Talk:Jefferson Davis

Inconsistency

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

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

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

Treason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

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

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

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

Davies was not pro slavery

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

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

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