Talk:Jefferson Davis/Archive 1

Views of Slavery
What do you guys think about adding a section specifically about Davis' opinions towards slavery and towards African-Americans in general? I think this is a key aspect to his role in American history that I for one would like to know more about. Was he more conflicted towards slavery, like Robert E. Lee, or was he a slavery proponent through and through? I know this is controversial, but it is important, and deserves more attention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.165.66 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be confusing but I remember to have read somewhere that he had many personal doubts about slavery. It seemed that in the last years of the war he taught in abolishing slavery so that the CSA could be recognized by several european countries.20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Need an Explanation
This line doesn't make any sense to me "Davis was never touched by corruption", mainly because it's entirely out of context, but also because it's in the second line of the summary of the article, and is stuck between his rank as president and his inability to find a plan defeat the Union. Hobo Joe 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for Clarification

 * I am curious of the origin of this statement, "Though an opponent of secession in practice". I do not agree in my studies of Jefferson Davis.  His papers and speeches are littered with comments telling the south to prepare to leave the Union and that if a abolitionist wins the Presidency to pack your bags.  I think it may be good to tell that side of Jefferson Davis. - --Tniem 00:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the material on the /Timeline so far is from a 1923 collection of Jefferson's letters and speeches called Jefferson Davis: Constitutionalist by one Dunbar Rowland. It is in the public domain. I've edited it slightly to conform with "neutral point of view". By slightly I mean where I've said Davis fought in such-and-such a battle Rowland says he 'gallantly' fought at such-and-such a battle. -- Matt Apple

Anybody want to tackle turning this into an article instead of an outline? -- Zoe


 * How about you? See, I even started it for you. -Smack 04:37 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re: 1845: It seems correct according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. -- Someone else 08:41 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis factual error
Moved from Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 2003.

I was parlaying the timeline that is Jefferson Davis into something reasonably article-like when I came upon a statement that Davis was elected to the House of Representatives in 1845. From context, I inferred that this was the United States House of Representatives, not a similarly-named legislative body of the state of Mississippi. The problem is, in case you haven't figured it out yet, that 1845 is not an election year. I think I have three options at this point: keep the erroneous date, spend hours finding a free resource where I can find the correct date, or scrap the whole timeline as factually untrustworthy. -Smack 07:24 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't throw the baby out with the bath water for goodness sake! Just because there is one error do not delete the whole thing. I check each Events entry in the day articles I work on and sometimes delete several entries that I cannot confirm. And there is such a thing as a run-off elections and maybe a minor error where the author wrote "elected" when "took office" should have been inputted instead. --mav 07:31 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * The Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedia that's collecting dust in the other room here says "...He was a planter in Mississippi from 1835 to 1845, when he was elected to the U.S. Congress. In 1846 he resigned his seat..." No details, but it could well be a mid-term election due to the previous guy resigning or dying, or some sort of run-off. Or, of course, it could also be badly worded. --Brion 08:16 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Village Pump is too long for me to edit without truncating, but 1845 seems correct for Jefferson Davis. See [Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]. -- Someone else 08:39 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * That does confirm he started his term in 1845. The article claims he entered office in December 1845, which if true would be consistent with a late election (in 1845). --Brion 08:44 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Very well then. The timeline says that he took office on December 8, 1845.  Unless someone here objects, I'll say explicitly that this was a special election.  (Which is rather odd, since Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution says that vacancies in the House shall be filled by "writ of election" of the governor of the state affected.  I'll just say that he was elected to fill a vacancy.) -Smack 23:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, his biography on the Congress website says he served in the House from March 4, 1845 -- right at the start of the 29th Congress -- until his June 1846 resignation. However, I see December or December 8th, 1845, sometimes with a November or November 4, 1845 election date, plastered all over mysterious amateur web sites. Anyone want to look up the Congressional Record and make sure? :P --Brion 00:19 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

From what I read here, it looks like he won the election in 1844 (inaugurations for regular elections in those days were held in March, not January). - Hephaestos 17:44 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * So you're saying the December 8 thing is erroneous? -Smack 19:01 10 July 2003 (UTC)

I would think that Davis was elected either in Nov or possible Dec of 1844, than took office at the normal time in March of 1845. I may attempt to work on this. I check his cong bio and he took office at the normal time in March 1845, So perhaps just rephrase he was elected to the US H R in 1844 and served from March 45 to whenever Smith03

Removed the parenthetical reference to the December date, as I have yet to see any source claiming that which is more authoritative than the Congressional bio here. 19:01 10 July 2003 (UTC)

First Marriage location
The 2 sections that talk about his first marriage place it in two different states. (Kentucky and Lousiana, in her aunt's home or in his sister's). Was there 2 weddings? I doubt it, so which is correct? 19:01 10 July 2003 (UTC)

Born in the 20th century
Surely Davis could not have been born in 1908, as indicated by the bio box- especially if he died in 1889. 19:01 10 July 2003 (UTC)

Possible date errors re: imprisonment
Not a biggie, but I am in possession of a book published in 1866 and written by Bvt. Lieut.-Col. John J. Craven, M.D. which refutes the dates provided in this section. John Craven was the personal physician mentioned in this section and, according to him, the William P. Clyde, with Jefferson Davis and family on board, dropped anchor in Hampton Roads on May 19th. It was not until the afternoon of May 22nd, when Major-General Miles arrived to take over command of the fort, that Davis was escorted to casement #2.

Also, while he was shackled on the morning of the 23rd, they were not removed until Sunday, May 28th...

"That afternoon (May 25th),at an interview sought with Major-General Miles, my opinion was given that the physical condition of State-prisoner Davis required the removal of his shackles, until such time as his health should be established on some firmer basis."

"Sunday, May 28th. - At 11 A.M. this morning was sitting on the porch in front of my quarters when Captain Frederick Korte, 3rd Pennsylvania Artillery, who was Officer of the Day, passed towards the cell of the prisoner, followed by the blacksmith... I hastily followed the party, but remained in the outer guardroom while the smith removed the shackles."

Also of note, he did not spend the two years of his imprisonment in the casemate. On Oct. 5th Dr. Craven "directed Gen. Miles... to remove Mr. Davis from the casement to his new and more pleasant abode." The new quarters was in Carroll Hall.


 * Yankees are sick. Why did they put this guy into prison?! user:deliogul


 * Just speculation, but maybe they thought he was a dangerous rebel leader. 19:01 10 July 2003 (UTC)

"Trivia" & Importance
Also moved from Village pump on July 10

This article contains a lot of information about speeches that Davis delivered in Congress. Nobody but a serious researcher would care about that information, but policy is not to delete anything useful. What is to be done? -Smack 21:27 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Is there something wrong about having info for serious research? :-) Evercat 21:30 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Not really, per se, but what I was saying is that the article has lots of information that roundly fails the "5000 people test". -Smack 01:34 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * In particular: 1877, Visits England; 1878, Returns to Beauvoir, Mississippi; 1881, visits Europe; 1882, Visits Alabama and Georgia.
 * And he isn't particularly well-travelled already, how about those people who do? Do those trips merit mentioning? If so, list his great deeds. If not, that chronology is just a diary that belongs to sourceburg (sourcebourg?) Wikipedia (still under discussion, admittedly). --Menchi 06:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I have no doubts about keeping those. I'm looking more at stuff like "February 6. Speaks in the House regarding the ownership of the Oregon territory.  March 16. Delivers a strict-constructionist speech on the river and harbor bill.  March 27. Speaks on the bill to raise two regiments of riflemen."
 * It doesn't even say what positions he took. If it did, some insight could be gleaned, but otherwise it's virtually useless. -Smack 21:48 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not going to let this unresolved question hold up the refactoring of this article any longer. I'm moving the trivial the Congressional activity here. We can figure out what to do with it later.


 * 1845
 * December 19. Speaks in the House, his first speech in that body, on naturalization laws. Offers resolutions with regard to military schools and a mail route from Mobile, Alabama, to Jackson, Mississippi.
 * 1846
 * January 13. Offers a resolution in the House requesting information from the Secretary of the Navy with regard to the Ship Island channel.
 * February 6. Speaks in the House regarding the ownership of the Oregon territory.
 * March 16. Delivers a strict-constructionist speech on the river and harbor bill.
 * March 27. Speaks on the bill to raise two regiments of riflemen.
 * April 8. Speaks on the bill to raise a regiment of mounted riflemen.
 * May 28. Speaks on the House resolution of thanks to General Taylor.
 * May 30. Speaks on the bill to alter the pay department of the Army.
 * June 12. Offers resolutions that medals be awarded in recognition of services rendered by General Taylor and his army at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma.
 * 1848
 * January 3. Speaks on a bill to increase the size of the Army.
 * February 17. Speaks on the resolution of thanks to General Taylor.
 * May 5. Speaks on the bill providing for a temporary occupation of Yucatan by the United States.
 * July 1. Speaks in defense of the reputation of General John A. Quitman.
 * July 12. Speaks on the bill to establish a territorial government for Oregon.
 * 1849
 * January 12. Speaks on a petition for the African colonization of free blacks.
 * January 22. Speaks on resolution by the Legislature of New York with regard to the slavery question.
 * January 31. Speaks on the bill to aid the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama.
 * March 3. Speaks on the bill for the establishment of the Department of the Interior.
 * December 20. Opposes a resolution inviting Father Mathew to a seat in the Senate on the ground of his being an abolitionist.
 * 1850
 * January 10. Speaks on the resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont with regard to slavery.
 * February 8. Speaks on the question of receiving a petition for the dissolution of the Union.
 * February 12. Speaks on the subject of the extension of slavery to the Territories.
 * March 18. Speaks in defense of Buchanan's position on the slavery question.
 * May 1. Delivers a strict constructionist speech on the joint resolution providing aid to search for Sir John Franklin.
 * May 2. Objects, in a speech, to the granting of public lands to corporations.
 * May 8. Presents "the report and resolutions of the Legislature of Mississippi, on the subject which distracts and divides the people of the Union, and which threatens, unless checked in its onward course, to produce consequences fatal to the cause of human liberty, as secured and advanced by the Constitution of the United States."
 * June 13. Speaks on the bill to grant to Arkansas the swamp lands in that State.
 * September 28. Speaks on a proposition to abolish flogging in the Navy.
 * January-September. Speaks many times on Clay's compromise measures with regard to slavery.
 * 1851
 * January 22. Speaks on Clay's resolution of inquiry into the expediency of making more effectual provision for the suppression of the African slave trade.
 * February 18. Speaks on Clay's resolution with regard to resistance, in Boston, to the execution of the fugitive slave law.
 * 1852
 * July. Speaks in Philadelphia on the Administration's policy with regard to internal improvements, and visits New England.
 * December 1. Transmits to Congress his first report as Secretary of War.
 * 1854
 * January 22. Conducts Stephen A. Douglas and some other prominent southerners to the White House for an interview with the President on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
 * 1858
 * December. Speaks in the Senate on his proposed substitute for the Pacific Railroad Bill.
 * 1859
 * January. Speaks several times on the French Spoliation Bill.
 * February 1. Speaks on the agricultural colleges bill.
 * February 28. Speaks on questions connected with slavery in the Territories.
 * December 5. Speaks on a resolution of inquiry into John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry.
 * 1860
 * February 29. Speaks on the bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union.
 * May 8. Speaks on his resolutions with regard to the relations of the States.
 * 1865
 * January 12. Appoints commissioners to the conference at Hampton Roads.
 * 1884
 * March 10. Delivers his last address to the Mississippi Legislature. I removed this because the timeline never reported his election.

Why not copy the whole timeline and place it at Jefferson Davis timeline? --mav 02:11 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Timeline of Jefferson Davis (redirect) - 17th of January revision. Moved from Jefferson Davis/Timeline (also a redirect). All of the information in the timeline now resides either in this article, or in the copy-and-paste dump above.  I don't think it would be a good idea to have two parallel articles on one person.  -Smack 07:09, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * No. One would be the article and the other would be an extensive timeline. --mav

Succession box
Why have a succession box when there are no successors or predecessors? This seems a bit silly. -Willmcw 02:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

True, but succession boxes also give one a quick sense of the positions held over the course of a lifetime. john k 05:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the intro has all that too, at the top of the page. Maybe there should be a "position" box. Anyway, if other editors think it has merit.... -Willmcw

07:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

How about presindents of United States


 * I have restored the previous succession box, "Heads of the Confederacy," which has an actual succession. Richard75 15:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

 * Is it necessary to refer to the American Civil War as "The War Between the States"? As far as I know, the latter is not used here in the United States, except as an alternative way to frame the discussion of the nature of the war. It seems redundant. Perhaps in Canada, England, etc. it is known otherwise, in which case, it would be good to keep it like that.

Follow that link to Naming the American Civil War and you'll see a discussion of the various names used. Hal Jespersen 17:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The most correct title is from the U.S. Army War Department, which compiled the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion sometime in the early 1900s. "War of the Rebellion" was reached in a consensus of Northerners and Southerners. --Ezratrumpet 05:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Within days of commenting, I saw at the court house in Gainesville, Florida, a memorial war to the town's residents who have died in wars. It included a listing for "The War Between the States." ~takethemud 11/01/05, 845 AM, EST

Doesn't the victorious side always get to write the history? I presume this would include naming rights (not to be confused with States rights) m 23:00 15 Dec 2005) :-)

I removed "famous for serving as the first, only, and last President of the Confederate States" and put "only President". "First, only and last" is a bit pointless. Richard75 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Headline text
how do you understand this???
 * It's not difficult to understand, in my opinion - TopAce 14:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible error
The above error has been corrected, but this sentence is questionable:


 * These courts were free to choose a variety of punishments including a warning, extra labor, etc., but whippings were not prohibited.

Is the double negative intentional?

Also, this sentence, added as a single edit, seems redundant and probably politcal in nature, since it was already established that Davis was a slaveholder:


 * Regardless, Davis supported the idea of holding human beings as captive workers against their will.

Runderwo 10:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"These courts were free to choose a variety of punishments including a warning, extra labor, etc., but whippings were not prohibited."

The double negative may be the problem, as Runderwo suggests, but perhaps "prohibited" was the typo, and what was meant was "not permitted." The tenor of this section seems to be that J.D. was a benevolent slaveowner - either change would appear to make more sense in this context. What was the original source for the "slave court" info? Bog 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On human bondage
An editor is removing the phrase "holding human beings as captive workers against their will" and replacing it with, simply, "slavery". The argument is that the former shows bias and "when the sentence was worded in the previous way i assumed the writer of the article was against slavery, as am i, however an encylclopedia should never take sides". I disagree. "holding human beings as captive workers against their will" is a straightforward description of slavery. Is it damning? Only if you are against slavery. This argument strikes me as a bit like arguing that describing the Holocaust biases Adolf Hitler's argument against him. In fact, we simply explain the facts as they happened, and the readers can, I expect, draw their own conclusions of the monstrosity involved. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

clarification of election
Regarding this passage:


 * Elected to the U.S. Senate again, he refused the office in 1875, having been barred from federal office by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Is this supposed to say "he was refused"? It sounds like it's saying that he was the one doing the refusing. Also, was this "election" a popular election, or was he elected by the legislature. By picking him, did Virginia give up one seat in the Senate for six years, or did they just pick another person. To me, that's signficant, in terms of how much of a point (through sacrifice) they were willing to make, in choosing somebody they knew wouldn't be allowed to serve. --Rob 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added: I guesse the intent of this was to say, the legislature chose him, but he refused, because he knew he couldn't actually serve.  If that's what's meant, it should be clearer, since you can't really refuse an office, until there is a valid offer for the office.  You can merely refuse to seek it.  --Rob 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis and his 2 wives.
In the information box, I added Sarah Knox Taylor and change the caption from First Lady to spouses. I did this because we need to be accurate. I hope there will be no problems. My apologies for the delay with explanation as to why I did this. Thank you-RFD 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Montgomery
In that article, we read that he was Joesph Davis's slave, not Jefferson's. That article looks pretty careful — is a change here in order? Bill 11:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this as well, not corrected since first reported over 6 months ago. Did Jefferson Davis or Joseph Davis own Montgomery as a slave? MDonfield 06:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Limber Inconsistencies
There are many inconsistent stories about Jim Limber, a boy that was allegedly adopted by Jefferson Davis. Many stories found in amateur websites and southern editorials claim that the boy was black. However this biography I found says Jim Limber was mulatto (half-white-half-black). 

Some stories claim that Union soldiers forcibly took the boy away by force while the boy was crying and resisting wildly, however others claim that Varina gave the boy to family friend and Union general Rufus Saxton. 

I say there's too many unknowns and inconsistencies for Jim Limber to be included in the article. Dionyseus 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Would it be better to say that there are conflicting reports about an adopted child? Omitting all mention of the adoption story inspires those who've heard of it to correct the omission. It may just be an urban/confederate/internet legend. If there's any truth to it there should be some mention in his printed biographies. I agree that until we can find a solid source we should remove it but eventually we should touch on it, if only to debunk it. -Will Beback 07:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Davis' 7000-word entry (twice as long as ours) in "Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936." doesn't mention Limber at all. It certainly isn't a major factor in his life. -Will Beback 07:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Baptism
I removed the following paragraph from the article:


 * Davis was baptized in St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Richmond, Virginia in 1862.

It was in the middle of the Leadership of the Confederacy section and seemed to interrupt the section. Unless it was a requirement of office to be baptized, the sentence belongs somewhere else (and if it were a requirement, we should say that). However, I didn't see anywhere better to put it. Anyone else see a better place for it? JordeeBec 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle name
According to Rice University's collection, there is no evidence to support "Finis" as his middle name, although it appears in the Hudson Strode biography. No known official documents spell out his middle name. In light of this, I've changed the article to reflect this. JordeeBec 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1st President of the CSA or only?
Which would be more accurate in his infobox: to describe him as the 1st PotCS or simply PotCS? Calling him the 1st seems to imply that someone succeeded him. Any other thoughts? JordeeBec 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Change him to the only. --195.93.21.1 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Request
The wiki-table of Davis's Cabinet members in this article needs to be cleaned up to match a similar wiki-table in the Confederate States of America article. --TommyBoy 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, completed a long time ago. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Capture
His capture by Henry Harnden and the Iron Brigade should be expanded. I don't much about the topic otherwise I would. -- Al™ 00:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who really cares if he won or if he was agy or the he did!! yea not really meh!! good-bye!!

The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis
This book seems to have been influential in getting Davis released from prison, although it is not an entirely reliable source. Even Davis found fault with it. I'm not familiar with the subject of this article, so I am putting what I found here. --Jtir 10:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Scanned text of The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis as published in 1866. Title: The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis ISBN: 1582185107 Publisher: Digital Scanning Inc Author(s): John Joseph Craven Format: Paperback Publication Date: Jun 1, 2001 [As Published in 1866] Subject: History / U.S. Dimensions: 5.56 x 8.48 x 0.97 in Pages: 384

Review of Davis' annotations. Review: [Untitled] Reviewed Work(s): * "Fiction Distorting Fact": The Prison Life, Annotated by Jefferson Davis. by Edward K. Eckert Review author[s]: David S. Heidler Journal of Southern History, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 673-674

Dr. Craven and the Origin of the Free Association Library, 1883-1893. "'In June 1866 The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis appeared, taking the U.S., London, and Paris (as La vie de prison de Jefferson Davis, translated by Wallace Jones) by storm. The book built sympathy for Davis' plight, and called for his release. It served as a catalyst that mobilized a the public and coalition of powerful publishers and politicians, led by Thaddeus Stevens, Horace Greeley, Gerrit Smith and others, who took up the cause and secured Davis' release, on May 13, 1867. Davis, ever combative (even after his release), would heavily annotate his copy, mercilessly criticizing the factual accuracy of most every assertion in Craven's work. (Then again, Davis, over his career, was not generally renowned for unpartisan, charitable positions toward those with whom he might find himself in disagreement.)'"

Braxton Bragg
This and the Braxton Bragg article contradict each other about the relationship between the two men. 41.241.126.242 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

a U.S.-ian?
Should the article describe him as American in the first line? Isn't he most famous for leading the Confederacy against the United States?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He was born and died a citizen of the United States. -Will Beback · † · 20:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but he's famous for leading the Confederacy.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph needs revision
The first paragraph should be brief, to-the-point, and factual. When referring to a person who people feel strongly about, care should be taken to not distort the person's image to one side or the other. I argue that most of the first paragraph is not only unnecessary, but strongly opinionated, and it paints a distorted image of this controversial man. Below is a clip of the first paragraph as I read it:

" leading the rebelling southern slave states (the Confederacy) to defeat because of a lack of soldiers and supplies toward the end of the American Civil War, 1861-65. Davis was never touched by corruption, but he lacked the resources and experience to overcome his counterpart Abraham Lincoln, and was unable to defeat a more industrially developed Union. His insistence on independence even in the face of crushing defeat prolonged the war—Davis was a strong believer in the rights of the people to "alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established," noting such in his first inaugural address. Sam Houston of Texas uttered perhaps the most succinct, if not the most unbiased, characterization of Davis when he said the Mississippian was "ambitious as Lucifer and cold as a lizard." After Davis was captured in 1865, he was held in a Federal prison for two years, then released with no charges being brought against him."

Words such as, "rebellion," "lack of soldiers," lack of "experience," "crushing" defeat, the insinuation that Davis "prolonged" the war, the out-of-place opinion of Sam Houston which the writer says, "the most succinct"... What kind of picture is this author trying to paint of Jefferson Davis? After reading the first paragraph of this article, who would care to venture forth and learn more about Davis? I was horrified when I saw it.

Somebody please clean up this article.

Jamie@jamiejamie.com 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Old vandalism - need thorough proofread
I've just tried to revert some old vandalism (in these edits). In the process I accidentally restored a false birth date, but fixed that. Might not be a bad idea if some people with more knowledge of Davis than I have could do a thorough proofread to see what other leftover vandalism might be leftover somewher in the article. Fan-1967 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Provisional President & President
The Infobox should read Provisional President of the CSA: February 18, 1861-February 22, 1862 & President of the CSA February 22, 1862 to May 10, 1865. GoodDay 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

civil war
i think the civil war wasn't that important and i think its dumb because our country was fighting over the dumbest thing ever when they could of just got rid of slavery —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.81.119.5 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Well first of all it wasn't over slavery!!! It was over states' rights! The South was fighting the evil imperialist hypocritical and down right evil Union for its independence.

Technical Issue: Signature
The signature is currently not visible in my browser, Fireox (I think all but the top few lines of pixels have been hidden because the height allowed by the infobox is too short). I don't know how to adjust infoboxes. Can someone fix this?

I've converted the GIF version of the signature to PNG format, which seems to resolve the issue. WikiPedia auto-generates a small version of the image for display in the infobox, and it didn't seem to be dealing with the GIF properly. Omnedon 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian County
Christian County was not later named Todd County; currently both counties exist. When Davis was born in 1808, Christian County and Logan County (further to the east) were adjacent. As of 1820, Todd County was formed between the two out of portions of both. The location of Davis' birth (now the small town of Fairview) happens to be right at the border between Todd and Christian, and in fact one can (understandably) find both counties mentioned as containing his birthplace. Certainly Davis was born in Christian County as it was at the time. Modern maps seem to place Fairview technically in Christian County, whereas the monument itself would seem to be just barely on the Todd County side. Omnedon 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Confederate propaganda
The Wiki entry for Jefferson Davis needs to either show a Confederate (New Orleans) and Yankee flag (Kentucky), or show none at all. It is offensive to Confederates to see their late founding father's wiki profile with an Yankee flag on it and no Confederate one at all.

Either show them both, or show neither.


 * I prefer neither, which is the current state. However, notice the inconsistency in this matter, which amplifies my complaints about using these flag icons in summary boxes: Davis died in New Orleans after it had returned to the Union (it actually did so in 1862), so to be correct, you'd need the U.S. flag for that, too, and probably a footnote to explain the situation. The military history task force is correct in recommending no flag icons. Hal Jespersen 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless the Confederate flag (Stars & Bars preferred)should be used since Jefferson Davis was the C.S.'s only President and never regained citizenship of the Yankee Dictatorship.


 * No, Davis' citizenship was never revoked, so he died a citizen of the US. WIkipedia isn't supposed to not be offensive, just ask the hundreds of muslims screaming about us showing the prophet muhammad's picture.  PonileExpress (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

May 10th
Why do we have him listed as President of the Confederacy until May 10th? The article states that he dissolved the government on May 5th. Why would he still be president of a dissolved government, and assuming there is a reason, why would his capture change that status? —Cleared as filed. 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

999 votes
It says under Return to Politics that

"This election bid was unsuccessful, as he was defeated by fellow senator Henry Stuart Foote by 999 votes."

Is this really correct? I doubt there even were 999 votes. I looked at the history and saw that this was made by an anonymous user a very long time ago.

(cur) (last) 05:04, May 19, 2005 24.241.124.239 (Talk) (undo)

No one changing this leads me to believe that this could be correct, but I still doubt this number. Can anyone clear this up? Chenhsi (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation to support the 999 vote claim in The Official and Statistical Register of the State of Mississippi (1912). I have included that citation in the article. For the record to respond to the the person that first asked about this - there were 57,719 votes in that election and indeed Jefferson Davis fell by 999. (Tniem (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Citation please
Moving signed comment from article to talk. If this is something he's known for, please provide a source for it. Durova Charge! 10:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jefferson Davis was known for the leniency shown to his slaves which he owned prior to the war as well as for educating his slaves and teaching them to read. He formally released his slaves by the time the war began as he perceived slavery as a short term solution. Seminole Sam (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Davis's Treason
This article states that Jefferson Davis was never convicted of treason, but textbooks we used in my class stated that he was actually convicted, though released from prison within a year. Which is wrong, the textbook or this page? Operative51 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like he was indicted - and somehow even imprisioned - but not actually convicted. See Jefferson_Davis. Does that fit with what your textbook states? If not, let's get some specific citations and straighten this out. Frank  |  talk  23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eichers' Civil War High Commands (pg 202) states Davis was indicted May 24, 1865 and imprisioned without trial, paroled on May 13, 1867, and the indictment was dropped Christmas Day, 1868. Hard to get a conviction with no trial, I would think, but I'll check other sources as well. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have info on Davis' time in Montreal? On the side of the Bay department store (Union Ave. side) there's a plaque posted by the daughter's of the confederacy. It lists the site of the dept. store as the former site of his house, which he lived in between 1865 and 1885? Any info would be greatly appreciated - I've heard stories of Montreal being 'the city behind the scenes' as it was an excellent city to contact and arrange weapon and equipment shipments between the Confederacy and Britain and the Union and France. I've also heard stories of spy networks and other unofficial wheelings and dealings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T noakes (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

C class?
Why did this get downgraded from B to C? Is there something specific that it's missing? Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs a lot more inline citations.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Senate Term & Secretary of War
According to the information box he was simultaneously a Member of the US Senate and Secretary of State for War between March and September 1853. This must be an error, perhaps his successor was not appointed until September. --  Barliner  talk 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the narrative in http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000113 I have changed the September 1853 date to 1851. --  Barliner  talk 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

3 sources for the entire article?
i believe this article is a perfect candidate for start-class. it meets all the requirements. : )

the entire article is rested on 3 sources..3! an article of such importance shouldn't be allowed with few references, it's absurd.

does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What it needs is editors willing to spend time on it and improving it. I am already tied up with the Nixon article or I would give it a go. I do have a copy ofThe Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government which he of course wrote after the war, as well as other viable sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Election to Confederate presidency
Can the section be elaborated? Why was he chosen? Imagine Reason (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * His background during the Mexican War, in politics, his ability to speak well & arouse passions in listeners, and especially holding the position of US Sec of War (well respected then and now in that role) made the Mississippian the most well-rounded and experienced Southerner available to the Confederacy. Exactly what info are you looking for? Kresock (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Inauguration
I read two spots where it said that he was inaugurated on February 18, 1861 & February 22, 1862. So which is it? 68.52.63.233 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both. He was the provisional president on the first date, during the run of the provisional government, and then inaugurated on the second date in the permanent government. Here's the breakdown:


 * Elected prov. president Feb 9, 1861, served until Feb 22, 1862
 * Inaug. prov. president Feb 18, 1861
 * Elected & inaug. president Feb 22, 1862, served until captured in May 1865
 * Hope this answers your questions! Kresock (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Davis & Stephens were elected President & Vice President of the Confederacy, in November 1861. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1861 Confederate Prez election
Does anybody know who (if anybody), ran against Davis? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick check makes it appear that Jefferson Davis was elected unanimously as provisional President of the Confederacy by delegates to the Montgomery convention on Saturday, February 9, 1861 - a day after the Convention adopted the Confederate Constitution. The Constitution of the Confederacy allowed one six-year term without the option of re-election. It does not appear from Davis' autobiography, "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" that he ever ran CSA-wide to revoke the provisional nature of his presidency. If any of this is wrong, please correct. (Tniem (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Davis was provisional President from Feb 18, 1861 to Feb 22, 1862. A presidential wide election was held in November 1861 & Davis became President of CSA on Feb 22, 1862. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism
"Catholicism

Jefferson Davis attended the Catholic school of Saint Thomas at St. Rose Priory, a school operated by the Dominican order. The Davis family was not Catholic, though many prominent families in the South sent their children to be educated at Catholic schools simply because that was where the best education was to be had. At age nine Davis asked to be received into the Church. His wish was not granted.

He then embraced a form of Episcopalianism adhered to by many leading Southerners that was very “High Church,” very “Catholic” in its externals. It was exemplified by the cleric who received Davis into Episcopalianism, his former West Point classmate Bishop Leonidas Polk.

The correspondence between Davis and Ven. Pope Pius IX during the former’s tenure as Confederate President was not voluminous, but illuminating. It began when Union agents set about trying to recruit mercenaries from such European Catholic lands as Poland and Ireland. President Davis wrote to Pius, appealing to him to exercise the powers of his office to frustrate the recruiting effort. At his end, Pius communicated to the relevant bishops his concern that the recruitment risked internationalizing the American conflict. Moreover, when he responded directly to Davis he took care to address him as: “His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” This letter, among others, was interpreted by Confederate diplomat A. Dudley Mann as a “positive recognition of our government”; Judah Benjamin dismissed it as "a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations" and thus did not assign it the weight of formal recognition

During his imprisonment following the end of the war, a rosary was sent to him by some nuns in Savannah. More significantly, Pope Pius IX sent Davis some comforts that took the form of a portrait of the pontiff autographed with the words of Scripture, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” With the portrait was a thorn of crowns woven by Pius’s own hands; the crown, with thorns about two inches long, is such that it is hard to see how the pope could have fashioned it without hurting himself. Varina Davis also suffered, and also — like her husband — received comfort from a Catholic direction. Stranded with her children in Georgia when the fighting was over, her husband imprisoned, destitute, she would later write a friend: “No institution of my own Church offered to teach my children. One day three Sisters of Charity came to see me and brought me five gold dollars, all the money they had. They almost forced me to take the money, but I did not. They then offered to take my children to their school in the neighborhood of Savannah, where the air was cool and they could be comfortably cared for during the summer months.” It has been speculated that these Sisters were the same source of the rosary Davis received when he was imprisoned.

Davis spent the remainder of his days in New Orleans, considered the most Catholic city in the country before the massive waves of Irish immigration into Northern cities after the Civil War. Shortly before his death he was officially received into the Church."

I removed this material because it makes an important assertion but it does not have adequate sourcing, in my opinion. There are several biographies and other books about Davis. Let's make sure that the bulk of the article is sourced primarily with mainstream sources. If a reliable source for Davis' conversion, then we can certainly add something about it.  Will Beback   talk    04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Revenue cutter
Not sure what exactly to do with this, but the Jefferson Davis (revenue cutter) (I just wrote a short article) was launched in 1853, and named after Davis in his capacity as U.S. Secretary of War. Probably merits a mention, despite his unusual later career: we would normally mention if someone had a Coast Guard Cutter named after them. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

jefferson davis
He was born a couple miles away from were Abraham Lincoln. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.140.125 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dyspepsia and British defection.
One american source suggested that Jefferson Davis suffered from Dyspepsia.

When Robert E. Lee lost at Gettysburg, Her Majesties Representative (a British colonel) indicated in his report that the Confederacy would ultimately lose the war. The British, faced with the loss of cotton supplies for the Lancashire mills, did the obvious thing and took over Egypt for future cotton supplies.

At the time, the abolition of slavery had little affect on the British government but a massive loss of cotton revenue prompted a rapid reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * when the Brits took over Egypt in 1882 there was a surplus of cheap cotton in the world. Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Confederacy and Texas
Was the leaving of the Union of United States by the Confederacy actually legal? Only Texas seems to have been independant and voluntarily joined the Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a dificult area of constitutional law. For example in Texas -v- White in 1869, the Supreme court wrote that the Union was perpetual, and the succession of Texas (and by extension the other Confederate States) was not legal. This could well be described as the 'winners writing history'. Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, then of course it would have been recognised as legal. There are plenty of other legal opinions covering a wide spectrum of legal to not legal. Catwhoorg (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Davis family was unwilling to forgive the debt of their former slave, and he lost the land.
I believe this statement to be biased. it suggest that his family should forgive the debt. what family, bank, or person have you ever seen that would give their land away due to someones inability to pay for any reason. This kind of decietful wordplay is somebodys idea to push their oppinion on the reader. Someone who is good with words please rewrite this statement. and also the next sentance that tries to make the reader believe that the Davis family is somewhat responsible for the Slaves death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.181.245 (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Popdacollar327, 23 May 2010
On line 13 it should read "war leader" and not "war leaders" considering President Davis, the subject, is a singular subject.

Popdacollar327 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Failures as President
The final paragraph makes some dubious claims when compared with the writings of Shelby Foote in his three volume narrative history, leading to an overall picture of a man completely distant from his citizens. "Davis did not use his presidential pulpit to rally the people with stirring rhetoric"- Foote has numerous instances of just such rhetoric employed in an effort to stir national unity.

". . .stayed in Richmond where few people saw him.. . Only as military fortunes became desperate in 1864, did he tour Georgia trying to raise morale." Patently incorrect. Davis made at least two additional trips West prior to 1864 that were designed both to raise military morale and to provide whistlestop speeches to waiting civilian crowds. (cf: Foote) And Davis was positively possessed with wanderlust when compared to Lincoln, who during his entire tenure as President(discounting trips to the field in Virginia) left Washington only one time, to go to Gettysburg.

"In April 1863, food shortages led to rioting in Richmond, as poor people robbed and looted numerous stores for food until Davis cracked down and restored order." While technically correct, it neglects to mention that Davis personally went out to address female rioters in Richmond. He tossed what money he had in his pockets to the crowd, at which point he told the crowds to disperse else they would be fired upon (Foote 1986, Vol 2, p. 164). This does not illustrate a leader who was physically and emotionally distant from his citizens.

CompassRose65 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)CompassRose65

This needs to be modified
The following statement is too P.O.V. for an encyclopedia- I'm not saying it's wrong, it is just too opinionated.

"On May 10, he was captured at Irwinville, Georgia and unrightfully held as a prisoner for many years while the carpet baggers came into his south and took over what he had worked so hard to create."Saxophobia 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial rating
Obviously, this is an article of top importance to WikiProject Kentucky, but doesn't seem to appropriately use inline citation, so it's probably B-class. Acdixon 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I've suggested a merge from A Short History of the Confederate States of America because the subject of that article is apparently not notable outside the context of the subject of this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree because it is an influential book, and apparently no action has been taken for over a year. Jehorn (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lee's Surrender
This sentence does not seem to make sense: 'Circa April 12, Grant received Robert E. Lee's letter announcing surrender.' Grant had received Lee's surrender in the field on April 9th. Do you mean Davis received an official notification from Lee? 109.157.234.103 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It had said "he", meaning Davis, but someone incorrectly changed it to "Grant". I've fixed it now.  Will Beback    talk    12:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace?
There are several place-names listed in connection with his parents. It is left unclear where Davis himself was born. 109.157.234.103 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Overtures to Britain and France
There should be a section on Davis's search for overseas aid. 109.157.234.103 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama
On Obama's page it mentions that through Barack's mothers lineage he is possibly related to Davis. This would be an interesting anecdote to add to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.241.9 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Meridan Daily Journal source
The source article was on the newspapers front page. The article had direct quotes from Jefferson Davis himself. The article stated that Jefferson urged southerners to be loyal, yet, the article maintained Davis's views that the men in the Confederacy fought for truth and rights during the Civil War. This is in agreement with Jefferson's legacy being embraced by the South in post-bellum America. I am putting in a link to the article as a source. The paper is old, but Davis' words do not age on print. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Meridan Daily Journal Jefferson Davis' Loyalty May 14, 1887
 * This is the wrong clipping, by the way. primary sources are poor sources for Wikipedia--we need reliable secondary sources. The point is that scholars do original research by looking at hundreds of quotations and statements and evaluate them, and discard most of them as poor quality or not useful. An editor looking at one primary source is doing OR, which is not allowed. If Davis's many biographers think it's a valid point they will make it in a RS. for example see The death and resurrection of Jefferson Davis  By Donald E. Collins p 156 online that makes the point and can be cited. Rjensen (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The newspaper clip from the article link is on the front page. The article is on the third column to the right.  The title specifically states Jefferson Davis' Loyalty under the "Lord Lansdowne" article.  I am not disputing biographers, however, wikipedia does not exclude newspaper sources.  Other papers covered the reception, The New York Times - Jeff Davis Coming Around, That Atlanta Constitution - The South's Champion, and the Baltimore Sun - Reception to Mr. Davis.  What sources state that Jefferson Davis did not encourage loyalty to the nation post-bellum? My view is that Davis did both; defended the legitimacy of the Confederacy at the same time encouraged loyalty to the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The book link you gave confirms Davis as a reconciliationist with Northern ties. That goes along with the newspaper clip that Davis urged loyalty to the nation.  I quoted Jefferson's own words from the newspaper article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good edit, Rjensen, on the lede on Davis advocating reconciliation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Sam Resemblance
The resemblance of Jefferson Davis to the Uncle Sam we know from the recruitment posters is striking, no? It would be a plausible thing for an artist to do to gain sympathy in the south. Shall we add that? Wethertisnobler (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your personal view on the subject; albeit, for many, it may not be very controversial. But we should not add dubious claims to articles. I do not believe such a claim improves the article in any way.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Improvements
I have begun working on this article's MOS compliance, particularly (to start with) in terms of references and their formatting. I've taken just one article to FA status so far and am by no means an expert, but this article interests me deeply and I'd like to see it better recognized someday. If anyone wants to collaborate on such a project, that would be great. Omnedon (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the existing references are now in much better order, MOS-wise. There are still some statements that need citations, and of course there are some sections that need more detail. Omnedon (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Early life section
The first paragraph of the section states that Samuel Davis fought in the Continental Army "along with his brothers", but then goes on to say that Samuel was his father's only son. I suppose that leaves open the possibility of maternal half-brothers, but mostly, it just sounds like a contradiction. Does anyone know the actual situation? Binabik80 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The Hudson Strode biography states that Lydia had two sons from a previous marriage before she married Evan; then she and Evan had Samuel.  I've clarified this in the article. Omnedon (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis Photograph
I'm not sure that the retouching of the daguerreotype does anything to improve the article. In fact, it may distort how his eyes would have really looked. For instance, I have a biography on Davis called Jefferson Davis, American by William J. Cooper Jr. that would lead me to believe his eyes were a much different shade of blue than is depicted by the retouched daguerreotype done by Scewing. While interesting to see the the photo in color, I'm not sure it is the best option for educational purposes such as the ones espoused by Wikipedia. I propose that the original is restored because the exact color of his eyes is not verifiable.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be Scewing...not Screwing. I've added the untouched photo here. Would you agree that getting rid of the scratches and blurriness improves it? I would surmise that he put a good amount of work into that. Btw, what shade of blue is described by Cooper? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect the amount of work he put into it --and it looks cool -- but it is probably more appropriately left in the "other versions" section. I would agree that the black and white restored version has its improvements, but the original also has such an authentic feel to it. Shall we put the restored version of the black and white dageurreotype up as the main image?YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the untouched photo with the retouched (but not colorized) version here on this page. You may have a point...I'm undecided and want to think about it. The B&W is more faithful but I also appreciate the colorization. I have checked both MOS:IMAGES and the image use policy and haven't found anything against colorizing.


 * I would like to a) notify Scewing and b) get more community input on whether colorization is a good idea and if this is addressed somewhere in policies or guidelines. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Another problem with using the colorized photo is that if someone were to come to the main Jefferson Davis article and see the picture of him on the right-hand side there is nothing to indicate that the picture has been artificially colorized; someone might not know that the photo has been altered and they may believe it to actually be a true piece of history when it is not. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the colorized image. I think that the exact shade of the eyes is a trivial point.  Have you ever looked at any old photographs?  Different colors fade at different rates.  Even if it had originally been a color image, it wouldn't show the exact shade of his eyes now anyway.  (That's true even for color paintings, by the way.)  I therefore don't think that readers have a reasonable expectation of true-to-life coloring, and so long as it's not obviously false (e.g., red eyes and green skin would obviously be a problem), then the issue can be decided on the basis of simple editorial preferences.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with WhatamIdoing: the exact shade of the eyes is a trivial point. At most, we could add to the photo's caption something like "Modern colorized version of 1847 photo of..." I also believe we should support Scewing and his work. This kind of skill should be highly appreciated (as can be seen in File:Zachary Taylor half plate daguerreotype c1843-45-color crop.png). --Lecen (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the exact shade of his eyes may be trivial for some, but it is a fact that the image was not originally colored; history shouldn't be altered and then fully supported in an "encyclopedia", even if it is disclosed. Of course I have looked at old photographs, and I know that most of them have no color. "Different colors fade at different rates. Even if it had originally been a color image, it wouldn't show the exact shade of his eyes now anyway" is the real trivial point. I appreciate his high level of skill and I would like to support him in his endeavours, but that should not take precedence; it does not negate the fact that it is not appropriate as a main image because it has been altered. Most, if not all, of the other articles of famous civil war participants are not colorized; thus, there is a standard that is set. I don't see what the problem is with having the colorized photo only in the other versions section. I, for one, do believe that readers have a reasonable expectation of an unaltered historical photo, because I do not expect readers to assume every photograph in Wikipedia articles has been artificially altered. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A 'colorized' image isn't a historical record, and to present it in a context where it might reasonably be taken as such is misleading. It should not be used here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (still undecided) What if the caption were labeled as suggested by Lecen? As a sidenote, I own numerous World War I film documentaries and quite used to those as black & white but I also have the World War 1 in Colour series and I wouldn't see that as diminishing the historical accuracy at all...quite the contrary, I really appreciate it. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been following this interesting discussion... Personally, I like the colored image and feel it is well-done; but at the same time, I feel that the unretouched image is the most historically appropriate. Omnedon (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's great to see a conversation about the encyclopedic value of historical photos that have been colorized! To be honest, I've colorized the Jefferson Davis, Zachary Taylor & Thaddeus Stevens photos as simply an exercise in improving my GIMP skills. I thought these images turned out well, and I researched the hair/eye color a bit for accuracy, so I thought posting it to the Commons might be valuable. Personally, I think colorized images are fine in this context, but a good discussion is definitely warranted. Scewing (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * while I've nothing in principle against the use of a colorized image in a context where this can be clearly labelled as such, I don't think it should be used without noting, and having to add such notes is rather distracting. There is also the question as to whether researching hair or eye color would fall under WP:OR. I think we should err on the side of historical accuracy rather than aesthetics in such cases, and use the original monochrome image. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone restore the original picture and move Scewing's great colorized image to the other versions section? I would like to be bold, but I'm unsure of the exact process for replacing/moving a photo.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus here is to keep the colorized version. No change is warranted. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that was the consensus. What is that based on?  Several people above seemed to indicate that the original photo was the most appropriate. Omnedon (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a majority here in favour of the 'colorized' image, but it might be better to try to get some more input from others. I don't want to make a big issue of this, but it is arguable that 'colorizing' is actually WP:OR, and as such, 'consensus' isn't really the best way to settle the debate - if a general policy decision hasn't been made about this issue, it probably will need to be at some point, and it might be better to discuss this in regard to a relatively uncontroversial topic like this one, rather than have the debate where other isues may intrude. Perhaps we need to check that this hasn't already been discussed elsewhere though - I'll see if I can find anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Omnedon stated that he feels the unretouched image is the most historically appropriate, as did AndyTheGrump and I. You said you don't want to get rid of it because "you surmise that he put a good amount of work into that." Which is not a valid reason at all and shows that you are already biased to leave the colorized version because you simply like it. WhatamIdoing provided no valid point for leaving the colorized image except that "it's not obviously false"; not a very good way to run an "encyclopedia" or a place where people can learn history. Lecen suggested that at least a caption should be added, which is not possible without disturbing the article. For a moment there it seemed like my -- and others -- legitimate questions and concerns had been deleted, and if so I don't appreciate it. Besides, the colorized image could be considered original research which is not allowed. So no, there has been no consensus that the colorized, altered image, should serve as the official image of the article; there is certainly no good reason other than to support a certain user's work. Please, do not claim there is a consensus when there is not, and/or when it would not matter because rules are potentially being broken.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Go read WP:BRD and learn to not echo all the bad faith stuff. Consensus has several meanings....and you don't have it in your favor to remove without a clear one...that's what I'm telling you. I have never echoed any particular point for keep or remove so don't try to put words in my mouth or declare I have a bias. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you did state above, "The consensus here is to keep the colorized version." The point is that I don't believe any such consensus exists.  I don't see any really strong support for keeping the current image, while I do see strong support for returning to the unmodified image.  It has age-related issues which retouching and colorizing help to mitigate, but that process (especially colorization) is at least somewhat subjective, while the original image doesn't have that problem.  So I would again state, the unmodified image is the most historically appropriate.  Upon what do you base the statement that the consensus was for keeping the current version? Omnedon (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scewing, WhatamIdoing, Lecen ==> Support the colorized version albeit Lecen commented that it should be noted in the caption.


 * Omnedon, Andy, YouMakeMeFeel ==> Support untouched original


 * Berean Hunter...never said either way although I did say that I appreciate the work he did...like Andy, I would have liked to have heard more from the community and remain open-minded on the issue. I will say that I'm against using the unmodified b&w and am only considering between the retouched b&w or the colorized. If the retouched b&w is off the table..then yeah, I'm for the colorized version.


 * Last time I checked, 3 versus 3 means no consensus to change thus the consensus is to keep as is currently. Count me and it is, so far, 4 versus 3 to keep. Youmakemefeel was stating that it needed to be changed. No, per BRD, there is no consensus as this discussion may still be considered active. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment of May 29 said there was consensus. Now, in your first sentence, you say there is "no consensus", then later in the same sentence you say, "the consensus is to keep"; then you end the paragraph by saying "there is no consensus".  Given this, I'm not at all sure what you're saying.  I don't agree with keeping the current image, which didn't used to be there and then was added.  So let's get down to the pros and cons here.  The original image doesn't involve original research, while the new one may.  What are the benefits of the new one, for the purposes of this article? Omnedon (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, of course Scewing would support the colorized version, he is the one who made it. So even if he was in favor of keeping it there is a conflict of interests there that is obvious. You say that I don't have it in my favor to remove it without a clear consensus.. that would imply that there was a consensus to add it, which there was not; your logic is flawed.


 * I didn't put words into your mouth, I simply quoted what you typed; I will say you are biased when the only original defense and objection you had when I suggested moving the colorized image to other versions was "I would surmise that he put a good amount of work into that." Kind of like how you said there was a consensus, and then that there was no consensus, and then that the consensus was to not change.


 * WhatIamDoing supported the colorized image, and I will quote it again, because the image is "not obviously false"; that's not a good basis at all. I would add that, "Your comment of May 29 said there was consensus. Now, in your first sentence, you say there is "no consensus", then later in the same sentence you say, "the consensus is to keep"; then you end the paragraph by saying "there is no consensus".  Given this, I'm not at all sure what you're saying." In my opinion, I don't believe it is very intelligent or just to fight to leave an unhistorical image on a historical article. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It means that some of you don't know what consensus means. Scewing is not dismissed as COI and he may be counted in that consensus. You are in no position to tally the logic of consensus debates as a new account so don't lecture established editors. Omnedon didn't help matters when he failed to get that I'm notifying you that no change is warranted as there is a standing discussion on the topic here.


 * There was a consensus to add as the image was placed in December and the article was consequently edited after that with acceptance. The first time it is questioned is five months later by a brand new account. (You are a new account right?). As consensus may change, you & Omnedon may not have understood what I meant but it doesn't matter. While there has been a consensus to keep there has not been a consensus to remove. The status quo holds at the present. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of the image change at the time, but once I became aware of it, I registered my feeling that the colorized image, while well-done, is not appropriate; and I am not alone in this. It is not helpful for you to focus on what others may or may not know about the process here; whether or not a user is "new" is irrelevant.  Let's get back to the real issue here.  As I and others have stated, the colorized image may involve original research.  Given that, what makes it nevertheless preferable?  There is no longer silence on this issue; the change that was made needs to be justified in order to be retained.  Omnedon (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and whatever consensus that may form here will decide that issue but at present there isn't a consensus to remove. I believe more input from editors is well-warranted. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all beside the real issue. I shall ask you again: why do you wish to keep this image, given the objections that have been raised?  Omnedon (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You failed to address any of the points I made > <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>, instead, you tried attacking me as a "new account". We may not have understand what you meant, because what you said made no sense at all; maybe you need to be more clear like me. You claim that the consensus is not to remove.. does it matter that their reasons for not removing the picture from the article are completely ridiculous reasons such as being the creator of the image, saying he spent a lot of time on it, or that the picture is not obviously false? This discussion has been going on for over a month, and of the side that wants to keep, you seem to be one of the most interested, yet you have given no reason. At first I was willing to have it in the other versions, but now I feel it should be removed altogether so that people won't hold onto -- and become mentally attached -- to an unhistorical image moreso than even a historical one.


 * If "established editors" would have some common sense, I wouldn't have to "lecture" them on topics such as making sure only historical images are featured in historical articles rather than artifically altered ones.


 * I wish some people would stop fighting to keep an unhistorical image on the page of a historical article.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ...umm, no attack has been made on you. I'm not going to debate the issue with you further. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Redux
This discussion began on the subject of a colorized version of a grayscale daguerreotype. It seems that the discussion is now focused more on the definition of consensus than on the image; and a week has now passed with no further comment about either issue. I'd like to get back to the main issue.

Some question the image on the grounds of original research. Taking a grayscale original and adding color to it is inherently subjective. In some contexts that may not be a problem; and I am not against colorization in general, nor am I against this particular colorized image (in general). In the context of a Wikipedia article, though, it is an important issue.

So far I have seen no strong arguments in favor of this image beyond phrases like "Personally, I think colorized images are fine in this context" and "so long as it's not obviously false". On the other hand, a specific objection has been raised regarding this specific image. I'm stating once more that the colorized image resulted from original research; I’m replacing it with the unretouched version which is more historically appropriate. If anyone feels the colorized version is preferable, we need to talk about why it would be preferable. Omnedon (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have been reverted because there is a clear 4 to 3 count to keep the colorized version. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's invalid reasoning and a misapplication of the term "consensus". It's not a simple voting system, and so far you are the only one who is actively defending the colorized image by reverting me -- yet you're not discussing the situation, while also claiming that the discussion is somehow open.  No one stated anything for a week, so I took action.  In any case, I don't see that any "vote" took place; I see, for example, a statement from Scewing saying, "Personally, I think colorized images are fine in this context" -- which is fine, of course, but it's not as if anyone has said, "this colorized image must be used here in favor of the unretouched image, and here's exactly why".  Again, please discuss this; a specific objection has been raised regarding the use of the colorized image, and that objection has not been addressed.  Why do you personally desire to see this image stay, given the objection that has been raised?  Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia article content is governed by policy (as arrived at by a broad debate), not by a narrow 'majority' in a particular talk page discussion. 'I like it' doesn't make questions over WP:OR invalid. Berean Hunter can you give any reason why the 'colorized' version shouldn't be seen as original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be a misunderstanding of my position here. With regard to policies, it takes someone who is not involved in the discussion to decide the matters that Omnedon has taken upon himself to decide. He can't negate the counter-arguments of those who oppose him although he can argue against them. I have been trying to keep the discussion ongoing pending greater community input. So far, there appears to be a consensus which does not uphold his position...I'm not opposed to continuing and if after more input can be had, if the consensus falls on the side of not using the colorized version, so be it. I would abide by that consensus. I view Omnedon's attempt to go against what is current here, however, as bad faith. I think that an uninvolved admin is the one to tally for closure of the discussion (if that is what needs to happen here). In good faith, I think Omnedon needs to revert himself and then we find more input from the community as this issue is likely to rise again. I would like input from an uninvolved admin. You will see in the discussions above that my preference was for the retouched b&w until things polarized into color vs. untouched.


 * Btw, at Commons, people are encouraged to retouch and cleanup photos. There are even templates which exist so that folks may request that. This seems contrary to the idea of using a completely untouched photo. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all there is not much of a counter-argument to negate because you have single-handedly failed to provide any argument at all Berean, all the while accusing another member of bad faith because you don't agree with him, and then continuing to revert. The basic position that the colorized image should not serve as the main image for this article is no longer just his, but mine, and assumingly Andy's. I don't even think a colorized image should serve as the main image for any other Historical Article; It's an issue of common sense. I view Omnedon's attempt to improve the article in a historical context as good faith.


 * It seems as if you have lost the debate by default and are now calling for an admin to close the discussion.


 * Since you now state that your preference was for the retouched b&w, that should be put as the main image for now, until we discuss this further. Certainly you would be agreeable to that since you said that was your preference? Or are you now only in favor of keeping the colorized image, still without providing justification? I appreciate your input on the matter.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Berean, looking back once more at the discussion that began on 27 April, I still don't see any strong arguments for keeping the colorized image in the infobox. If they are there, can you point them out, please? The image was placed, then later it was questioned, and no one has given any strong reasons why it must remain, whereas a strong reason for its replacement in the infobox has been given and has yet to be addressed by proponents of the image. You seem to be the only proponent to post anything about this since May 2, well over a month ago; and most of what you have said seems to relate to process, not content.

I will state one final time, just for clarity: I have nothing against this image per se. I just don't believe it's appropriate for this particular usage, for reasons that have been stated several times by me and others. You mention counter-arguments; but I honestly haven't see any. You also say you've been trying to "keep the discussion ongoing", but I asked for your reasons on 1 June, and a week passed with no further comment from anyone at all. You refer to "going against what is current", but consensus is not static, nor are Wikipedia articles; things change. You have attempted to minimize an editor's view because that editor is "new", but that's not valid; and you have attempted to take a "tally", but that's not how consensus works. Now you want an admin to "close" the discussion?

You say that "people are encouraged at Commons to retouch and cleanup photos". That may be true; but if so, I'm not sure that's relevant to this discussion. Cleaning up a photo and making it available to the public is one thing; applying original research to a historical article is another. By using the unretouched image, rather than the retouched image or the colorized image, we avoid that whole issue and can move on; this article needs lots of work in other areas. Omnedon (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Berean, will you please provided evidence that the 'colorized' image isn't a violation of AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Berean, I note now that you reverted to the colorized image three times in less than three hours. I find it interesting that after having done so, you warned me on my talk page that I was approaching 3RR, given that you had already reached 3RR.  It is true that exceeding three reverts in 24 hours is a violation, so you stopped just short of that; but you warned me after just two.  Let's get back to the real issue, please:  the image. , ,  Omnedon (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. I won't reiterate points already well made by YouMakeMeFeel, Omnedon, Andy, etc., so I'll simply say I agree: sound reasons have been advanced for why the colorized version should not be used here.  (I also see no clear arguments for why the colorized form in particular is so necessary as to outweigh those objections.)  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  15:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(@ Andy) Again, my position is/was that I felt that Omnedon was moving outside of process where he shouldn't...being premature and it seems to me pushing incorrectly. I have been trying to keep the status quo even though my preference would be the retouched b&w. The OR argument/defense is not mine to make. I believe that this issue should play out in a larger arena involving more editors so that this isn't rehashed every time someone places a colorized version. I've been reverting to keep things as they are pending more input.

(@ YouMakeMeFeel) I would prefer the b&w retouched as a personal preference. My reverts haven't been to get what I prefer, however. They have been to keep what I see as the talk page consensus (or current status quo, if you like). I felt that nothing should move until something is decided. In my experience, when editors begin to press their case by reverting while a discussion is left open, I consider it disruptive and bad faith. There is no reason why a status quo can't remain until an issue is closed/ decided upon correctly...there is no deadline.

(@ Omnedon) I feel your edits were premature and disregarding the arguments that User:WhatamIdoing, User:Lecen, and User:Scewing have made. If you don't agree with them, that is fine but I don't believe that you may invalidate their arguments when you are in a content dispute with them. Saying "yeah, that doesn't count...it just doesn't sound good to me...illogical" is one thing but acting on it is incorrect. Someone who is not in the dispute may measure it that way (preferably an admin)...that I could accept.

(@ Huwmanbeing) Thank you for joining the discussion. Your input is welcome. Which of the three versions do you think belongs in the article and why?

(@ all) Like Scewing, I have retouched a few photos but probably not as many as he has. I have never colorized one. I try to keep the historical integrity of the photo intact and try to get it as close to the original when it was fresh. Some plates have been broken and areas scratched. I despeckle, crop, resize, etc., working like a photographer would do to make the best finished product that can be had. This photo is not fit for a featured article but this one is. If our readers really want to get to the original, all they have to do is follow the links and they can have it...but we ought to be displaying the highest quality within our capabilities. This one took me a good while (longer than I would have wished) but correcting the breaks in the glass and despeckling was a meticulous process (here's the original). There is my argument for using quality retouched photos.

I find the colorizing argument interesting and with possible merit particularly in some cases if not in the case of Jeff Davis. Colorizing is valued in our modern digital age just as it was historically. I believe it adds quality to the 'pedia if we mix things up a bit. Does it matter if the colorization was done in the past versus the modern day? Again, not my argument to make and I would prefer to see what others have to say about it but I also don't like the idea that we completely throw it out either. Do you feel that it is always inappropriate? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Berean, but you are still not really addressing the central issue here: that 'colorizing' an image requires WP:OR - e.g. see the discussion on Davis's eye color above. With regard to retouched photos the issue is perhaps less clear-cut, but this is an entirely different process - an attempt to restore the image to its original condition. In any case, I don't see how the colorized version "adds quality": it looks to me like exactly what it is - a colorized monchrome image. It also looks anachronistic, as the Civil War period was possibly the first significan historical event to be covered by photography - in monochrome. The colorized image just looks out of place in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, Andy; that's very succinct. Berean, you claim I was premature; but you stated in late April that you were going to seek other input, yet none was forthcoming after over a month.  How long must we wait for that?  The article as it exists today may not be that way in a year, a month, a week, a day; the change I made addressed a legitimate concern which simply was not being addressed.  I disregarded no arguments -- there was very little presented; and I have never made statements such as you seem to be ascribing to me.  Please do not assume bad faith on the part of your fellow editors. Omnedon (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Using a B&W version is certainly my preference, though I guess I don't have any preference between the restored and non-restored B&W versions — either is fine with me. I can see that using a photo that's been restored simply in order to remove dust, dings, scratches, or effects introduced when scanning/photographing the original would be OK, since the goal of the restoration in that case is to remove flaws that are not original elements of the composition.  However, presenting the non-restored form would also be good since it faithfully presents the composition as it exists today, and the flaws themselves may convey something of the age and history of the piece.
 * In contrast, modern colorization introduces new information that was never part of the original, which is why I feel that it's not appropriate in this context. Historical colorization I'm OK with — that is to say, if Jefferson Davis's original daguerreotype had itself been tinted, then that would be part of the original and would be fine.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Coming very late to this discussion, may I add my voice to those opposed to the colorized version. First off, in reasonable comparison, i didnt see any colorized images at Lincoln, so its not necessary to add such an image to this type of article. More importantly, any effort that WE as editors make to alter an historic image, no matter how diligent and skilled we are, even if we are employed in real life by the library of congress to colorize historic photos, cannot qualify for inclusion here. Wikimedia commons, yes, of course (hopefully with full attribution). Our posting of such an image will always qualify as original research. Now, if the library of congress, or the smithsonian, or the museum of the confederacy, undertook a notable project to colorize historic images, and published their results as copyright free, or the image they published of Davis became so well known that using it here constituted an example of fair use, then we could add it. our appreciation of the skill and integrity of the WP colorist, or whether it adds depth, humanity, character to the article is trumped by OR. even if we found a now completely grayed out former color photo of the golden gate bridge and colorized it to match its exactly known shade, we couldnt add it. Hell, even building a time machine, going back with a digital camera, and returning with a color photo, we couldnt post it here FIRST:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation of image
The daguerreotype of Jefferson Davis is attributed to Encyclopedia Virginia, a publication that only reprints the digitized version through permission from the image's owner, Museum of the Confederacy. No such permission exists for its use on Wikipedia, at least as far as I can tell. For that reason, I deleted it. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No permission is needed if the image is in the public domain, which the original image clearly is. Are you asserting that something was done that causes this particular version to no longer be PD? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm asserting (but I am also making some phone calls to double-check that this is the case): The Museum of the Confederacy owns the digitized version of this image. Encyclopedia Virginia needed, and obtained, permission from the Museum of the Confederacy to reproduce it on that site. No such permission has been extended to people who take it from the Encyclopedia Virginia site and reproduce it on Wikipedia. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Public_domain. An Image from 1853 is clearly public domain. I don't see how this is an exception. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This object and the derived digital image is owned by the Museum of the Confederacy. It doesn't matter that it is from 1853. It doesn't belong to the public; it belongs to the museum and can only be used with permission. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who has ownership of the physical original work, copyright law determines if permission is needed to copy it. Copyright has a limited term, and for something created in 1853, it has long expired. As a result, the work may be freely copies by anyone who manages to. You have not pointed to any special circumstance here that alters that analysis. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation, but it's not my intention to be contentious here. You're welcome to undo my edit, and when I have a more definitive explanation for why this reproduction is inappropriate, I'll post it. Thanks. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it, but if you think I'm wrong, you may want to consider bringing it up at Media copyright questions, as the regulars there probably have the most expertise on copyright issues. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just talked to a lawyer familiar with copyright law, and not to put too fine a point on it, but you're right and I'm wrong. I would like to ask either you or the original uploader of the photo to do one thing: in addition to crediting Encyclopedia Virginia as the source, credit The Museum of the Confederacy, which owns the three-dimensional object. Thanks for your patience. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As in change the source attached to the file to read something like "Encyclopedia Virginia print of a daguerreotype from the Museum of the Confederacy" instead of just Encyclopedia Virginia? You can make the change yourself if you want, or let me know and I wouldn't have a problem changing it to say that. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Thank you! Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a good portrait photo that can be touched up from the Library of Congress. This would not have any copyright infringements. Here is the link: Jefferson Davis, three-quarter length portrait, facing right

Administration and cabinet
In looking for ways to improve this article, I noticed that the "Administration and cabinet" section consists only of a table that shows the members of the cabinet. We probably need some prose paragraphs that describe the cabinet over time -- such as the transition from (for example) one Secretary of War to the next. The table is excellent but should be there to support the section, not comprise it. At some point I will work on this, but if anyone would like to take it on, that would be great. Omnedon (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A section on the cabinet has now been added. I may expand and improve it further, but it at least shows those who held cabinet positions and is fully referenced.  The table, which comprised the entire section before, may or may not be needed in this article now; a duplicate of the table exists in the article on the Confederate States of America. Omnedon (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First wife
The second paragraph of the "Early Career" section reads "For eight years following Sarah's death...." However, there is no previous mention of his first wife. When were they married, how did they meet, etc? It would seem that eight years of mourning should at least deserve a mention of his first wedding. 78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Middle name
The cited reference says "Fine", not "Finis". Why are always reverted all the corrections about this?--212.22.51.31 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

MilHist B-Class assessment
This looks pretty good and is not very far off B-Class IMO -- main thing needed is a minimum of one citation for each paragraph, and resolution of any fact tags, see following sections: On the prose side, I think there are a few too many semi-colons, but that's not a big deal until/unless you take to GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marriage, plantation life, and early political career
 * Senator
 * Secretary of war
 * Return to Senate
 * Final days of Confederacy
 * Administration and cabinet
 * Memorials
 * Most of the needed references have now been added; I'm working on a few which will require a bit more digging. At least for now, I've also removed the "Memorials" section, as there is already an article that lists memorials to Jefferson Davis, and it is linked in the "See also" section. Omnedon (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last-mentioned sounds like a good idea, what was in this article was bound to be only a partial list anyway. Citations look much better, only marriage and cabinet parts still need them I think. Aside from the semi-colon point mentioned earlier, something that doesn't particularly concern me at B-Class level but might at GA or above is the one-paragraph subsections -- generally subsections should contain more than one para to justify their existence, so if taking this further consider either fleshing out the shorter subsections, or merging them with adjacent ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe everything is now referenced fairly thoroughly, with the exception of the paragraph describing the two Muller-Ury portraits; I'm still searching for a way of citing those statements. As mentioned above, there is now a prose section on the cabinet, with references.  I've also decreased (though not eliminated) the use of semicolons.  Ian, I'm not sure if you normally do this or would be interested, but while I'm writing -- would you be interested in doing a peer review of this article, preparatory to taking it to GA? Omnedon (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking good. One little prose point I noticed, you have "postwar" in the lead but "post war" under the last portrait -- choose one (I'd thought the first was correct) and stick to it throughout. If you put the article up for peer review, I'd be happy to contribute -- let me know when it's there and I'll make sure it's on the MilHist 'open tasks' list so it gets wider exposure. My gut feel at this stage is that it'd make a decent GA candidate more-or-less as is, and once that's achieved a MilHist A-Class Review would be the logical next step. However if you want the MilHist B-Class (which is strict as far as citations go) ASAP then you'd have to cite the portrait passage or else comment it out for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally if a statement can't be cited, I'd ultimately remove it; but I may still be able to find a source on the portraits. Unfortunately no one else currently seems to be involved with the article, and I don't know where that paragraph came from.  In any case, before taking this to peer review (and on to GA), I think I will spend a bit more time digging into the other sections of the article and try to improve it as much as I can.  Omnedon (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, since you are experienced with this, would you say it would be worthwhile to reach B-class now and continue to with improvement and a peer review after that? Would that be helpful, given that the ultimate goal is GA/FA?  If it would, then let's go for B-class. Omnedon (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I haven't been around lately. I'm happy that the references parameter of MilHist B-Class is met, so I've upped the MilHist (and Biography) assessment accordingly. I expect that all the other projects should fall in line with the B-Class assessment but as I'm not a member of any of them I've left them as they are for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has virtually nothing about Davis and slavery, either his personal ownership of slaves, his moral/religious support for slavery, or his involvement in the politics of slavery -- both before the war and during the war. I've added a brief mention of his early acquisition of slaves but much more is needed. I don't think that the article can be judged Class B until Davis' full relationship to slavery is discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's an important aspect that needs coverage, and what you've added seems good. I'm not sure I'd agree that "much more" is needed, given the size of the article -- it should not be given disproportionate weight -- but some more, certainly. Since you seem familiar with it, if you can provide additional cited material, that would be great. Omnedon (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

HOW typical of wikipedia - slave owner Davis gets mention,  James Pemberton slave does not   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.44.213 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * By much more I mean Davis' involvement in, among other things, his involvement w/ the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the call for a slave code in the territories and his role in the split in the Democratic Party in 1860, his actions during the Secession Winter, his use of slaves during the war, as well as his personal philosophy obn slavery.


 * IMO size will be a problem at some point. He had an eventful life even before the Civil War and a FA level of comprehensiveness should bring the article up to a comparable size of Abraham Lincoln (Good article 140,000 bytes) or George Washington (GA Class at 127,000 bytes). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In recent months I've been working mostly on readability, MOS issues, citation issues, and general improvements; and while I've added some additional material in the way of expanding existing paragraphs, I agree that more is still needed for the article to be really comprehensive. That's why I wondered if you could add some of the material you have mentioned, since you seem quite conversant on the subject.  I also will sift through the sources I have for more details; adding the correct amount of detail and maintaining overall balance is always the trick, of course. Omnedon (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of going through the Cooper and William C. Davis biographies to fill in his career at least up to the Montgomery Convention. I noticed that the dates for his election to office in both works put his first election to Congress in November 1845 with his swearing in on 12-8-45 so I'm changing that in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Following on from my comment above, I think that once you guys are satisfied with any additional content, you should certainly submit to GAN and, following that, MilHist A-Class Review. Together, those two will give you a very useful dry run for FAC. My one admonishment is to be sparing with further detail, as I think it's of reasonable length all up for even FA, let alone GA -- as Omnedon suggests, it may be that some juggling of the balance of the existing info is necessary rather than a lot more info over all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson Hamilton Davis?
Did he have such a name?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, his name was Jefferson Finis Davis. -- Lee Tru.  13:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, really?
The third paragraph of the "Later Years" section contains the assertion:

"During Reconstruction, Davis publicly remained silent on his opinions; however, he published a collection of erotic poems dedicated to Robert E. Lee, including the controversial poem,'Yankee and Negroe,' which was explicit about his love of anal sex play. Davis held contemporary beliefs that Blacks were inferior to the White race, and had multiple sadomasochistic affairs with former slaves."

I find myself... somewhat skeptical of this claim.

Zgryphon (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * we have some adolescent male readers who have time on their hands. :) Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

and why are the women of that time so ugly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.44.213 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re. IP What!? Re. User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] some?-- Lee Tru.  13:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Paper money & inflation
[text ex talk page for Rjensen] Greetings! Your recent edits to the Jefferson Davis article have been very good. One small issue that you might be able to help with: this edit restored some text that may well be accurate, but I have yet to find a reference for the part about printing more paper money, so I had reworded that part to omit it. Would you have any works that you could cite for this? The current citation, which I found and added recently, doesn't cover that aspect. It may not be a big deal, but I thought I would ask about it. Hopefully someone will review the article for GA soon; it's in the queue. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks. Davis as president was responsible for finances, and Cooper p 378 says "The printing presses ran faster and faster, eventually pouring out a paper money avalanche of $1.5 billion." & "Davis never comprehended the dimensions of the disaster."  Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NYT citations - Mix-up?
Hello - Could someone more familiar with the gathering of the citations for this article take a look at this? I think the Rothstein citation has the Brown citation's link.

In early 2013, two parks in Memphis, Tennessee, which had been designated "Jefferson Davis Park" and "Confederate Park" were renamed, as was a third park named after CSA officer and early Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest. This decision also sparked controversy.

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks -- that was my error, as I put the same URL in two different references. That's been fixed. Omnedon (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Second Military Career
I have read the entire article and think it is well done.

There was only one area I thought could use some additional information - Second Military Career - the article does not specify where Davis' regiment was first assigned; with Scott or Taylor. The way it reads now is that you have to assume he was with Scott, But did the regiment go to Taylor's army? I am unsure and I don't want to ruin the narrative style that is there. In addition, more may be needed to show his entire service during the Mexican-American War. I am a new editor and don't have the online resources to do the edit. MacEachan1 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)MacEachan1
 * Good point -- he was under Taylor, not Scott. I've clarified this in the article. I'll see what other details I can add regarding his service in this war. Thanks! (Sorry I missed this comment at the time -- since then, a few more details have been added to this section.) Omnedon (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest adding Booknotes interview to external links
I want to suggest adding the following Booknotes interview to the External links section: http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/162328-1/William+Cooper.aspx

Cooper's book is cited numerous times in the article already, and the interview is a hour-long, serious interview with the author about Davis's life and the process of researching and writing the book.

Booknotes links of that sort have been parts of several featured articles in recent years, including W. E. B. Du Bois and Rutherford B. Hayes.

Any thoughts on this? (If nothing else, let me encourage interested parties to watch the interview.) KConWiki (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously not the only editor involved here, but I think it's a good idea. Omnedon (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK - I'm going to add it; Any concerns, let's discuss here. KConWiki (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Grave
Any interest in adding a picture of Jefferson Davis's final resting place to the article? Remember (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent image, and it is presently linked in the sentence on his grave; the trick would be working this image into the article without overloading it. Omnedon (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox flag
Jeff Davis served under the "Stars-and-Bars", the history article at WP should picture the flag of his time. The only Confederate flag that meets criteria for historicity and scholarly convention is the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865. (Coulter, p. 116),

Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen. He flew the Stars-and-Bars at Beauvoir, Mississippi in retirement until his death, 1867-1908. He was the only man not allowed U.S. citizenship under general amnesty, explicitly excluded from US citizenship by name. Heritage Auction offered the original Stars-and-Bars flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.

The Stars-and-Bars is the flag symbol of the Confederacy and Confederates 1861- 1865 according to reliable sources during and after the American Civil War. Jefferson Davis flew the Stars and Bars 1867-1908 the Infobox should reflect that history-- The alternate image description for the Blood-Stained-Banner suggests the BSB is in use “since 1865”, yet in his “Short History of the Confederate States of America” it is said that the Confederacy “disappeared” since 1865, in the words of Jefferson Davis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverted 31 July Lieutcoluseng unsourced infobox flag edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 November reverted unsourced infobox flag edit by ProudIrishAspie to restore the Jefferson Davis "Stars and Bars" of history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 12 November reverted unsourced infobox flag edit by Lieutcoluseng. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 14 December reverted unsourced infobox flag edit by Lieutcoluseng at Robert E. Lee. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Howardraywhite self promotion
Howardraywhite has added a self-published source by Howard Ray White, a $2.99 paperback which misrepresents Lincoln’s call for militia to restore federal property as a call to invade the Confederacy. This is unscholarly and at variance with reliable sources, so it is reverted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)