Talk:George Washington and slavery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Change needed

A change needs to be made to the "Northwest abolitionist haven", which is from the "sonofthesouth" website. These claims are absurd, and claim that Washington's abolitionst action led to the Civil War. This is a form and is probably in violation of Wikipedia's policy on that, if not for lacking in accuracy.

"Changes to wheat farming" not only is this not relevant, it is not even Washington's plantation. Montecillo belonged to Thomas Jefferson. The person who "beefed up" this article, Cmguy777 is either unaware of history or prefers to present his own neo-Confederate POV. This web page should be flagged, as I have attempted to clean as much as possible, but it is so bad that only a complete redesign or deletion would be appropriate. Others have made similar comments, and they are correct. ` Note: I wrote this in the wrong section as I've just found where the dispute code is. Ebanony (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebanony (talk • contribs)

Sections deleted

Numerous sections were deleted because 1)they were subjective statements in support of an ideological argument from the Lost Cause 2) they had few or no refrences 3) the references did not support the conclusions drawn 4) much of the information was not even remotely related to Washington, such as the number of African slaves in 1619 or a series of laws on slavery.

The slave laws were put in the article not to justify slavery, but rather give a historical reference for George Washington and slavery. The truth about the slave laws should be known to everyone. {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

Washington was divided over the slave issue. The North West territory was slave free. This is where the escaped slaves fled to in the Underground railroad. He eventually set his slaves free because he viewed slavery as an evil institution.{Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

This page is completely unnecessary. The exact same material can be found in George Washington's legacy. This should be considered for deletion. Zeppelin462 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be deleted.

I am amazed at how far we Americans are willing to bend over backwards to construe Washington's slave ownership as some sort of heroic deed. It is ludicrous that the cult of personality which informed my elementary school education continues here on Wikipedia. Slave ownership was *not*, even in Washington's day and amongst his social class, an inevitable fact of American life. Washington chose to keep slaves and the fact should be allowed to stand on the historical record as it is. Does it make him evil? Or a bad general or president? No, and even if it did, it isn't our business to make that call. But it is also not our business to perform acts of political spin which strongly imply that Washington's slave ownership was humane or good relative to some unestablished frame of reference. TremorMilo (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I added that there was a part to the 1782 Virginia manumission law that stated slave owners had to "support and maintain" their slaves after manumission. Was Washington wealthy enough to support his slaves after manumission? More research should be done in this area. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)}

I agree that Washington who kept his slaves until his death should not be presented as "heroic". The slaves on Monticello had no civil rights, could be stripped naked and whipped, and even murdered without the prosecution from the Virginia Government. In fact, the Virginia government condoned such actions. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)}

The freedoms during Washington's times generally only applied to White persons. Slaves were used to get the number of Representatives increased in the House of Representatives, thus ensuring that Southern politions like Washington would have a monopoly in the House of Representatives. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)}

This article is biased and should be deleted. Who wrote it? Was it the same Cmguy777 who thinks Washington's slaves lived at Montecillo, which was Jefferson's plantation? The same person who thinks that by adding some reference that is unrelated that the article is improved?

The Slave Loyalty section alone is anything but neutral. This article has been used to present a 50-50 balance debate on slavery and how slaves viewed their masters and were loyal to them; so slaves liked their masters? They were loyal? Then who so many runaways and rebellions (over 250)? The slaves who killed their masters? Anyone who has read respected slave narratives by former slaves like Douglass, Jacobs, Northup would know that straightaway there is an issue with this. Anyone familiar with the slaves who specifically worked for the Washingtons and ran away (one fought against the Americans), would know what this is. Anyone familiar with the arguments of proponents of slavery would understand that this is taken form it verbatim.

Further, Oney Judge is mentioned but not quoted; yet those obscure & confusing references to other slaves are, and they cannot be checked on the internet. Judge herself said that though she lived in much worse conditions as a pauper and widow, yet she preferred that to the so called better life as a slave: "When asked if she is not sorry she left Washington, as she has labored so much harder since, than before, her reply is, "No, I am free, and have, I trust been made a child of God by the means.["]". So you say that slaves were better off because their needs were met by their master? Even if it were true - and plantation records along w/ excavations on sites like the African Burial Ground in NYC dispute that argument "The mortality rate for children under 16 years old was 43% based on a sample of 301 individuals buried at the site." - what is the point of using it? She - and millions of others - were slaves by force, not by choice. It's George Fitzugh and the Ani-Uncle Tom literature that says slave owners were helping the "sub-human" Africans. They said things like "How cruel and unwise in us not to extend the blessings of slavery to the free negroes" This is an encylcopedia, not a forum for the "Lost Cause" ideology. You do a diservice to the figures in history and those you present this to. Ebanony (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC) WP:DEL#REASON Ebanony —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

The whole article implies that the slaves were forced to be slaves. The article states that the former slaves returned to Mt. Vernon, slaves that Washington had set free in his will. "Loyality" in no way implies that slavery is a "good" institution. The slave names were put in to show that real people were slaves. It is sad that there may be no references to their lives. I do not support a "lost cause". Slavery is an evil and cruel institution along with racism and hatred! That is my POV. This article in not meant to be a debate, but to show the harsh reality of slavery in Washington's time. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC

David Barton

The citation to David Barton is absurd. The man is not a historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation from David Barton has been removed. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}

Changes

I bulked up the article adding information on Washington's early life, Washington's ties with slavery, and the slaves lives and conditions. It is important to have as many view points as possible for the reader to understand a Founding Father, such as George Washington. Any other improvements would be greatful. I also added a part about Washington's legacy with slavery. I wanted to focus on signifigant events when Washington was President. I also added information on Washington's will. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)}

The front paragraphs are really good. I like the way the paragraphs flow and make sense! It is good to have different perspectives. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)}

The section on slave loyalty is biased, inherntly flawed and prsented as a "POV", when in reality it's an ideological arguemnt. I explain the reasons above in the discussion on delete for those interested. Cmguy777 focuses more on his "wants" than on history.Ebanony (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way a neo confederate! There was nothing in this article that condones slavery. You have the freedom to change edits. Some of Washington's slaves remained "loyal" for unknown reasons. I don't know why. It was also put into the article that other slaves were angry at Washington. There are many instances in this article that shows Washington was a harsh person and was very mean to slaves. The article only tells what actually occured in History. It is not in anyway meant to be a blog. I used reliable sources. I am not making up History. I do not attempt to understand the brutality of slavery and the double standard of the founding fathers in enslaving a race and claiming to be a democracy. Please make any edits neccessary if you believe the article is biased. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

I made changes to the Article to bring continuity and relieve possible or perceived biases. I also deleted "As prize-winning historian James Truslow Adams observed, "One good field hand was worth as much as a small city lot." The article should focus on George Washingtons view on slavery and how it changed during his lifetime. The article in my opinon is not biased. Please remove the cite. I appreciate Ebanony's insight into the article and all opinions. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

You said you're interested in presenting the experiences of slaves w/ GW. Well, some had direct experiences, and those are relevant. Perhaps you want to consider 1775 Dunmore Proclamation, how GW reacted, and who the slaves were that escaped (Harry was one). Why escape anyway? About 100k ran & GW among others were livid; they also tried to get them back in 1783 w/ the surrender terms, but the Brits wern't having that - lots got hands chopped off getting onto thos boats. There's an article in nyorker that talks about some of it. Some of that info is good...

There's the 1793 Slave Act, GW's role, any opposition (was there any?) how that affected slaves & how that caused the slave catching industry to grow. Oney Judge, Hercules (the escaped cook) and others you might like to look at. The President's House in Phili has a whole lot of info on that. There's also a tonne of archaeological work done at Ferry Farm (1st plantation), white house plantation (his wife's) and Mt Vernon. They did a whole lot on their websites to talk about excavations and how slaves lived, if that's what you want to discuss. They did quite a bit of whiskey work, if I'm not mistaken. These you may want to think about, but it's for you to decide.Ebanony (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Whiskey business should be in the article along with news of archaeological work done at Mt. Vernon and Ferry Farm. There is a new book out, 2009, by Scott E. Casper that goes over the life of the slaves using archaeological research. There is also the issue of photos. I am not sure how to get permission from web sites to use archaeological photos. Wikipedia is very picky about copyright infringement. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}

Colonial Virginia slavery

I added a section on Virginia's slave history. I believe this is warranted because the opening paragraph claims Washington was born in world that "accepted" slavery. This section has been incorporated from the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article.{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)}

Numerous sections were deleted because 1)they were subjective statements in support of an ideological argument from the Lost Cause 2) they had few or no refrences 3) the references did not support the conclusions drawn 4) much of the information was not even remotely related to Washington, such as the number of African slaves in 1619 or a series of laws on slavery.

A change needs to be made to the "Northwest abolitionist haven", which is from the "sonofthesouth" website. These claims are absurd, and claim that Washington's abolitionst action led to the Civil War. This is a form and is probably in violation of Wikipedia's policy on that, if not for lacking in accuracy.

"Changes to wheat farming" not only is this not relevant, it is not even Washington's plantation. Montecillo belonged to Thomas Jefferson. The person who "beefed up" this article, Cmguy777 is either unaware of history or prefers to present his own neo-Confederate POV. This web page should be flagged, as I have attempted to clean as much as possible, but it is so bad that only a complete redesign or deletion would be appropriate. Others have made similar comments, and they are correct.Ebanony (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit was meant to be Mount Vernon, not Monticello. I do not have a neo-Confederate POV! The edits in this article are historically accurate. No bias was intended. This article was meant to be an in depth view of slavery. I have read many articles about George Washington that completely gloss over his slave plantation on Mt. Vernon or fail to mention that fact completely. If anything, this article only brings to reality the harshness of slavery during Washington's lifetime.{Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

NVOP dispute

I believe the article has made changes to remove the NVOP dispute tag. The article, in my opinion is not biased. The changes have been good and made the article more concise and focused. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

I am in favor of removing the NVOP cite. This is a good neutral article. Keep. I recommend that if the no one objects to the neutrality of the article, then the NVOP cite should be removed. The previous objections have been taken care of and the cite has been cleaned up. Other opinions are welcome, need to be noted, and expressed. {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

There have been many edits to the article. No one has yet responded that the article is not neutral. If anyone objects to removing the NVOP site please respond. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)}

I object to removing the NVOP from this article because it is biased. Cmguy777 says in his own words that his intention is to show how Washington's POV of slavery changed over time.

1) There is little to say that he was against slavery at any point in his life; 2) we know a lot about his actions, and they are consistent w/ other slave owners of the time, including wealthy men freeing some in their will; 3) Despite what Cmguy quoted, he did nothing to support abolition, assist w/ the underground railroad, start the civil war or oppose slavery. There is bias because the whole article was written using these arguments to say Washington was against slavery at some point in his life, when that's not the purpose of wikipedia. That can be argued elsewhere.

The Underground Railroad section has been deleted. A person does not free slaves unless a person's believes slavery is unjust. This article is good because is attempts to show the character of Washington as a divided person. He had a concience. He did make slavery illegal in the North West Territory in 1789. Why would someone who is for slavery make slavery illegal? People are complex and it is not always simple to understand their motivations. The majority of this article shows Washington as a slave owner and at times a harsh slave owner. If Washington did not pass the North West Ordinance of 1789, then what you are saying would be true that he never was against slavery. Please read the Northwest Ordinance. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

Cmguy still insists that Montecillo mansion belonged to Wasington when it didn't; it was Jefferson's. The fact he doesn't even know the difference between Thomas Jefferson & Washington indicates he doesn't know what he's talking about.

the underground railroad & the Civil War is an outreagous claim. That site "Son of the south" is not a reputable source on history. Washington was instrumental in starting the underground railroad? That's not a different POV, that's nonsense.

As to the changes, even w/ the changes this article needs to be redone and written from a neutral perspective. Why tell people what to think about Washigton? WHy not remove the ideology, write what's known & allow people to decide for themselves what to think of the man? Ebanony (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I have never insisted Monticello belonged to Washington. The article says Mount Vernon. Fact is I do know the difference between Monticello and Mount Vernon. I was at Mount Vernon and saw where George Washington slept. I personally walked on his estate. I do know what I am talking about. It would be good to keep this civil without personal attacks. (Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Second, I never said Washington was instrumental in starting the Underground Railroad. The slaves escaped to the North because slavery was illegal in the North West Territory. The Northwest Ordinance was signed by George Washington. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

Third, I do not tell the people what I think about Washington. My POV has been stated above in bold. You can read that. Washington went from a slave owner to a slave emancipator. He changed. That is a fact, not an opinion. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

This article has allot more insight then many other artcles on George Washington. It shows George as he really was, at times, a vindictive slave owner who gambled and drank. I will take out any Son of the South references. I even added the Judge interviews to the Article. This article is bold and people will be able to judge properly who Washington was. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

I'd add more details, but I don't see the point. Delete the dispute if you want. I no longer object nor desire this.Ebanony (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am open to deleting the Lafayette Experiment and the last paragraph on the front page. I do not desire disputing anymore either. I actually did not write everything in this article. I would love to add more detail about the slave life and the slave conditions at Monticello. I really believe this can be worked out. The Judge interviews really adds to the article. It also shows that Washington was willing to kidnap a slave. The part about Washington knowing he had a legacy was not my view but rather John Ferling's. I will take any reference out that he changed his opinions on slavery. I did not add the first sentence about Washington changing. That was some other contributor or editor. I agree that it is up to the readers to decide whether he actually changed and should not be stated in the article. We may agree on more then we disagree. The changes you have made and suggested are good and have been noted. This article is not perfect, but it shows Washington from a not so common perspective.{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

I have deleted any references to Washington changing his views on slavery. The new edits let the readers make that decision. There is only one edit about John Ferling alluding to that Washington was aware about his legacy with slavery. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

I am removing the dispute tag. The article has been changed without references to Washington changing his opinion on slavery. The article references that people attempted to get him to change his mind, however, the reader can make their own decisions.{Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}

I'm glad to see that you didn't write some of that stuff. I thought it was your work since you said something about that being the way you were trying to write & you did some editing. I'd prefer not to do all changes myself; it's a collaborative effort, no? So you can do what you think is needed.

Perhaps one can state that GW changed if there's reputable sources. Otherwise maybe say that some have argued it and put little on that in context in a paragraph on that issue if you feel there is a good reason to include it. And as you say, they can decide themselves what to think about GW. I'll respond to the rest in another section above, as I see no further dispute here.Ebanony (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The best I can understand Washington is that he limited slavery only in terms of buying and selling slaves. I believe that he emancipated his slaves for legacy purposes. I suppose that can be interpreted as a change if Washington personally believed emancipating slaves was a renunciation of slavery. From what I understand it was a renunciation and an insult to families in Virginia if a slave holder emancipated slaves. The debate is whether emancipating slaves constitutes a renunciation of slavery. As you mentioned, it was custom, for a few slave holders to free slaves. Yes. This is a collaborative effort.{Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)}

Cleaning up edits

Thanks to all those who cleaned up the edits, links, and references. If there are any references that do not match the sources please notify what edits need to be changed.{Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)}

Archaeology and restorations?

What is the purpose of this section's addition to the page? It would seem better suited to an article on Mount Vernon, as no linkage is made to slavery on the estate. —ADavidB 12:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this section is to show that we do not know everything that went on at Mt. Vernon, particularly with the slaves, and that archaeologists are trying to find out. You have a point, however, Mt. Vernon was a slave plantation with hundreds of slaves who worked at these places. The whole point of archaeology is to discover how the slaves lived, both slaves and free, on the plantation and find out where they worked. I only put in a few examples. I can look at the Mt. Vernon article and see if there is a place for achaeology and restoration. How can Mt. Vernon be separated from slavery? {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)}

I made changes to the article. If there is information about slaves that links with these sites I can put in the article. I agree, the archaeology should focus on the slaves. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)}

Thanks. I deleted the section and added two parts, the "Distillery and gristmill", and the "Blacksmith's shop" to the Mt. Vernon section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)}

Washington's Slaves

Today an unnamed editor did a blatant act of vandalism:

"It is very important to realize that George Washington did not own slaves and greatly opposed the very concept of slavery."

1) Washington was a slave owner, and his opinion stating "greatly opposed the very concept of slavery" is not supported by the evidence or even the rest of the article. 2) The video cited isn't even a working URL.Ebanony (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct copying with no citations

In the section On Slavery in this article you see:

"This law established the legal mechanism by which a slaveholder could recover his property, secured by the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2). Passed overwhelmingly by Congress the 1793 Act made assisting an escaped slave a federal crime, overruled all state and local laws giving escaped slaves sanctuary, and allowed slave hunters into every U.S. state and territory. This law was used as an Executive enforcement of slavery throughout the United States headed by George Washington. This law was designed to protect the institution of slavery and exempted the 1789 Northwest Ordinance."

Compare that to: "This law established the legal mechanism by which a slaveholder could recover his property, secured by the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2). Passed overwhelmingly by Congress the 1793 Act made assisting an escaped slave a federal crime, overruled all state and local laws giving escaped slaves sanctuary, and allowed slave hunters into every U.S. state and territory. This law was used as an Executive enforcement of slavery throughout the United States headed by George Washington. This law was designed to protect the institution of slavery and exempted the 1789 North West Territory federal abolition law." Source "Following the Revolution" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery#cite_ref-Thomas_Jefferson_47-1

1) A direct copy except for words in italics words 2) There is no source listed on either webpage 3) There is no footnote on either page (based on what research?) 4) There was no "1789 Northwest Ordinance" or "1789 North West Territory federal abolition law." 5) The 1787 Northwest Ordinance was not abolitionism; it was a way slave owners could protect their profits by reducing competition; they opposed slavery there, and they were not abolitionists; see Pohlmann & Whisenhunt p 14. So whilst the text doesn't appear to be copyrighted, the Wikipedia policy requires attribution to the contributor or page, and with literally hundreds maybe thousands of edits, it's not easy to find the author. And both articles would need a reference to support the statements anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Ebanony (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

possibly 10 Copyright infringements

Each paragraph title below has a problem, and the copied text is in bold.

1) Emancipation plan Your text:

In 1794, Washington attempted to rent or sell the four outlying farms of his plantation and sell thousands of acres in his western lands. This scheme would relieve Washington of the burden of managing this land, while at the same time insuring a stable income and enabling him to free his own slaves. Washington also wanted to use the profits to buy off his wife's dower slaves and free them as well.[34] In order for this plan to work Washington needed to find investors. Washington looked for "good farmers" from England or Scotland, willing to take on the project. Unfortunately none of the prospective tenants were fruitful.[9] One should note that this was a personal plan, and not a political policy for others. The attempt to emancipate his slaves was during the latter years of Washington's presidency and one year after he signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which allowed runaway slaves to be recaptured and returned to slavery.

Mount Vernon's text:

Washington himself made a start at a similar experiment at Mount Vernon. In the last six years of his life, he tried to rent the four outlying farms of his plantation, if he could find "good farmers" from England or Scotland, willing to take on the project. This scheme would relieve Washington of the burden of managing this land, while at the same time insuring a stable income. He also contemplated that "Many [sic] of the Negroes, male and female, might be hired by the year as labourers," if the tenants chose to use them, instead of bringing in workmen from their own country.17 Unfortunately, although he corresponded with a number of prospective tenants, none of the negotiations proved fruitful.

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/collections/index.cfm/pid/242

2) Slave families* plagarism Your text:

His thoughts on slavery may have also been influenced by the rhetoric of the American Revolution, by the five thousand blacks who enlisted in the army, by the anti-slavery sentiments of his idealistic young men John Laurens of South Carolina, Washington's aide, who proposed the formation of an African-American corps in that state and by Marquis de Lafayette.

2.1) Lafayette letter Your text:

In the last days of the American Revolution, Lafayette wrote to Washington, his old commander, suggesting the two would purchase some land, which Washington's slaves would then work as tenants. Lafayette believed that Washington's participation in the project would help to "render it a general practice." The young man hoped, if his plan proved successful in the United States, to then spread out to the West Indies. He expressed the passionate sentiment that "If it be a wild scheme, I had rather be mad in this way, than to be thought wise in the other task." Washington responded warmly to the idea, but preferred to discuss the details in person:

"The scheme...which you propose as a precedent, to encourage the emancipation of the black people of this Country [sic] from that state of Bondage [sic] in wch. they are held, is a striking evidence of the benevolence of your Heart [sic]. I shall be happy to join you in so laudable a work; but will defer going into a detail of the business, 'till I have the pleasure of seeing you."

Mount Vernon's text:

It was also during the war that Washington was first exposed to the views of idealistic young men, like John Laurens of South Carolina, who proposed the formation of an African-American corps in that state, and the Marquis de Lafayette, who ardently opposed slavery. In the last days of the Revolution, Lafayette wrotehis old commander, suggesting an experiment, in which the two would purchase some land, which Washington's slaves would then work as tenants. Lafayette believed that Washington's participation in the project would help to "render it a general practice." The young man hoped, if his plan proved successful in the United States, to then spread out to the West Indies. He expressed the passionate sentiment that "If it be a wild scheme, I had rather be mad in this way, than to be thought wise in the other task."12 Washington responded warmly to the idea, but preferred to discuss the details in person:

"The scheme...which you propose as a precedent, to encourage the emancipation of the black people of this Country [sic] from that state of Bondage [sic] in wch. they are held, is a striking evidence of the benevolence of your Heart [sic]. I shall be happy to join you in so laudable a work; but will defer going into a detail of the business, 'till I have the pleasure of seeing you. See http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/collections/index.cfm/pid/242

Of course, the "" around the 200 yr-old text is not infringed, but the rest is; even the layout is copied. This is part of the larger paragraph you divided to the above part in slave families* has no reference and is also plagarism because there is no source in the article. See http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/collections/index.cfm/pid/242

3) Blacksmith's shop Your text:

Slaves Nat and Jim may have lived in the blacksmith's shop.

Mount Vernon's text under the picture of pottery:

"Nat and George might have lived above the Blacksmith's Shop." http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/pres_arch/index.cfm/pid/872/

You changed a couple of words and the name Jim (no Jim is in the source).

4) Changes to grain farming Your text:

The slaves at Mt. Vernon did not have to do the heavy demands of tobacco farming that included preparing seeds and the soil; hand-planting, processing, curing, and transporting the crop; and the generally intense and exhausting toil of hoe agriculture. Farming cereal grains such as wheat used more animal power and was able to reduce the slaves' work with a growing battery of implements and devices.

Dennis Pague's text pg 4:

"with the multitude of intermediate steps required in processing seeds in the soil, hand planting, and finally processing, curing, and transporting the crop, in addition to the back breaking toil of hoe agriculture - grain farming was a much less intensive that could take advantage of animal power and a growing battery of implements and devices calculated to further reduce the human labor required." See http://oha.alexandriava.gov/oha-main/haq/pdfs/haqspringsummer03.pdf

Some is a paraphrase, but some is not, and some is simply not supported in the document, like the figure on his debt - you also added information not supported in the Mt Vernon page on the Blacksmith's shop, see 3)

5) Trades and skills Your text:

Although little written documentation exists from the slaves themselves, slaves played an integral role in Mount Vernon's history. Much is known about their lives through primary documents left by Washington and visitors to Mount Vernon. The skilled and manual labor needed to run Mount Vernon was largely provided by slaves. Many of the working slaves were trained in crafts such as milling, coopering, blacksmithing, carpentry,and shoemaking. The others worked as house servants, boatmen, coachmen or field hands. Some female slaves were also taught skills, particularly spinning, weaving and sewing, while others worked as house servants or in the laundry, the dairy, or the kitchen. Many female slaves also worked in the fields. Almost three-quarters of the 184 working slaves at Mount Vernon worked in the fields, and of those, about 60% were women.

Mount Vernon's:

Slaves played an integral role in Mount Vernon's history. Although little written documentation exists from the slaves themselves, much is known about their lives through primary documents left by Washington and visitors to Mount Vernon. The skilled and manual labor needed to run Mount Vernon was largely provided by slaves. Many of the working slaves were trained in crafts such as milling, coopering, blacksmithing, carpentry,and shoemaking. The others worked as house servants, boatmen, coachmen or field hands. Some female slaves were also taught skills, particularly spinning, weaving and sewing, while others worked as house servants or in the laundry, the dairy, or the kitchen. Many female slaves also worked in the fields. Almost three-quarters of the 184 working slaves at Mount Vernon worked in the fields, and of those, about 60% were women. See http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/

This is almost 100% verbatim.

6) Introduction Your text:

Washington grew up on his father's plantation, where there were numerous slaves. When Washington was 11 years old he inherited 10 slaves and 500 acres of land. He began managing the Mount Vernon plantation eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1786, there were 216 active slaves on Mt. Vernon.[1] By 1799, when George Washington died, there were an estimated 316 slaves living on the estate.

Mount Vernon's text:

At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate. See http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/

The same url you used for the 1st paragraph of the introduction is the same as the paragraph titled Trades and skills - see 5). You changed "ten" to "10" and the year "1799" to "1786". That change also means yo put more information not supported in the text. You did the same in 3), 4) and here.

7) Food and holidays Your text:

Food grown at Mount Vernon was sold at the market, and some went to provide for his slaves. The slaves received their food rations weekly. Many slaves also kept their own gardens to supplement their diet. The slaves could sell their food at local markets to earn extra income. The slaves were also issued clothing once a year.[2] The slaves ate chicken, herrings, and corn.

During typical work days at Mount Vernon slaves were allowed 2 hours off for meals. Sunday was a holiday. Slaves also received 3–4 days off at Christmas, and the Monday after Easter and Pentecost as holidays. If a slave was required to work a Sunday during harvest, Washington would allow them a day off later, and sometimes compensated them with pay

Mount Vernon's:

Food grown at Mount Vernon was distributed to the slaves and their families and to the Washingtons. Any surplus was sold at market. The slaves received their food rations weekly. Many slaves also kept their own gardens to supplement their diet. The slaves could sell their food at local markets to earn extra income. The slaves were also issued clothing once a year.

The work-day at Mount Vernon was from sunrise to sunset, with 2 hours off for meals. Sunday was a holiday. Slaves also received 3-4 days off at Christmas, and the Monday after Easter and Pentecost as holidays. If a slave was required to work a Sunday during harvest, Washington would allow them a day off later, and sometimes compensated them with pay. See http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/

Almost all text copied & from same URL as 6)Introduction

8) Corporal punishment Your text

It was at these times, if the circumstances were serious enough, Washington would use the punishment of whipping on his slaves, male or female.

Hirschfeld's text pg 227:

If the circumstances were serious enough to warrant it. See http://books.google.com/books?id=4YX3czE0SGYC&pg=PA227&dq=Corporal+Punishment+Slaves+Washington#v=onepage&q=Corporal%20Punishment%20Slaves%20Washington&f=false

A copy of some of the text.

9) Distillery and gristmill Your text:

The labor to make the whiskey was supplied by both hired free whites and enslaved African-Americans. The slaves were forced to grow the grains at Mount Vernon used to make the whiskey.

Mount Vernon's pg 5:

labor was supplied by a combination of hired free whites and enslaved African-Americans. See http://www.mountvernon.org/files/Breen-White_Distillery.pdf Ebanony (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ebanony (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This article came due for evaluation at the copyright problems board today. I see that this content entered into this article during this series of edits; archives confirm their prior publication. Any copied content will need to be thoroughly rewritten; other content should be checked for copyright concerns. I'll relist this so it can be revisted by an administrator after a week to see what further actions may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be best just to delete the article rather then rewrite. The sources were cited, however, the article could have been summarized better. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can look to revert to an older edition of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Image removed

I see there is discussion underway about copyright questions here. I also note that an image previously on the page was removed. I'm hoping it can be restored once the other issues are resolved. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Moonriddengirl. I hesitated to restore it until the 'all clear' had sounded. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) I had meant to leave a note of explanation here, but got a "loss of session data." (That's one I've never figured out. Loss of what?) Anyway, any images certainly can be restored. Earlier text can also be resurrected if it was supplied by a different contributor and did not build off of existing text in such a way as to create a derivative work. Any information removed can be restored, too, if it is completely rewritten, no matter who supplied it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and for restoring the image. I'll try to have a look at the text in the next few days, and maybe I can dig up another image too. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV & proposed deletion

This article uses the two POV's and the supporting examples in Twohig's & Weincek's work to argue Washington opposed slavery. Higginbotham, Don George Washington reconsidered Ch 5 by Twohig, Dorothy in That Species of Property & Wiencek, Henry An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America.

These two writers argue that Washington was against slavery, and each of the arguments they give is support of that. The article here one-sided argument, doesn't look at the reality of slavery in Washington's life, and takes just a few selected actions and quotes as if these two writers formed the majority POV and there was no disagreement or anything controversial about their claims. Some examples

1) In Revolutionary Period the part on the salve raffle

2) In Following the war the part on letters against slavery & the one to Marquis de Lafayette

2.1) In Following the war statements like "I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species"..."This stand by Washington was remarkable for his day. Refusing to sell slaves and also refusing to break up their families differentiates Washington from the culture around him during that early era and particularly from his State legislature."

3) In Following the war statements like "The first federal racial civil rights law in America was passed on August 7, 1789 with the endorsing signature of President George Washington. That law, entitled "An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio" - The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is a "civil rights" law? NOTE* Now that is Absurd, and just nonsense (by an editor).

4)In Posthumous emancipation the focus on the will & statements like "Washington's failure to act publicly upon his growing private misgivings about slavery during his lifetime is seen by some historians as a tragically missed opportunity." & quote from Twohig & the "plan" to sell lands and free slaves.

This is about a 75% copy of Weincek's thesis & examples. Twohig's work is used less & some of Ellis is used. The rest is the opinion of editors with an agenda who used these writers work in support of the idea that Washington opposed slavery. The editor/s went beyond the scholars above. Either we 1) delete the article or 2) propose a rewrite; I favour deletion, and have tried to improve it with other editors in the past. Hence the article was put to an earlier version on Sept 29. No one has proposed changes since then. The main page on Washington covers slavery. This page is unnecessary. On Sept 29, Cmguy777 said "It would be best just to delete the article rather then rewrite." I agree & am asking others to state their stance on the deletion of this article. Ebanony (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything at Wikipedia:Deletion policy that applies to this article. If your POV allegations are valid, then the recourse is to improve the article. Deletion was discussed a little over a year ago (see [1]) and the decision was made to keep. What has changed? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ebanony, I was not refering to this article when I wrote "It would be best just to delete the article rather then rewrite." I was refering to the other GW and slavery that you Ebanony claimed had plagiary issues. The current article can be improved and biased removed. If this article is deleted another one should be written. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion was on this article; what other GW & slavery article is there? (the main page has other problems). Concerning these "claims", Admin said "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." That's a very clear warning to stop cutting & pasting text. As to the proposed deletion, I haven't submitted it, but have asked the question of why this article should even be. No one has given any reasons for it other than 1) he was famous and owned slaves and 2) people wrote books about it. This is separate from the bais. I see no reason why we can't merge info from the GW Legacy article, put it on the main GW page (improve it), and just delete this whole page on GW and Slavery. Ebanony (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is an older version, not the one you Ebanony contested for alleged plagiarism. The slavery issue is important because Washington was involved with slavery his entire life. This article will allow in depth historical perspective, rather then a brief mention in the main article. Washington is considered the "Father" of the United States. His relationship with slavery is vital to the country and deserves a separate article. Before any potential deleting there needs to be concensus. The issue of slavery divided the nation, while Washington protected the institution. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, but if the article is to be kept, then it must conform to WP:NPOV, and it currently does not. I've just removed (clean up) some hightly questionable edits that argue Washington was ant-slavery. The article cannot be "Was Washington opposed to slavery? Yes, and we're going to prove it." This is outreagous. CMguy777 is right, this is an older article, but we can work on this. This must address the things he did connected to slavery at his plantations, soldier & as a politician. Serious problems of WP:UNDUE & WP:GEVAL can be seen with a reliance on Twohig & Weincek's work: their claims form the basis for argument. Also, what about the slaves? Almost nothing on them. Many fought for the British & there was a mass exodus. Washington was directly involved.Ebanony (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Northwest ordinance

The Northwest Ordinance signed by Washington was not a civil rights bill. No slaves under Washington had any rights, except the "right" to be arrested, whipped, and killed. Washington had both male and female slaves whipped. Raping slaves was not illegal. No rights were given to black people who were denied citizenship by Washington in the Naturalization Act of 1790. The U.S. was just for white people. Washington was a racist. 74.38.7.34 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence: "The first federal racial civil rights law in America was passed on August 7, 1789 with the endorsing signature of President George Washington."

Fugitive slave act and Presidency

Why is George Washington's Presidency missing? He signed the Fugitive Slave Act and supported slave owners in Santo Domingue. Washington signed the Naturalization Act that only allowed whites citizenship rather then freed blacks. Oney Judge ran away and President Washington sent out his nephew to recapture her. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Shorten summary in GW article?

As this main article exists, the summary section on GW and slavery in the George Washington article should probably be shortened, to conform to the summary-main principle. I added a good quote by Gordon Wood there, and material on his Philadelphia slaves here, plus findings at the President's House (Philadelphia). There is now a memorial to his slaves and a discussion of slavery in the republic; opened in 2010 at the site.Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly dubious claim

"In 1790, Washington signed the Naturalization Act, providing a means for foreigners to become citizens. This act limited U.S. Citizenship to free white persons. Those persons considered white were defined as Caucasian.[14]"

Oh really ? In 1790, "white" was defined as "Caucasian" ? The imbecilic description "Caucasian" ( Chechnyans, anyone ? How about Abkhazia ? ) was not in use in 1790.Eregli bob (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Checked the reference - what it said was that at the time of later tests of the law in the 19th and 20th c., when Asians wanted citizenship, white was defined as Caucasian (then in use following pseudoscientific studies of peoples and attempts to classify races, etc. Added content to try to make this clear. Someone used it too fast without understanding it. Parkwells (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Parkwells. The law obviously meant that European "whites" were the only ones who could become U.S. Citizens. I am not sure how the term Caucasian is imbecilic. This law was in effect up until the 1950's barring Japanese and Koreans from U.S. Citizenship. Once a law is passed by Congress the law remains in effect until overturned by U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, or U.S. Constitutional amendment. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

More on Revolution

I believe the Revolutionary War section can be expanded. I am not sure the article conveys that Washington was initially reluctant to use freed blacks during the Revolution. Also, how were blacks in the Revolutionary War treated by the white U.S. Commanders since Washington was in charge of the whole Continental Army?

Claim about Virginia state law

The following claim about Virginia state law is desperately in need of a source to substantiate it:

With the rise in demand for slaves after the invention of the cotton gin at the end of the century and the end of importation of slaves in 1808, Virginia changed its laws to make manumission more difficult. By the 1820s, it required legislative approval for each act of manumission.

I have edited the paragraph to insert a [citation needed]. Previously it was footnoted with this article by David Barton. Barton has some serious problems as an interpreter of primary sources, but setting that aside, the article cited does not make any claim that Virginia law required special acts of the legislature to approve manumissions. At least not anywhere that I can find. It mentions the colonial period (pre-1782) requirement for special acts of the legislature. It points out (somewhat mischaracterizing what happened) some tightening of the provisions in 1806. Nowhere does it claim that the pre-1782 requirements were reinstituted during or "by the 1820s." As of 1823, at least, there was no such requirement in digests of Virginia law: http://books.google.com/books?id=b4U0AQAAMAAJ&dq=Joseph+Tate+Digest+of+the+laws+of+virginia&pg=PA500#v=onepage&q&f=false If there is some other source that will substantiate this claim, it needs to be brought forward. If there isn't, this sentence ought to be removed entirely from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radgeek (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The only founding father to have...

A sentence in the lead states that he was the only slaveholder out of seven major founding fathers to have freed his slaves... Well, the seven were: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[4] Great. Adams, Franklin, Hamilton were not major slaveowners anyway. Jay was an active abolitionist whose efforts led to NY declaring slavery illegal. So we are left with Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Best of three? This seems like a weak statement.

The man was fabulously wealthy. He manumitted his slaves in his will. That should stand alone I think, without any comparison, apples with oranges. Student7 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The mention of this in the lead is expanded some in the "Posthumous emancipation" section, along with a source citation, though that source doesn't seem to be available freely online. —ADavidB 00:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable slaves of Washington

Added links to Christopher Sheels and Nancy Quander/Sukey Bay. I did not add a link to William Costin because it's not clear he was ever a slave, versus born free.

Also added citations to Henry Washington and William Lee, and deleted their two "missing citations" links.Bjhillis (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Beating slaves

Where is the source for Washington beating his slaves? megamalx (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any anecdote or source attributing Washington beating his slaves. His overseers did whip or switch the slaves, with Washington's consent, as recorded in his Diaries. There is a very moving example of an overseer hitting Charlotte with a switch for refusing to work: "In 1793, a slave seamstress named Charlotte received what she considered to be an unfair beating from an overseer. Afterward, she threatened to complain to Mrs. Washington about the overseer." (http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/martha-washington/martha-washington-slavery/) Bjhillis (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Washington and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720193156/http://www.johnjayinstitute.org/resources/publications/john-jay-an-american-wilberforce/ to http://www.johnjayinstitute.org/resources/publications/john-jay-an-american-wilberforce/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/06-04-02-0404-0001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"...They were fed, clothed, and housed as inexpensively as possible, in conditions that were probably meager"

This part has been marked "citation needed" for quite a while. Did the writer intend to link it to "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America"? If so, that should be made more clear. If not, it's time to remove this part from the article. Lurkerekrul (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Raped his slaves

George Washington raped his slaves. This should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.28.135 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No reliable source for verification, no inclusion in the article. —ADavidB 01:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

George Washington's Personal Views on Slavery -Citation Needed/Accuracy

In the main page, one of the first paragraphs says:

During Washington's presidency, increasing abolitionist sentiments in the U.S. caused him to have misgivings about his own slave ownership. Though publicly Washington said little against the institution, privately he expressed a belief that slavery's end would ultimately be necessary for the nation's survival.

However, there is no source backing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

When the lead section of an article summarizes information contained within the body of the article, it is not required to repeat the source citations. The information you included above is a summary and is sourced later in the article. If you'd like, you can repeat the sourcing, or if you're not sure how, you can request here that others do so. For now, I've removed the 'disputed' template that you placed atop the article. —ADavidB 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice job with the rewrite

Hi Factotem, just thought I'd post to say how impressed I am with the way this page looks now. Nice job here! Victoria (tk) 13:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks! It's a work in progress. I'm trying to ensure that relevant info in the existing article is incorporated into any changes I make, but that's frazzling my brain a little. My plan is to transplant that sandbox version here, then expand it. Wiencek and Hirschfeld will be arriving any day now, and I shall probably order Thompson's new book; it looks like it will add a social history perspective I've not seen anywhere outside the MVLA website. Factotem (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you're able to do the heavy lifting here. I'm only editing sporadically these days, and no heavy lifting, so I'm limited to online & Jstor sources. Thompson's book looks intriguing, glad you'll be using it. Starting here and getting it right is a good approach. Victoria (tk) 14:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. This is the third article now that I've been prompted to take an interest in because of events elsewhere. Factotem (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. I do have books at hand within reach on the bookshelf about GW and the French & Indian War, and have been tempted since reviewing to dive into that section. But this, I think, is much more important. Victoria (tk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted the recent edits beginning with this one for the following reasons:

• The information copy/pasted from the main article is already discussed in detail in this article, therefore the copy/paste adds nothing more than repetition;
• The footnote discussing historians' analysis of the significance and provenance of the Humphreys remark, moved to the main narrative in this edit, is only tangentially relevant to the main subject and belongs therefore in a footnote. Factotem (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This information was moved to the article: "As early as 1778, Washington began to express sympathy toward abolition. In a letter to Lund Washington, he made clear his desire "to get quit of Negroes" when discussing the exchange of slaves for land he wanted to buy." Where is that information covered in the current article? Also why hide information in footnote, tangental or not, in a dedicated article ? The whole purpose of the move was to ensure no information was lost from the biography article George Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Because Washington did not begin to express sympathy toward abolition as early as 1778. He expressed a desire to get rid of his slaves at that time, by selling them. The article explains this in the last paragraph of the "Evolution of Washington's attitudes" section.

2. Because the information is not relevant to our understanding of Washington. It explains additional information about historians' research, and would serve only to bloat the article word count.

3. This article already explains, in much more detail, the information that was, and I'm quite sure soon will be again, in the main article. Factotem (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

How else can one interpret "to get quit of Negroes" other than abolition ? Besides his quote was taken out of this article. There was no reason for that. This information getting added to the main article will sink any FA nomination. It belongs in this article. In the main article this would be undo-weight, since this is the dedicated article, where this information belongs. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• How else can one interpret "to get quit of Negroes" other than abolition ? By reading the rest of the paragraph in the source where that quote appears and noticing that the words "abolition", "emancipation" or any synonyms thereof appear not one single time, while the words "sell", "selling" or "sale" appear six times.
• Besides his quote was taken out of this article. No. The "get quit" quote was already in the article. I took out the bit where you repeated it. It's still in the article now. Factotem (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote is not in the Commander-in-chief section where it belongs. The quote was made in 1778. You did not answer may question. What else could "to get quit of Negroes" mean other than abolition ? Selling slaves would have been abolishing slavery on a personal level for Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-jigged the sections so it is in the right section now. I did indeed answer your question, with reference to the source. I can't spell it out any more simply for you than Washington wanted to sell his slaves, not abolish slavery. Abolition has a very specific meaning; it would be misleading, not to mention argumentative and tendentious, to describe Washington's desire to sell his slaves as a personal abolition, much less an expression of "sympathy toward abolition". Factotem (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

As I mentioned elsewhere, here are the first two sentences that I propose:

George Washington successfully led a war in the name of liberty, but it is the paradox of Washington and slavery that he owned slaves his entire adult life. He became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.

This would be followed by a paragraph break. And here is the first sentence in the article now:

George Washington was a Founding Father of the United States and slaveowner who became uneasy with the institution of slavery but provided for the emancipation of his slaves only after his death.

The current opening paragraph is too long at seven sentences, instead of two as I propose. But all of the material in the current second through seventh sentences would be preserved, because the opening paragraph would be split in two. As you can see from my proposal for the opening sentence, George Washington would be wikilinked on first use, and the title would be in bold. For present purposes, it is much more relevant that he fought a war for liberty, than that he was a founding father, and of course the former implies the latter anyway. As for the use of the word "paradox" in my suggested opening sentence, historians take that view as well: “[H]ow is it that the Revolution preserved slavery? George Washington, the slaveholder who led the war for liberty, personifies that paradox.” Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God; George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America, p. (2013). “The challenge, for a colonial historian at least, is to explain how a people could have developed the dedication to human liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day. The paradox is evident at many levels if we care to see it….Virginia produced the most eloquent spokesmen for freedom and equality in the entire United States: George Washington, James Madison, and, above all, Thomas Jefferson. They were all slaveholders and remained so throughout their lives.” Morgan, Edmund. The Challenge of the American Revolution (1978). Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed during the article's FAC. There were concerns that the proposed change was unencyclopedic, and the current consensus was established for the "Founding Father" wording and implemented in this edit. I would add:

• Washington's notability, in the context of this article, is not just as a revolutionary war leader, but also as first President of the United States and slaveowning farmer.
• The key thrust of his place in the narrative is his retention of slaves despite the evolution in his attitudes that began before the Revolution and which ultimately led to disillusionment with the institution.

These aspects are all properly reflected in the current wording at the start of the opening paragraph. Changing that as proposed would, IMO, represent WP:UNDUE weight on Washington as revolutionary war leader and a failure to properly introduce the topic, as required per MOS:BEGIN. Factotem (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Washington and legal loopholes

The article directly claims isolated social situations "drives" one to "drink"... and gives absolutely nothing of the story of the ungrateful Oney Judge and the situation she escaped from. According to various reliable sources, a tale I read long ago, Washington was for abolition when asked about it, but in practice, a law was passed where he lived that a slave had to be released after something like six months of being brought into the state, as a move towards abolition. Washington would speak of support for such measures, but in practice, he would take his slaves on a journey every six months in order to claim they had not been in the state for the six month period. One of these eternally bonded slaves, whom Washington famously referred to as "ungrateful", escaped, and he searched for her the rest of his days. According to this featured article, that never happened, and Washington in fact is lauded as standing out for freeing his slaves, seeing as how he said he would, more than he actually did... Here is one source of many.[2] Apparently, he never freed Oney Judge. ~ R.T.G 00:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

??? Both Washington's deceitful evasion of the Pennsylvanian law freeing slaves after six months and Oney Judge's escape are covered, in the last two paragraphs of the "As Virginia farmer" section. The article discusses both Washington's sentiment about slavery and his failure to act on that sentiment during his lifetime. Where in this article is Washington lauded? Factotem (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph you mention is pages beneath the mention of Judges escape and plucks her and "Hercules" name out of nowhere. It's just that having read about Washingtons slaveholdings once before, it was the story of Oney Judge which always stuck in my mind, the version I read having claimed that he never gave up searching for her and referred to her as "ungrateful". There are various sources about the story. Though I never recalled her name I thought of her as a sort of heroine of that story. It's sort of confusing to go over the story now and read his emancipation stipulations and apparently loosely enforced labour regime at the same time as the poor and strict conditions. Not sure where I stand with it to make a more demanding complaint but the Oney Judge story is certainly not easy to follow if that is of any help. ~ R.T.G 01:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Oney Judge has her own article, and I do not see that it's this article's job to tell her story in detail. Her notability in this article is for what her story says about the slave condition at Mount Vernon and Washington's relationship to slavery, the core subjects of this article. Washington's complaint about ingratitude is a good point, but it would be delinquent to simply say in the article that he felt Judge was ungrateful without exploring why he felt that way. I've expanded the discussion of Washington's patriarchy and paternalism to cover this. Factotem (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a major change to the article at all, I'm just saying this one part is not conveying very well, and to someone like me with only a passing familiarity I get a confusing impression of whether the article is biased or not. It's certainly one of the parts of the topic that stuck in my mind and sources seem to remember it as well so a little attention to it is not going to go awry. ~ R.T.G 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Judge already appears in the article in six different places. I do not see that any detail of her story as it relates to the scope of this article has been left out. What change would you like to see? Factotem (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am an avid user of Wikipedia and I am especially fond of its writing style as objective (even in convoluted articles) to just encyclopedically deliver information at the tips of my fingers. I also adore the featured articles, news, and Wiktionary featured words. But I felt the violations of what Wikipedia truly stands for in this article are too prevalent not to say anything. My argument is that an article such as this should not contain stains of bias from the present day or any other age (example: the Middle Ages were “a world lit only by fire” is a bias of the Renaissance and scientific eras). I feel if there *is* bias from another age than the topic pertains, it be relegated to a subsection, not, as here, be denoted even as a lead argument of the first line. The facts of this are simple and can be portrayed in two ways: First, slavery is mentioned in the opening so many times that the impression is given that this article concerns itself mainly with the aforesaid; Another argument is that it betrays the bias of the editors, and that that bias is anachronistic to the time period (or more specifically the object of the article). This betrayal of encyclopedic trust darkens the reader’s ability to limn the information he or she wishes to gain from any such article, because an active agent is standing between the fruit of the aforesaid Knowledge and adding (or detracting) from it by will of his or her point of view or bias. Such a thing is an affront to Wikipedia and the institutions of Knowledge and Learning at a whole and (I believe) must be rectified. WadesTheHippo (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First, slavery is mentioned in the opening so many times that the impression is given that this article concerns itself mainly with the aforesaid That is what the article is about. The main article for George Washington is at George Washington. Factotem (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

lede and title

Now that it's a featured article, on the main page we only see the first sentence ( George Washington was a slaveowner and Founding Father ... ), not the title of the article (George Washington and Slavery). On a casual glance, it looks a lot like this is the main wikipedia article about George Washington, since it starts with "George Washington was", and that it is unduly centering "slaveowner". I did a double take at the apparently substandard lede, and it is bound to (unnecessarily) inflame those primed to skip careful scrutiny and jump to outrage. Propose urgently changing the first sentence to make clear to readers (seeing only the main page box) what article they are looking at. CyreJ (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the main page blurb should be brought to WP:ERRORS. As a TFA coordinator, I can tell you that we are constrained by the need for the first link in the main page blurb to be to the article being featured, or the bots won't recognize it. This can lead to slight awkwardness.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with User:Cyrej that the lede is sub-standard, and have said so before. Again, I urge that Wikipedia guidelines be followed, for example like this: “George Washington successfully led a war in the name of liberty, but it is the paradox of Washington and slavery that he owned slaves his entire adult life. He became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Previously discussed during the article's FAC and on the TP here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington_and_slavery/Archive_1#Opening_paragraph Factotem (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Just between you and me, as I recall. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

On the TP, aye, you're right, but there was other input on this issue during the FAC. Factotem (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify I don't actually think the first sentence is substandard. I said it appears substandard, if one mistakes the article in the box on the main page for George Washington. I actually think it's right in content and emphasis. In my opinion a simple rearrange to avoid the "George Washington was ..." structure would solve the problem, as I attempted in a (rejected) edit. CyreJ (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That title thing got me for a moment too, on the front page, but hey--the assumption that this is the general article on Washington is just that, an assumption, and a second of hovering corrects that. How the lede is "substandard" and inflammatory is not clear to me. The paragraphs are a bit long, yes, but that's another matter--one for FA review, maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. We collectively went around the houses a bit during the FAC to try and get George Washington and slavery into the first sentence, but couldn't make it work. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, the consensus, though not a unanimous one, was that the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Factotem (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely should not mangle the lead sentence in order to make sure it includes the title. Such practice is pointless and just leads to absurd lead sentences like "The New York Whirligig Convention of 1956 was a whirligig convention held in New York City in 1956." Kaldari (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think my suggestion in my first comment in this talk page Section mangles anything? I 100% agree that the lead shouldn’t be distorted to include it, but merely saying that there was a paradox between Washington’s pro-liberty attitude and actions on the one hand, and his slaveholding on the other hand, doesn’t distort or mangle anything. On the contrary, it shows the reader that there was a paradox. Perhaps some editors don’t like acknowledging that paradox, or that Washington overall did a lot for liberty, quite apart from setting the country on a path that would eventually achieve his goal of emancipation. As it is, the lead sounds more like exhortation to tear down the Washington Monument, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Introducing the article with Washington as the leader in a war fought in the name of liberty tends to give undue emphasis to the moral aspect of the issue. While Washington came to understand the moral issue, his first doubts were economic. Further, the majority of the article is concerned with his personal position as a planter/farmer, not as a public figure who forged a nation. Factotem (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

So we’ll just say over and over again that he was a harsh slaveholder, because of course no one will see that as a moral issue? Give me a break. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

All slaveholders were "harsh" by current standards. In a historical context, Washington was not nearly as harsh toward his slaves as were his contemporaries. 216.152.18.131 (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Weeeeeelll that is the kind of thing you can, eh, argue as article improvements with the appropriate sourcing, of course, which is a lot more useful than having the gut speak. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Innumerate contrast in Aftermath §

"Within a few months, almost all of Washington's former slaves had left Mount Vernon, leaving 121" but this is not significantly different from what prior text says were there before (after the peak of 201). 'Almost all' of 120 something would like maybe 10-20, not 121. Is it from edit warring? Maybe the converse was meant, almost none and they all were still there?Lycurgus (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The 201 figure is the productive slave population, i.e. excluding those too young or old to work. The total number of slaves in 1799 was 317. The slaves who left after Washington's death were those who belonged to him and who were freed. The 121 who remained belonged to the Custis estate, not Washington. As such he was not legally allowed to free them, and they remained in bondage at Mount Vernon. Does that answer your question? Factotem (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

317 vs 121 is closer to a dimunition that could be "almost all" but that wasn't made clear in the text at the time I posted the query. 98.4.115.53 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"Woke" article?

User:Kevin Myers will be pleased to know that their work on this article, which was started in September 2006, is now assessed as woke--or "woke". Drmies (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of this article? Some may see it in a historical context; I see it as a smear piece written to denigrate a Founding Father who happened to be white, an article written in a tone that panders to the Black Lives Matter crowd. Owning slaves was the norm during Washington's time and while indeed reprehensible, was not unique to him. If we are going to denigrate one person over historical events, how about if we balance it a bit with an equally long-winded and detailed article about the Africans who sold their own people into slavery? Or perhaps a long-winded article highlighting Louis Farrakhan's bigotry toward Jews would be appropriate. Why not go back some more in history and focus on the slave labor used to erect the pyramids in Egypt? Is that too politically-incorrect for the "woke" editors of Wikipedia? 216.152.18.131 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I would say that your post is the more reactionary to the current BLM events than this article, as this article has been in place for 13 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:6C0C:A900:D5B0:D51F:236C:8E1D (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) To me it seems like there is so much focus on Washington because he is a prominent (and much-revered) figure in American history and so there is curiosity about the extent to which he was involved in human rights violations. I do not think the tone is "woke" and a lack of FAs on the subjects you mention shouldn't affect this one at all. Brutannica (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) You are welcome to write (or edit pre-existing) articles on the topics you mention. It may take you 13 years to get them to FA status (such as this one) but you can get there. I've seen these featured articles be on a random boat from World War II so I'm not sure what the problem is. Muttnick (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Also,you're in luck: we've got articles about Thomas Jefferson and slavery, Abraham Lincoln and slavery, and John Quincy Adams and abolitionism. So it's not just Washington. And our article on Slavery in Africa is "an equally long-winded and detailed article about the Africans who sold their own people into slavery", exactly as you demanded! Sadly for you, it would appear that the pyramids were almost certainly not built using slave labor. Really, you should check whether something exists before complaining that it doesn't. DS (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think this article denigrates Washington but I do find it a remarkable coincidence that out of over six million articles it “randomly” becomes a featured article at the current time. I sincerely hope that this is a coincidence and note a ‘woke’ intervention NickH999 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Out of our 6M articles, we've got (as of today) about 5800 that are of a level of quality considered to meet "Featured" requirements. Which of those articles is chosen to actually be featured is based on a number of factors, including relevance to the date. It's Juneteenth, we've got an FA about slavery in the USA... sure, why not. If you disapprove, you're welcome to join and make other suggestions. DS (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

NickH999, we always look for appropriate articles on appropriate days. If you have a problem with this one, I suggest you not check the Did You Know section on the front page on April 1, cause you might be really offended. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede sentence POV issue

The current lede sentence reads as follows: George Washington was a Founding Father of the United States who owned slaves and became uneasy with the institution of slavery, but only provided for the emancipation of his slaves after his death.

The phrase "but only" implies an analysis in the voice of Wikipedia, something that runs afoul of the policies on original research or neutral point of view (depending on how one interprets the sentence). The point of the sentence is to convey 1) that he owned slaves, 2) became uneasy, and 3) emancipated upon death. Wikipedia is incompetent (per the above policy) to analyze the relationship between these propositions. Therefore, I propose that the language of "but only" be changed to "and". It is normatively neutral, and reolves the original research issue. Ergo Sum 01:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The current language deliberately presents the info from a biased perspective rather than as a statement of fact. -- Jaarken (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The contradiction between Washington's oft-expressed sentiments supporting emancipation and the fact that he did not free his slaves until after his death is a key theme in the sources and is the fourth point of that sentence. That contradiction is presented without OR or POV in this article and appropriately encapsulated in the "but only" choice of wording in the first sentence of the lead. Factotem (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how "but only" contains any sort of bias. One would logically conclude that if Washington supported emancipation, he would immediately free his slaves, but he didn't do that. The phrase "but only" correctly highlights this apparent contradiction (without bias). Kaldari (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But that isn't what the sentence states. It says he "became uneasy with the institution of slavery," not that he supported emancipation. If one were to change it so that it says what you described I would see it as fine; it would demonstrate a tangible position with which the "but only" could compare his actions to. --Jaarken (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am an avid user of Wikipedia and I am especially fond of its writing style as objective (even in convoluted articles) to just encyclopedically deliver information at the tips of my fingers. I also adore the featured articles, news, and Wiktionary featured words. But I felt the violations of what Wikipedia truly stands for in this article are too prevalent not to say anything. My argument is that an article such as this should not contain stains of bias from the present day or any other age (example: the Middle Ages were “a world lit only by fire” is a bias of the Renaissance and scientific eras). I feel if there *is* bias from another age than the topic pertains, it be relegated to a subsection, not, as here, be denoted even as a lead argument of the first line. The facts of this are simple and can be portrayed in two ways: First, slavery is mentioned in the opening so many times that the impression is given that this article concerns itself mainly with the aforesaid; Another argument is that it betrays the bias of the editors, and that that bias is anachronistic to the time period (or more specifically the object of the article). This betrayal of encyclopedic trust darkens the reader’s ability to limn the information he or she wishes to gain from any such article, because an active agent is standing between the fruit of the aforesaid Knowledge and adding (or detracting) from it by will of his or her point of view or bias. Such a thing is an affront to Wikipedia and the institutions of Knowledge and Learning at a whole and (I believe) must be rectified. (Posted originally to top topic, but no idea how to delete—) WadesTheHippo (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First, slavery is mentioned in the opening so many times that the impression is given that this article concerns itself mainly with the aforesaid That is what the article is about. The main article for George Washington is at George Washington. Factotem (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The article presently says he "became uneasy with the institution of slavery and provided for the emancipation of the people he kept in slavery after his death." I support this wording, because it emphasizes that these slaves were people, while neutrally saying what Washington did, without any "merely" or "only" or "grudgingly", etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies, should we say grudgingly?[3] Anyway, this talk page section explains the edit you reverted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well the problem is that the editor didn't explain. I don't have much of an opinion on the whole thing, sorry. Good luck with it... Drmies (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The phrasing of the first sentence, with its use of a contradictory "but", reflects a key theme covered in main body of the article, i.e. the contradiction between Washington's growing sentiment against slavery and his lack of action on that issue during his lifetime. That contradiction is expressed by Furstenberg (2006), who writes on p. 83:

• "In his private correspondence, Washington sporadically expressed a desire to free his slaves, and stated on a few occasions that he was contemplating schemes to do so. He never did act against slavery during his life, however; it was only after his death that he finally expressed his will, in a very public gesture against slavery." (my emphasis)

The same contradiction is evident in the questions posed by three different historians in their papers on this subject:

• "If, as is the case, Washington claimed to recognize that slavery was a violation of the principles on which the Revolution was based, and claimed as early as 1778 (for different reasons) to want to 'get clear of' or 'to get quit of Negroes,' why did he act on neither in his lifetime? Given his rather impressive record in delivering on his promises, why the failure?" Philip Morgan (2005) p. 406.
• "It is apparent that Washington expressed a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the system of chattel slavery. Why, it must then be asked, did he not free his slaves during his lifetime?" Kenneth Morgan (2000) p. 288.
• "Why did he not from the platform of his enormous prestige and public veneration speak out publicly against a system that his private correspondence reveals he had gradually come to regard with distaste and apprehension?" Dorothy Twohig (2001) p. 116. Factotem (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of "and" instead of "but", on the other hand, risks a POV that echoes the eulogists' emphasis on Washington's posthumous emancipation of his slaves while obscuring the fact that he did nothing for emancipation or abolition during his lifetime. As Furstenberg comments (2006, p. 85, in reference to Timothy Bigelow's assertion that Washington "disdained to hold his fellow-creatures in abject domestic servitude"):

• "Although Washington had held slaves his entire adult life - only freeing them in his will, in an ambiguous gesture that dumped the whole problem into his wife's lap - Washington was here rendered into someone who 'disdained to hold his fellow-creatures' in slavery." Factotem (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"... He became uneasy with the institution of slavery..." Shouldn't there be a footnote on this sentence that documents this alleged evolution of his state-of-mind? Nei1 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)