The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2020 [1].

George Washington and slavery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively little attention has been given in the sources to the subject of George Washington and Slavery in comparison to other aspects of the life of a founding father and first president of the US. This article draws primarily on the three books and four papers that focus specifically on the subject, supplemented with information from general histories that cover the subject in varying degrees. Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Estate map doubled in size, alt text added, dead source link resurrected and date of original memorial added to image info on Commons. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how to correctly address the PD tag issue for the list of taxable property. As effectively a tax return, I would assume this is part of the Federal Govt and therefore in the public domain. I have, however, added a PD-USGov-Congress tag to the licensing info on Commons, based on the fact that the document is held by the Library of Congress. Is that acceptable? Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is intended for works created by LOC, not held by them. Is the authorship of the list known? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's no specific attribution, but logically it can only have been Washington himself, or possibly an agent of his. I also cannot find anything that would suggest a publication date. Grateful for any advice you might be able to give, otherwise I'll just remove it from the article. Factotem (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After a little more digging, I have found the following:
OK. I've replaced the LoC lic tag with PD-old-70 and added a statement about the assumption of authorship to the Commons info. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anythingyouwant

[edit]

I will start with just a few comments, and maybe later will comment more.

Fair point. I will work on this. Leads are always difficult to get right, and it will take some time. Can you bear with me please? Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, take your time, there’s no deadline. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've recast the lead to better introduce the topic. It means losing the bolded title usually included in that sentence, but per MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID, this requirement is not set in stone. How does that look to you now? Factotem (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better to me, I made a few minor tweaks. Regarding a bolded part of the lead sentence, the guidance is as follows: “If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.” I don’t care a lot one way or the other, but am not sure it’s impossible to use the article title. Keep in mind that we’re just getting started here, so it would not be out of the question to modify the article title if that would facilitate its use in the opening sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can suggest this, without any title change: “George Washington and slavery coexisted; he was a slaveowner his entire adult life, but 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.” Then bold the first four words. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That GW & slavery co-existed is self-evident and doesn't need stating. I think we should avoid trying to shoe-horn the title in just so that there's something to bold. That's how I ended up with the now rejected first sentence, and anyway MOS:BOLDAVOID advises against that. Factotem (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree. The rule says, “If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this another try. Feel free to revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's still stating the obvious in the first sentence, and "apprehensive" in the second is not at all an accurate way of describing it. The only way I can see of getting the bolded title into the first sentence is with "The relationship between George Washington and Slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time. He was a slaveowner..." This is basically the same construction as your now reverted edit. The advantages are that it allows the bolded title in a naturally flowing, accurate sentence. The disadvantage is that it does not state off the bat that GW was a slaveowner, per your original objection, but the few people in the world who don't know that quickly learn it in the very next sentence. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s kind of tedious to dwell on the first couple sentences, but it usually turns out to be worth it. We can come back to it, maybe others will be able to cut the knot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Factotem (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought: “George Washington and slavery paired a man known for advancing human freedom with its antithesis....”. This is the central contradiction of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Washington owned slaves from age eleven until his death at sixty-seven. Over that lifetime he set not one single slave free, nor did he ever publicly lend his weight, either in terms of his considerable personal reputation or the high office he held, to the abolitionist cause. I don't think it's appropriate to state in the very first sentence of an article on this topic that GW was known for advancing human freedom. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is the central paradox of this article. 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) 02:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but my objection to the wording still stands. What about "It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war in the name of liberty owned slaves his entire adult life."? Factotem (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, although he was just getting started by winning the war. He also won the peace, by presiding over the constitutional convention and serving as president, in both instances establishing a very stable federal government that respected the political liberty and individual liberty of non-slaves. So maybe tweak it to say, "It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war and established a government in the name of liberty also owned slaves his entire adult life.” But if you don’t like that, then your version would work, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that between us we've come up with quite a neat solution. Thanks for that. I'm not sure the short first para has any basis in guideline, and don't see the problem in merging the current first two paras, but meh. Factotem (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working through it. Regarding the current two-sentence opening paragraph, I like it broken from the second paragraph for two reasons. First, the rule says “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.“ The current second paragraph is much more specific, containing several dates and other numbers. The second (stylistic) reason why I like the first paragraph as-is is because it gives a roughly chronological introduction, and the second paragraph starts again with the eleven-year-old Washington, whereas combining the two paragraphs would make the reader jump back and forth in time. By the way, I’m traveling for the rest of this week, but will try to come back to this FAC upon returning home (assuming a virus-free trip!). Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will cut some of the detail about Mount Vernon's development, but the transition from planter to farmer was a significant point in the evolution of Washington's attitude to slavery and warrants a mention in the lead. You make a good point about the quote - I'll cut that. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about reducing the length, but the narrative about the slaves' condition at Mount Vernon is every bit a part of the subject as the evolution of Washington's attitudes to the institution. That slave narrative, as it relates specifically to Washington, is covered at length in the sources, most notably Thompson's work and the Mount Vernon website. To exclude that aspect from this article would be a failure to meet the FAC criteria (1b. comprehensive), and the coverage in the main body of the article is significant enough to warrant coverage in the lead, per MOS:LEAD.Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I won’t suggest excluding any of it from the article body, it’s just a question of how much to put in the lead. Covering it in the lead is fine, if it’s not too long. A lot of generic material about slavery can go in this article body, and you can also link to it in the lead using “History of slavery in Virginia”. The lead should summarize the article’s main points in a nutshell. So the issue is whether you can convey how horrible slavery was without going into so much detail. Consider this material: “Field slaves were provided with a set of clothes each year which, due to the nature of their work, were quickly worn out. Domestic slaves who attended the Washingtons and came into regular contact with visitors were better clothed.“ Wouldn’t all of that have been just as true of paid workers? Keep it in the article body if you like, but for the lead it seems like too much. At most, it would seem sufficient to say in the lead that the slaves were often poorly clothed, if that was the case, and then all the detail can go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you're getting at with linking History of slavery in Virginia in the lead, which you've mentioned twice now. Everything in this article about the slave condition is specific to Washington's slaves, and I'm not sure what value linking to a generic article, which is anyway linked to as a hatnote at the beginning of the Background section, will bring. I do see what you mean about the second para in the lead though - I was never quite happy with that myself. I will look into reworking it to be a little more summary and a little less detail. Factotem (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the detail from the sentences you've cited. Any better? Factotem (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said in the lead that his views reflected prevailing Virginia planter views of the day. Did his practices, that you describe in the lead’s second paragraph, likewise reflect prevailing practices at comparable Virginia plantations of the day, or were there substantial differences? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question and similar to the point raised by JohnWickTwo below. From memory, the only distinctions that spring to mind is Washington's recognition of slave marriages, which weren't recognised in Virginian law, and his later reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue or separate families by sale. Those are already covered in the article. I'll check through the sources tomorrow to see if there's anything that can be added on that subject. Factotem (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if stuff in the second paragraph of the lead reflected general practice, then I think that ought to be briefly mentioned at the start of the second paragraph. My preference, though, would be to start the second paragraph by saying his practices matched general Virginia practice, but with limited exceptions such as X, Y, and Z (i.e. remove run-of-the-mill stuff from the second paragraph and only include the stuff Washington did differently). Both the run-of-the-mill stuff and the aberrations could go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk)
I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here. The narrative in the main body about the slave condition, in the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, represents approximately one third of the article. Per MOS:LEAD and WP:WIAFA 2a, it is a requirement to summarise that in the lead. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you put in the lead about the practice of slavery at Mt. Vernon, the reader should be told whether it’s typical or atypical. Same for the article body. I personally find the atypical stuff more interesting, more revealing about Washington, and therefore more useful to put into this article. That’s all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, insofar as the sources identify this info. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have scanned through the main source on that aspect and added information in the main body about how Washington's practices compared with general practice. I've also recast the 2nd para of the lead to better summarise the key points of the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, including a mention about general practice. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Added. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnotes removed and their links now embedded in the lead narrative. Factotem (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it looks as though this candidate is headed for the archive bin for lack of reviewers. But thanks for your input; it has generated improvements. Take care & stay safe. Factotem (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m probably going to oppose FA as the lead stands now. The lead paragraph is much too long, the lead sentence is awkward, Washington is not wikilinked on first use, the article title could easily be used in bold within the first sentence but is not, and the article omits pertinent and well-sourced material about the paradox of fighting for liberty while engaging in slavery. It’s an interesting article, I just don’t think it’s the best of the best. But I will wait and see what happens before definitely opposing the gold star. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises the most important details of the article. The guidelines on length are vague, and in a c.9,400-word article there is inevitably much ground to cover. Washington is not linked on first use per MOS:BOLDAVOID. Factotem (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article devotes the first paragraph of the American Revolution section to the paradox (and does so thanks to the input in these reviews). The question of how Washington, having fought a war in the name of liberty, could still tolerate slavery is discussed throughout the article, examples being:
  • as a slave owning farmer in the "Confederation years" section ("Washington did not let principle interfere with business; he still needed labor to work his farms, and there was little alternative to slavery.") and the "As Virginia farmer" section ("In addition to political caution, economic imperatives remained an important consideration with regard to Washington's personal position as a slaveholder and his efforts to free himself from his dependency on slavery.");
  • as president in the "As President" section ("He had a keen sense both of the fragility of the fledgling Republic and of his place as a unifying figure, and he was determined not to endanger either by confronting an issue as divisive and entrenched as slavery". Factotem (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that I cannot convince you that the article is worthy of a star, but I do appreciate the time you've given to reviewing it. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, 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 seven sentences long, instead of two as I propose. Maybe an RFC? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it's time to close the review now. FWIW I feel the "paradox" wording suggests an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry, and the first sentence as it is (and as given immediately above) works pretty well. OTOH there might well be an argument to to make this first sentence a standalone paragraph, as it establishes immediately and by itself the main thrust of the article, whereas the following sentence and after is more in the way of background. I don't think that should be a deal-breaker for anyone though, so will leave that to post-promotion action (or not). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JohnWickTwo

[edit]

A short comment about the narrative style and your general approach. Its currently an interesting theme article which might use a general reading with an eye to tighten the narrative in places. For example, the phrase "Any hopes Washington may have had that his example...", could be simplified to "Washington's concern that his example...". Also, there has been a 6-hr biographical miniseries about Washington on the History Channel that just aired which dealt in part with his relationship to antebellum slaveholding. It might be of interest to readers if a section were added to the article which dealt with Washington's viewpoint in comparison to the other Virginia slaveholders, like Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to address any issues with the prose, but the example you provided is written that way specifically to reflect what the sources say. Wiencek writes, "Washington may have believed that, given his immense prestige, his will would have some lasting influence on the debate over slavery." Hirschfeld writes, "Perhaps it had been hoped that Washington's example of benevolence toward his slaves would carry over to other members of his family." Neither definitively state that Washington actually intended his act to set an example, which is why I have phrased it in the same speculative way the sources have rather than the simpler version you suggest.
To address your other points:
  • As much as I enjoy dramatised documentaries designed for popular consumption, I don't think they're the kind of high quality, scholarly source expected at FAC;
  • I will have another scan through the sources I have, but from memory, very little mention is made in the secondary sources of any comparison between Washington and other Virginia/Founding-Father slaveholders. Factotem (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I came here because I have an FAC up on Cyclone Chapala, and figured I should review someone else's article. I'm an American, getting that bias out of the way.

Other than the unnecessary "also", I'm inclined to agree. @Anythingyouwant: any thoughts? Factotem (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for pinging me. Of course, here's what the lead says now:

It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war in the name of liberty 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.

I agree with User:Factotem and User:Hurricanehink that discussion of a "paradox" looks odd if it's only in the opening paragraph. So, regardless of what is done with the opening paragraph, I recommend paraphrasing the following material (already provided above) in the body of the article (with the two footnotes):

As to whether the lead should be re-jiggered, I agree that it would be nice to get a link to GW in the lead sentence, as long as we also use the title in bold per usual Wikipedia practice, maybe like this: "George Washington successfully led a war in the name of liberty, but it is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that he owned slaves his entire adult life." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by again. How the Revolution preserved slavery is not the concern of this article. How Washington approached the subject is, and is (I believe, otherwise I would not have submitted it to FAC) comprehensively covered in the article. The question of how Washington the farmer was able to preserve slavery is answered by the facts that his business was dependent on slavery and he did not have the cash to emancipate them. The question of how Washington the president was able to preserve slavery is answered by the facts that he believed it could be abolished only gradually by legislative means and that the unity of the nation was more important than resolving an issue that threatened to divide it. This is all covered in the article. Factotem (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink suggests putting into the lead sentence that Washington was the first POTUS. I think it's much more relevant that he led a war in the name of liberty, and the sources cited in my previous comment seem to bear that out. In any event, it would be wise to include something in the lead sentence that briefly introduces Washington by stating one of his main accomplishments. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that the first sentence leans towards the wider question of how the Revolution fought in the name of liberty preserved slavery rather than the contradictions in Washington's attitudes towards the institution. I suggest the following:

This complies with the MOS:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH guidelines by setting out the subject in a nutshell, rooted firmly in the content of the article itself. Identifying that Washington was a Founding Father establishes his significance without having to choose between POTUS or general. It also allows us to meet the bolded title tradition, which is not a requirement, at least half way. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (

The statement about slavery being ingrained into colonial Virginia is, I think, worth keeping, and can be moved to the the start of the next sentence. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I would point out that Morgan's work addresses that wider issue more than the specifics of Washington's position, and lists only four pages in the index for Washington (and the two of them that I can view in gbooks preview are pretty much passing references). Wiencek does indeed link the wider issue to Washington's personal position, but his work is squarely focused on the personal position. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

Both Hurricanehink & I have said the second sentence of the lead is fine, you did a good job on it, and it says “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.” So, my advice would be to leave it as-is.
Regarding the first sentence of the lead, I still think it is much more relevant that he led a war for liberty, than that he was a founding father. Slavery, after all, is the opposite of liberty. Readers would like to know if George Washington was a hypocrite for supporting liberty but also practicing slavery, or at least how he dealt with that apparent paradox. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed sentence by Factotem works well, as his role as founding father refers to both his status as president and his role in the revolution, and it provides a good summary. I was waiting on commenting to see how you would resolve the first paragraph, which remains my main issue with the FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The story of Washington and slavery as discussed in the sources that deal specifically with that subject is not about the question of how a man who led a war in the name of liberty could own slaves. It is about the evolution in the attitude of a man who went from unquestioning acceptance of the institution to disillusion with it, but retained slaves anyway. The article reflects that, and now the consensus appears to be that the Founding Father sentence I proposed properly introduces the article, per MOS guidelines. I'm going with that. Factotem (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I wonder whether the first sentence needs a comma or two - after "slaveowner" and "slavery" is what I'd suggest personally. I think the lead is a lot stronger than what it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider commas, but I don't think they work. Certainly, commas after slaveowner and slavery would create a parenthetical clause where none should exist. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed & done. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"comparable to general practise at the time but not always adequate" does not apply to the medicalcare, hence separation. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I read it the same way once or twice during reading through. Amended to read "by feigning illness, and by running away." The "by" reinforces the comma in separating the items in the list. Work for you? Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced surfeit with surplus throughout. Is that also enough to clarify what changed about the economics? I'm hesitant to expand on that in the lead as it would be too much, I think, for the lead. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surplus works better. As for the economics, I was thinking something like - "Washington transitioned his estate from tobacco to grain crops, which left him with a surplus of slaves; this prompted him to first question the economic viability of slavery." IDK, some wording like that would more clearly explain the sequence/narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought long about this. The key point here is that Washington's first misgivings about the institution of slavery were based entirely on economic considerations. That's the first step in the sequence that the rest of the paragraph details. Leaving it until the end of the sentence weakens the prose, IMO. How about "Washington's first doubts about slavery were entirely economic, prompted by his transition from tobacco to grain crops in the 1760's which left him with a costly surplus of slaves." Factotem (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I think that's much stronger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the issue is here. If it's the use of the term, then I've been very careful throughout to replicate the terms used in the sources. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it's an issue with the term. Is "blacks" really the best term to make it non-biased and encyclopediac? Later in the article you say the much more appropriate "African Americans". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a part of that history, I'm only vaguely aware of the difficulties of terminology. One difficulty, as I understand it, is that a newly imported slave was an African, not an African-American. If this is a major issue then I can revisit it, but believe me, I know this is a minefield, which is why I was fastidious in using the term used by the source (and which is why African-American is sometimes used). Factotem (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm sorry to be a stickler, but it doesn't sit right with me. Even the article on Black people says "For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is also perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African cultures with little to no colonial history. Some have pointed out that labeling people groups "black" is erroneous as the people described as "black" have a brown skin color." I just quoted that from its lead, but it makes me think that you should use African-American consistently, or some other wording, like "people of African descent". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Fixed. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use "demands" instead. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now consistently tensed. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two links are to different articles, the first on slavery in the colonies, the second on slavery in the USA. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent quite a lot of effort over the years trying to educate non-Brits about the difference between England and Britain, so I feel hugely embarrassed to have been caught out here. Thanks for catching that. Struggling to come up with a way of conveying the sentence with a more active voice. Any suggestions? Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It only caught my eye because I saw another British reference to an early American colony in GA review for another article. I suggest something like - "The English colony of Virginia first imported African slaves to Point Comfort in 1619." Is that still accurate? Something like that would make the writing stronger, being in active voice. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not knowledgeable on the subject of slavery in the colonies, but from what I have read, it appears the origins are not fully known. The Wikipedia article on slavery suggests that the first slaves were taken by privateers from a Portugese ship, not imported by the colony of Virginia as a deliberate act of commerce. I would also note that the source also uses the passive voice: "...the first Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619..." Factotem (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine then. The article is about GW, not explicitly about the slave trade. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source uses them. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see this myself. Where are you suggesting the split, at "but" or at ", up"?
Ehh it's fine actually. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to see what's wrong with the original wording. Will come back to this, but I will say that "inherited slaves through inheritance" is not, IMO, an improvement. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the lack of the oxford comma and the "inherited slaves again" that doesn't sit well with me, but it's not a big deal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always been an Oxford comma person myself, but for some reason I stopped using them in WP articles. I've put one in here. Factotem (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; horribly constructed sentence. Per MOS:NUMERAL, though, two-word numbers can be spelled or enumerated. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of no alternative way to express this, and it's the term used in the sources.
That's fine then if it's the term used in sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Appreciate your input. I've responded above and made changes to the article accordingly. There are some points I need to think on further. Factotem (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"For Washington..." changed to "In Washington's view..." to clearly attribute the quote. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see that as necessary. The point is the genuine affection, with Lee provided only as an example, not about Washington's relationship with Lee. I think that level of detail is best left to the article on Lee. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Changed carnal to sexual. I'm not sure what the issue is with "charges"; isn't that recognised as meaning people the overseers were in charge of? I could write it as "sexual relations with the slaves over whom they were in charge" or similar, but that seems unnecessarily wordy. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think you should make it wordier, I didn't get it immediately that "chargers" were the ones who were in charge. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "their charges" with "the slaves they supervised". Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to "indicate the resistance displayed by the slaves against the system." Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the principle that we don't duplicate links or full names after the first instance, so why do it for professions. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed quote to Washington. The quote is there as a window on Washington's attitude to slavery, that he saw their diligent acquiescence to slavery as their duty. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are the overseers words. Isn't the strong inference that these are the overseers' words enough? Do we really need to spell it out? Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a britishism, but "lash out" does not mean to whip someone, it means to lose one's temper in an aggressive manner, either by striking someone or ranting at them. Is there an equivalent phrase in American English? Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If by "lash out" you include striking someone, then that would be notable, and contradictory to GW not flogging the slaves. You could say "did on occasion verbally berate when they failed..." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The slaves received both harsh words and more physical rebukes, but a hefty clip round the ear or a pair of boots being launched at the head is not a flogging, which has a very specific meaning. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The physical rebuke by Washington is certainly notable. Even if it's not a "flogging", it's still a physical assault. Hell, we have an article on a president getting hit by shoes, so a president hitting someone with their boots is worth noting, even if it requires a few extra words. I'd rather the article be specific, if possible, than use the more generic "lash out". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The details have always been there in the footnote at the end of the sentence, but I've expanded the sentence now to read "but he did on occasion lash out in a flash of temper with verbal abuse and physical violence when they failed to perform as he expected." Does that work for you? Factotem (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the word that Wiencek himself uses. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a case where it would be more useful to directly quote the historian. "Historian Henry Weincek wrote that Washington felt a sense of repugnance or whatever the quote is. Otherwise, the "repugnance" isn't the worst term to use here, I won't make a stink. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, then, I'll leave it as is. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's one instance of the indefinite article - "...a Continental Army that was more integrated..." - which is, I believe, a perfectly legitimate construction (and an elegant one IMO). Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "But", unless it's done too many times. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Object pronoun followed by possessive adjective (if it was male it would be "promise him his freedom") Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it reads better with the single "her", but I won't make a fuss. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The original is technically correct, but the single "her" is not wrong, and it's only a matter of time before someone else removes it thinking it is a duplicate word error, so removed. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see the issue myself, but changed to "influenced" anyway. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, since "colored" is an archaic term for people of African descent in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the source, and no, nothing after 2017. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I finished the article. I'm leaning oppose at the moment, because some of the wording feels more dramatic like it would be in a novel, rather than an encyclopedia article. I identified the places I had issues with, so it shouldn't be too difficult to address these issues. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for the replies so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to provide feedback. I've addressed the majority of issues you've raised in this second tranche, though in some cases with a pushback. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! The article is really looking to be in good shape, and it won't take me much to support. There are just a few points that still don't sit well with me, which I replied to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all of your hard work on this significant historic article. I hope my comments weren't too arduous or pedantic, but I truly believe they helped the article, and so I'm happy to Support it for FAC. Great job! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, yes, you certainly did give me a hard time in places, but that's only to be expected at FAC. I'm grateful for the support, but even more than that, I'm grateful for the time and effort you've given to reviewing the article, and the consequent improvements that have been made to it. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps

[edit]

I carried out a partial/mini peer review in June last year and lots of work has been done on the article since. It looks in good shape IMHO - neutral, well-researched, comprehensive etc. I consider the prose to be of an FA standard and understand why you have chosen your words with caution. I do have some comments though:

Lead

Good catch. Done. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Americanised Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Americanized :) --Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
: ) Factotem (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily pedantic of me in the lead. Simplified by removing "most of". Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the others might have been employed as general handymen, fixing outbuildings for example.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this is all explained in the main body.--Ykraps (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original wording reflected the fact that there were one or two artisans employed somewhere other than the main residence (if memory serves, carpenters at the Dogue Run mill), but this is a level of detail that does not need covering. Factotem (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not a level of detail required in the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Slavery isn't linked because the hatnote immediately above serves that purpose. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vagaries of English; Washington was the lessee, not the lessor. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bing! Of course. I don't know why I didn't consider that scenario. Worth some extra explaining though, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the clarification mentioned below about leasing from accomplishes that extra explaining, or do you think it needs more? Factotem (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no further action required here.--Ykraps (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. "...and in the 18th-century American south..." is not parenthitical. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a second reading, I agree with you. I don't know why but that wasn't how it sounded in my head when I initially read it.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As above Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the leasing by rewording the sentence to state "He leased Mount Vernon from Lawrence's widow two years after his brother's death in 1752..." Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "area" with Fairfax County, Virginia Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yes. Good point. Reworded to state "listed" rather than "controlled". The six were mentioned to avoid the eagle-eyed doing maths and pointing out that the numbers don't add up, but I've moved that into a footnote now. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate you looking at this. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery at Mount Vernon

*"Washington provided them with good, sometimes costly medical care...." Do the sources consider this to be unusual thing to do? I provide my car with costly servicing and fuel but only because I want it to continue working.

Sorry, should have read the following sentences first.--Ykraps (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Living conditions

*"At the main residence..." Are we talking about Washington's family home or the slaves main residence?

  • "Other slaves at the main residence..." Ditto.
  • "...small enough to be moved with carts". I think perhaps 'on carts' is better or may be 'with horse and cart', as it's the horse that's doing the moving.
All good points. All addressed with edits to the article. Factotem (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance

The source does not explicitly say, but my assumption was that shorn wool is easier to steel than wool still attached to the sheep, and the washing of wool gave more opportunity for theft than the washing of sheep. Factotem (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, okay. I thought sheep were always washed before because it's easier to wash wool while it's still on the sheep. Happy to let it stand though. BTW I think you mean steal, steel wool is something entirely different :) --Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to spell correctly is one of the first casualties of a poor night's sleep :) Factotem (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to report back on this one earlier. Not necessary and removed Factotem (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Factotem (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Factotem (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

It is unambiguously clear from the source that Washington is referring to the colonials as slaves of the British, not to the institution of slavery in the colonies. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How deeply do you feel that these quotes are relevant and necessary? Again, on a second reading, I can see what is being said but because this section (and indeed much of the article) is about Washington's attitude to slavery, it does seem that they are included for the purpose of suggesting Washington had anti-slavery sentiments at that time.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about the apparent hypocrisy of slave owners fighting a war to free themselves from what they saw as enslavement by the British. As you might see from other discussions above, it is a paradox that the nation which rebelled in the name of liberty preserved slavery when that rebellion was won. Whilst that paradox is not central to this article, it would be remiss not to mention Washington's contribution to it. So yes, I think the quotes are important. Factotem (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a paradox if you believe liberty was the reason for going to war.--Ykraps (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion I have no intention of going anywhere near :) Factotem (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not clear, though there are implications that African-Americans served alongside whites in mixed-race regiments and Wiencek quotes a primary source that explicitly states they did so. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't see how anything can be improved here.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not sure about the "on average" bit. The source basically says that by the war's end, some 200,000 men had been mobilized, of which some 6,000 (i.e. 3%) were African-Americans. It's slightly vague because the only year for which actual figures are available is 1778, so the rest represents the conclusions of research by modern scholars. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see what can be done to make things clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answered above, I think. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation years

Done Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential years

The agreement was not to attempt to halt the trade for at least 20 years. Factotem (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's just a very neat coincidence that 1807 is the year the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act came into force.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder why you picked up on the year. From memory, the abolitionist tendency began agitating for the end of the slave trade as soon as it was permitted per the terms of the agreement, i.e. 1807, but the law stopping it did not come into effect until 1808. Factotem (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As president

Not sure that it matters, but changed anyway Factotem (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous emancipation

Yep. Good catch. Factotem (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

No, I think the concatenation is valid. See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/freedman Factotem (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, live and learn.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

Some three-quarters of the slaves labored in the fields, while the remainder worked at the main residence as domestic servants and artisans. They supplemented their diet by hunting, trapping, and growing vegetables in their free time, and bought extra rations, clothing and housewares with income from the sale of game and produce. They built their own community around marriage and family, though because Washington allocated slaves to farms according to the demands of the business without regard for their relationships, many husbands lived separately from their wives and children.
Because many of his slaves were married to Martha's dower slaves, whom he could not legally free, Washington stipulated that, with the exception of his valet William Lee who was freed immediately, his slaves be emancipated on the death of Martha. She freed them in 1801, a year before her own death, but her dower slaves were passed to her grandchildren and remained in bondage.
But up to you.
I don't see that the lead is any longer than other articles of comparable size I or others have successfully put through FAC. And to my way of thinking, there is something very dubious indeed about excising from the lead the enslaved community's story, a narrative that accounts for some one third of the article and therefore warrants the summary it receives in the lead. Factotem (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why these last two minor quibbles need hold up my support however. Although my support is conditional on a successful source review.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review. I'm very happy for the support, but even if you had chosen to oppose, your input has materially improved the article, for which I am grateful. Factotem (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Martha for the Custis heirs" I think these were her children (at least at that time) I might at some point say who they were.
Some heirs are named in the article, but only those relevant to the subject, and only at the end of the article when they become relevant. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say when Jefferson made the quote-box quotation.
Added and cited to primary source (secondary does not date the quote). Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1799, nearly three-quarters of the slaves, over half of that quantity female, worked in the fields. " I might say " ... over half of them female ..."
Done Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington provided slaves with a blanket each fall at most, which they used for their own bedding and which they were required to use to gather leaves for livestock bedding.[51]" at most?
To quote the source, "...the slaves received at most only one blanket per year." Thompson discusses the ambiguity in the primary sources surrounding whether blankets were issued annually. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is evidence that slaves passed on their African cultural values through telling stories, among them Joel Chandler Harris's tales of Br'er Rabbit which, with their origins in Africa and stories of a powerless individual triumphing through wit and intelligence over powerful authority, would have resonated with the slaves.[71]" This is confusing. They couldn't have been Harris's tales as he hadn't been born yet.
Good catch. Deleted the reference to Harris. To explain, the tales were in circulation before Harris published them (and in fact he learned of them as a teenager from slaves) Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and some of the Mount Vernon slaves are known to have been christened before Washington acquired the estate." This implies he put an end to such things.
I don't see that implication myself, even after it's been pointed out. Not sure how to address this. Maybe "and some of Lawrence's slaves are known to have been christened."? Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The output of seamstresses dropped off when Martha was away, and spinners found they could slacken by playing the overseers off against Martha.[88] " Is the first Martha meant to be George, or Washington?
Awkward prose. Martha both times, but changed the second instance to "her". Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1774 he was a key participant in agreeing the Fairfax Resolves which, alongside the assertion of colonial rights, condemned the transatlantic slave trade on moral grounds.[118][109]" "agreeing the Fairfax Resolves" sounds a bit less US than I'd like, maybe start "In 1774 he was a key participant in the adoption of the Fairfax Resolves ..."
Done Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to the years as president. All looks good so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and how willing the antislavery faction was to sacrifice abolition on the altar of national unity" This seems a bit flowery. And are we talking about abolition of slavery, or abolition of the slave trade?
I did wonder when I wrote that whether I would be allowed to get away with it. Reworded to "...how willing the antislavery faction was to accept the preservation of slavery to ensure national unity and the establishment of a strong federal government." Slavery, not the slave trade. Factotem (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a statement that presaged Washington's emancipation of his slaves in his will a decade later." Isn't this opinion? Washington's inconsistent words and actions re slavery are clear but you seem to be drawing a connection here as a matter of fact.
No. The statement recorded by Humphreys and the terms of the will are both public record, and the similarities between the two are specifically mentioned by Wiencek ("The statement bears a striking resemblance to the emancipation clause in Washington's will...") and Philip Morgan ("Here is an intimation of the emancipation clause in his will..."). Maybe the word "presaged" gives the wrong impression (and I've reworded it now to read "...a statement that resembled the emancipation clause in Washington's will..."), but I don't see how I've drawn any connection as a matter of fact. I do devote that paragraph to Wiencek's conclusion that the statement is evidence of a moral epiphany and the opinions of other historians who dispute that conclusion, per NPOV. I hope I have done it in a way that is neutral, fair and representative, but happy to have any failure in that pointed out. Factotem (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had a keen sense both of the fragility of the fledgling Republic and of his place as a unifying figure, and he was determined not to endanger either by confronting an issue as divisive and entrenched as slavery." Again, is this fact or opinion? Should statements about what was going on in Washington's head be stated as fact?
To quote the sources, first Kenneth Morgan...
  • "Washington's cautiousness...stemmed from his sense of his own leadership positions and from the divisive nature of slavery in the young republic."
  • "...Washington knew that the eminence of his public positions made it imprudent for him to speak openly about slavery."
  • "Recognizing his public and symbolic role as figurehead for the revolution and the new nation, he realized that to speak out on such a sensitive issue would be foolhardy."
...then Twohig...
  • "...he had an extraordinary grasp of the symbolic function of his office as a unifying force for the new nation. Even the most cursory examination of the political correspondence of the period indicates how important Washington was in holding the fabric of the new nation together."
  • "He was not about to risk this role in what he certainly regarded as a quixotic attempt to challenge the South's peculiar institution."
  • "...he was acutely aware how fragile it all was and how easily the slavery controversy could destroy it."
I understand the need for caution in conflating fact with opinion, but the sources on which I've based that sentence are pretty clear in their assertions, it's not for us to second guess them, and there are no other sources that I know of which dispute what they are saying. Factotem (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He presided over an administration that passed a resolution in 1790" Congress passed it.
My ignorance of the early American political system (and indeed, the system generally) is probably showing through here. Reworded to "He was president of a government that passed...", but happy to hear of any better alternative. Factotem (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the antislavery North" Given that slavery was legal as far north as New York, this seems a sweeping statement.
Removed the anti/proslavery adjectives Factotem (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the estate had grown by only 10 percent to some 8,000-acre (3,200 ha)" Is this a reference to what he owned (some of which was operated by tenant farmers) or what he himself operated?
Clarified by rewording to state "...the Mount Vernon estate had grown..." Factotem (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington concluded his instructions with a private passage in which he expressed his repugnance at owning slaves and declared the principle reason for selling the land was to raise the finances that would allow him to liberate them." How was this more private than the rest of the letter?
Washington specifically marked it as "Private". Factotem (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November the same year, Washington demonstrated in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that the reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue, first seen in his letter to Lund Washington in 1778, had become an emphatic principle against "selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market..."" Again, can we get inside Washington's head to that extent? I don't doubt that the source says that, but does that make it a fact that it was an "emphatic principle" of his that he "demonstrated"?
Reworded to "Washington declared in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that he was "...principled agt. [sic] selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market..."" Factotem (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deferral was intended to postpone the pain of separation that would occur when his slaves were freed but their spouses among the dower slaves remained in bondage, a situation which affected twenty couples and their children." What facts is this based on? I'm talking about the "intended".
Washington's own words as written in the will: "To emancipate them during her life, would...be attended with such insuperable difficulties on account of their intermixture by Marriages with the dower Negroes, as to excite the most painful sensations..." Factotem (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington went beyond the legal requirement to support and maintain younger slaves until adulthood, stipulating that those children whose education could not be undertaken by parents were to be taught reading, writing and a useful trade by their masters and then be freed at the age of twenty-five." Did Virginia law dictate that juvenile slaves could not be emancipated until age 25? The cynic in me says that this gives the master eight or ten years of mature labor.
The law did not set any age limits on emancipation, only that males under 21 and females under 18 and anyone over 45 had to be supported by the person who freed them. The sources don't make an issue of the fact that they remained enslaved until age 25. Factotem (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The able-bodied slaves were cut loose and left to support themselves and their families." Cut loose? That's an odd synonym for "freed".
Re-worded to "Able-bodied slaves were freed and left to support themselves and their families." Factotem (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Washington's unsuccessful efforts to free his own slaves in the mid 1790s.[146]" He didn't try very hard to actually free them immediately.
Reworded to "Washington's attempts to disentangle himself from slavery..." (based on the source which words it as: "attempts to extricate himself from the institution") Factotem (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He [Lafayette] became a leading figure in antislavery movements in France and Great Britain." When? Lafayette had a lot on his plate starting not long after 1786 and I'm not aware he spent much time in Britain.
The source does not answer the question "When?" Lafayette's leadership of the French movement against the slave trade (which I've clarified in the edit) is based on the statement in the source that he was "instrumental in founding the first French society for the elimination of the slave trade." Clarified that he became a corresponding member of the British movement against the slave trade. Factotem (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to accept the narrative that Washington became something of a closet abolitionist in the final two decades of his life. An alternative view, that he did and said the things he did with an eye to his place in history seems to be present in footnote k. Why is this a footnote rather than main text? The "closet abolitionist" view seems to be given more credence than alternative views throughout the article, generally it is given the last word and is sometimes set forth in Wikipedia's editorial voice, something less true for contrary views. For example, at one point you say he "expressed his repugnance at owning slaves". That says he felt repugnance. Can we conclude that in editorial voice, or is it that he just expressed repugnance?
That footnote comes from the paragraph which discusses the idea that Washington freed his slaves out of concern for his reputation. It is not, however, an idea that receives significant coverage in the sources. Note that in the footnote, of the four sources quoted, only Henriques specifically links this concern of Washington's to his motivation for freeing his slaves. It's a good point, though, and I've moved Henriques out of the footnote and into the main body. I would also point out that Washington's "closet abolitionist" sentiments are a matter of public record in his writings and covered extensively in the sources, so merit Wikipedia's voice; the contrary view that he freed his slaves because of his concern for his place in posterity is only ever found in the analysis of historians, so warrants a little more care in how it's presented in the article, surely? Factotem (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. The issue with "expressed repugnance" with "expressed his repugnance" is the latter implies he felt it. Compare "expressed sadness" vs. "expressed his sadness".
I did not see that at all. Removed "his" from the three places where this wording was used Factotem (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 2 seems to be formatted oddly.
Fixed Factotem (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Washington's concern about how posterity would judge him is not a "contrary" or "alternative" view, but a complementary theme. The number of sentences Philip Morgan devotes to this aspect in his 27-page paper doesn't hit double figures. Henriques disposes with it in maybe two sentences of a 22-page chapter. I don't see what more I can add to the article on this aspect that isn't already there. I've spent the best part of the day looking into this, and I'm not sure the article accepts the "closet abolitionist" narrative so much as reflects its preponderance in the sources. Can you clarify your concerns about the "repugnance" example? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there. Factotem (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one really had me searching. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
Done Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it too strong and would prefer to keep it. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not very expansive on this. It simply says "[By about 1700], racial slavery and the necessary police powers had been written into law...In 1705 Virginia gathered up the random statutes of a whole generation and baled them into a 'slave code'..." Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The stories were being told by slaves long before Harris published them. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Radicalized is more appropriate. Although it's not necessary to relate the details in this article, Washington was amongst the first to talk of a resort to arms and, whilst most of the rebellious colonials were still appealing to the King for the redress of their grievance, the first to talk of independence. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Much better. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Factotem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just noting I've seen that there's a request for a source review at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose. Given the substantive reviews this candidate has received, it would be a shame for it to drop out for want of a source review. If it gets to the stage where the Coords are considering archiving for this reason, would it be possible to give me a heads up and a final chance to see if I can't interest someone into undertaking such a review? Factotem (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think we've ever archived a nom for want of a source review and I wasn't planning to set a precedent now -- let's see what turns up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. I'll hang tight and hope something turns up. Factotem (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm not familiar with the material at all, so can't comment on whether the best sources have been used, but the sources look scholarly and reliable -- there's a 1925 book, and a Youtube video, but both are fine for the use to which they're put. The websites all seem appropriate sources; I spent some time looking at the Westport Museum one to see if I could see more about what organization runs it, but it's used for one sentence that is supported by sources reproduced in the article, and there's clearly editorial control. Formatting looks perfect, and everything in the article is sourced. I have not done any spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Factotem (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although not stated explicitly above, the ES provided with this SR states "Source review pass". Is there anything more required on this front? Factotem (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant to be clear that the source review passed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More