Talk:Jeffersonian democracy

message: I'm not sure that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's analysis is warranted here (or necessarily even correct).  Can Cagliost explain his reasoning for this addition and maybe provide more detail? --GHcool (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson not a democrat?

message: The irresponsible quotation of Sean Wilentz, out of context, as though he supported a movement of which he strongly disapproved, has  been discussed at some length at Talk:Alexander_Hamilton#Please.2C_no_quotations_out_of_context. The rest of the tags should be self-explanatory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is exactly what Wilentz wrote, word for word, in a major journal. he says he is summarizing the consensus of most scholars (even though he himself has a different minority view). Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the dubious tags, all the cases are well known. Clyde Wilson (in his into to John C. Calhoun: American portrait by  Margaret L. Coit) says Calhoun was the advocate "of what used to be known as Jeffersonian Democracy."; John Randolph was the Jeffersonian floor leader in Congress in 1801. As for John Taylor of Caroline see Benjamin F. Wright, Jr., “The Philosopher of Jeffersonian Democracy,” American Political Science Review vol 22 or the 2008 book entitled The liberal republicanism of John Taylor of Caroline by Sheldon. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: to nail down a false & nasty characterization of Wilentz: Here's the opening of the review of his The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln in a leading journal: "In this magisterial volume, Sean Wilentz provides a detailed, dramatic, elegantly written, narrative interpretation of American politics from the Revolutionary Era to the Civil War....Accessible to the general reader, with brilliant cameos of major and minor figures, it offers a grand, Bancroftian synthesis...." [Altschuler in Reviews in American History 34.2 (2006) 169-175] Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Wilentz is a leading historian writing recently in a leading journal about the preponderant views of historians. 130.231.116.205 seems to be angry with the RS, but Wiki rules require the editors follow the RS. 130.231.116.205 does not reveal any of the RS he is using so his opinions remain personal POV. Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Preposterous. Jefferson loved slavery; he even impregnated his own slave. 24.146.223.164 (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: let's read the quote carefully. "a) Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. b) At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands -- all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property."  sentence a) says historians depict Jefferson as a "naïve, dreamy idealist"--no one here objects to that. Indeed the quote above seems to confirm that judgment [TJ said: "there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [slavery]." b) is not about Jefferson but about the millions of JEFFERSONIANS, who were indeed based in the white South.  b) says what HISTORIANS in recent years say about these Jeffersonians. Now do we have another RS that denies any of this?  citations to RS please. Rjensen (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilentz

message: I believe the article needs to state that blacks or African slaves and Indians were not included in Jefferson's Democracy.  His Democracy only included European descent people. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jefferson and many of his followers included Indians who had left tribal control and become citizens. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks and Indians excluded 

message: I no find logic in the structure of the text.
I lost so big time to find whether this is type representative democracy or not.
I'll no say you the answer, because I'll let you found it yourself.
Because it might be direct democracy, everything is possible.
Conclusion: It's boring.
Do not delete text, but made it interesting to read it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.158.12 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's boring. 

message: The sentence in the lead about William Jennings Bryan is unsourced and seems unnecessary.  I intend on deleting it unless a good argument and a source can be found to support its presence.  --GHcool (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryan