Talk:John Jay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Public domain source

Public domain article to incorporate http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/dec12.html

I may come back and do this...just trying to pitch in on the 100,000 article mark for now -- RobLa 23:12 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

I just incorporated this public domain article. — DLJessup 03:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Gay

An anonymous user included the following text:

John Jay is not to be confused with John Gay.

I don't understand why this should be in this article, since Gay is pronounced with a hard "g" and so cannot be confused with "Jay", even when spoken aloud. I am therefore removing this sentence as not germaine to this article. — DLJessup 01:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] President

John Jay's title was never President of the United States - even if, and I see no source for this, people sometimes called him that. He was President of the Continental Congress, an office that later became known as President of the United States in Congress Assembled. There is no need to add "under the present constitution" to articles about presidents of the United States to distinguish them from these other men who presided over congress. --JimWae 05:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

At the time of McKean's Presidency, official documents used the title "President of the United States", and the title was used unofficially before that. The burden, then, is upon those who would declare that this office, though officially and unofficially called "President of the United States", was mysteriously not that of President of the United States. Until that fine demonstration, please stop censoring what otherwise appears to be evident truth. --Gamahucheur 23:21, 27 November 2005 (PST)

OK, let's go through this:

  • The official title of the office under the operation of the Articles of Confederation was "President of the United States, in Congress Assembled". This was because the official title of the congress under the Articles of Confederation was "The United States, in Congress Assembled". In other words, the title of the office was essentially "President of Congress". Because the title was obnoxiously long, it would often be abbreviated to "President of the United States". But that doesn't change the fact that the role of that office was the presiding officer of the congress, something distinct from the chief executive of the country.
  • As it happens, Jay was President of the Continental Congress before the beginning of operations under the Article of Confederation. Even were we to admit that a superficial similarity in name meant that this was the same office, Jay was never called "President of the United States" for the simple reason that when he was in office, the office was named "President of the Continental Congress". Under your argument, the first President of the United States was Samuel Huntington or Thomas McKean, both of whom served after Jay.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's go through this further, seeking some logical consistency:
  • If a title is properly used in an official document, while it might not be a full title or a best title, it is an official title.
  • No one is claiming that the power of the President of the United States before the present Constitution were much like those under that constitution. This argument is a man of straw. A full and proper concession of that which is to be conceeded was made exactly by explicitly noting that Jay was not the youngest President under the present Constitution.
  • The title of the King of England has mutated repeated, and the power of the King of England have also changed repeatedly. At the time of the first Kings of England, "king" wasn't even the Anglo-Saxon word for king. Nonetheless, we have no problem acknowledging that the king was the king, even as titles and powers changed. Let us be logically consistent about the President of the Continental Congress.
  • Thus, logically, under "my" argument, the first President of the United States is John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress when the United States became the United States.
- Gamahucheur 09:55, 28 November 2005 (PST)

This is baffling logic - you have already agreed that Jay was never called POTUS and never president of the country. If each colony had sent the same number of representatives to an assembly, would that make them what we now call senators? The office of POTUS had not even been outlined yet, and the role was much closer to that of a Speaker of the House --JimWae 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You say
Jay was the youngest President in American history, albeït not under the present Constitution.)
You do not say he was president OF the United States. Being not entirely facetious, I think there have been some presidents even younger - such as the 10 year-old president of the HEMC.--JimWae 05:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Under the previous logic, John Jay was actually a proto-Speaker of the House, or rather proto-President Pro Tempore to a proto-Senate. However, his official title is "President of the Second Continental Congress." This makes him a 'president' though not exactly a 'POTUS.' Here's my ultimate test though: who held the highest office in the land at the time? Assuming you count the colonies as no longer subject to King George, you're answer has to be John Jay. His authority was certainly nowhere near as strong as the latest 43 Presidents, but no singular person could officially overturn his decisions.

An important side edit that should be addressed in the article: John Jay was the FOURTH President of the Second Continental Congress (Sixth of the Continental Congresses), not the FIFTH as is stated! -- 129.74.187.106 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Some points about Gamahucheur's latest posting:
  • "If a title is properly used in an official document, while it might not be a full title or a best title, it is an official title." Hmmm… when Washington signed the Constitution, he signed as "Geo. Washington". Does that mean that "Geo." was Washington's official first name?
  • We both acknowledge that the "President of the Constitutional Congress" and the "President of the United States, in Congress Assembled" are the same office with different titles and slightly different powers. In other words, the same office can have different titles. Does it not seem logical that different offices can have the same title?
  • I agree that offices can evolve over time, as powers and responsibilites are removed or added. What I have a hard time swallowing is that one office, which was nothing but the presiding officer of a deliberative body on March 3, 1789, is somehow the same office as the chief executive of the country on the following day. This isn't just a change in power; the two roles are nothing alike.
Some points about the anonymous posting:
  • According to JimWae's logic, John Jay was a proto-President to a proto-Senate—in other words, a proto-Vice President of the United States—not a proto-President pro tempore.
  • "Who held the highest office in the land at the time?" This was actually one of the weaknesses of the government under the Articles of Confederation: there was no individual head of state or head of government. It is also one of the factors that indicates that the President of the Continental Congress was not a proto-POTUS, because the President of the Continental Congress was neither, and the POTUS is both.
  • "No singular person could officially overturn his decisions." What decisions? About the only decisions that Jay was responsible for as POTCC were votes on motions or resolutions where his vote could be decisive, and rulings on parliamentary decisions.
  • John Jay was the sixth President of the Continental Congress if you count them the way we count Presidents of the United States, where Peyton Randolph becomes both the first and third Presidents of the Continental Congress. However, if you do not double-count people who hold non-consecutive terms (as is indeed done with most offices that are not President of the United States), then Randolph is only the fifth President of the Continental Congress.
Some additional points to consider:
  • How many history books refer to George Washington as the first President of the United States? While this is hardly dispositive, at some point you have to wonder why no one has picked up on this before if it truly has merit.
  • snopes.com attempts a debunking of John Hanson as POTUS
Finally:
  • In an attempt to compromise, I have moved the offending parenthetical remark to its own section, labelled "Trivia", and rewritten it in the hopes that it satisfies Gamahucheur, JimWae, and myself.
— DLJessup (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the "highest office" argument, though personally the lack of an official head of state does not mean there is no leader. George Washington was the symbolic leader of the Constitutional Convention but there can be no doubt that despite the mere parliamentary powers that position held, Mr. Washington was viewed as the leader. And while you may argue that an office is limited to its outlined powers, I think it's very well-known that the leaders define their office more than any job description (again, George Washington did more to shape the Chief Executive office than the few lines in the Constitution. Other presidents also broadened the role despite any amendments being ratified). So in that vein, being President of the Continental Congress or of the United States, Congress Assembled may have been a more influential role than history can record due to the tumultous time, short term, and frantic structuring of government. Speaker of the House doesn't seem too high and mighty of a job on paper, but it's not too much of a stretch to argue it's the second most powerful office in the land.

Additionally, I'm sticking to my guns. John Jay was the fourth president of the Second Continental Congress. There were two congresses. The first was led by Peyton Randolph and Henry Middleton. The second was led by Peyton Randolph, John Hancock and Henry Laurens before Mr. Jay. It's mind-numbingly anal retentive, as is the fact that "Geo" is just the at-the-time common shortening of "George." --ScottieB 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed the ordinal altogether; maybe future editors will care to duke it out over wether Jay was 4th of Second or 5th or 6th, but I'm behind enough in my editing as it is.
— DLJessup (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


This is baffling logic - you have already agreed that Jay was never called POTUS and never president of the country.

No; it's frustrating logic; not baffling logic. I've already drawn an analogy to the King of England. The first Kings were not called "king" during their reigns, but the occupied the same position as was occupied by later men who were called "King".

Does that mean that "Geo." was Washington's official first name?

Are you going to deny that "Geo. Washington" properly refers to George Washington, exactly as you deny that "President of the United States" poperly refers to the Presidents of the Contintentant Congress from Hancock onward?

Does it not seem logical that different offices can have the same title?

Absolutely. Hence it is quite desirable to make it plain that a different constitutional arrangement was in place.

How many history books refer to George Washington as the first President of the United States?

Science isn't properly driven by consensus, whether it is the social science of history or otherwise.

What really obtains here is that you want to avoid confusion by suppressing an inconvenient truth here. But the proper way to avoid that confusion is with more words and more truth, not less.

— Gamahucheur 20:30, 11 December 2005 (PST)

[edit] Role in Episcopal Church

Jay apparently had a notable role in the Episcopal Church. Can someone with knowledge on the subject enlighten the readers? Thanks! -- 198.59.190.201 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that this detail would pass wikitorial muster in the article, so I'll simply quote it here. <>< tbc 06:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Elected as one of two wardens on the vestry of Trinity Church in New York in 1785, Jay was not only active in local parish life including the superintendence of the construction of a new church building, but he was also selected as a lay delegate to a church convention in Philadelphia to discuss a new constitution for the Episcopal Church. In his capacity as the American Foreign Secretary he relayed a letter from the convention addressed to English bishops through the American minister to Great Britain, John Adams. The correspondence sought the Bishops' mind on their willingness to consecrate American bishops who had been nominated for office by the American church. Jay encouraged Adams to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the interests of the Episcopal Church. English consecration of American bishops was eventually approved paving the way for a new constitution for the Episcopal Church. New York Episcopalians nominated Jay's pastor and close friend, the Reverend Samuel Provoost, for the office of Bishop. Provoost and the Reverend William White, Chaplain of the Continental Congress and Rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, were consecrated Bishops in February, 1787 in England. By 1789 the Episcopal Church had three dioceses in Connecticut, New York, and Philadelphia and an American Book of Common Prayer. Jay's significant efforts had contributed to the re-birth of the oldest Protestant tradition in North America. [Crippen II, Alan R. (2005). John Jay: An American Wilberforce? (English). Retrieved on 2006-09-28.]

[edit] Treaty of Paris

Failed to mention The Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution. John Jay Drafted the Treaty with Ben Franklin and John Adams in Paris, France.

[edit] Disputed Neutrality

In the section on the Jay Treaty of 1794, someone has put up a "disputed neutrality" marker - yet there is nothing about it on the talk page. Should the marker be removed, or is there a real dispute about the neutrality of that section?Salim555 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the disputed neutrality is regarding Jay as an abolitionist...it seems to early in history for such a pivotal figure to take on such a controvertial (in those days - late 18th century) position.

--169.237.165.102 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Both are disputed. The section on Jay's Treaty is partisan apologetic, ignoring Jay's return with a minimal treaty, ratified by a single vote, and with unfavorable terms.
    • The presentation now available is a puff piece.
  • Jay's "abolition" is correctly stated, now: he was one of the men who enacted the 25-year gradual emancipation plan in New York. Beyond that, "leading abolitionist" is invention, and does not belong in the intro. Septentrionalis 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Jay was a leading abolitionist--the #1 person in the state of New York, the founder of the Manumussion Society and its longtime president and the person who got the state to actually abolish slavery. Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has long taken a pro-slavery position by ridiculing abolitionists and abolitionism--that is heavy handed POV. Rjensen 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. Quoting the conclusion of a 40-page survey of Jay's anti-slavery activity in full is POV. Deleting sourced quotations and selecting only the most favorable half-sentence is working for abolition. Such retroactive courage! If Littlefield finds other men more active, we should say so.
I remind Rjensen that there is already an RfC on his incivility. It is possible to be anti-slavery and still not value the Federalists higher than our sources do. Septentrionalis 23:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson systematically belittles antislavery and abolitionism. That is pretty heavy POV. Rjensen 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My view of Jay is this side idolatry, as Wikipedia's ought to be; however, Sir, I deny that I have ever ridiculed any Federalist. Quoting an established historian in full, rather than quoting him selectively is not ridicule. I request evidence, or an immediate retraction. Septentrionalis 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I regret to see that Rjensen genuinely misunderstands the fundamental policies of wikipedia. The edit summary value judgment" is not a Wiki rule;... is utterly false. Not making value judgments, in Wikipedia's voice, is the essence of the neutral point of view which is fundamental policy. Compared to this, his claim of anti-abolition pov is less important, although it is a personal attack. It is McManus's view, not mine, that the bill of 1799 was easy, because all but one of the legislators of 1785 had voted for some form of emancipation. IIRC the "open door" was even his metaphor. McManus wrote in 1968, and I believe he was black; proving that he was anti-abolition would take extraordinary evidence, and Rjensen has given none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I should like a source for Burr's membership in the Society; Mitchell's description, as I recall it, implies that he was not, but was an independent force.
  • Long years of agitation against slavery in 1777-85?!? Surely New York's politicians were otherwise engaged during the Revolution and occupation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following mixed evaluation by a prominent scholar on colonial slavery may yet be useful: John Peronneau, John Adams, and Robert Carter III "were contemporaries whose reflections on the injustice of slavery (or at least its inexpediency) caused them to act sooner, with more rectitude and at greater cost than Jay." But "[i]f Jay was not in the vanguard of militant abolitionists, he was still a leader among men of property to recognize a wrong and move slowly and genteelly towards its eradication."(Littlefield 2000, p.133)

The various folks in other states who were not political leaders and had no connection whatever with Jay can be left out of his biography. Jay started acting in 1777 before they did anyway. Adams of course was pretty quiet on slavery--listing himn seems a howler. On Jay's activity starting in 1777 see Suddreth (2002) and the recent (2005) book of Jay letters. He proposed slavery be abolished in US Constitution of 1787, and dropped the southern demands for return of slaves in Jay Treaty negotiations.--that's action that goes well beyond the other 3. Parmet-Hecht bio of Burr notes (p 76) that Jay's 1792 election chances were hurt in upstate Dutch areas by his role in Manumission Society: "Many hesitated about accepting their new candidate [Jay] because of his connection with the Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves." As for Open Door--that is rejected by Roger Kennedy who reports: p 92 "Those [blacks] who remained in New York soon discovered that until the Manumission Society was organized, things had gotten worse, not better, for blacks. Despite the efforts of Burr, Hamilton, and Jay, the slave importers were busy. There was a 23 percent increase in slaves and a 33 percent increase in slaveholders in New York City in the 1790s." On Burr, see Parmet biography of Burr p. 61: "John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were among the officers of the Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and in the Assembly, Aaron Burr became a leading advocate of their cause." That makes him a leader of the Society's cause (whether on not he paid dues I don't know). Rjensen 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I congratulate Rjensen on his red herring. That slave imports in the 1790's increased has nothing to do with the question of whether gradual emancipation was easy to pass; if it had been legal, it might be possible (as OR) to conclude that there was an economic interest against emancipation; but the slave trade was, as he should remember, illegal in the 1790's anyway - and it merrily continued until the 1850's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a red herring to quote a scholar [Kennedy] who has a different opinion of how "easy" it was to abolish slavery. Rjensen 06:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If the quotation had said anything about the ease of enacting emancipation or abolition, it would not be a red herring; but it does not. It addresses the difficulty of enforcing the law against the slave trade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Jay_f6fb.html"