Talk:Zephaniah Kingsley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ZK only had one wife[edit]

Hi Moni3, I see you have switched back some of my edits, and I wish to discuss them with the facts. First I would like to address the issue of his relationship with the women who were the mothers of his children.

It would be too revisionist to say that ZK had four wives; it would also contradict ZK's own ideas of his relationship w them. Further down in the article you mention that ZK left much of his land to his wives and children. ZK might have established relationships with these women and even recognized their children w him, but ZK only married Anna—in fact let him explain this to you in his own words. I quote from his will, which he wrote just two months before his death:

"…nor do I know in what light the law may consider my acknowledged wife Anna Madegigine Jai, as our connubial relations took place in a foreign land, where our marriage was celebrated and solemnized according to her native African customs, altho' never celebrated according to the forms of Christian usage. Yet she has always been respected as my wife, and as such I acknowledge her…"

In the same will he mentions these women you call his "wives" several times, but never refers to them as such: item six: "Two parts to be paid to Flora H. Kingsley, her heirs or assigns. One part to be paid to Micanopy, the son of Sarah M. Kingsley…". Item seven, in which he specifies his relationship to Anna (as his wife), and acknowledges his natural children: "…my infant natural children, amoungst which I acknowledge all those of Flora H. Kingsley of Camp New Hope, also Sarah Murphy's mulatto child Micanopy, now in Haiti " Again no mention of these women as his wives. I have no doubt that ZK had the utmost respect for these women, and cared for them as evidenced in his will, but they are referred to him only as the mothers of his children, and nothing beyond that.

I do not think you will find any primary evidence which states these women were ZK's wives. In fact, the entire idea of his 'polygamous marriage' while comfortably understandable to us, is baseless. The only person acknowledged directly by ZK, ever, as his wife is Anna Madgigine Jai. Therefore I ask you to please reflect this in your edits, so this article is as accurate as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emanuel Kingsley. I appreciate your efforts and I think there's a way we can work to incorporate the differences of perspectives here. I am sticking closely with the source material, which is primarily Philip May's article in the Florida Historical Quarterly and Daniel Schafer's book about Anna Jai. Both of them consider Flora and Sarah Kingsley and Munsilna McGundo as Zephaniah's wives. May considers them "lesser wives" and Schafer gives significant prominence to Anna Jai as the matriarch. Let me be clear though, that I do not call these women his wives, the historians do. That is the basis of verifiability. My opinions or perceptions--and yours as well--on his relationships do not matter, only what has been published in reputable sources.
Daniel Stowell explains it well: "Complex at best" (p. 4). He points out that Flora and Sarah took Kingsley's name but former slaves often did this. He also states that although Kingsley considered Anna Jai his wife there was no official documentation of a marriage and it was not recognized by the Spanish or US government. Schafer suggests that Anna was co-wives with the three other women.
There is a notation system possible that can explain the discrepancies between how Kingsley portrayed his "lesser wives" and how historians view and label them. Or a few sentences to explain these differences can be added in the prose if it can fit and flow well. I think we can come up with something here that might suffice to meet the verifiability requirements and the primary documentation from Kingsley.
The section as it reads now:

They were educated with the best European teaching he could afford. He furthermore established a relationship with three younger women, all slaves he eventually freed, named Flora, Sarah (who brought her son Micanopy); and Munsilna McGundo (who brought her daughter, Fatima).[2] Kingsley entertained visitors at his Fort George plantation, with his wife Anna sitting "at the head of the table" and "surrounded healthy and handsome children" in a parlor decorated with portraits of African women.

Grammatically, this is not possible to establish a single relationship with three people, especially if children are produced. "Establish relationship" as well is vague and does not detail that these were marriages, common law marriages, sexual relationships, or business arrangements. Here is a suggestion for the same passage:

They were educated with the best European teaching he could afford. He furthermore lived with three younger women and fathered children by at least two of them. All three were slaves he eventually freed named Flora Kingsley, Sarah Kingsley (who brought her son Micanopy); and Munsilna McGundo (who brought her daughter, Fatima). Their household was, according to historian Daniel Stowell, "complex at best". In his will, Kingsley applied the label of wife only to Anna Jai. Primary documentation by Kingsley is scarce, but historians consider Flora, Sarah, and McGundo as "lesser wives", or "co-wives" with Anna Jai. Nonetheless, Kingsley entertained visitors at his Fort George plantation, with Anna sitting "at the head of the table" and "surrounded healthy and handsome children" in a parlor decorated with portraits of African women.

Let me know what you think. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Moni's proposed changes. Good work.--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moni,

You are right: other people's opinions or perceptions on his relationships do not matter. Neither do the opinions of any historian overweigh that of the person himself. Secondary vs primary.

ZK in his will (which as you know well was more than just a factual financial document) clearly mentioned the other women as the mother of his children, yet acknowledged ZK as his wife. I cannot see how the opinions of other people (even if they are historians) can be more important than ZK's. I don't think you can find a clearer statement than his own: "…nor do I know in what light the law may consider my acknowledged wife Anna Madegigine Jai, as our connubial relations took place in a foreign land, where our marriage was celebrated and solemnized according to her native African customs, altho' never celebrated according to the forms of Christian usage. Yet she has always been respected as my wife, and as such I acknowledge her…".

Of course there are no marriage documents, and honestly it doesn't matter if Spanish or US law recognized his marriage. Because he probably thought they wouldn't is precisely why he wrote that statement in his will.

However, as far as your edits go, I thank you for rewording them, but I would go a different route with these:

1. I do not agree with "Kingsley applied the label of wife only to Anna Jai." Why can you not simply state Kingsley acknowledged only Anna Jai as his wife"? One doesn't "apply a label" to a spouse. Something about it has a subjective ring to it…

2. I don't think ZK 'lived' w the three other women. I know he spent some time w Flora, but I am not sure right now about the rest. I believe that "established relationships with" (grammatically correct here) is better precisely because it is vague. Otherwise if we knew the exact nature of these relationships then there would be no discussion, no interpretation of them. Besides, I think it becomes clear what type of relationship it was, once you mention he had children w them.

You might want to weigh your sources differently, I wouldn't put May's work (ZK nonconformist) in the same boat as Schafer's. May's work is full of inaccuracies, to the point that the example kept by the National Park Service has a big red 'Handle with care -- many inaccuracies" stamp on it. Schafer, on the other hand, as well as being a good friend, is a more careful historian. He is actually the leading authority on ZK and Anna right now, and has spent much effort trying to debunk myths that May loved to repeat.

)

E.K.

Hi, Emanuel Kingsley.
other people's opinions or perceptions on his relationships do not matter. Neither do the opinions of any historian overweigh that of the person himself. Secondary vs primary.
According to Schafer, Kingsley kept houses for each woman; Anna, Sarah, and Munsilna at Fort George Island and Flora at Goodbys Creek, near Beauclerc. There is no room in an encyclopedia for readers to make inferences; that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Kingsley kept these women and fathered children with them. "Established relationships" is vague. The article should state what these relationships were. If our 21st-century vocabulary does not adequately and accurately describe them, if "marriage" is not right, and no descriptions from Kingsley exist, then descriptions from reliable sources should be used. "Co-wives" and "lesser wives" are used. There is absolutely no reason why these descriptors should be excluded in favor of vagaries.
What NPS or other documents call May's article into question? I would like to read them and I'll do whatever I can to get hold of them. Wikipedia editors' opinions do not matter, but published historians most certainly do. If there is a published source casting doubt on an article then it should be considered with less weight. If not, there is no reason not to.
Tweaked for accuracy:

They were educated with the best European teaching he could afford. He furthermore provided for three younger women and fathered children with at least two of them. All three were slaves he eventually freed named Flora Kingsley, Sarah Kingsley (who brought her son Micanopy); and Munsilna McGundo (who brought her daughter, Fatima). The Kingsley family was, according to historian Daniel Stowell, "complex at best". In his will, Kingsley applied the label of wife only to Anna Jai. Primary documentation by Kingsley is scarce, but historians consider Flora, Sarah, and McGundo as "lesser wives", or "co-wives" with Anna Jai. Nonetheless, Kingsley entertained visitors at his Fort George plantation, with Anna Jai sitting "at the head of the table" and "surrounded healthy and handsome children" in a parlor decorated with portraits of African women.

If "applied the label of wife" is insufficient, can you provide an alternative? --Moni3 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moni3 is quite right about secondary sources trumping primary sources in this case. Primary sources are useful for some things, but if there's any room for interpretation, it cannot be the job of Wikipedia editors to do it - we have to rely on what the experts in the field are saying. Here, it's Schafer et al, so if they interpret the primary sources one way, that's what we need to report. Take, for instance, Zepheniah's later statements about his marriage to Anna. Here, he indicates that they were wed in an African ceremony in a "foreign land". This could be taken to mean that he bought and married her in Senegal. However, such an interpretation would have huge implications for his biography, as it would suggest that he was involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade at that time. Fortunately Schafer deals with this, saying that the "foreign land" was probably Cuba, where he is known to have been active. As such we can rely on Schafer as an authority rather than our own interpretation of what the primary source could mean. In the same vein, the issue of Zepheniah's marital relations are also open to interpretation, and so we need to rely on what the experts say. In this case, they interpret his relations with the four women as a polygamous marriage with Anna as the socially senior wife, so that's what we report.--Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We can all agree on one thing, which is that we want to work together to improve this article. Obviously Moni and Cúchullain are more involved in the Wikipedia world than I am, so you can (rightfully) work with the regulations of this encyclopedia better than I. I have read some of the terms and it is true that secondary sources are preferred, and that no original research is to be brought here; therefore we should work with these 2dary sources. When I have some more time (I am personally quite busy right now planning a move to London) I would like to single out some things in the article that I believe are inaccurate, and we can work together to tweak them. Moni, you can give Carol Clark a call at the Timucuan field office in Fort George Island and ask her about the May article. I have obtained a copy of it form their archives and it plainly states "inaccuracies, pls use with care". I believe (not that it matters) that Schafer is the leading authority on the Kingsleys, and while I disagree with the interpretation that Fleszar gives to many facets of ZK's life (practically portraying him as a ruthless monster in my opinion) I do believe that he has uncovered quite a lot of primary material only to be surpassed by Schafer, so his PhD dissertation is vetted. Stowell did the Kingsley story a great service by printing ZKs work, and his introductory bio of ZK is as accurate as Schafer's, from which he borrowed. I do believe that before stating ZK was in a polygamous relationship, it should be stated in terms of "some historians believe he was in a qualified sort of polygamous relationship w these women, although he only acknowledged Ana as his wife" or something like that. I will actually review what these historians have written on ZKs relationships, and will contribute when some time clears out for me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reading through Fleszar's dissertation, combining it with Schafer's and Stowell's writings, it does seem as if there are some issues May mentioned that are not corroborated or otherwise substantiated by these other sources. I think while I added to the article recently, May's article is now used mostly to cite what other documents also substantiate. This rather begs the reason why it's being used at all, but unless a reliable and authoritative source casts aspersions on its reliability, we can't take even the spoken word of the NPS right now to justify its removal from the article. Stowell mentions a footnote where May added to the romantic legacy of Kingsley and Anna, but says that artistic license was employed most egregiously by Branch and Cabell's book about the St. Johns River (which, incidentally, I used some of for the St. Johns River article and agree the language is so florid it's nearly impossible to wrap my mind around sometimes). Skepticism of May and Branch and Cabell is mostly related to the local lore related to a love-story-that-beat-all-the-odds kind of treatment of Kingsley and Anna Jai's marriage. I am unfamiliar with that approach, though I grew up in Jacksonville.
At any rate, I expanded the article some last week. I tried to add another paragraph in the Haiti section about Kingsley's interview with Lydia Child, which Fleszar calls into question, as you note, saying that Kingsley reinvinted himself several times in his life. I got sidetracked and was unable to add it fully, and deep in the recesses of my memory is another source (of course I can't remember which one) that calls Child's objectivity into question.
Schafer and the questionable May use the term "polygamy". Are you suggesting now that the term be removed from the lead? Where Kingsley was a relatively lenient slave owner who gave his slaves the opportunity to earn their freedom, and married four of them in a polygamous relationship. exists now, what do you think of Kingsley believed firmly in a paradoxical ideology of slavery and society: he was outwardly proud of his financial successes in slave trading, and promoted leniency and benevolence toward slaves, maintained relationships with four enslaved women, eventually freeing them and fathering nine children in an extended family. He furthermore held the free republic of Haiti as an ideal society for the transition of slaves into citizens.? Let me know. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for move to Haiti: passive vs active[edit]

You also state: "When faced with American laws that forbade interracial marriage, Kingsley fled with his family to Haiti in 1835." This oversimplifies this serious matter, and in fact turns Kingsley into a passive player that fled when faced with laws that forbade interracial marriage. ZK was a fighter, and my edit " After trying—by either addressing or serving in the Territorial Legislature—to fight increasingly racist U.S. laws that among other things, forbade interracial marriage, Kingsley moved his family to Haiti in 1835." paints a more accurate picture of the actions ZK took to avoid such a move. He serve on the territorial legislature in 1822 and tried to maintain the Spanish three-caste system. After his one-year term, he confronted the legislature in his 1826 "Address to the Legislative Council of Florida on the Subject of its Colored Population" where he favored the preservation of the rights of free blacks, and warned against driving them away "with out tyranny and oppression without having committed any crime." He also remarked that "they have natural and certain rights... equal to ourselves." Nonetheless in 1828 the Legislature passed a series of laws against free blacks, including harsher penalties for crimes than that for whites, prohibition to possess firearms, and curves on free black immigration into Florida. Other activities prohibited were: "abusive or provoking language" towards whites, false testimony. Punishment was equal to those committed by slaves, and included whipping and nailing the ears to a post.

All these restrictions on free people of color affected ZK on a personal level, which strongly contradicts your claim that "Although Spain ceded Florida to the United States in 1819, the Kingsleys' way of life was unaffected until about 1835". Therefore I ask you to please revise that statement, as their lives were directly affected very soon after the 1821 cession of Florida.

Kingsley was alarmed at these harsh restrictions, and wrote his "Treatise on the Patriarchical or Cooperative System of Slavery" in 1828. He contrasted the fluid racial laws of the Spanish with those of the United States which "which elevated whites and oppressed all people of color". You also erased my edit stating that "Several treatises on the necessities and benefits of slavery, but against racism based on skin color, were written by Kingsley". I don't understand why you would focus only on the benefits of slavery part, when ZK's arguments stood on two feet, the second being that free people of color should have equal rights to whites, in order to create a buffer that might prevent a race war. The "Treatise" concludes thus: "The intermediate grades of color are not only healthy, but when condition is favorable, they are improved in shape, strength, and beauty, and susceptible of every amelioration. Daily experience shows that there is no natural antipathy between the castes on account of color; and it only requires to repeal laws as impolitic as they are unjust and unnatural; which confound beauty, merit, and condition with infamy and degradation on account of complexion..." I think ZK was a proud miscegenist, and that should also be reflected in the artice, as his statements on the equal rights of free people of color, even of the superior endowments of mixed people, were quite revolutionary and daring for his time.

You can see how Kingsley not only "fled" as a result of merely "anti interracial marriage" laws, as the racist laws of US legislators increased in vehemence: in 1829 the Territorial Legislature passed a law that imposed a penalty on slave owners of $200 per every slave freed AND that freed person had to leave Florida within 30 days. By 1832, these laws allowed free blacks to be reinslaved to satisfy judgements against them. All free blacks over the age of 15 had to pay a territorial tax of $5 to maintain their freedom. The same law forbade free people of color from assembling FOR ANY PURPOSE, including divine worship. And yes, there was the 1832 law that forbade and made null any interracial marriage, and made children from these unions "bastards" and "incapable of receiving inheritances". And any white man found to live "in a state of adultery or fornication" with a black woman was to be fined $1,000 and be stripped of many of his civil rights (such as serving on a jury). Actually, ZK was in theory protected from this law as a result of the cession treaties signed between Spain and the US, although it brought into question his ability to will his property to his children.

So ZK and became the author and the first of 12 signers of a memorial presented to the US Congress in 1832, which rallied against these laws passed by the legislature. They mentioned specifically that under Spanish law, free people of color were "admitted to most of the rights and legal protection" of white Spanish subjects. They requested that Congress repeal those "cruel, unnecessary, and most impolitic laws not authorized by the Constitution of the United States." By the 1830s ZK was also critical of Governor Duval, and circulated a petition asking that he not be reappointed.

These views, and his mixed-race family, let some of his neighbors to call him abolitionist. By the mid 1830s ZK understood that he would have to vote with his feet because the social climate in the US was becoming increasingly dangerous to free people of color. He then set out to find a suitable place to take his family, and looked in Haiti, which he called "the island of freedom". There he founded what he called a "colonization experiment", eventually freeing 53 of his former slaves and settling them there along w his family. In his will he warned his children that: "...seeing that the illiberal and inequitable laws of this Territory will not afford to them and their children that protection and justice which is due in civilized society to every human being: Always keep with by them a Will..." "...until they can remove themselves and property to some land of liberty and equal rights, where the conditions of society are governed by some law less absurd than that of color."

So you can see why I do not agree with you removing my edit: "In search of freedom from racial oppression, Kingsley sold half the plantation to his nephew and took his numerous family (some of his daughters stayed behind and married white planters) to Haiti, the first independent republic in the world established by former African slaves". Because they left in search of freedom from the racial oppression of US-administered Florida. I should know because ZK and Anna were my great-great-great-great grandparents. Therefore I ask you to restore these edits, unless you can argue the contrary with objective facts. All of these primary sources can be found here: Daniel Stowell, Balancing Evils Judiciously: The Proslavery Writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In search of freedom from racial oppression is stated rather heroically and is not very encyclopedic in tone which is why I removed it. Other phrases, such as where he confronted institutionalized U.S. racism and to fight increasingly racist U.S. laws that among other things are loaded statements ("among other things" is so vague it does not describe much of anything) that do not accurately portray Kingsley's role. As you note, Kingsley wrote a treatise that justified slavery, although stated it should not be based on skin color alone. He wrote it anonymously as well. How is this confronting racism to write a treatise to justify slavery and publish it anonymously? How did he fight? Fighting denotes some kind of violent act, and I am unaware that he staged any such demonstration. He continued to own slaves who were African or African American, and did not own or support owning white slaves. Although he was a unique slave holder and freed many of those in his service, he still continued the practice and thought that society could not exist without it. His views about slavery seemed to morph as he grew older, and there is room to explain how this happened, but please note that he acknowledged that he owned slaves in his will as he requested they not be separated from their families when they were to be sold so he was not an abolitionist by any reasonable definition.
In an encyclopedia, it is best to state issues clearly and literally. State what was in the treatise and how historians have interpreted it. When I initially wrote the article, I thought it would remain a short, start class article with not a lot of detail. Of course, it can be expanded as sources allow. I think there is room to explain the Spanish three-tier social system of white landowners, free people of color, and slaves, which Kingsley preferred, so a phrase such as that accepted free blacks can be explained more clearly.
I appreciate that you are related to Kingsley, but all material in the article must be cited to a reliable source and written dispassionately. Like the issue above with his wives, there is room to incorporate more information and sources about why he went to Haiti and what he wrote about. Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to avoid such loaded language; just stating the plain facts about Zepheniah Kingsley will demonstrate how unusual he was. The interesting thing about the Kingsleys is that they defy just about every single expectation one could have about slave owners, we don't need to go overboard promoting them as some kind of heroes with abolitionist leanings. The history says enough.--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about promoting them as heroes; in Europe we are very careful when creating 'heroes'. Rather it is about giving readers a well balaced picture that can include details as long as they supplement the story. ZK was indeed a slaveholder and plantation owner with abolitionist leanings, in fact, abolitionist actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In search of freedom from racial oppression is stated rather heroically and is not very encyclopedic in tone which is why I removed it. So how can you say in a "non-heroic way", yet one which shows that as a result of all of these dehumanizing and racist laws, that the family fled racial oppression? Do you not believe these laws constituted racial oppression? Do you not believe ZK set out to find a place of freedom for his mixed-race family? That he had a colonization project and actually liberated more than 50 of his former slaves? I believe it is important to state it just as it is—that people actually had to leave the US searching for freedom and escaping oppression, not that it's only the other way around, like the history books would let you believe.

Other phrases, such as where he confronted institutionalized U.S. racism and to fight increasingly racist U.S. laws that among other things are loaded statements ("among other things" is so vague it does not describe much of anything) that do not accurately portray Kingsley's role. As you note, Kingsley wrote a treatise that justified slavery, although stated it should not be based on skin color alone. Well, his premise was that slavery should not be a racial thing (like it had become) but rather an economical condition that should be overcome. He also believed that it should not be based on skin color, and that free people of color should have equal rights to blacks. He also wrote about the virtues and moral superiority of the Black race. How many people were doing that? Is that not a way to fight racism?

He wrote it anonymously as well. How is this confronting racism to write a treatise to justify slavery and publish it anonymously? How did he fight? Many treatises were written anonymously for different purposes, his was that he should as a person not exist, but as a member of a group (a Florida planter). He is confronting racism by saying that slavery should have nothing to do with race, and that a person should not be thought of as a slave just for being black. You ask how did he fight, he 'fought' by serving in the legislature, by addressing congress, by advocacy, by the example of his own personal mixed-race family which defied the social mores of Anglo Floridians, and finally by giving up on a place where laws much like the Nuremberg laws were being progressively passed.

Fighting denotes some kind of violent act, and I am unaware that he staged any such demonstration. Please, let's drop the act here and keep it real. You stuck to the main definition, but the following are all valid: • endeavor vigorously to win (an election or other contest). • campaign determinedly for or against something, esp. to put right what one considers unfair or unjust : I will fight for more equitable laws. • struggle or campaign against (something) : the best way to fight fascism abroad and racism at home.

He continued to own slaves who were African or African American, and did not own or support owning white slaves. Where there white slaves on the market? He probably might have bought some if they were well priced.

Although he was a unique slave holder and freed many of those in his service, he still continued the practice and thought that society could not exist without it. His views about slavery seemed to morph as he grew older, and there is room to explain how this happened, but please note that he acknowledged that he owned slaves in his will as he requested they not be separated from their families when they were to be sold so he was not an abolitionist by any reasonable definition. An abolitionist is anybody who either believed, or carried out, the manumission of a slave. ZK freed over 50. He also allowed the rest to buy their freedom at half price thru many ways. He got involved with many colonization societies, and in a letter to the editor of the Christian Statement (Rev. R.R.Gurley) he said " …but having a colored family, motives of necessity and self preservation have induced me to labor for a similar object to yours…" He then speaks of his colonization experiments in Haiti. In an interview let it known that those around him thought of him as abolitionist "..I tell them they may do so, in welcome. For it is a pity that they wouldn't have one case of amalgamation to point at." So while he was not exclusively abolitionist he was a qualified abolitionist, having freed some slaves and feeling 'welcome' with that label.

In an encyclopedia, it is best to state issues clearly and literally. State what was in the treatise and how historians have interpreted it. When I initially wrote the article, I thought it would remain a short, start class article with not a lot of detail. Of course, it can be expanded as sources allow. I think there is room to explain the Spanish three-tier social system of white landowners, free people of color, and slaves, which Kingsley preferred, so a phrase such as that accepted free blacks can be explained more clearly.

I appreciate that you are related to Kingsley, but all material in the article must be cited to a reliable source and written dispassionately. Like the issue above with his wives, there is room to incorporate more information and sources about why he went to Haiti and what he wrote about. Let me know your thoughts. - Me being a Kingsley has nothing to do with me being partial. It just means I have been reading about these issues for a long time, enough to feel comfortable sharing them w others. But I get a feeling that you are acting as some kind of guardian of this page, a spiritual father if you will, as a result of you having created it. I hope I am wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a community effort, although to be honest, sometimes it often seems like a collection of individual efforts. I think what you're skeptical of in my approach is illustrated in a policy called ownership, where an editor zealously guards an article against reasonable edits, removing cited information, or keeps a primary point of view prominent in an article. I don't own this or any article, but don't mistake my high standards for ownership. I am a stickler for high quality sources, writing, and accuracy as interpreted by Wikipedia policy, even in start class articles. I welcome criticism and skepticism because I believe that is why Wikipedia was developed and why [citation needed] has caught on; we should never take anything at face value, but should constantly ask others to back up their claims.
So how about you continue to be skeptical of my standards, and I will continue to be skeptical of your inserting original research via your family lore and together we can work on this article, improving it along the way? I find the Kingsley family fascinating and bothered enough to create this article, add to Anna Jai's, and get Kingsley Plantation to good article status.
Since I've spent some time on Wikipedia and been challenged multiple ways in my article writing, I have some experience with Wikipedia policies. Our discussion in this section addresses how Kingsley is portrayed. Per the WP:Peacock style guideline, a simple description of what Kingsley wrote and how it has been interpreted by historians is more appropriate than stating that he confronted racism, fought for ideals, or searched for freedom. We should just state plainly what he did or wrote, and use published sources to characterize his actions using cited quotes from historians. If historians call him an abolitionist, that should be included and cited.
This means the article would have to be expanded some, as I stated before, to explain some of the neglected details. I'm happy doing that and working with you to improve this one. I tend to work on articles in phases: add a lot of information, back away, return with more, back away. You caught me in a back away phase, but in the meantime I have found other sources that can be used to assist with this one. --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emanuel, I do believe you are wrong about the way Moni3 has behaved. She has accompanied all of her edits and reverts with a collegial and productive explanation, highlighting the problems your changes have had with original research, use of sources, and leading language. These problems are the reasons your changes have been reverted; it has nothing to do with page ownership or even individual interpretation of the sources. It seems clear (wouldn't you say?) that you want to promote a particular view of Kingsley, emphasizing his relatively progressive and modern-sounding views on race. There is some truth to all you say, but the reality is much more nuanced than you're making it out to be.--Cúchullain t/c 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reflect US-British abolition of slave trade in 1807[edit]

One source I read noted that Kingsley had made much of his fortune by 1811 in the slave trade, and suggested he had moved to Spanish Florida in 1803 because of movements in Britain and the US to end the international slave trade - which they agreed to in 1807. His move to Spanish Florida allowed him to keep active in the slave trade. Demand went up for slaves shortly before the British-US prohibition went into effect. He continued to be active in the market by importing slaves from Cuba, and some historians think he sold them outside Florida illegally to the US. It seems these two elements should be noted. Smuggling of slaves into the US after 1807 certainly happened along other parts of the East Coast. Kingsley's access to the Cuban slave markets gave him an advantage over US traders.Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zephaniah Kingsley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker & Religion[edit]

Could someone please add a paragraph putting ZK's religion into context. It is mentioned that he was a Quaker and that he was buried in a Quaker cemetery, but a reasonable reader is left with unanswered questions.

  • Quakers were famous for their anti-slavery activism before the civil war. Was being a "benevolent slaveholder" part of ZK's understanding of his religion? (Some abolitionists believed chattel slavery was evil, but slavery itself was not).
    • I know him as well as anybody, I wrote the article on his pamphlet, so I'll try to answer. ZK didn't have a religion. I have never heard of him setting a foot in any church or talk or write about religion. Religion was "not useful", so he had no interest in it. deisenbe (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it unusual for a Quaker to own slaves?
    • There's a whole bibliography on Quakers and slavery. In the eighteenth century it apparently wasn't unusual. deisenbe (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was polygamy common among Quakers at that time?
    • I've never heard of another case. deisenbe (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions an "African ceremony" for his first wife, but not whether he married any of his wives in a Christian ceremony. Were mixed race marriages not performed in the Quaker church at that time?
  • What was the age of consent in Florida in 1806? Even if legal, was it scandalous then for a 35-year-old man to marry a 13-year-old girl? Is that what is meant by the article quoting a source as saying ZK was "flamboyant"?
    • In Delaware it was 12 until the 20th century. Sexual use of slave girls of any age by white owners was routine, legally it was not rape since the girls could not under the law refuse. Nobody white cared, except the man's wife. See cassare. ¶I didn't call him flamboyant or put that quote in, but he was not secretive at all, was very forward with his views on slavery. deisenbe (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZK refused to allow his slaves to be preached to because it would lead to slave insurrections. This seems blatantly un-Quaker, so how did he square this with his religious community? If he was not condemned, why not? (For example: Is there any evidence he was actually trying to not impose Christianity on slaves because of the Quaker value of religious liberty?)
    • He didn't have a religious community. He was not imposing Christianity because he saw no reason to do so. deisenbe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did contemporaneous Quakers think of ZK? How is he viewed now?
    • I'm unaware of any Quaker comment on him while alive. As far as today, I haven't researched it. deisenbe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro is too long[edit]

In my opinion, the introduction paragraph is definitely too long. I don't see why it shouldn't be shortened, and strongly recommend that it should be. PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zephaniah_Kingsley&oldid=1207986885"