Talk:Nicholas Trist

Obviously hostile POV
This article, which cites no sources at all, offers a frankly derogatory depiction of its subject:


 * Through political connections, Trist was appointed U.S. consul in Havana, Cuba.
 * Was any consul ever appointed other than "through political connections"? The author (lastudies, 4 October 2006) implies that Trist's appointment was not merited.


 * He made no secret of his pro-slavery views.
 * In a Virginian of the political class, born in 1800, openly expressing pro-slavery views scarcely requires remark, unless his views were the subject of controversy, or he conspicuously acted contrary to those views, or the views were some other way distinctive. The author implies that anybody would expect Trist (or rather any decent man, if a decent man could have held such views) to have concealed his pro-slavery views, out of shame; and that to admit them openly was a brazen defiance of common morality.  In the United States of the 1830s, the vast majority of non-slaves held beliefs that, at least in terms of their practical effect on the persistence of the institution, could justly be described as "pro-slavery" (ranging from "insoluble dilemma" through "necessary evil" to "positive good").  The article's moralistic implication is thus ahistorical, and should be eliminated.


 * The sentence is also unrelated to either the preceding or the following sentence--or to anything else in the article--apart from the mere mention of slavery; unrelated, that is, except as one more proof of Trist's bad character.


 * According to members of a British commission sent to Cuba to investigate violations of the treaty ending the African slave trade, Trist became corruptly involved in the creation of false documents designed to mask illegal sales of Africans into bondage.
 * This putative citation of a British anti-slave-trade commission adds the appearance of reliability, but no document or other source is actually cited.
 * Piling-up of censorious adjectives doesn't increase the accuracy or subtlety of the statement. It merely blackguards Trist.


 * For a time Trist also served as the consul in Cuba for Portugal, another country whose nationals were active in the illegal slave trade. Meanwhile, Trist became very unpopular with New England ship captains . . . .
 * The author is clearly building a case against Trist for criminal complicity in the interdicted trans-Atlantic slave trade, not impartially presenting the facts. Trist's connection to that trade is well-established, but the legality or illegality of his actions appears to be the subject of considerable dispute.
 * The attempt to draw a contrast between Trist's implied solicitude towards "Portugal, . . . whose nationals were active in the illegal slave trade," and his alleged neglect of the (unspecified) interests of "New England ship captains" is uninformative and rather ironic, given the predominance of New England ship captains, ship owners, and crews in the U.S. Atlantic slave trade, both legal and illegal


 * During the Mexican-American War, . . . .
 * Through vagueness, innuendo, and loaded terms, several authors (beginning with TheSlyProfessor, 26 November 2005) rob Trist of recognition for his personal courage and diplomatic skill in defying his President and negotiating--on terms highly favorable to the U.S.A.--an end to a war that Trist and many of his fellow-citizens regarded as criminal and immoral, thereby saving the lives of countless thousands of U. S. soldiers, and Mexican soldiers and civilians, who would certainly have perished in months or years of continued warfare, had Trist obeyed Pres. Polk's new orders. (I don't contend that the article should praise Trist or even necessarily call him courageous or skillful; but it should present the facts by which many have judged him praiseworthy.)


 * A few examples:


 * He was ordered to arrange an armistice with Santa Anna for up to three million U.S. dollars. President Polk was unhappy with his envoy's conduct . . . .
 * The revision history of this passage suggests no malicious intent, but an unsuspecting reader could easily take from this that Trist had failed to arrange an armistice, and that Polk was displeased because Trist had not managed to end the war, whereas the very opposite is true.
 * However, the wily diplomat ignored the instructions. Known to have an over-fluid pen, he wrote a 65 page letter back to Washington, D.C. explaining his reasons . . . .
 * "Wily diplomat" and "over-fluid pen" are completely gratuitous slights, hinting at base ulterior motives for Trist's refusal to abandon promising peace negotiations--and his original mandate--in favor of Polk's new belligerent stance.
 * . . . Trist, for undisclosed compensation, on his own volition, drew the line . . . which left all of Baja California . . . a part of Mexico.
 * This unsupported statement (added by WikapiWicasa, 15 December 2012) may have been intended to inform readers that Trist's treaty did not disclose the compensation to be paid to Mexico (or to Gen. Santa Anna); but as written--and particularly in the context of so much denunciation--it seems clearly to assert, without offering a shred of evidence, that Trist let Mexico keep Baja California in return for a bribe.


 * The article also gives very short shrift to Trist's opposition to Southern secession and his support for the Republican party and Abraham Lincoln, which appear highly incongruous with the article's depiction of Trist as a corrupt patron of, and criminal collaborator in, chattel slavery and the illegal slave trade. It gives readers no basis for understanding why or how he could have taken such apparently contradictory positions; or, for that matter, why or how such a seemingly unprincipled partisan of slavery came to oppose--to the point of risking prosecution for malfeasance in office, perhaps even for treason--a war that many of his contemporaries viewed as a flagrant and imperious gambit by the "Slave Power" to expand its domain and magnify its political might.

I was going to put a POV banner on the article, in hopes that somebody more knowledgeable than I would rewrite it appropriately; but the instructions for those banners tell us first to invite discussion on the Talk page, so I'm doing that. If nobody persuades me within the next few weeks that I'm wrong, I'll put up the banner.

Jdcrutch (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is certainly better now than it was 10 years ago, but I think it's suspicious to claim that a Republican in this period who deliberately sabotaged the annexation of Mexico and still "felt shame" over taking anything from that nation could be considered pro-slavery. It would take a lot of academic review, but it sounds like to me that these pro-slavery claims are made on an inference based on the British tribunal that doesn't look like it found anything substantial. In any case, the OP was absolutely right that the article doesn't make sense in not establishing how Trist could have kept this double standard of being a Radical Republican with a strong multicultural ethic and supported slavery. If Trist "made no secret of his support" then quote him, for one. The supposed source gives no page number. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding Citations
I plan on adding some citations to this article from the volume The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War since his dealings with the Mexican government and President Polk do receive a fair bit of attention in the introduction to the book. Concchambers (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)