Jump to content

Talk:George Washington and slavery/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Washington as enforcer instead of decider

Just a reminder that we should be careful to say when Washington was deciding a matter, versus enforcing a decision made by someone else. For example, Washington’s actions to recover slaves from the British were because of the provisional deal struck by Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay in Paris in November 1782 according to all three of our cited sources, so I’m not sure it’s wise to attribute it all to Washington in the lead. Likewise, per Morgan 2000, Congress was involved in accepting loss of some of those freed slaves (“Washington and Congress accepted the loss of slaves manumitted by the British forces before the provisional peace treaty was signed”). One might say the same thing regarding Washington’s failure to emancipate his slaves prior to 1782 since Virginia law made that extremely difficult to do (that still leaves Washington on the hook for buying the slaves in the first place, and for his failure to free them from 1782 to his death). Anyway, here are excerpts from the three cited sources about the slaves freed by the British:

MORGAN 2005 pp. 417–418: “the Treaty of Paris provision that the British carry off no slaves”

TWOHIG 2001 p. 120: “In 1783 when the British embarked from New York, he objected to British plans to take with them bondsmen who had served with the King’s Army, arguing that the provisional articles of peace prohibited such removal.”

MORGAN 2000 p. 291: “he regarded this as a violation of the Preliminary Articles of Peace signed at Paris on 30 November 1782....To prevent a resumption of war, Washington and Congress accepted the loss of slaves manumitted by the British forces before the provisional peace treaty was signed....”

For the lead, we should either clarify who the decision makers were, or else only discuss the British manumission in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point that the two Morgan's and Twohig are making, most succinctly put by Philip Morgan in his statement (p. 417), "[Washington's] public and private behaviour at the end of the war was hardly anti-slavery in intent." The insight these sources provide into Washington's attitude towards slavery at the end of the Revolutionary war is that
  • he did not think the issue of slavery significant enough to include in the Circular to the States;
  • the enslaved who had escaped to the British (among them some belonging to Washington, Wiencek p. 254) were property that should be returned to their owners.
As for Washington simply being an agent of others' policies, Philip Morgan reports Washington argued for the return of the formerly enslaved "with all the Grossness and Ferocity of a Captain of Banditti". He also points out that Washington refused to accept compensation in lieu, stating Washington's "insistence on recovering the slaves in person rather than accepting compensation for them was bound up in his experience as a slave-owner and his pursuit of fugitive slaves." Wiencek (p. 257) also refers to the Banditti quote, and writes, "The British could understand the American position that the slaves had been property, but they could not comprehend Washington's position that the slaves' value trumped the slaves' humanity." Washington's attitudes to slavery at the end of a Revolutionary War that is generally agreed to have been a central turning point in the evolution of those attitudes is highly relevant, and warrants a place in the lead. Factotem (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
We most definitely cannot ...say the same thing regarding Washington’s failure to emancipate his slaves prior to 1782 since Virginia law made that extremely difficult to do..., because:
  • No source attributes the failure of Washington to free his slaves before 1782 to the fact that the law made it difficult to do so, and more importantly;
  • No source says that Washington even considered freeing his slaves in that time period.
As has already been pointed out, at the time Washington stated a desire to "get quit" of his enslaved population in 1778, he was thinking of selling them, not freeing them (Philip Morgan p. 416, Ellis p. 164). Disregarding Wiencek's much disputed and therefore fringe theory that the statement recorded by Humphreys's in 1788/1789 was evidence that Washington had finally come round to a desire to free his enslaved people, the first clear evidence that he had reached this point does not come until the mid 1790s, with his plans to sell his land in the west and rent out his farms, per Ellis p. 257. Factotem (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
So you agree that Washington was demanding return of slaves to enforce the Provisional Treaty of Paris, but you think it’s okay for the lead to imply it was his choice? I object to that approach. Either we include the treaty in the lead, or the demands to the British should be removed from the lead. I don’t care which. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you there. There was some question as to the meaning of article VII and Washington chose how to interpret it. That is not the same as "enforcing the terms of the treaty". Coupled with Washington behaviour, there is a strong suggestion that he personally felt that the slaves should be returned, and I think it's equally as wrong to imply that he was only following orders.--Ykraps (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s hard to know exactly what happened. For example, one hypothetical possibility is that Washington put on a big show of outrage to convince southern states that he tried hard to recover the slaves, and that Washington was happy with the final outcome which is that he and Congress agreed with Britain that only slaves liberated after the date of the provisional agreement would be returned to the U.S. Anyway, all the sources do say that Washington cited the provisional Treaty of Paris for his tirade at the British. I amended our lead to merely say that Washington “cited” the provisional treaty, which all sources agree upon. Article VII said: “his Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, & without causing any Destruction or carrying away any Negroes, or other Property of the American Inhabitants withdraw all his Armies Garrisons and Fleets from the said United States....” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that scenario is more unlikely than your claim that he wasn't a racist. Washington could have agreed with Carleton's interpretation and freed hundreds of men but he chose not to and argued 'passionately' for the return of all the slaves. You have omitted pertinent information for the purpose of promoting Washington as someone who would like to have freed slaves but was just following orders (something he wasn't very good at, incidentally) and I think that's wrong.--Ykraps (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Morgan and Wiencek between them conclude that Washington was personally invested, both out of principle and personal interest, in his attempts to enforce that clause in the provisional treaty. Having said that, I've copy-edited the lead for concision but retained mention of the treaty. Factotem (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)\

I don't intend to argue now about this sentence in the lead: "At the end of the war, Washington demanded without success the British respect the clause in the provisional peace treaty requiring them to return enslaved people freed after escaping to British lines." But that sentence apparently accuses the British of violating the provisional peace treaty, which appears to be unsupported by the sources. The British were merely saying that they had to return slaves who were freed AFTER the date of the provisional peace treaty, not BEFORE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Article 7 of the treaty simply required the British withdraw "without causing any Destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other Property of the American inhabitants." It made no distinction between free and non-free. Why would it? What right would the British have had to free enslaved people belonging to Americans? It was the British negotiator General Sir Guy Carleton who, it appears, unilaterally decided that the clause did not include those enslaved who had been freed by the British in return for their service to the British cause, much to the consternation of Washington who, according to Wiencek, regarded this as a violation of the treaty. Wiencek covers this on pp. 254–258. Factotem (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It appears that we're talking past each other. You say the provisional treaty "made no distinction between free and non-free. Why would it?" But the language you put into the lead makes that distinction ("return enslaved people freed after escaping to British lines"), so maybe you should answer that question yourself. I have no problem inferring that “Negroes or other Property” refers to non-free African-Americans. My own question for you is this: does our lead (in Wikipedia's voice) accuse the British of violating the provisional treaty? Seems to me it does, and that's why I think we need to be sure about the sourcing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You introduced the distinction with this edit, which changed "Washington demanded the return of enslaved people held by the British" to "Washington initially demanded the return of people freed from slavery by the British". You then introduced the peace treaty with this edit. You then made the distinction between those enslaved people who were freed by the British before the treaty was signed with this edit. Factotem (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to accommodate your edits in a concise manner which does not stray into details which I believe are not significant enough to warrant such coverage in the lead. Whether or not the British violated the treaty is not significant to this subject. The fundamental point that the sources make, one which is significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead, is that Washington's actions at the war's end appear decidedly supportive of slavery interests. And they clearly indicate that Washington was personally invested in the return of the enslaved and not simply trying to enforce his interpretation of the terms of the treaty. Factotem (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I would have no problem with the lead simply stating "At the end of the war, Washington demanded the return of enslaved people held by the British." – it's concise and accurately represents Washington's attitude to the institution at that time, as covered in the sources. Factotem (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I advise keeping the pertinent sentence as-is, if the only alternative is not mentioning the provisional treaty. My first comment in this section quoted three sources, all of which cite the provisional treaty in this context. However, there are many ways to edit this sentence in the lead so we don’t accuse the British of violating the provisional treaty. To omit the provisional treaty in the lead would be worse than saying in the lead that Washington banned slavery in most federal territories, because at least he was one of the decision-makers in the latter case. Also, you acknowledge that the dispute between Washington and Carleton was narrowly about slaves freed by the British in return for military service, and I don't think a freed slave would be "held," just like an American soldier today is not "held" by the United States; the word "held" strongly connotes "non-free" (which is why I inferred that you had introduced into this article a distinction between free and non-free). In any event, I have just now attempted to edit the lead so we aren't implying that the Brits were (or were not) violating the treaty. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've simplified the statement, based on the language used by Morgan. This is the lead of an article about George Washington and slavery - it's simply not relevant whether the British violated the treaty or not, and does not need to be covered in the lead. This whole idea that the distinction needs to be made between Washington as decider or enforcer is not a significant theme in the sources, so we really should not be trying to make it a theme in the article lead. Factotem (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Your edit is fine as far as enforcer v. decider is concerned. However, it still implies the British were violating the treaty, so I added 3 words (net) to fix that. If you would like to remove those 3 words then we need sources saying the British were in violation. Here’s what the sentence currently says: “At war’s end, Washington demanded without success that the British respect the preliminary peace treaty which he said required return of escaped slaves without exception.” I added the last two words because otherwise readers will think the British were categorically refusing to return any slaves, which was not the case. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Why no footnotes

This article contains no citations until 750± words in, but contains many assertions. Is this not inconsistent with wikipedia editorial policy? Complibre (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s common for Wikipedia articles to not have footnotes in the lede. Some do, some don’t. The key thing is that everything in the lead must be supported by stuff later in the Wikipedia article, and all of that later stuff must be footnoted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sexual exploitation across racial lines

This section had been titled "Mulattoes and Interracial sex" and seems largely based on a talk by a historian over 20 years ago. It appears far too focused on addressing arguments about whether sex between "mullatoes" and [male] slaveowners and their guests were possible consensual. -- BCorr|Брайен 16:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint. There is one line that discusses whether interracial sex was consensual, and it gives equal weight to the possibility sex was the result of mutual attraction or a way to manipulate those in authority.--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Bcorr, if you think the focus of this subsection is improper, then what do you think the focus should be? Here is a list of the footnotes in this subsection:

  • Chernow 2010, p. 362

  • Henriques, Peter. "'The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret': George Washington and Slavery", George Mason University (July 25, 2001).

  • Thompson 2019, pp. 147–151

  • Morgan 2005, pp. 419, 420 n26

  • Thompson 2019, pp. 136, 138–139

  • Thompson 2019, pp. 140–141

  • Thompson 2019, pp. 141–142

  • Thompson 2019, pp. 136, 140

If you think these sources are not properly used, or if you have further sources you think we should use, then please describe how. I agree with User:Ykraps that your complaint so far is hard to understand. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Visibility

While it is excellent that this article exists, as it is that the section on slavery exists in the George Washington article, I think more of this important information about his life should be incorporated in the main sections of the article, after all he relied on exploiting slave labour from childhood to death, and it is doubtful if he could have achieved anything without his slaves. I have started a discussion on the main talk page, and would be very grateful for contributions. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 22:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Using “slave” & “slavery” instead of “enslaved person” & “enslavement”

I would prefer if this article would continue to use a variety of language including “slave”, “slavery”, “enslaved” and “enslavement.” Avoiding synonyms makes text dull, boring, and repetitive. You can look in the archives of this talk page for further reasons for not using “slave” and “slavery” all the time, such as this statement by another editor:


Other editors have edited this article to replace some instances of “slave” with “enslaved person” (or similar), so the stability of this article is a factor as well. For example, see this edit which is one of many similar edits. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The debate in academia and the media appears to be whether 'slave' is a dehumanizing noun which should be replaced with 'enslaved person'; not simply 'enslaved' which is a dehumanizing adjective. Proponents say:
  • That the word slave conjures an image of an internal or metaphysical state and not an imposed and arbitary one.[[1]]
  • That 'enslaved person' reinforces the notion that they were people first and commodities second.[[2]]
The counter-arguments are:
  • Whereas a slave was severely limited in options and opportunities, the word doesn't mean that those people were nothing but slaves.[[3]]
  • That the term enslaved person implies a level of autonomy that didn't exist.[[4]]
  • It is not the historians place to right great wrongs but to passively report past events.[[5]]
I agree that avoiding synonyms makes text dull, boring, and repetitive, and I also think we need to be careful about righting great wrongs, as 'slave' remains the more popular term.[[6]][[7]] --Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Lots missing in this dishonest Wikipedia article

There is a systematic dishonesty in the editing of the "George Washington and slavery" articles. Here are some facts from historian Ron Chernow, quoted from a very accessible article.

But as Ron Chernow's magisterial biography Washington: A Life makes clear, while he lived, the nation's first president extracted his pound of flesh from those whom he preferred to call his "servants", or "family".

Washington saw himself as a benevolent master, but he did not tolerate suspected shirkers on his farm, even when they were pregnant, elderly or crippled.

He once scolded a slave who pleaded that he could not work because his arm was in a sling.

As Chernow writes, Washington picked up a rake and demonstrated how to use it with one arm.

"If you use your hand to eat," he said, "why can't you use it to work?"

He was not averse to shipping refractory slaves to the West Indies, such as one man named Waggoner Jack, where the tropical climate and relentless toil in sugarcane brakes tended to abbreviate life expectancy.

"There are few Negroes who will work unless there be a constant eye on them," Washington advised one overseer, warning of their "idleness and deceit" unless treated firmly.

Washington, Chernow notes, wholly approved in 1793 when one of his estate managers, Anthony Whitting, whipped a slave named Charlotte.

Martha, the president's wife, had deemed her to be "indolent".

"Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper," Washington wrote, "and if she or any other of the servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered."

Washington badgered Whitting to keep another slave named Gunner hard at work to "continue throwing up brick earth". Gunner was 83 years old.

With his Mount Vernon plantation creaking under financial pressure owing to his long absences serving the country, Washington would fire off angry letters to his overseers insisting on greater crop productivity.

Given these reprimands it is perhaps hardly surprising that another of his estate managers, Hiland Crow, was notorious for brutally flogging slaves.

In early 1788 the Potomac river froze over for five weeks, but even with nine inches of snow on the ground, Washington did not spare them from gruelling outdoor labour.

He sent the female slaves to dig up tree stumps from a frozen swamp.

During this Arctic snap, Washington ventured to ride out and inspect his farms, but noted in his diary that, "finding the cold disagreeable I returned".

When some of his slaves absconded during the Revolutionary War to find protection - humiliatingly, for him - with the enemy, Washington did not let up in his efforts to reclaim what he saw as his property.

One internal British memo portrayed him after victory as demanding the runaways be returned "with all the grossness and ferocity of a captain of banditti". The British refused.

Whenever George and Martha's bondmen and women did flee, the first couple seemed to regard them as disloyal ingrates.

In one runaway notice Washington posted in a newspaper, he wrote that a slave named Caesar had escaped "without any cause whatever".

That these enslaved human beings might thirst for freedom, or even the opportunity to learn to read and write, did not seem to occur to him.

Starple (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your header says this Wikipedia article is dishonest. Can you please identify which specific parts or sentences are dishonest? Simply omitting specifics is not necessarily dishonest, so long as we include an accurate summary or overview, but if we don’t include an accurate summary or overview then it might be fair to call this article dishonest. Or, it might be fair to say there is room for improvement. I don’t think it would be wise to include in this article every incident that has been documented regarding Washington and slavery, because there are just too many of them, but we certainly should give an accurate overview. Were all of these incidents you’ve mentioned above previously in the article while you were editing it in August 2017?[8] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The ones that were in were taken out by some sly apologist. Starple (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A small critique

A portion of this article incorrectly identifies Baptists, Methodists and Quakers as proponents of three religions. They are all different denominations of Christianity, not separate religions "The three religions advocated abolition, raising hopes of freedom among the enslaved, and the congregation of the Alexandria Baptist Church, founded in 1803, included enslaved people formerly owned by Washington." MatthewMcFly (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Baptists form a group of denominations, and same for Methodists. Anyway, I rephrased it, thanks for the suggestion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"managed by him as his own property but belonging to other people." in lede

Does this have a different meaning to rented or leased? It seems to be a circumlocution to me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 17:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No. That phrase is not a circumlocution or evasive, it is directly and correctly referring to the number of slaves that had a different legal status, most of whom which were held as dower interest since Daniel Parke Custis died intestate/without a will. Some of Daniel Parke Custis' slaves and their offspring were held in trust for the 2 surviving children he had with Martha Washington - John Parke "Jacky" Custis and Martha Parke "Patsy" Custis, these people could not legally be sold or freed by GW or by Martha since they did not have ownership of them. Martha was able to profit off of their labor but these slaves were to be managed in trust by GW/Martha until Martha's death and then they would go to the children or the children's heirs. Shearonink (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Shearonink thank you! I realised that he only rented 41, so I will add that.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 17:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source re: that statement of renting slaves? Shearonink (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Shearonink there are two sources given in the background section.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
"Leased". "Rented". ok... Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Kidnapping and enslaving free blacks

This edit mentions that hundreds of free blacks were kidnapped and enslaved prior to the Civil War. This is undoubtedly true, but how is it related to Washington? Did Washington approve of those kidnappings, according to the cited book by Carol Wilson? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Even worse. The book in question is talking about the unintended effects of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 on free blacks over several decades. Even if Washington was quite aware of these effects, the 300 cases mentioned are not specifically relevant to his term in office. The law was in effect until 1850, when it was replaced by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Dimadick (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the book by Carol Wilson only mentions George Washington once, in connection with the kidnapping of a man named John Davis. That kidnapping is covered in detail by an article by Paul Finkelman titled, "The Kidnapping of John Davis and the Adoption of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793" so I will switch the citation, and modify the text accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Did Washington sign the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it says so in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
In that case, surely the consequences of his action are relevant to this article.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of the lead

The opening paragraph is as follows (without the wiki links):

I don’t see a need to insert dates here, they can be included later in the lead, and in the article body. It also seems worthwhile mentioning that his 123 slaves were freed one year after his death. Details are later in the lead. It's best to keep the opening paragraph free of technical terms like "life estate" and use more understandable language instead. His wife freed them because she feared for her life; she understood that they would become free upon her death, which created an incentive to hasten her death. If she had not released them, and not been killed, they would have been released a year later when she died. All of this is clear from the last paragraph of the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington_and_slavery/Archive_3&oldid=1190307905"