Talk:Fort Blount Revolt

Expanded version

I wrote out a complete article based upon the information in Mahon, but I consider it very preliminary. Several issues I cannot resolve. This article calls the fort "Fort Blount," but there was no mention of the name in Mohan's account. I'm guessing it was Nicolls' name for it? It also says they held the fort for several days before being attacked by troops; I can't tell whether they mean the siege lasted for days or the people occupied the fort for several days. If the latter, very wrong. Not clear on the former. Mohan, without giving a timeframe, says the fort was eliminated "with a minimum of expenditure". They're probably not mutually exclusive but I think some more detail and/or references on the matter are needed. 71.129.81.136 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Aptheker's American Negro Slave Revolts has only a few paragraphs about this revolt, but I've added what I can. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fort Gadsden and "Fort Blount"?

I have never heard Fort Gadsden referred to as "Fort Blount". This name seems dubious, what is the source of this? All of this material should be at Fort Gadsden. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is an edited version of a reply left on JW1805's talk page — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fort Gadsden, according to its article, was built on the site of the "Negro Fort" destroyed in 1816, which was called Fort Blount:

Fort Gadsden (State Historic Site) Built on the site of Fort Blount (1) (or Blount's Fort (1)) (1814 - 1816) or British Post, which was renamed Fort Nichols (1) and left to former slaves and fugitive Seminoles. The Americans from Fort Scott blew up the "Negro Fort" (2) in 1816. In 1818 the Americans rebuilt it and named it Fort Apalachicola. It was soon renamed to the present name. It was abandoned. Confederates used it during the Civil War, armed with four guns. Remnants of both forts still exist.

FORT GADSDEN, up the Apalachicola River a short distance from Apalachicola Bay, was built on the ruins of FORT BLOUNT in 1818 by General Andrew Jackson during the First Seminole War.

• I would still prefer more solid evidence (books instead of websites). All the references on the web that I can find calling this incident the "Fort Blount Revolt" are all Wikipedia mirrors, which isn't a good sign. This issue seems confused. Here are a few other names I have found:
  • Fort Gadsden (the usual name given of the US-rebuilt fort).
  • Negro Fort (the usual name given during the incident in question).
  • Fort Blount (given on the two websites above).
  • Fort Apalachicola [1]
  • African Fort, Prospect Bluff Fort, and Nicholl's Fort [2]

This picture [3] shows a nice diagram of the relative locations of the two forts. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this help? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to work for me. It goes to a Google signup page. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this page should be merged into Fort Gadsden. Or, alternatively, a new page called Negro Fort should be created (which makes some sense, because they were more or less two different forts...although on the same general site). We have to use the most common names for things. "Fort Bount" seems very obscure. I have never seen it in any mainstream book describing this fort. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a Fort Blount near Bartow, Florida, built during the Seminole Wars. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reversing Sail: A History of the African Diaspora calls it "Fort Blount", but is very cursory mention of the topic, and doesn't provide any sources. It is also slightly misleading, saying that the Seminoles and Africans established the position themselves. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I got the link to work. Jews and the American Slave Trade By Saul S. Friedman However, the book is wrong. It says that Fort Blount (also known as the Negro Fort because of its number of runnaways) [was created by the Spanish] to harrass the English". Now, either they are talking about some other fort, or they are just missinformed. Every other history book says the fort was constructed by Nichols to harrass the Americans. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I'm not entirely comfortable with the association of the name Fort Blount and the Negro Fort. As the anon editor noted at the top of the page, Mahon doesn't refer to it by name; neither does Aptheker. I wouldn't have a problem renaming this article Negro Fort or something similar.

I have mixed feelings about merging this article with Fort Gadsden. This article is part of a series of articles about slave revolts. (Note: I didn't create the template or name the article.) Even though the bulk of Fort Gadsden consists of the pre-history of the Gadsden fort, I'm not sure whether you'd like the focus to shift to the slave rebellion aspect of its history.

Unless you feel strongly about merging the two articles, maybe the best thing would be to rename this article "Negro Fort". That seems to be a near-universal name by which the fort was called. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. I sort of think that the story of the forts: British/Seminoles/Runaway Slaves/Americans is a continuous story that should be told in one article. Two articles would either be disjointed or redundant. I'm not strongly opposed to having a separate Negro Fort article, but we would need an admin to move the current article there. Anyway, this "Fort Bount Revolt" title has got to go. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to complicate the debate, but I would suggest that Prospect Bluff be considered as a serious option. One issue to bring to the foreground is whether we want to use the name assigned by the fort's occupants or by its attackers who destroyed it. The attackers called it "(the) Negro Fort." It's less clear what its defenders called it, but I suggest we try to establish the most likely names. I'm familiar with "Prospect Bluff" from historian Frank L. Owsley Jr.'s books, Filibusters and Expansionists (with Gene Smith) and Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands. I believe Claudio Saunt also refers to Prospect Bluff in A New Order of Things. -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, is calling this page the "Fort Blount Revolt" really appropriate? I don't see anything in here to suggest that the fort was part of a "revolt" per se; it was used as a stronghold and outpost by escaped slaves, but I don't think it's commonly considered a "slave revolt"; it was a large number of slaves who escaped and banded together in a fortress for protection, not part of a specific attempt at a revolt like most of the other things in this series. Perhaps it could be seen as a revolt, but that characterization seems to be something unique to Wikipedia (hence the lack of outside references to "fort blount revolt".) --Aquillion 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These are all good questions. I left a message with the person who created Template:North American Slave Revolts, which is where the name "Fort Blount Revolt" originated, and asked him to join the discussion here. One thought is to drop the idea that this was a slave rebellion and instead add Template:Infobox Military Conflict (like Nat Turner's slave rebellion) and treat it like a military conflict, which is along the lines the US Navy seems to treat it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)