that Confederates weren't traitors at all is a major plank of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The point about Davis not being guilty of treason may be a major plank for the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but that's not my issue. It's a statement that was made based ex post facto application of a later ruling by the Chase Supreme Court about the contitutionality of succession. At the time, Davis argues that it was not treason. Both major biographies, which are not part of the lost cause, Davis and Cooper, discuss the details of the case but do not weigh in on his guilt.

This 2011 article, the Legal Status of the Confederacy by G. Edward White (around p. 480) is representative of the debate The 2017 article by Eric Williamson discusses the book Was Secession Legal] by Cynthia Nicoletti, which also discusses the controversy and the impact of Davis's trial. Both suggest that the case was less than plain, and the controversy reaches into academic literature beyond Lost Cause Mythology.

though keeping the footnote makes the point without a counterclaim that he was innocent. Wtfiv (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cite don't provide as much support to your claim that Davis's betrayal of the United States is disputed as you make out:

• G. Edward White's article contains no hits for the word "treason" in the first place and so seems irrelevant to the treason question.
• Eric Williamson's article is a university news piece about the book release—it's not the book itself or an academic coverage of the treason question—but even this article is hardly a refutation that Davis did betray the United States. The article quotes Nicoletti as follows to say that Davis's lawyer "was actually equally worried that Davis was going to be convicted. He was worried that Davis could be hanged. But he basically bluffed. He said, 'Yeah, I want you to try him, because I want secession to be declared legal, and I think we’re going to do it.' He managed to raise all of these troubling possibilities." (emphasis added). In other words, not even Davis's lawyer truly believed his client wouldn't be convicted of treason and was bluffing.
• William C. Davis's Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour calls Davis's postbellum claim that he wasn't a traitor an incredible notion, from the man who led a separatist movement that had cost four years of war (641). William C. Davis's prose is plainly skeptical of Davis's defensive misrepresentation of his secession, not sympathetic.

Add to this the sources from Paul A. Shackel and ABC-CLIO's American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, and it looks a lot less like scholars conclude Davis maybe didn't betray the country he swore to serve and uphold and a lot more like they do conclude he did. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

For now, I reverted the changes, but this is intended to be a permanent state of affairs. Adding all these academics and quotes seems to replicate the worse of wikipedia. Lots of opinions disguised by cherry-picked quotations by appeals to academic authority. My own preference is to keep academic author's opinions out of main space.

I think you miss the point of my posting Williamson's review of Nicoletti, it's to point readers following this discussion to an accessible article of Nicoletti's discussion. Similarly for White, I wasn't providing a quote for treason, I was providing an academic source that points out or argues that the legal status of secession, which bears on the issue of treason, was still under debate at the time of the war. I'm not trying to find quotes for our against treason, but to point out the whole issue needs discussion. Davis point about him not being a "traitor" being an incredible notion is a good point, but as you point out. Nicoletti may argue that she believes Davis's defense was a bluff, but her larger point is that there were points that Davis's defense could make that made an outright statement a problem.

I'm perfectly good with adding a line in main text about treason if there is substantive agreement. My preference would be a more probable claim, or one somehow stating that there's a substantive opinion that he committed treason (and there were many people now and then who thoughts so). I still think making a firm claim in main space is problematic. And, as a separate point, it'd be nice to keep opinions of individual authors, even academics out of main text.

I've already made my case why I think stating it as certain in main space is problematic: Most of the contemporary opinions cited assume the ex post facto case that secession was illegal at the time of the war. At that point, it seems opinion was split. If we could, I'd like to see what others have to say. Or, if you think it would produce be more productive and get a broader set of inputs, please consider opening an RfC. Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

My own preference is to keep academic author's opinions out of main space.: This personal preference seems contrary to Wikipedia's consensus policy on striving for a neutral point of view, which means including verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight (and academic points of view carry a lot of weight). The policy also reminds us that we should avoid stating facts as opinions, and academic history is not reducible to mere opinion. This is not a question of whether a movie is a good watch or not; this is historical reconstruction by trained professionals, and it is not a historical mystery whether or not Jefferson Davis led a separatist rebellion against the United States, which is why it isn't surprising that Rafuse and Shackel state that while Davis wasn't convicted for treason, he committed it.

at the time of the war [...] it seems opinion was split.: What opinions existed in the nineteenth century seems like a distraction. Back then, there was also a split opinion over whether evolution was real or if the earth was more than 6,000 years old, and we shouldn't let that affect how we write theory of evolution or Charles Darwin or age of earth. Wikipedia prioritizes the point of view and the findings of the best sources, which in nearly every case means current, reputable, academic scholarship from appropriate fields. Individual, non-scholarly, non-independent opinions held ~170 years ago are not the best sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree in part. We don't stop evaluating historical events or persons after a certain date, and Davis is a highly controversial figure. Modern historians and biographers often look at people and events through clearer lenses that are not fogged by the passions and prejudices of the moment. Also, they often have a much broader pool of information at their disposal including original source material that might not have been available to earlier biographers. That said, we cannot ignore the early historians. Judgements about people and events are constantly evolving. And this needs to be reflected in our articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is very reasonable to suggest that the unfolding historical hermeneutics of the American narrative, there are a number of scholars, as you point out, that argue that this was treason. These authors are assuming the ex post facto version of legal reasoning, which strikes me as reasonable. But I would still say few are the authors that say something like "it is plain" or "it is obvious"...that Davis committed treason. I want to make sure it is clear that I am not saying William C. Davis is sympathetic to Davis, rather that he's not conclusive. Here's one possible solution that perhaps could work. Would it be possible to put a brief one or two discussion of the state of the current assessment of Davis's actions being seen as treasonous in some sentences, or even a paragraph of the legacy section? It seems to make sense there, as that is where the ongoing interpretation of how Davis is viewed, and his significance today, is discussed.

As an aside, I'm not sure that changing opinions on legal matters is equivalent to the kind of accumulations of data we see with scientific theories. In this case, I'm not sure the issue in 1861 is equivalent to unfolding data in a theory of evolution. What we are looking at is a legal interpretation that was ambiguous at the time and resolved by an ex post facto 1867 ruling by a Supreme Court that was no longer dominated by southern presence. (Though I can't imagine a case like Texas v. White cropping up without a civil war. Given that, as Ad Orientum mentioned, interpretation in all forms is always something ongoing. Additionally, interpretation is always adapting to the demands of its time.

Another aside: One of my points relevant to Wikipedia style. With respect to a mentioned author's opinions in mainspace, I disagree that their presence presents greater objectivity. The regular citing of author's in main space is often used to assert an individual opinion of an editor in the name of person following that offer via an ad authorarium mechanism. So, in my view often seems against neutral point of view. But that's my personal experience when reading any article that gives me a long list of individual opinions by academics. You'll see that this article has adhered to that style, though of course, other others may wind up modifying that. My preference when playing a major role in editing is to give the consensus or well-cited description of the major splits, if there is not a consensus. Of course, this is only a preference on my part.

Finally, thanks for jumping in, Ad Orientem. I very much appreciate other voices, as the interpretation of Davis is an important topic even today. I agree that the interpretations go on and take on new meanings as the historical context in which they are embedded socially evolve. That's perhaps why putting something about the view of Davis's action as treason as seen today or as it has unfolded. (The article already points out in the narrative section tthat at the time, many northerners, as represented by their Representatives, already interpreted Davis's action as treasonous.) Wtfiv (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to make sure it is clear that I am not saying William C. Davis is sympathetic to Davis, rather that he's not conclusive: I'm not seeing nearly as much ambiguity William C. Davis as that. Calling Jefferson Davis's claim an incredible notion, from the man who led a separatist movement, seems rather straightforwardly dismissive of Davis's protestation of innocence.

I'm not sure the issue in 1861 is equivalent to unfolding data in a theory of evolution: While I can agree they're not directly equivalent—one can't put history in a test tube—I still disagree that that means history is reducible to mere opinion, like deciding whether one likes or dislikes a movie. This is still a professional, academic endeavor, and just as there are more and less defensible interpretations of scientific data (one technically can't put evolution in a test tube either—it's not pure physics—what scientists do is make observations about the observable world, including genetic data, and draw conclusions), so too are there more and less defensible interpretations of historical data—which is why we strive to summarize what reliable sources say, without converting into opinions what are in actuality facts.

a legal interpretation that was ambiguous at the time and resolved by an ex post facto 1867 ruling: While I think the reliable source guideline encourages us to prioritize current historical scholarship, so long as we bring up nineteenth-century sources, the interpretation wasn't entirely ex post facto. As early as 1832, people from James Madison (a constitutional framer) to Andrew Jackson (a fellow southerner) considered secession illegal, a "revolutionary act" in Jackson's words. At the time of secession, northerners and southerners alike characterized the secession as a revolution against the United States (see Andre Fleche, The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict (University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 60–106). Yes, after the war ended Davis walked that back, but, well, he would, wouldn't he?

One of my points relevant to Wikipedia style: I can sympathize with that feeling, but I worry that leaping immediately to that conclusion isn't giving other editors the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes quotations are relevant or useful. An editor might struggle to think of a different way to word information, making quotation and attribution necessary to avoid plagiarism and copyright violation. Or a topic might be controversial, making providing quotations from offline sources a gesture of good faith to let editors without direct access to the offline source know what verifies the prose.

Would it be possible to put a brief one or two discussion of the state of the current assessment of Davis's actions being seen as treasonous in some sentences: This is an interesting idea, but describing the state of a current assessment—that's to say, describing historians, rather than citing historians to describe history—would require citing a different kind of source than we seem to have. As the policy on original research's section about secondary sources explains, whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. In our discussion, we've been citing historical scholarship about Jefferson Davis, which are secondary sources for the topic of Jefferson Davis. But if we try to extrapolate a more general "state of the current assessment", that's interpreting those histories like primary sources for the field of history and drifting into disallowed original research.

I think it'd be more straightforward to just summarize what reliable historians say about the history: in this case, that even though the prosecution got cold feet about the case and didn't follow through, Jefferson Davis had betrayed the United States (corroborated by Rafute, Shackel, Nicoletti, and C. Davis). Trying to instead describe historians is an unnecessary indirection. (William C. Davis may not be as forceful as Rafute and Shackel, but I'm struggling to read him as inconclusive; and while Nicoletti documents how the prosecution understandably worried that a Virginia jury might nullify the charges, she also says Davis's own lawyer didn't really believe in the defense.)

I'm also glad to have more input with Ad Orientem, but the three of us still aren't that many. If we remain at an impasse, it may be time to take up your suggestion, Wtfiv, to seek a broader set of inputs. I'm thinking of making a post at the dispute resolution noticeboard as the place of first resort, though, before looking toward an RfC. Not!voting has its place but still strikes me as a little more rigid than ideal, and it's okay for us to take our time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)