Rogsonl1

Welcome!

Hi Rogsonl1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! YoPienso (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

TJ and slavery

Thank you YoPienso, Yo también pienso.

I'm not quite sure who to address to:

There are 2 problems with the paragraph in question, I have bolded them:

"In 1800, Jefferson was elected as President of the United States over Adams. He won more electoral votes than Adams, aided by southern power. The Constitution provided for the counting of slaves as three fifths of their total population, to be added to a state's total population for purposes of apportionment and the electoral college. States with large slave populations, therefore, gained greater representation even though the number of voting citizens was smaller than that of other states. It was due only to this population advantage that Jefferson won the election."

The text of the constitution reads as follows:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

So there were three choices available to the founders:

1. They could count everyone the same (including Indians)
2. They could simply not count slaves at all.
3. They could reach some compromise.

The second position was held by the Northern states and abolitionists. It was in their political favor that it be enacted since it would lessen the power of slave States, some of which were majority black. The Southern States wanted choice 1, since it would greatly enhance their power as slave owners would be the only ones voting in state elections for Congress.

The compromise they arrived at permitted the South and the North to become the United States, it was politics and a resistance to slavery which engendered it.

None of this is shown by the paragraph in question. Even if you disagree with me, that interpretation of the Constitutional wording is supported by contemporary evidence.

It is also clear that some, including Jefferson, believed that blacks should only gradually be trained and accepted into society. That is why Jefferson proposed adopting black children and educating them before returning them to Africa, I believe the Dominical republic, or full citizenship. But his election had nothing to do with race, only if choice 2, denying all representation to blacks would have been agreed to, would the election be changed. That would have been a much worse sin than what actually happened.

I believe I can provide sources fo all of the above, but I'd like to see the points of disagreement and agreement before getting to work.

Thank you again for your help getting me started. I believe Wikipedia is a great and monumental task used by millions, and should be accurate.

rogsonl@acm.org 7/28/2021

PS. The four tildes ~~~~ don't seem to work.

Oh--now I see you have the nowiki around the tildes. That's why they don't work. You probably don't want to post your email address here for the whole world to see. I strongly suggest removing it.

¡Me alegra que también piensas!

Regarding the edit about TJ--you're working with an established text that has references. The references support the argument. (Paul Finkelman is a harsh critic of TJ. WP strives for neutrality, but in fact is left-leaning.) So to make your argument, you would have to put it in another place with its own refs.

If you are any kind of researcher or historian in real life, you may be frustrated when you first start to edit Wikipedia (WP). No original research is allowed. Editing here isn't like writing a paper or an article. Everything here has to be based mostly on secondary sources, although primary and tertiary sources are allowed under the right conditions. You can find the guidelines at WP:OR. A foundational page to master is WP:5P.

Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi! Two quick tips about talk pages:

1. We thread discussions by indenting with a colon. Yes, a : on the left margin will indent your writing so it's easy to follow the comments.
2. Sign by typing 4 tildes with no spaces. That key should be on the upper left of your keyboard. That automatically signs your name and gives a timestamp for when you posted your comment.

Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Explaining stuff

Hi! I'm sorry I didn't see what you had written on your user page; I was wondering why you had apparently dropped out of the conversation.
An editor's (user's) user page identifies that person. I suggest looking at various user pages by clicking on the person's name, found on talk pages and on every edit. (Do you know how to find the history of a page? You click on the "History" tab at the upper right corner and it lists out every edit, who made it, and when.) Some people never write anything on them, while others tell us more than we want to know. Some make up a fictitious person. There are rules to follow, here: WP:USERPAGE. That's so comprehensive it may be overwhelming. You may want to start here instead.
The 4 tildes actually work! Like magic! You see the magic when you click the "Show preview" or "Publish changes" button. YoPienso (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)