Talk:George Washington and slavery/Archive 2

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

Quaker petition to the Virginia Assembly

Quoting the source (Kenneth Morgan p. 292), "[Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury] showed [Washington] their petition for slave emancipation. Though he did not sign it, Washington privately agreed with their sentiments and noted that he had conveyed his views to other leading Virginians. He agreed to send a supportive letter to the state assembly if it were to consider the petition. Nothing further came of this..." Your edit to the lead is not supported by the source - please revert it. Factotem (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to this edit. As I said in my previous edit summary: "Per Morgan, 'he had conveyed his views to other leading Virginians'". Here is a link to Morgan's article: [1]. You are apparently trying to minimize Washington's abolitionist efforts. He was not merely telling his wife and family that he supported abolition; he was lobbying the people who could make it happen. And to say that he did so privately would be misleading in the lead, since he clearly offered to do so publicly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant the issue is that GW expressed some support for emancipation in private. Morgan is quite clear on that point as are many other Washington scholars. Dorothy Twohig writes, "Virtually all of Washington’s comments on slavery were expressed privately. On no occasion did he reveal publicly his own antipathy toward the institution or his privately expressed hopes that it would either wither naturally or be abolished by legislative action., source. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Did the edit you reverted say he did so in public? Better to not say in the lead whether it was public or private, because that issue is complex. It was in private, but he offered to do it publicly. Anyway, the sources are unequivocal that he lobbied Virginia leaders, so why suggest that it may have been just a chat with Martha? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I reinstated the text that stated "Although he expressed support in private", which is important in the lead, is a more general statement that applies to a variety of examples. The text that says "After the war, he unsuccessfully lobbied Virginia leaders" is a single specific example and removes the issue of keeping his opinions private. If the issue of privately agreeing with Coke & Asbury (when he mentioned "he had conveyed his views to other Virginians", Morgan, p. 292) is important, then work with Factotem an appropriate place in the article text to add it, but it doesn't make sense to replace a general statement with a specific example in the lead. Plus, as you know, edit warring when an article is on the main page is unpleasant.diff, diff. It's really best to discuss on the talk page. Leaving it to you & Factotem now. Victoria (tk) 20:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I never put in the lead any specific example of his lobbying Virginia leaders. To merely say he privately supported abolition is extremely misleading because it sounds like he did not try to change it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You edited the lead to state "He unsuccessfully lobbied Virginia leaders..." in this edit then reverted my revert of that to put it back in in this edit. In terms of abolition, he never tried to change it. He hoped the institution would die a natural death with the ban on the slave trade in 1808. He did try and come up with a scheme that would allow him to free his own slaves in the mid 1790s, which was conspicuously private, but at the end of the day he freed not one single slave in his lifetime. Factotem (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He never tried to change it? Then you’d better delete from this article that he supported a gradual process of emancipation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit claimed Washington "unsuccessfully lobbied Virginia leaders", which is a bit of a stretch from the source, which says "[Washington] noted that he had conveyed his views to other leading Virginians." In addition to the Twohig quote, I would add:
  • Kenneth Morgan, p. 299, "After 1783...he began to express inner tensions about the problem of slavery more frequently, though always in private..."
  • Francois Furstenberg (2006) p. 83, "...although he was occasionally importuned, Washington never spoke out publicly against the institution." Factotem (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You are only summarizing those sources in the lead, and not the sources that show he lobbied Virginia leaders and offered to go public. The lead presently sounds like he did no more than chat with Martha. (Incidentally, almost everyone at that time agreed that the federal government had no role, it was up to each state, so when he lobbied Virginia leaders, that was basically all he could possibly do to achieve his goal of emancipation, and going public before the Assembly agreed to debate the petition would have been political suicide as well as futile.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He also chatted with Coke, and Asbury, and Brissot, and Lafayette, amongst others, but there is no source I know of that says he lobbied for abolition, at any time or to any public body. Another quote from Kenneth Morgan, pp. 299-300, "In most cases his comments on slavery occurred only after he had been asked to address the topic...He did not usually volunteer opinions on slavery of his own accord...In public, however, he maintained a deliberate silence on slavery, partly to help preserve the potentially fragile unity of the new nation, and partly because he seemed to have little specific notion that emancipation could come soon in Virginia or what shape or form it could take." Factotem (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
So when Morgan writes that Washington “had conveyed his views to other leading Virginians” you think those were his views about hydroponic gardening? As for doing it publicly, I never said he did, only that he offered to do so; the lead presently and misleadingly implies (1) that he wasn’t willing to go public, and (2) that his abolitionist opinions were not communicated to Virginia’s leadership. If this were a living person, we’d be calling this a BLP violation. Anythingyouwant (talk)
All of this is already in the article. Victoria (tk) 20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.“ Our lead misleads (pardon the pun). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: In your recent edits to the narrative on Asbury and Coke's visit to Washington, you have changed the narrative from...

  • Washington privately expressed support for emancipation to prominent Methodists Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury in 1785, but declined to sign their petition. Although he spoke to other leading Virginians about his sentiments and promised to write in support if the petition was considered in the Virginia Assembly, nothing further came of it.

...to...

  • Washington expressed support for emancipation legislation to prominent Methodists Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury in 1785, but declined to sign their petition. He privately conveyed his support for such legislation to most of Virginia's leaders, and promised to publicly support it if the Virginia Assembly would consider the Methodists' petition, but abolitionist legislators quickly withdrew rather than suffer inevitable defeat.

Please can you advise me:

  • Where does the word "legislation" come from? In relation to your first insertion of that word the sources talk only of the Methodists' petition, while in relation to your second insertion of that word they talk of abolitionist sentiment.
  • Where does "Virginia's leaders" come from? The sources talk of "leading Virginians" (Morgan) or "great men of the State" (Matthews). Given the context, the use of "Virginia's leaders" would strongly imply the Virginia government, which is not what the sources are saying.
  • Where do the words "publicly support it" come from? The sources state only that Washington agreed to send a supportive letter/signify his sentiments in a letter to the Assembly, with no indication that that was a public gesture.
  • Where does the idea that the Methodists withdrew rather than suffer inevitable defeat during the subsequent session of the Assembly come from, given that Matthews twice states that the petition was rejected by the Assembly?
  • Why has the "nothing further came from it" of the original been excised from the revised version, given that Morgan specifically states that and the sources on the subsequent Assembly session make no mention of any letter from Washington?

Thanks Factotem (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As you know, I also added a footnote, i.e. Matthews, titled "Notes on the proposed abolition of slavery in Virginia in 1785." Asbury and Coke were petitioning the Virginia Assembly because they were seeking abolition of slavery by law, which is what the Assembly could enact. Are you really disputing this? Are you really disputing that "Virginia's leaders" is synonymous with "leading Virginians" (Morgan) or "great men of the State" (Matthews)? If you want further details or responses on these points, then please let me know, but I think you might be getting a little picky. As for what happened in the Assembly, it became clear that the petition would be rejected, so the abolitionists backed off, see p. 12 of Matthews ("from Jefferson himself we get light as to the cause of the failure of the petition....). I excised "nothing further came from it" because I instead provided details about why and how nothing camee of it, i.e. the abolitionists backed off when they sensed it would be hopeless. As Flexner writes, "Putting first what he considered the more comprehensive battle for freedom, Washington limited himself to stating that, if an authentic movement toward emancipation could be started in Virginia, he would spring to its support. No such movement could be started." Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Challenging the introduction of terms that are not supported by the sources is not being picky, it's being diligent to the accurate representation of those sources. "Legislation", "Virginia's leaders", "public support"; none of these terms introduced in the edit accurately reflect what the sources state. And why have you selected one ambiguous statement from Matthews which does not even explicitly state that the abolitionist legislators withdrew, and ignored the two that explicitly state the petition was rejected ("Resolved, That the said petition be rejected", from the Journal of the House of Delegates, and "...it was rejected", from Madison in a letter to Washington)? Factotem (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Factotem, I have edited the paragraph to address your objections (footnotes omitted):

Washington expressed support for emancipation legislation to prominent Methodists Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury in 1785, but declined to sign their petition which (as Coke put it) asked "the General Assembly of Virginia, to pass a law for the immediate and gradual emancipation of all the slaves”. Washington privately conveyed his support for such legislation to most of the great men of Virginia, and promised to publicly support it if the Virginia Assembly would consider the Methodists' petition. The measure was rejected without any dissent in the Virginia House of Delegates, because abolitionist legislators quickly backed down rather than suffer inevitable defeat. As James Thomas Flexner has put it, "Washington limited himself to stating that, if an authentic movement toward emancipation could be started in Virginia, he would spring to its support. No such movement could be started."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement still states "publicly", with nothing in the sources to indicate that Washington's agreement "to send a supportive letter to the state assembly if it were to consider the petition" would have been a public statement. Also, is Flexner referring to Washington's conversation with Brissot in 1788? If so, that's already mentioned in the article. Factotem (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious from the context that Washington was behaving "publicly" there. A letter to a legislative body is presumed public unless something is indicated to the contrary, and anyway a private letter would have added nothing to what GW had already done. But, to satisfy your request, I have made this edit which specifically refers to the "public and undisguised" avowal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
"Obvious from the context" is not really how Wikipedia is sourced. Given the multiple reliable sources which state that Washington never spoke publicly on the issue, "explicit" is what is needed here. The edit you refer to cites an 1818 source written by the Methodist Samuel Drew and published for the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. In time-honoured FAC fashion, what makes it a reliable source? Factotem (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course, not everything written by a theologian is unreliable. Samuel Drew not only wrote about theology, but also about historical and biographical themes. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, he was very familiar with the subject of his book: “Drew continued to work at his trade till 1805, when he entered into an engagement with Dr Thomas Coke, a prominent Wesleyan official, which enabled him to devote himself entirely to literature.” There is no reason to think that what Coke told Drew is less reliable than what Coke might have told Samuel Johnson, for example. Moreover, Samuel Drew is cited in many many other Wikipedia articles, where no issue of reliability arose AFAIK.[2] Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed: The edit to the article is misleadingly ambiguous. Washington did not "promise in a public and undisguised way to support" the petition. His 'promise' was made privately, at the meeting with Asbury and Coke. As to whether that support would have been public had it actually been made (let's not forget, there is no evidence that it ever was made), I'm not quite convinced the 1818 source actually supports that and definitely not convinced that, given its age and closeness to the Methodist Church, it can be considered a suitably reliable source for this article. Maybe pagewatchers can weigh in with an opinion on that one. Factotem (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
No need, I found a better source for you: Ford, Lacy. Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South, p. 36 (Oxford University Press, Sep 3, 2009). Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The new source indicates Washington was dissembling about the public support, but there's no hint of that in the article. It still gives a false impression that Washington was more willing to go public than the reticence that multiple other sources state. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have cited two sources for the rather self-evident fact that Washington promised to go public for an emancipation law under certain circumstances, plus Flexner’s interpretation. Lacy Ford additionally speculated that Washington knew those conditions wouldn’t be met, but I’m not aware of any other source that says so too, and even if it’s true that doesn’t suggest Washington did not want the conditions to be met. He had a reputation for honesty, and I see no corroboration for the fact that he was lying to ministers of all people. Do you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
And one of those sources is disputed. That reminds me, you still haven't answered my question about whether Flexner's statement refers to Washington's meeting with Brissot in 1788. And Washington could deceive when he wanted to. Given that multiple sources state that Washington never spoke publicly about slavery, I think it important to be scrupulous in accurately representing any reliable source that might indicate otherwise. Ford clearly states that in all likelihood Washington was dissembling in his offer of public support. Why isn't that in the article? Factotem (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It is. Incidentally, when the libraries re-open, I hope to get Flexner's 4-volume bio. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Section called 'Mulattos' tiptoes around rape

The subject seemingly tiptoed around in the section is the forced sexual relations/rape of enslaved women by masters, their guests, and by overseers in the field. Oral histories state rape was widespread, and the children of rape were also enslaved even when the child's father was the master. Thus, the lines where the drunk overseer has sex are odd; the language vehemently denying Venus & GW had a child is naive - are there genetic tests which confirm or deny GW's paternity? Thanks for the attention. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We can only reflect what the sources say, and those dealing with slavery at Mount Vernon on this subject are properly represented in the article. If you have found other reliable sources, then by all means add them. I'm not sure the article "vehemently" denies the story of West Ford - it reflects the consensus in the reliable sources that West Ford was not Washington's son. No genetic test has been conducted. As I understand it, even if one was, it could confirm that the father was someone in the Washington line, if that was indeed the case, but not identify a specific individual in that line. Factotem (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Henriques says "There has never been a credible tale of George Washington taking advantage of a slave sexually". Do we reflect that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't accuse George Washington of racism

This edit accuses George Washington of racism. However, that is refuted by lots of other material in this article showing that Washington tried to convince Virginia leaders to ban slavery. Washington led a lot of people to death in war but that doesn't mean he hated them or thought they were inferior. Same with slavery. The idea that he was a racist is also explicitly refuted by the two sources cited at the end of the sentence in question:

Ellis writes: "Nor did he ever embrace the racial arguments for black inferiority that Jefferson advanced....He saw slavery as the culprit, preventing the development of diligence and responsibility that would emerge gradually and naturally after emancipation." Liebinger writes: "Unlike Jefferson, Washington and Madison rejected innate black inferiority...." Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Ykraps. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I did wonder whether to include something about racism, but was on the fence about whether it was in scope or not. As I recall the sources, they are in agreement that Washington's attitudes were not influenced by the colour of a person's skin. "Racism or lack thereof" is probably not the best section title, but "Racism" would be worse. Maybe "Attitudes towards race", but really not hugely important at this stage. Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The words “racist” and “racism” are simple, blunt, and straightforward which I like. Moreover, the heading “Racism or lack thereof” presents a simple dichotomy, that readers would like to choose from, and so I think we need to focus in that section on whether he was or he wasn’t rather than just piling on a lot of related facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
"presents a simple dichotomy, that readers would like to choose from" Misleadingly simple, when it ignores the context of Washington's ideas on the topic. To what extent were his views influenced by Enlightenment ideals, what was his view on the emerging Abolitionism movement, and how he treated either his own slaves or the Free Negroes, can't be summarized with a "yes or no" reply. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So this is where we pay obeisance to the Obelisk of Wokeness or don't. The terms "racist" or "racism", at least insofar as any personal "accusation" is concerned, really don't make sense in a late eighteenth century context, due to the anachronism of the current usage, so the right thing to do, the consistent thing as I understand policies here would be to limit to the known or sourced facts on the matter of his dealings with slavery. Isn't it enough that it's race based slavery without having to make a pronouncement? Lycurgus (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant and Factotem An African slave owner in colonial US is inherently racist; an article on GW owning/buying/breeding humans to be his slaves in itself accuses and then rightfully condemns him of being racist. Founding fathers don't get a special wiki pass for racist or sexist behaviors, regardless of the context. So, it's rather impossible to contemplate/write about whether or not GW was racist. GW also participated in the genocide of Indigenous Americans, as a racist. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone can certainly be a crappy human being without being a racist. Our maximum security prisons here in the United States are presently full of people who are not racists. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm finding it difficult to see how one can keep slaves, expect them to be grateful for it, and not be racist. Perhaps less racist than was fashionable at the time but racist nevertheless. Still, you must stick to what sources say.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure many slaveholders in Virginia would have been delighted to have slaves of any color if they could safely get away with it. Greed is a strong motive. Anyway, I added a section to the article about racism. The US Constitution, by the way, says it's perfectly legal to enslave prisoners who have ben lawfully jailed, regardless of their race. Personally, I don't think Washington himself was a crappy person, or greedy; but he was very ambitious, he wanted to succeed under whatever rules applied to his peers, even as he sought to change those rules in the name of justice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Washington Decided to Become a Northerner if the Union Broke Apart Because of Slavery

User:Snowfire deleted this:

According to Washington biographer James Thomas Flexner, Washington as President helped build "an alternate economic system to slavery", he understood that the union would fail if slavery persisted in the Southern states, and in that event “he had made up his mind to move and be of the Northern."fn

Snowfire's edit summary stated:

last sentence is disproportionate. Lots of people thought slavery would eventually fade away in 1790-1820 or so before the cotton gin. Washington didn't ACTUALLY build an alternate economic system, as the history of the Antebellum South would show.

First of all, it's extremely relevant that he was prepared to become a northerner, and this shows where his sympathies really lay. As for endorsing Hamilton's economic plans over Jefferson's objections, that was critical to strengthening northern economic power that was needed not only to clobber the South politically but also militarily and numerically. In 1776, there was also considerable slavery in northern states, e.g. over 10% of the state of New York was enslaved, and NYC had more slaves than all but one other US city; Hamilton's innovations helped wean the north off slavery. Anyway, the deleted material was well-sourced, and just because it does not support this article's narrative is no reason to delete it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Paging User:SnowFire Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Meaning you actually expect objectivity from Wikipedia on social issues, when it has largely seemingly been taken over by Howard Zinn sympathizers. At least he is not referenced here, yet out of 276 references, only 8 are actually linked to a accessible page for verification . Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Turns out I overlooked that this was already in the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not "woke" but current written standards

Congratulations for having an article featured. I must say the current written standard used to discuss the historic institution of the kidnapping, transportation and enslavement of Africans, which was a form of genocide, is the use of the terms 'enslaved men' or 'enslaved women' or 'enslaved children' instead of the dehumanizing term of 'slave'. I suggest this change be filtered throughout the article. Additionally, the article subtly reads like a apologists' version of GW's enslavement of people, regardless of the context. The language belies the apologist's POV repeatedly, where simply stated facts would better report the subject in an encyclopedic style. I could offer a list of changes if this point is difficult to understand. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Examples would be appreciated! Muttnick (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Muttnick, an example is in the opening, "the people he kept in slavery", instead of the old-fashioned "his slaves" or something like that. I have not gone through the article to see how much of Pasdecomplot's (valid) comment applies. I have tried to keep that in mind while writing Redoshi, and to make that a part of my speech, and to consider that in every article I edit (but I'm an old person, and old habits die hard). There was a meme floating around Facebook a while ago, saying that European slavetraders didn't take "slaves"--they took carpenters, wives, philosophers, hunters, traders, storytellers, lovers, children, etc. I thought that was instructive. BTW, again, I have not read the entire article, so I cannot respond to Pasdecomplot's second point--and I now see, Muttnick, that you were probably asking about the second rather than the first point. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Instructive either way! I haven't touched this article but believe Pasdecomplot's suggestions should be followed through. Muttnick (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you do not appear to be an en wiki editor with much experience. In any case it's clear that you give flesh to the social justice warrior concept so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Lycurgus (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And here's the essential thing about SJWing: it doesn't really go very deep. From the 1960s to now, yes there is change but is it fundamental? Do the woke even know what that is? Isn't it provoked obliviousness/ignorance which can be waited out, placated with PR and D&I? To me it sounds like hysterical bleatings from people that have no idea what real fundamental change for the better in society would be like and likely would be hostile to it if they did as it would run up against various of their own prejudices and cherished beliefs. Lycurgus (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good example Drmies. And Lycurgus, could and would you please define 'social justice warrior' and 'SJWing'? 'PR' and/or 'D&I'? I'm unfamiliar with the slang, and didn't read about those terms in the Ayn Rand fantasy novels. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
PR: press/public relations. D&I: diversity and inclusion. Lycurgus (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Lycurgus, surely an editor with your experience would be aware of WP:FORUM. I'm an old white guy; people like me are probably not the best to judge whether there's been fundamental change, though I imagine that for a Black person in the South there have been, ahem, some pretty big changes. But hey, not a forum, right? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Difference between "Was" and "Was Not"

How was this article started with George Washington was "not" a slave owner, followed by a sympathetic statement, of opionin: "George Washington became uneasy with slavery towards the end of his life, releasing them via emancipation upon his death." That is the most ridiculous grouping of sentences. He was a slave owner, regardless of the historical context, or end results. Brosbeforebro (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This appears to have been (at least partly) the result of an anonymous edit which you happened to be the first to catch. -- N8 01:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of The Life of the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D. by Samuel Drew

Queried at WP:RSN - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Life_of_the_Rev._Thomas_Coke,_LL.D.,_by_Samuel_Drew Factotem (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington_and_slavery&type=revision&diff=964243730&oldid=964239717 Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Asbury & Coke petition

According to the article after recent edits, The historian Lacy Ford writes, "In all likelihood, Washington was honest about his general desire for gradual emancipation but dissembled about his willingness to speak publicly on its behalf", in the sense that he likely foresaw that the petition would not get anywhere in the Assembly. The measure was rejected without any dissent in the Virginia House of Delegates, because abolitionist legislators quickly backed down rather than suffer inevitable defeat, and thus Washington was released from any obligation to go public. (my emphasis).

  • No RS talks of Washington forseeing that the petition would not get anywhere.
  • The only RS to mention the release of Washington's obligation to go public is Ford, who writes that Washington "almost certainly reasoned that the legislature would table the petition immediately and thus release him from any obligation to comment publicly on the matter." He does not support the claim that Washington was released from his obligation because abolitionist legislators backed down.

Further, Coke's quoted statement asking "the General Assembly of Virginia, to pass a law for the immediate and gradual emancipation of all the slaves" does not appear in either of the sources provided for that sentence (and both "immediate" and "gradual" emancipation? How does that work?). I've fixed these problems in this edit Factotem (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement about asking "the General Assembly of Virginia, to pass a law for the immediate and gradual emancipation of all the slaves" is in Matthews.[3] I will restore it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I have expanded the Lacy Ford quote, to say "In all likelihood, Washington was honest about his general desire for gradual emancipation but dissembled about his willingness to speak publicly on its behalf; the Mount Vernon master almost certainly reasoned that the legislature would table the petition immediately...." Alternatively, we could delete that whole quote, since it's somewhat speculative. Either way is fine with me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Ford also wrote that tabling the petition would "release him from any obligation to comment publicly on the matter." Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your question about what "immediate and gradual emancipation" meant, it meant gradual emancipation that would begin immediately. Flexner writes that the petition was "asking the Virginia General Assembly to legislate gradual emancipation." For example, children might gain full freedom upon reaching, for men, age 25, and for women, age 21; and even though that might begin immediately, it obviously would not free everyone immediately. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
So now the statement asserts, ...the tabling of the petition released Washington from any obligation to speak publicly about it., which not only does not make sense – Washington specifically promised to write in support of the petition if it was tabled in the Assembly – but is also not supported in the source. The expansion of the quote in this edit stopped short of a more accurate representation of the source, which states in full "the Mount Vernon master almost certainly reasoned that the legislature would table the petition immediately and thus release him from any obligation to comment publicly on the matter." (my emphasis). I've removed the unsourced statement and expanded the quote with this edit to properly represent Washington's dissembling about going public and the reasons for it as covered in the source.Factotem (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That seems like a trivial change to me, so I don't object to it at this time (we already said the petition was tabled immediately and quickly, so referring later to the tabling of the petition impliedly includes the manner in which it was tabled). I also object to use of the portion of the Lacy Ford quote regarding "dissembling", because (1) it is speculative regarding Washington's reasoning; (2) it is not corroborated by any other source in that regard; (3) it does not consider Washington's letter to Lafayette; and (4) it is contradicted by Flexner. The reason to include it seems to be that it goes out of its way to paint Washington negatively. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: speculation: per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia is built upon an "author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." What is Flexner's assertion that Washington "undoubtedly would have failed to achieve the end of slavery...", added in this edit but the speculation of an author? Factotem (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The quote is included because assertions were being repeatedly added to the article that were not supported in the sources cited for those assertions, as discussed above. Further, given that multiple sources state unequivocally that Washington never spoke publicly on the issue, it's a significant point of interest that he promised on one occasion to go public (and kudos to you for unearthing that), which should rightfully be covered fully and comprehensively. Factotem (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: we already said the petition was tabled immediately and quickly Not sure what you're driving at here, but the petition was tabled in the Assembly five months after Washington's meeting with Asbury & Coke (Thompson p. 68). Not sure that qualifies either as immediate or quick, and begs the question of why there is no mention of Washington meeting his obligation to write in support, especicially when we know from Madison that after the petition was tabled, it received "an avowed patronage of its principles by sundry respectable members" (Matthews p. 12). Unfortunately there's nothing in the sources I have seen to explain that. Factotem (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Morgan quote in the Attitude to race section.

Re: the statement in the article: Morgan relies upon a 1794 letter written by Washington. According to Albert Tillson, that letter written by Washington in 1794 indicates that he sought to prevent socialization between his slaves and a certain white family who had inferior (not superior) habits. added to the article in this edit which follows the Morgan quote in the Attitude to race section:

  • My source, which I neglected to cite (my bad - corrected now), makes no reference to a 1794 letter in relation to the Morgan Quote.
  • The assertion that Morgan's statement relies upon a 1794 letter written by Washington is cited to that letter, a WP:PRIMARY source that makes no mention of Morgan
  • As the assertion that Morgan's statement relies on that letter is not supported by the source provided, I've removed it with this edit.
  • As the last sentence relies on that assertion, I've removed that too. Factotem (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Your source, which you neglected to cite at first but is cited now (thanks), does indeed make reference to a 1794 letter in relation to the Morgan quote. Look at your cited source: Morgan, Kenneth (2000). "George Washington and the Problem of Slavery". Journal of American Studies. Cambridge University Press. 34 (2): 279–301. doi:10.1017/S0021875899006398. JSTOR 27556810. The pertinent paragraph at page 285 of that journal article says, "Washington's engrained sense of racial superiority to African Americans did not lead to expressions of negrophobia...Washington wanted his white workers to be housed away from the blacks at Mt. Vernon, believing that close racial intermixture was undesirable." The only footnote connected with those two sentences by Kenneth Morgan is his footnote 31 which says, "George Washington to William Pearce, 2 No. 1794, in Fitzpatrick, d., Writings of George Washington, 34, 13." It is perfectly reasonable for us to say in this article that the 1794 letter in question shows Washington believed his slaves had better habits than the white family in question, not worse habits, and this was explained by the material you deleted:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to parse and that's why it's best to stick to the secondary sources. On page 285 Morgan writes

Yet Washington wanted his white workers to be housed away from the blacks at Mount Vernon, believing that close racial intermixture was undesirable.31

Footnote 31 sends us to this passage in this book.
Washington's letter is difficult to parse, in that we don't quite know who he's referring to. The one sentence that does make sense is this,

Donaldson and family will get disgusted by living among the Negroes if he is still in the Green house

- not sure who "he" is?
Tillson adds a footnote on page 341, [4], saying

Washington added that he expected such accommodations would eventually disgust the white family

, source
My sense is that there are issues to be sorted out here, or leave the text as it was. Generally it's best not to rewrite featured articles without gaining some sort of consensus or engaging in discussions on the talk page, but it appears that's been lacking here. Plenty of people have this page on watch - its expansion came in the wake of a looong discussion elsewhere & I suspect that like me, others put this page on watch. I'd like to hear for talk page watchers. Not crazy to see the text tagged when in fact the sentence here adheres to the source. Victoria (tk) 18:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This one-sentence paragraph quoting Kenneth Morgan is the only source we use for the assertion that Washington was a racist and white supremacist. This is not only contradicted by the other sources we cite, but is also apparently contradicted by the deleted Albert Tillson source which says Washington was concerned that a white family had worse habits than his slaves, not better habits. That’s why this one-sentence paragraph in this Wikipedia biography is deeply problematic, the sourcing for it is insufficient, and the deletion of contrary analysis of the same incident in Washington’s life is very dubious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The 'contrary analysis' added in this edit was deleted because it was not based on reliable sources. The assertion that "Morgan relies upon a 1794 letter written by Washington" was based on the conclusion of a Wikipedia editor who clearly misread the source. Factotem (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
This article says GW had an “engrained sense of racial superiority to African Americans”. That is the very essence of racism and white supremacy, User:Victoriaearle. It may be true, but it needs much better sourcing, as Kenneth Morgan apparently gives no explanation that makes any sense. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I have given this another try in the article, using the note that Victoriaearle helpfully found in Tillson's book, and omitting any direct mention of the primary source. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Anythingyouwant's statement, The pertinent paragraph at page 285 of that journal article says, "Washington's engrained sense of racial superiority to African Americans did not lead to expressions of negrophobia...Washington wanted his white workers to be housed away from the blacks at Mt. Vernon, believing that close racial intermixture was undesirable." The only footnote connected with those two sentences by Kenneth Morgan is his footnote 31...

  • Wrong. The first sentence about Washington's engrained sense of racial superioriy is supported in the source by Morgan with footnote 30.
  • Footnote 31 references only Morgan's second sentence, about Washington wanting his white workers to be housed away from the slaves. Factotem (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Footnote 30 comes at the end of this sentence: “In this respect he can be contrasted with Madison, who never expressed sentiments that blacks were inferior to whites, and with Jefferson, whose negrophobia is evident in his Notes on the State of Virginua and his reaction to the impact of the Saint Domingue slavery rebellion on the United States.30”. Naturally, I inferred that footnote 30 discusses Madison and Jefferson rather than Washington; none of the three sources cited in footnote 30 have titles that mention Washington, but those titles do mention Madison and Jefferson. I have not looked at those three sources yet, but I will. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
So footnote 30 does not apply because it comes at the end of the next sentence, but footnote 31, which comes two sentences later, does? How does that work then? Factotem (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The only sentence in that paragraph by Morgan that gave any REASON for thinking GW a racist was followed immediately by footnote 31. If footnote 30 substantiates the racism charge, then I will soon find out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Morgan’s footnote 30 cites three sources:

•Winthrop D. Jordan, “White Over Black, American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812”, pp. 436-440 and 457-460.

•Drew R. McCoy, “Slavery”, in Rutland ed. “James Madison and the American Nation 1751-1836: An Encyclopedia” , p. 380 (1994).

•Paul Finkelman. “Jefferson and Slavery: Treason Against the Hopes of the World”, in Onuf ed. “Jeffersonian Legacies”, pp. 184-185, 219 n. 109.

I can say definitely that the last one (Finkelman) does not mention Washington at all, at the cited places. I don’t know yet about the first two (Jordan and McCoy). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Same for the first one (Jordan). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The correct way to dispute Morgan's conclusion that Washington had an engrained sense of racial superiority is to cite reliable sources that dispute it, not conduct your own research into how Morgan came to that conclusion. Factotem (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You have specifically pointed me to the sources in footnote 30 (all of them secondary sources rather than primary sources) as being relevant to this Wikipedia article. Now I’ve shown two out of three of them are not relevant to the claim that Washington was racist. I agree with you that this has not been a wise use of your time or mine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
No. I simply corrected your mistaken statement about the footnotes in Morgan's paper, that's all. Why are you digging through the sources Morgan cites at all? Surely you know that anything you come up with will be your own research, ineligible for use in Wikipedia until you get that research published. Factotem (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said, the sources in footnote 30 are secondary sources, and as such are perfectly valid for us to use if they were relevant, which they aren’t. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement in lead about Washington's timing

I've removed from the lead with this edit the statement he chose this timing partly so as not to break up marriages and families in view of his wife’s decision to keep the slaves she owned or controlled for as long as she still lived., because:

  • It is not supported in the main body of the article;
  • Washington chose to provide for the emancipation of his slaves after his death because he could find no way to free them during his life, as discussed in the main body of the article;
  • Martha did not "decide" to keep the slaves she controlled "as long as she lived". She decided to free those slaves that formerly belonged to Washington more than a year before her own death;
  • The rest of the slaves under her control were dower slaves belonging to the Custis estate, not to her, and she therefore had no right to decide anything about their freedom.
  • Martha owned precisely one slave herself, and this was the only slave whose fate she was free to decide for herself. Factotem (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently says,

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

The language I proposed was

George Washington was a Founding Father of the United States and a slaveowner who became uneasy with the institution of slavery and provided for the emancipation of his slaves after his and his wife’s deaths; he chose this timing partly so as not to break up marriages and families in view of his wife’s decision to keep the slaves she owned or controlled for as long as she still lived.

Washington provided for emancipation upon his and his wife’s deaths, not upon his death alone, or at some vague date after his death. As this article says, "his remaining 123 slaves were to be emancipated on the death of Martha." That's what he provided for, whether Martha expedited it or not. So let's say in the lead sentence that he provided for emancipation upon his and his wife’s deaths (it only requires three extra words). Saying that he provided for emancipation upon his death is inaccurate, but that's what most readers would gather from the current language. And why not give some clue in the lead paragraph why he chose this timing? Certainly part of the reason was to not break up marriages and families, as this article says: "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 20 couples and their children." We also already say that, "Privately, Washington considered freeing all the slaves he controlled in the mid-1790s, but could not realize this because of his economic dependence on them and the refusal of his family to cooperate." Martha's children were both dead by 1781, which substantially affected the legal fate of the dower slaves, and this fact would probably be worth explaining in the body of the article. I'm a bit unclear about whether Martha could have insisted that the dower slaves be allowed to leave Mount Vernon until her grandchildren reached majority and could then decide their fate. Anyway, I'm kind of busy right now, so may not respond right away. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just updated the lead in an effort to meet your objections:

George Washington was the preeminent Founding Father of the United States and a slaveowner who became uneasy with the institution of slavery, and provided in his will for the emancipation of his slaves upon his wife’s death. He explained that he did not divest his family of those slaves earlier because of his principled aversion to selling human beings like cattle, and also because he wanted to postpone breaking up marriages and families given that many of the slaves at his Mount Vernon estate were not owned by him.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The only reason Washington gives in his will for postponing emancipation was to avoid breaking up marriages. I've edited the statement accordingly in this edit. Factotem (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Why limit ourselves to statements he made in his will? He also said in 1794, "Were it not then, that I am principled agt. [sic] selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market, I would not, in twelve months from this date, be possessed of one as a slave." Did he not? And, I very strongly object to your phrase in the lead “that were owned by him” instead of “who were owned by him”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Because the timing referred to in the first sentence relates solely to his reasons for freeing his slaves after his wife's death, not to the reasons why he failed to free his slaves in his lifetime. Good catch on "who". Factotem (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement in lead about conveying views to leading Virginians

Re: this statement in the lead: He expressed support in private for the abolition of slavery by a gradual legislative process after the war, he conveyed those abolitionist views to other leading Virginians to no avail, and Washington remained dependent on slave labor. I've removed with this edit the bolded clause because:

  • the conveyance of abolitionist views is implicit in the preceding statement about the expression of support in private;
  • there is no evidence that Washington intended to avail anyone of anything when he conveyed his views to leading Virginians in 1785. The source simply states Washington "had signified his thoughts on the subject to most of the great men of the State."
  • Multiple reliable sources state that Washington never spoke publicly on the issue of slavery. We should not therefore be giving the impression in the lead, as that clause does, that he lobbied for emancipation, especially not based off a single event which does not explicitly state that he was trying to avail anyone of anything on that subject. Factotem (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We absolutely do need to give readers some indication in the lead about whether his abolitionist comments were limited to the confines of his household, as opposed to being shared throughout the state in an effort to get results. I will gather further information about it, and get back to it later. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem with clarifying that he communicated his views widely. The problem lies with any implication that that represented lobbying, unless there is evidence in the sources that explicitly state he was lobbying. I haven't come across any. Factotem (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Adequacy of food, clothing, accommodation

This edit deleted the statement that food, clothing, and accommodation were not always adequate. I favor that deletion partly because adequacy is a somewhat subjective and squishy concept, and also because there are reliable sources that say those things were “at least adequate.” See for example Dorothy Twohig who we already cite extensively. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Or we could turn to Thompson, whose more recent research is more detailed than Twohig's passing mention:
  • On food: Modern estimates...suggest that, at least calorically, the rations given the slaves were adequate. The same is not necessarily true in regard to the nutritional value of the limited foods provided to the enslaved, which would have left them susceptible to compromised immune systems and disease. She then discusses the generally good health of the slaves, and concludes, Given the deficiencies of the basic diet, the slaves themselves found ways to rectify the shortcomings in their rations. (p. 222)
  • On clothing: The limited number of clothes given annually to each person meant that for many months, people would be wearing fabrics that were worn, perhaps enough to see through, ripped, and tattered... (p. 178).
  • We could also turn to Wiencek, who also provides more details on clothing than Twohig's passing mention: Washington's own records indicate that the slaves were miserably clothed...With no change of pants or petticoat, these men and women were expected to carry out a year of field labor. Within months their clothing must have been reduced to mere rags...The clothing shortage among the slaves was occasionally even more acute than the normal scarcity. (pp. 123-124)
  • Back to Thompson now on accommodation: Evidence from several documentary sources indicates that the cabins used by the Mount Vernon slaves were often poorly constructed. & ...some of the People...complain much of the leakiness of their Houses. & The French prince Louis-Philippe recorded in the spring of 1797 that the slaves were "housed in wretched wooden shacks" & Not only were such cabins leaky and drafty, they were also dangerous. (p. 170)
I've restored the text ", which was not always adequate" to the lead. The "not always" avoids the expression of an absolute and accommodates the discrepancy in the different sources. Factotem (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentences in Evolution of Washington's attitudes section

I've restored with this edit the beginning of this section to the original...

  • Washington's early views on slavery were no different from any Virginia planter of the time. He demonstrated no moral qualms about the institution and referred to his slaves as "a Species of Property."

...replacing the recently edited version which read...

  • Washington's early views on slavery were typical of any Virginia planter of the time. There is some evidence that he showed kindness and humanity toward slaves, but no evidence that he had moral qualms about the institution itself, as a young man. He referred to slaves as "a Species of Property", which reflected their legal status, and he would continue to refer to them that way in later life when he favored their liberation.

...because:

  • The kindness and humanity bit is repetition, already covered earlier in the article when discussing the treatment of sick slaves;
  • "as a young man" is implicit in the very first words "Washington's early views...";
  • Ellis states on p. 45 only that Washington referred to his slaves as a Species of Property. He says nothing about the term reflecting slaves' legal status or Washington referring to his slaves that way in later life when he favoured emancipation. Factotem (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
You deleted the footnote pointing readers to page 257 of Ellis. Why? You incorrectly assume that, because there is no evidence of qualms, then there were no qualms. There is also a distinction between having no moral qualms about the institution of slavery, as distinguished from having no moral concerns about slaves' welfare, which is a distinction well worth mentioning to avoid confusion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Because you're not formatting references according to the simple <ref>Author year pagenumber</ref> standard adopted in this article, and I missed the page ref in what I thought was just a google books link. My bad. No. I do not "incorrectly assume that, because there is no evidence of qualms, then there were no qualms." I reflect the source's statement that "At this stage of [Washington's] life, however, there is no evidence of any moral anxiety about owning other human beings." Finally, the statement in the article that Washington "demonstrated no moral qualms about the institution" makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about the institution of slavery. His concerns for the welfare of the slaves are covered in detail earlier in the article, and do not need repeating. Factotem (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless you ask me to stop putting external links into footnotes, I’ll keep doing so, because it seems very helpful for verifiability, accessibility, et cetera (not to mention facilitating informed discussion of footnoted stuff that is still in flux). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Up to you. I would prefer all references to follow the same format, but MOS requires only that the appearance be consistent when the article is displayed. We are not required to be helpful in terms of verifiability, accessibility etc., and attempts to do so with gbooks links are often more problematical than they are useful. Gbooks is not consistent in the information it provides – it will often list one edition but preview a different edition. Different editions can have different pagination which could mess with the page numbers in refs. The availability of previews varies across territories, which undermines the accessibility thing. I've also seen complaints that gbooks is a business, inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals, and should not therefore be favoured in this way. We are required only to cite the sources unambiguously, which inline means author, year and page(s). Full details of the work should appear in the Bibliography, something you should be doing when you add new sources such as Flexner and Ford but so far haven't. Factotem (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving around Mount Vernon

Our lead says: “Washington allocated slaves to farms according to the demands of the business without regard for their relationships...."

But, George Washington: Anguish and Farewell by Flexner (p. 443) says, "As far back as his Revolutionary service, he had ordered his manager not to move any of his blacks, even to one of his own distant plantations, unless they agreed. They almost never agreed. When he wrote that he wished to ‘gratify’ a slave, he was sure to be explaining some uneconomic action that prevented the breaking of familiar ties."

So, was it the case that he wouldn't generally force any slave to move, but he also wouldn't allow them to move without a good business reason? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Per Wiencek, pp. 122–123:
But [Washington] showed no concern for keeping families together day by day. He routinely separated husbands from wives and fathers from their children...If he had only one central slave quarters, then the workers would expend valuable time 'commuting' to work at outlying fields. As he wrote, he was determined to avoid losing 'much time in marching and countermarching.' But he needed more skilled workers, who were male, at the main house, so the result of his division of laborers was that many families lived apart—husbands at the 'Home Farm,' wives and children on the outlying farms...From time to time Washington responded to individual pleas and rescinded orders that would have separated spouses; but as a general management practice he institutionalized an indifference to the stability of the slave families.
More detail about Washington rescinding orders from time to time that would have separated spouses and Washington's institutionalized indifference has been added to the article in this edit, and his occasional concession has been accommodated in the lead by amending it to state "generally without regard for their relationships..." in this edit. Factotem (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

According to Encyclopedia.com, “Emancipation is the process of freeing slaves through government action. Manumission takes place when masters free their slaves voluntarily. When a government ends slavery completely, the process is known as abolition.”[5] If that’s correct then we need to go through the article and make sure we’re using these terms consistently. We might also want to insert a sentence explaining these three terms. If such a sentence is inserted after the lead, it might be best for the lead to use none of these terms and instead stick to everyday language that conveys the same meaning. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We have a specific article on manumission. We could simply link to it. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, a link is all that is necessary. Check if you like, but I'm aware of the difference between manumission and abolition, and don't believe I've confused the two in my contributions. Factotem (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead says he emancipated his slaves, but would manumitted be more correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've tended to use emancipation and manumission interchangeably, but if you think there's a distinction, by all means change it in the article. Factotem (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Later

I’ve made a few more tweaks to the lead that seem useful. I’ll be taking a break now for awhile. Thanks for the recent improvements, it would have been difficult to do this during the FAC process, I think. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In this edit, amended with this edit I've reverted in the lead the statement...
In 1778, Washington confided that he wished to somehow “get quit” of his slaves, but expressed distaste for selling them at a public venue, and for splitting up families by any sale; until 1782, Virginia law made it very difficult to set slaves free.
...back to...
The first indication of moral doubt about the institution appeared during efforts to sell some of his slaves in 1778 when Washington expressed distaste for selling them at a public venue and his desire that slave families not be split up as a result of the sale.
There is no "somehow" about it, and the prevailing Virginian emancipation laws are irrelevant to this point. Ellis is unequivocal about Washington wanting to sell his slaves, a desire driven by business imperatives, writing:
"It was a hardheaded business decision rooted in his conviction that slave labor was more inefficient and costly than free labor. And he was thinking about selling his slaves into bondage to others, not freeing them. His train of thought about slavery at Mount Vernon was apparently not driven by idealistic considerations but by realistic calculations about profit and loss." (His emphasis, p. 164).
The amendment to clarify that it was moral doubt about the institution of slavery is there because, as has been quite rightly identified, Washington denounced the slave trade on moral grounds in 1774 in the Fairfax Resolves. The trap here, of course, is that the slave trade and the institution of slavery are two separate things. Factotem (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Except that one created the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Circular to the States

Re:

  • Before resigning his commission in 1783, Washington wrote a Circular to the States discussing the future of the country; mindful of keeping the military subservient to civilian authority, his Circular did not mention slavery per se, and even then the Circular was considered an "unsolicited intrusion" by some state legislators.

...at the end of the "American Revolution" section. The second clause strongly implies that Washington did not mention slavery in the Circular because he was wary of keeping the military subservient to civilian authority. But as Twohig states, in issuing the Circular at all Washington "abandoned his usual deferential posture toward civilian authority to issue what was in effect his final policy statement" in which he "advocated the establishment of an 'indissoluble Union of the states under one Federal Head,' ". At a time of deep mistrust about the intentions of a man at the head of a victorious army, Washington felt no compunction about going beyond his military authority to make a political statement about the issues facing the new Republic. The lack of any explicit mention about slavery, and his vehement insistence in negotiations with the British that they return slaves who had escaped to British lines, gives us an insight into Washington's attitudes to the institution at the end of the war. I've amended the above with this edit to read:

  • Before resigning his commission in 1783, Washington took the opportunity to give his opinion on the opportunities and challenges that faced the new nation in his Circular to the States, but made no explicit mention of slavery. Factotem (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also edited the lead to reflect the main body, changing...

  • His public statements upon retiring from the military in 1783 showed no sentiments about slavery, and he had taken care as a military man to remain subservient to civilian authority in suggesting policy changes.

...to...

  • At the end of the war Washington demanded the return of slaves held by the British, and his public statement on resigning his commission about the challenges facing the new Republic made no explicit mention of slavery. Factotem (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You’ve entirely deleted from this article that Washington usually had a deferential posture toward civilian authority. As Twohig stated, GW had a “usual deferential posture toward civilian authority.” This well-sourced information is relevant to why GW’s Circular did not say anything pro-slavery or anything anti-slavery. You also entirely deleted (without any explanation) the reliable UNC source saying that even the Circular’s very limited discussion of future challenges encountered objections from civilian authorities: “the Circular was considered an ‘unsolicited intrusion’ by some state legislators. Main, Jackson. The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788, p. 94 (UNC Press Books, 2004).” I understand that you want to make an argument here, but please at least do it without trying to wipe out reliable relevant sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This well-sourced information is relevant to why GW’s Circular did not say anything pro-slavery or anything anti-slavery. Wrong. The closest Twohig comes to explaining why Washington omitted slavery from the Circular is in the statement, "But if, at this stage of his career, he had entertained convictions about slavery strong enough to deviate from [military subservience to civilian authority], his best opportunity presented itself when...he abandoned his usual deferential posture toward civilian authority to issue what was in effect his final policy statement...In the circular there is no mention of slavery per se or of its impact on the nature of the new Republic..." The clear implication is that Washington omitted any explicit mention of slavery because he did not entertain any strong conviction about slavery at this point. There is certainly no support from Twohig that he omitted slavery out of deference to civilian authority - the Circular, coming as it did from the general of a victorious army, was in its entirety an affront to civilian authority, which is why it attracted such criticism. Factotem (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of info about switch from tobacco crops

This article correctly says Washington switched from tobacco crops in the 1760s, but does not suggest why. This article also says that this left GW with a costly surplus but does not suggest why it was costly. We’ve already had article instability because of this (e.g. this article edit said “he could have freed but chose instead to continue subjugating them“). So I tried to fix this problem by explaining in the body of the article why the switch from tobacco was made, and why this left GW with a costly surplus of slaves. But this edit deleted that explanation. Here is the edit summary:

Irrelevant - article is not about other "Others in Virginia" but about Washington, for whom there is no evidence the transition to grain crops and its consequent surplus of enslaved people at Mt. Vernon prompted any consideration of setting any of them free).

And here’s part of the deleted material:

Others in Virginia had made a similar transition from tobacco because of the falling tobacco price, and they too experienced a surplus of slaves, which prompted consideration of setting some slaves free....*

The cited source refers to both GW and other farmers. This material answers why they all switched and why it caused them to think about freeing the surplus, and the source refers to BOTH GW and others. I also described the reason why that would have been very difficult (i.e. the manumission law, until amended in 1782, made it very difficult to free slaves). Anyway, I object to deletion of very relevant and well-sourced material. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why Washington switched crops is a tangent that is not really relevant - it's enough to simply state that he did. And the article does indeed state that the transition "from the labor-intensive planting of tobacco to the less demanding farming of grain crops" was the reason why he was left with a costly surplus of enslaved people. The reason I made the deletion is because "Others in Virginia...[also]...experienced a surplus of slaves, which prompted consideration of setting some slaves free...." creates a link between surplus slaves and emancipation. Other Virginians may well have considered emancipation as the solution to their surplus problem, but there's no evidence in the sources that Washington did at this stage, so we should not be implying that he did in the article. As discussed elsewhere on this TP, Washington's first instinct to solve this problem was to sell his enslaved workers, not free them. Factotem (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Anyway, I’ve amended the lead sentence: “George Washington was the preeminent Founding Father of the United States, and the history of Washington and slavery is the story of a slaveowner who became uneasy with that institution.” Okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not OK. This is a form of "[Subject] refers to..." which is specifically deprecated by MOS:FIRST. We discussed this at length at FAC, including the need to avoid distorting the text simply to get the bolded title in, contrary to MOS:AVOIDBOLD. I've restored the first sentence to something more akin to that which achieved consensus during FAC. Factotem (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
First of all your edit deleted wikilinks to “dower” and “Mount Vernon” for no reason that I can discern. Secondly, the proposed lead sentence is not dictionary-style at all, no one who reads it would think it attempts to define any word at all. Thirdly, the version of this article at FAC is not fixed in stone, particularly when a proposal was not discussed there and the version that was discussed there was supported by a margin of only one !vote (two editors with another editor dissenting). Fourth, this article has already encountered problems with readers thinking this is the main GW article, as you know, and that would not have happened if the title were in bold in the first paragraph which is the normal style described in Wikipedia guidelines. Fifth, your edit replaced “black people held as slaves” with simply “slaves” without any reason, which I find dehumanizing, and in any event this will destabilize the article as other editors will continue to make this kind of change. Other than that, though, I think your edit was fine! Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1. Missing wikilinks are the least of this article's problems, and easily fixed;
2. ???
3. No, it is not fixed in stone, but however thinly attended that discussion was, it represents more of a consensus than your proposed changes.
4. That confusion was generated by the main page blurb when this article was at TFA, not something that will be repeated. If someone is unable to see that an article titled "George Washington and slavery" is not the main article, I don't see how a bolded title in the first sentence is going to help them. I did add a hatnote to the article with this edit, to help such people, but that was removed in this edit with ES "remove unneeded hatnote - the article is titled "George Washington and slavery", how anyone could think it was about washington in general is baffling."
5. I learned at FAC that "African-American" was preferable to a colour-based terminology. I've started changing "slaves" to the more humanising "enslaved..." throughout the article. Factotem (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider the Wikipedia article The Story of a Mother. The lead sentence is “’The Story of a Mother’ (Danish: Historien om en moder) is a story by the Danish poet, travel writer, short story writer and novelist Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875).” That’s perfectly fine, just like a zillion other lead sentences at Wikipedia, and it does not read like a dictionary definition at all. Same for the lead sentence proposed for this article. I just don’t understand how you could think otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk)

Proposal:
George Washington was a Founding Father of the United States and a slaveowner. He became disillusioned with the institution of slavery on economic grounds before the American Revolution, and came to recognize it as incompatible with the principles upon which the Revolution was based. After the Revolution, he repeatedly expressed support for abolition by a gradual legislative process, widely but always in private. In later life, he considered plans that would allow him to free his enslaved workers, but they could not be realized, and he provided for the manumission of his slaves after his death.
I would have no problem if the above constituted the first paragraph of the article. The four sentences present the history of George Washington and slavery in a nutshell. They state the bare facts as covered in the high quality, reliable sources focused on the subject. I see in those sentences no puffery that might be mistaken for whitewashing, no judgement that might be mistaken for the denigration of a revered national icon, just the key aspects stated in a neutral, factual way. If you can accept this version, we could perhaps finally lay this issue to rest. Factotem (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I cannot accept it because you seem to have some kind of aversion to the normal format which places the title in bold in the lead sentence. Also, I do not agree that the lead paragraph presently includes any puffery, whitewashing, or denigration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation and looked in history and found this 2009 version with bolding. It didn't seem to last long because the next page of diffs shows this version. The first one might be a way to get at a good first few sentences. FWIW. Victoria (tk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

P.s, I boldly added the bolding (yes, this time the pun is intended) & fiddled with it a bit. FWIW. My opinion is that if the bolding can be added w/out too awkward of a sentence, it's probably best in the long run & from a stewardship point of view. All that said I have no issues w/ BRD (though I'm not around much for the D part :) ) Victoria (tk) 20:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see no problem with that version. Factotem (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

'Natural increase' in the lede

Sounds kind of euphemistic to my ear. Is there a better way of wording it? 173.72.192.86 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with it sounding euphemistic, and I dislike the suggestion that there's anything "natural" about this state of affairs. I changed it to "In adulthood his personal slaveholding grew through inheritance, purchase and the enslavement of the children born to his slaves." but that was reverted by Factotem as not being an improvement. My wording wasn't wonderful, so perhaps we can come up with something better. Would you care to comment Factotem? Do you think the original could be improved? JJC1138 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Natural increase is a common term in social sciences which refers to the difference between number of births and number of deaths. Your edit therefore was not entirely accurate. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I've linked it for you.--Ykraps (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for the somewhat abrupt "not an improvement", which was directed mainly at the preceding two edits I rolled back along with yours in the single revert. I don't see that "natural increase" either needs to be improved or can be improved. Firstly, it is not referring to the "state of affairs" at all, but simply the process of procreation by which Washington's enslaved population increased. Secondly, it is the term used in the sources. Factotem (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the replies. I think linking the phrase is a significant improvement, because it helps to indicate that it's a term of art. Would it be more appropriate to spell out what it means explicitly, though, under the principal of MOS:JARGON? JJC1138 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
We could perhaps state "the natural increase of children born into slavery" Factotem (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Done Factotem (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Leaving slaves behind in Philadelphia

Washington leaving slaves behind in Philadelphia to be automatically freed at the end of his presidency is the result of a mistaken interpretation of one of his letters by Flexner. Per Wiencek, p. 315, "At the end of his second term, Washington apparently let some white indentured servants go before their contracts were up, not wishing to bring them to Mount Vernon or to sell their contracts. The biographer James Thomas Flexner came across a document relating to this release of the servants and thought, incorrectly, that it referred to slaves. He writes that Washington 'quietly' emancipated some slaves when he was leaving Philadelphia, but the Washingtons did not free any slaves at that time. The opposite is the case: Washington was deeply concerned with hanging on to his slaves...". Mary Thompson also discusses Flexner's mistake on p. 442, stating that in the letter Flexner had used to source his claim, "Washington was simply saying he had let several indentured servants out of their contracts a little early..." Factotem (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent response, thank you, I did not know about that error. After putting this in the article, it occurred to me that it would have been a little bit odd for Washington to have done this, given his attitude that it was unfair to free some slaves earlier than others (though he later did so for William Lee). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Willingness to jeopardize retirement

I've restored the original wording in the lead about the plans Washington considered to free his enslaved population in the 1790s. The statement "...because of his failure to raise the necessary funds even though he was willing to jeopardize his retirement by selling his western lands to pay for the emancipation plan" was particularly troublesome. Per Ellis, pp. 259–260, "Two other factors cut against the kind of clear moral statement about slavery that we might wish. The first was Washington's obsession with control, which in this case meant deferring emancipation until he was assured that his own financial independence was secure. He had spent a lifetime acquiring an impressive estate, and he was extremely reluctant to give it up except on his terms. The sale of his western land, for example, must meet his expectations of a fair price..." The fact that Washington did not sell his western lands, because he could not get the price he thought they were worth, clearly shows he wasn't willing to jeopardize his retirement. I've also tagged the statement in the main body quoting Wiencek - the page numbering, "373–342", is obviously incorrect, and I cannot find on pp. 335–343, in which Wiencek discusses the plans, the quoted text "yield up his most valuable remaining asset, his western lands, the wherewithal for his retirement". Factotem (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In the body of this Wikipedia article, the pertinent material now reads as follows: "Wiencek says that if Washington had found buyers for his land at what seemed like a fair price, this plan would have ultimately freed 'both his own and the slaves controlled by Martha’s family',[Wiencek 2003 pp. 339-342] and to accomplish this goal Washington would 'yield up his most valuable remaining asset, his western lands, the wherewithal for his retirement.'[Wiencek 2003 pp. 273-274]" Any objection to this? It seems accurate, and I'm not aware that it has been contradicted or disproved by anyone. Before I edited the article yesterday, someone had recently inserted into the lead that Washington's plans could not be realized because of his failure to raise the finances necessary to do so "while maintaining his standard of living...." That's not what Wiencek says: if Washington's plans had succeeded, he would have "yield[ed] up his most valuable remaining asset, his western lands, the wherewithal for his retirement". We ought to consider summarizing this in the lead, because otherwise people might think that Washington refused to emancipate slaves while he was still alive due to unwillingness to put his standard of living at risk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not object to the removal of "while maintaining his standard of living" - it seems an unnecessarily pointy statement to make. I've edited the main body of the article to add what other sources have to say on Washington's plans in the 1790s. Given that they paint a different picture to the one that Wiencek paints of Washington's yielding of the wherewithal for his retirement, I think the lead is best left as is, a simple statement that Washington considered plans that would allow him to free the enslaved workers under his control, but that they could not be realised etc. etc. Factotem (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington_and_slavery/Archive_2&oldid=978310590"