Talk:Abolitionism in the United States/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Abolitionism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106090007/http://www.npg.si.edu:80/col/amistad/index.htm to http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111111630/http://www.rihs.org:80/faqatt.htm to http://www.rihs.org/faqatt.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703222035/http://www.realnews-online.com/rn0112.htm to http://www.realnews-online.com/rn0112.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029170656/http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu:80/ to http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC) the prohibition act sent hundreds of thousands of people to jail because alcohol was such a addictive and commonly used substance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.31.34 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abolitionism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222073819/http://www.ushistory.org//presidentshouse/history/gradual.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/gradual.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714073725/http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm to http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://files.blog-city.com/files/M06/158072/b/chowder.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/hafe/jbrown/oates-text.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618001421/http://www.kshs.org/places/johnbrown/index.htm to http://www.kshs.org/places/johnbrown/index.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of abolition
Section is poorly written. I think the quote should be smaller. The source is also not that good looking. I think the content could be interesting and valid, though.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.20.205.3 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Abolitionism in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Abolitionism in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Williams": From Mormonism and slavery:  From Charles Sumner: Williams (December 1958), Investigation: 1862 From Freedom suit: Heather Andrea Williams, American Slavery: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2014 From Booker T. Washington:  From Christian views on slavery:  From Canterbury Female Boarding School:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Organization is atrocious
This article is in some ways a textbook example of a bad Wikipedia article. The story has no sequence, facts come up here and there, the same things are said twice. And some things aren't said, like there's not even a brief section on the American Anti-slavery Society, which was sending out waves of anti-slavery lecturers, up to 70 at once. The article doesn't have someone like a traditional encyclopedia editor, to take the whole and put it in shape (and sign it). I've taken some steps to clean it up. But it would be a big task to do this, and I'm not going to do it, because I can't sign it, and I wouldn't even get any thanks (and I might piss some people off). I've got more enjoyable things to do with my finite time. But the article is an embarassment. I've demoted it to C class because it needs so much cleanup. deisenbe (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and one of the worst sections is thus one without any reliable secondary sources that states:

''There was first the question of what was meant by abolitionism, and what conditions would be attached to it. Would it be immediate, or gradual? What would become of the freed slaves? Were they or could they become citizens, with the right to vote? Would they be invited, or forced, to leave the United States, or set free on condition that they emigrate? (This was the policy in some Southern states; newly freed slaves had to leave the state.) Should they go "back to Africa"? Would slave owners be compensated for the loss of their investment in slaves? Would the slaves be paid for their forced labor by receiving their former owners' lands? Did the federal government have the authority to mandate its end? In the District of Columbia? And was the abolition of slavery a religious obligation, what Christ mandated the faithful work toward, or was it a secular, ethical, and economic matter? Was slavery a positive good, which should be expanded into the new western territories and reintroduced to the Northern states, or was it an evil, sin, or crime to be eliminated as quickly and completely as possible?''. This original undergraduate stream of thought is followed by an outrageous self=published quote that is unsourced and written by a person unknown to google scholar There was a racist anti-black anti-slavery movement, primarily made up of white persons, which sought to do away with slavery in order to benefit the soul of the white owner, and destroy the economic basis of the black life of the time, and these people basically believed that black people should not exist, or at least, they should not exist here where we white people exist, and white slaveholders should not exist, or at least, they should not be a part of the society which we decent white folks inhabit.... These mystery anti-slavery people have no names, no organizations, no location, no publication, and no RS is cited. Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty discourteous of you not to even give me time to post something explaining what I did. deisenbe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Junk is junk--especially when it comes to historiography like 'what are the main qujestions scholars ask about XYZ." who made up those questions??? what RS were used?? answer--none at all. The long quote is about the worst I have ever seen in Wikipedia--and in this case signed by a totally unknown non-scholar with no publications os any sort to his credit anywhere.  I totally agree the entire article is terrible. Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Parsgraphs that would improve the article


The talk page is where you discuss how to improve the article. I think the article would be better if these beautifully-written, well-organized, and seemingly well-thought-out sections were restored. (I'm a sucker for good writing.) I did not write them. A definition at the beginning of such a complicated topic I found very helpful. If you know something better add it, but I think the article has been made poorer and less useful by the deletion of the following. I know what the policy is, but following the policy has made the article poorer, in my judgment. Isn't there something about being bold and breaking rules?

_____________________

Definitions of abolitionism
Under the general heading of abolitionism were a number of sub-movements which did not get on particularly well. There was first the question of what was meant by abolitionism, and what conditions would be attached to it. Would it be immediate, or gradual? What would become of the freed slaves? Were they or could they become citizens, with the right to vote? Would they be invited, or forced, to leave the United States, or set free oncondition that they emigrate? (This was the policy in some Southern states; newly freed slaves had to leave the state.) Should they go "back to Africa"? Would slave owners be compensated for the loss of their investment in slaves? Would the slaves be paid for their forced labor by receiving their former owners' lands? Did the federal government have the authority to mandate its end? In the District of Columbia? And was the abolition of slavery a religious obligation, what Christ mandated the faithful work toward, or was it a secular, ethical, and economic matter? Was slavery a positive good, which should be expanded into the new western territories and reintroduced to the Northern states, or was it an evil, sin, or crime to be eliminated as quickly and completely as possible? The guilt of American slaveholding exceeds the guilt of slaveholding in any other age or country. "There were a number of antislavery movements, which at times made for strange bedfellows. There was a racist anti-black anti-slavery movement, primarily made up of white persons, which sought to do away with slavery in order to benefit the soul of the white owner, and destroy the economic basis of the black life of the time, and these people basically believed that black people should not exist, or at least, they should not exist here where we white people exist, and white slaveholders should not exist, or at least, they should not be a part of the society which we decent white folks inhabit. In distinct opposition to these folks, there was an anti-slavery movement, primarily made up of persons of color, which sought improved conditions of life for persons of color, ameliorations both material and spiritual. To cut across the division that was created by two such contrasting motivational patterns, there was an anti-slavery movement made up of persons who sought gradual, step-by-step, piecemeal practical improvements, new good amelioration following new good amelioration, a building process, and there was an anti-slavery movement made up of persons like William Lloyd Garrison, Theodore Dwight Weld, Arthur Tappan, and Lewis Tappan who demanded immediate utter freedom and emancipation regardless of the personal or social cost, a tear-it-all-down-and-start-over project[,] and they were willing to see great harm done to real people if only the result would be some change in the wording of a law, written on paper somewhere. There was an Old Abolitionism which was racist, and an Old Abolitionism which was paternalist. There was a New Abolitionism which was Evangelical and millenialist and sought total top-down changes in society, and there was a New Abolitionism which was immanentist and demanded total bottom-up personal transformation, within each individual's soul."

deisenbe (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "beautifully-written, well-organized, and seemingly well-thought-out sections were restored. " well written unsourced (the questions) and badly written unsourced falsehood (the long quote). Bottom line: it's bad history AND violates all the RS rules and does not belong here. Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph I did write
"Put differently, the ending of slavery in Northern states did not always mean that slaves were freed. Some slaves were taken to Southern states and sold before the prohibitions on slavery went into effect. Enslaved people in the North might be freed as indentured servants who had to work without wages, but always with an ending date and with no more splitting of families. In New York, the remaining indentured servants were freed July 4, 1827, and there was a big celebratory parade, repeated on subsequent July 4ths. There were still hundreds of slaves in Northern states in the 1840 Census. In the South there were millions."

Again, I think the article now follows a policy and the policy makes the article less helpful. I wrote it, so I don't claim impartiality, but I think it's an important point that should be here. deisenbe (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it's a good point BUT it lacks reliable secondary sources and is pretty vague "Some slaves were..." means 100 or 10,000 or what? from where? when? says what RS? I would add that gradualism = no sales, no inherited slavery and a requirement that ex-owners keep maintain the ex-slave regardless of disability or old age. Rjensen (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sections
It seems as if the current sections are just a list of unrelated topics. Would anyone have a problem with me organizing the sections, and grouping related content in subsections, so that in the end the Table of contents looks like a good outline of the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * For instance, some initial thoughts are:
 * Move the Progress section and it's subsections to the top and rename Progress to History
 * Calls for abolition (perhaps integrating with "To 1804")
 * To 1804
 * South after 1804
 * Immediate abolition
 * The end
 * Compromise of 1850
 * Republican Party
 * John Brown
 * American Civil War
 * Where possible, put some of the sections under History, like: (and put them in chronological or logical order)
 * Abolitionism's sudden emergence
 * Garrison and immediate emancipation
 * Western Reserve College
 * Oneida Institute for Science and Industry
 * Lane Theological Seminary
 * The colonization vs. abolition debates and the Lane Rebels
 * A school of abolition
 * Oberlin Collegiate Institute
 * Uncle Tom's Cabin
 * Separate section for
 * Religion and morality
 * Create a heading for Abolition by area - and put under that:
 * Abolition in the North
 * Manumission by Southern owners
 * Western territories
 * Create a Viewpoints section
 * Black abolitionist rhetoric
 * Abolitionist women
 * American Catholics
 * German immigrants
 * Create an Anti-abolitionist viewpoints section
 * Anti-abolitionism in the North
 * The pro-slavery reaction to abolitionism
 * Emigration
 * Colonization and the founding of Liberia


 * Perhaps there could be a grouping for colleges and institutions. How does the idea sound in general?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I went ahead and made the changes with some slight variations, like renaming the "To 1804 section" to "During the formation of the country". And, I put all the religion info together, which I will edit so it flows a bit better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Report" orphan citation
I am not sure how far back it occurred, but at some time a citation was orphaned with the refname=Report. I made this change, because the refname and the title of the source seemed congruent. Is that change right? Or perhaps there was once a "Report" citation that is different?

I went back about 20 versions before I started moving sections and couldn't find it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Major revisions and citation needed in Top
This paragraph at the top has some points that show the complexity of the situation but suffers from "lost cause" revisionism. - The next paragraph says the movement was motivated by moral causes but acknowledges economic issues, so this paragraph adds little. Also, is wrong to cast the abolitionist movement as non moralists, primary leaders were furiously religious. -To say that anti-black riots didn't happen in the south, is to forget lynching and state suppression against free blacks. -Lack of citations is bad - " Blacks, some of whom were eloquent, well educated, and good Christians, were not inferior human beings." - point has merit but need phrasing work to not imply most free blacks were at fault for lacking education

"It would be a great oversimplification to say that American abolitionism was a movement of the virtuous North directed against the sinful South. As we have already seen, slavery in the North was dying but not dead. Free blacks, seen as immigrants who would work for cheap, were just as unwelcome in the North as in the South, if not more so, and subject to discrimination and mistreatment almost inconceivable today (2020). It was not only legal but routine to discriminate against and mistreat blacks. (See below.) Anti-free Black riots were common in the North, not the South. The abolitionist movement, in its early years, was directed at Northerners, convincing them, by providing speakers and documentation, that slaves, frequently if not always, were horribly mistreated in the South. Incidentally, Northerners got to see first-hand that Blacks, some of whom were eloquent, well educated, and good Christians, were not inferior human beings. Northern support for ending slavery—once a radical position—grew steadily." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.169.104 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)  This unsigned comment was made by me. deisenbe (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Colonization society
Could you please explain your objections to the term "black American" ? Also, your addition of enslaved people to the group of people sent to Liberia is unsourced. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that I object to the term generally, of course. It's that the term is too specific within the context. The idea of "blackness" or "Blackness" in the 1810s, 20s, and 30s was extremely fluid and multifaceted, and so were the many identities attached to it—hence the reason, for example, the American Colonization Society was founded under the name "Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color of America" in 1816. The term "black" most often referred to enslaved people in popular discourse, while "free people of color" or "free Negroes" were the terms most often used for freed and freeborn people of perceived African descent. So "black Americans" does two things: 1) It creates an anachronistic meaning for the ACS's intent by infusing modern language and definitions into very specific language of the period under discussion and 2) reduces the focus to the United States alone (as "American" is widely understood to mean "from the United States" today), which is technically inaccurate, as a good number of people from the Caribbean emigrated to Liberia under the auspices of the ACS. Caree Banton's book, More Auspicious Shores: Barbadian Migration to Liberia, Blackness, and the Making of the Liberian Republic, 1865-1912 (Cambridge University Press, 2019), discusses this at length. I hope this helps explain my rationale. And I will happily add this source to the article. Anwegmann (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I shortened the whole section, one reason being the low quality of the last part, which repeated some of the content of the first part. I removed your addition of the Carribean migrants. My reason is that this article is about abolitionism in the U.S., so the ACS is only a marginal subject, of which the Carribean migrants are again a marginal point. I kept your addition of enslaved people migrating to Liberia. Regarding "free people of colour": We use modern terminology, not the historical one. In modern usage, also Indigenous Americans would be called "people of colour", so the use of that term might be confusing for our readers. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal Veto
I know much of this can't be included in the main article but its still useful to provide context. In the early 1770s as the Patriots were still to some extent in their infancy and developing their identity one of the features that their identity contained was abolitionism. That portion of their views was never fully allowed to blossom because "The pillar of the slave trade"(as pointed out by the report of the American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission,) kept preventing their laws in many colonies from going into effect. For this reason slavery and the slave trade became its own "football" of sorts with a lot of tit-for-tat and back and forth finger pointing on part of patriot supporters and tory loyalists. Two examples of this in legislative or 'official' work are how the Continental Association placed restrictions on slave trading for economic(not humanitarian) reasons and Dunmore's Proclamation tried to recruit within slave ranks for militaristic(not humanitarian) reasons. Slavery became a way for the patriots to hurt England, and for England to hurt the patriots.

Many patriots came to view slavery as "The King's institution" with Jefferson's philippic in the Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself". Jefferson is hardly the only one on either side of the Atlantic who recognized the British Empire's primary role in regards to slavery. Edmund Burke also noted how odd it was for England to have maintained slavery for so many hundreds of years but then to do an about face and all of a sudden offer freedom. He said: "Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation which has sold them to their present masters? From that nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters, is their refusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffick? An offer of freedom from England, would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes."

Even after the celebrated decision in the Somersett case, there were some abolitionists who viewed England as being stingy with abolition and keeping it for themselves instead of being generous and having abolitionism in all parts of the British Empire. It could have all ended in 1772, but it didn't. Benjamin Franklin stated it the most pointedly, saying: "Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men? Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!"

George Mason, like Thomas Jefferson, recognized Royal vetos on colonial attempts to put an end to slavery. At the Constitutional Convention, Mason said: "This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it." That the Patriot leaders were out in front and ahead of the Empire in regards to abolitionist efforts makes friendships that Granville Sharp had with some of the early colonial leaders more easy to understand. Another who found favor with abolitionism and many of the Patriot leaders was Richard Price, who plainly stated it that "It is not the fault of the colonies that they have slaves among them." A statement like this goes too far as plenty of people in the colonies did their part with regard to fostering slavery. However, there came a point when slavery was not just a fact of life. For centuries in every continent slavery had been around and a part of human life whether the Romans or disparate tribes and warlords. But everything changed when patriot leaders consciously decided to put abolitionist measures on the desks of colonial governors to be enacted, and even moreso everything really changed when the King consciously decided to veto abolitionist laws to prevent these laws from becoming colonial law. Progressingamerica (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An article should be based on good (reliable) secondary sources. What you provide above and what you added to the article are primary sources. Please read WP:PSTS for the difference. For an article on a historical subject, we rely on sources by modern historians, not by 18th and 19th century politicians. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is fair. I removed the link to the American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission report and put four historians in place.  Here is another possibility: Barack Obama, American Historian Progressingamerica (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have more concerns:
 * The lead section defines abolitionism as a movement which sought to end slavery, not as a movement to "limit" slavery. So I think that efforts to "limit" slavery are simply irrelevant for this article.
 * Since WP follows academic scholarship (see WP:NOTLEAD), we should not search for facts that are not given prominence in academic works focussing on our subject, in our case, focussing on abolitionism in the United States.
 * According to your previous edit summary, early colonial abolitionist efforts ... were forcefully put to an end by decree. I don't think that's what mainstream historians say. As far as I know, abolitionist efforts were successful during or soon after the revolution in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, while the Virginian élite, including Jefferson and Washington, never made any serious abolitionist effort. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to address all of these items, but could you first define what you mean by "mainstream" here? Many of the historians cited that you keep reverting have Wikipedia pages of their own detailing how "mainstream" they are. Are you reading the citations used before you revert them? Progressingamerica (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding "mainstream": I don't think that my definition of "mainstream" differs from that of other people. I didn't deny that the historians you cited were mainstream, I just doubt that the conclusion that you expressed in that edit summary is mainstream. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the insight. I'll re-work what I stated in the article with extremely limited partial quotations out of the academic works cited and a little less CLOP.  So that it is said, what I'm writing about isn't a one-off in one single historian's work.  This would be easy to OVERLINK and I'm also trying to avoid that as well.(I mentioned this in a general way earlier) Progressingamerica (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't take into account the first two of the concerns I mentioned. Furthermore, Onuf doesn't support your claims. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I wanted to address all of your claims. In this instance, the first of your claims is not really addressable on the surface or I need more information as to what you are really trying to say.  There is a historical quirk that erroneously separates slavery and the slave trade. The modern view of the abolition of the slave trade in 1808 is that it is something different and is perhaps "not a serious" abolitionist effort.  The problem with this (as historians have noted) is that "there was widespread confusion of "slavery" with the "slave trade."" in the days of early abolitionism.  Frederick Douglass said basically the same thing:  "there is still more to be said about this abolition of the slave trade. Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time. Wilberforce and Clarkson, clear-sighted as they were, took this view; and the American statesmen, in providing for the abolition of the slave trade, thought they were providing for the abolition of the slavery." Limiting the slave trade was eliminating all of it which is why the article has a build up from 1688 and doesn't just begin with Garrison. The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition doesn't even limit slavery and was ignored for over a century, how is that in the article? I really don't think we would want to have a review leading to removing over a third of the page content that is clearly relevant. Progressingamerica (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My most important point is that we should follow the lead of academic scholarship, that is, we are not the judges on the relevance of certain details, but academic books focusing on abolitionism in the U.S. are. Much as I admire Douglass, but he is pretty irrelevant here, since he is no modern historian. I fear you want to prove the relevance of your addition by a synthesis of quotes from primary sources (like Douglass) and historians focusing on Jefferson. That would be OR, see WP:SYNTH. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These two comments are in conflict. You say we should follow the lead of academic scholarship, that is, we are not the judges on the relevance of certain details but your objection rests solely on IDONTLIKEIT because you have now said I still can't see a serious connection between the tax and the abolitionist movement i.e., "I don't like it".  These are well-researched historians on the subject who have even won a Pulitzer prize for their work on the whole body.  In the first these laws passed were important enough for the abolitionists to push for them, in the second they were(conversely) important enough to the King's wishes that he just had to veto them, in the third these laws took many forms in many colonies, and in the fourth they were important enough to have been discussed repeatedly by historian after historian after historian after historian.  You're approaching NPOV.  I have met every one of your requests in good faith. Progressingamerica (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I really think we should start over. With your citation of WP:SYNTH that leaves no question in my mind that you're not really reading what's being put in the article and you're too heavily focused(to the point of mixing them) on objecting to what's being put on the talk page. I didn't know WP:SYNTH was intended for these talk pages, but so its said you didn't do a revert here on the basis of SYNTH either. One of the few things you did actually say specifically which was directly about the article changes were that "Onuf doesn't support your claims". Yes he does, and its indicative that you're reading the talk page moreso than anything else. Onuf says in paragraph two of the cited work: (p. 154) ".....one of those tyrannical acts - the Privy Council's veto of the colony's act to impose a small duty on slave imports....." I wrote in respect of CLOP: "The colony of Virginia was another colony which passed similar laws in an 'effort to curtail' human trade from Africa, leading to the legislature being 'blocked every time' by royal authority." Note that I said "royal authority" here and not necessarily the King. I was reading Onuf specifically at the time I made those last minute changes. So here's my question. How can you say this isn't supportive? It is affirming that a veto occurred. Progressingamerica (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A "small [sic] tax" is obviously not intended to abolish the importation of slaves. Additionally, Onuf explicitly says that the abolitionist desires of the colonies are "hard for modern readers to take seriously". --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that Onuf explicitly contradicts himself in the very same paragraph? What does any of that have to do with the royal veto? Progressingamerica (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable (WP:WAR). That's why we should try to reach consensus here. If we don't reach consensus, WP:NOCON applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. BTW: I didn't claim that Onuf contradicts himself. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you didn't say that Onuf contradicts himself, then your previous claim is confounding as Onuf makes clear that the proposed law was in fact vetoed by British authorities. It is not clear at all what "desires" a colony has to do with anything as those are feelings and not actual laws passed.  I have not made any edits in regard to any desires so that should not be a qualifier here.  This seems like a bait and switch on your part that avoids what the edits are actually about.  As to WP:WAR, this is completely unfounded as was WP:SYNTH earlier.  I've used repeated versions, tried different citations, etc.  The issue is that these laws were passed and the king vetoed them, and historians have written about it which meets the standard of V,(I would say even exceeds that) and after all this time it's really the one thing you haven't addressed - so WP:NOCON can't apply yet if you are not addressing the topic. Could you please explain your meaning as to why one thing over here has anything to do with the other thing over there?  Or else, try working with me here?   The cites do in fact say what I am claiming and you could easily change up wording to meet the standard as written by these historians. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'd stop speculating what my intentions are, that might be for the benefit of this discussion. This is the article about abolitionism, not about royal veto. I still don't understand how and where Onuf supports the idea that the intended Virginia laws were relevant for this article. But even if I should have misunderstood Onuf, academic books focusing on abolitionism in the U.S. are the judges for what is relevant for this article and what not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is very accurate since the speculative use of WP:SYNTH was introduced by you several replies ago. As for your request of a specific type of book and author, that request was already met.  Why did you ignore it my meeting of your request the first time around?  I'll take a different approach here, and I've added a few new cites for use.  So that the talk page matches the edit made to the article, I'll include what the historians are saying.  Perhaps they'll be read this time.  Brief biographical snips of some historians included.  An entire section for you follows:

What the historians are saying about the Royal Veto of anti-slavery laws
In the book Race and Liberty in the New Nation: Emancipation in Virginia from the Revolution to Nat Turner's Rebellion, historian Eva Sheppard Wolf writes the following, page 23:
 * Though Lee's act passed, the crown disallowed it and also blocked....

Again:
 * The proposed 1769 tax was so high that one English factor stationed in Alexandria considered it prohibitive....

Bio: two books concerning slavery, manumission, and race in Virginia

In the Pulitzer prize winning book The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 historian Alan Taylor writes the following, page 20:
 * To discourage more slave imports, the colony's legislature levied a heavy tax, but the imperial government vetoed it in defense of the interests of British traders.

Bio: has been a professor at the University of California at Davis, where he teaches courses in early North American history, the history of the American West

In A Slaveholders' Union, George Van Cleve writes the following, page 30:


 * King George III Instructed ...... to disallow any future increase in slave-import taxes......

Again:
 * He also specifically instructed the Virginia governor that "upon pain of the highest displeasure" the governor should veto any other law

Again:
 * British policy was to require Virginia to remain open to slave imports, whether Virginia wanted to do so or not.

Bio: George Van Cleve is Scholar-in-Residence in the Department of History at the University of Virginia.

In The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823, historian David Brion Davis writes the following, page 12:
 * The British Crown had, after all, promoted the African slave trade and vetoed Virginia's efforts to curtail it. Then a royal governor, having no interest in the black population's long-term welfare, had exploited the colonists' powderkeg vulnerability in a highly dangerous way.

Bio from the Organization of American Historians: It is hard to imagine American history without David Brion Davis ... His pathbreaking trilogy, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1966), The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770–1823 (1975), and The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation (2014), Again:
 * After moving to Yale University in 1970, Davis published The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770–1823, which won the National Book Award and Bancroft Prize. Yale appointed Davis Sterling Professor of American History on the heels of this achievement.

Bio from Yale: the founder of the Gilder Lehrman Center, David Brion Davis, one of the world’s leading scholars of slavery and abolition in an international context

In History of the United States of America, George Bancroft wrote the following, page 410:
 * the abrogation of the slave-trade was regarded by the legislature as the necessary preliminary to successful efforts at getting rid of slavery itself.

Again:
 * on the tenth of December 1770, he issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor, "upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed."

Bio from Britannica: whose comprehensive 10-volume study of the origins and development of the United States caused him to be referred to as the "father of American history."

In Thomas Jefferson - Westward the Course of Empire, Lawrence S. Kaplan writes the following, page 84:
 * in the eighteenth century the General Assembly of Virginia had repeatedly voted to restrain the importation of slaves only to be blocked every time by a royal veto.

Bio: Lawrence S. Kaplan was History and University professor emeritus at Kent State University

More than one of these historians keep making reference specifically to King George III's 1770 veto and the threats that were contained in that veto. Here you can find the full text of that veto to read for yourself. The King wrote as follows:
 * No Additional Duties on Slaves in Virginia


 * Whereas at a general assembly begun and held in our city of Williamsburg in our colony and dominion of Virginia on the seventh day of November in the tenth year of our reign, two laws were framed and enacted by our governor, council, and House of Burgesses of our said colony and dominion of Virginia, entitled An Act for Laying an Additional Duty upon Slaves Imported into This Colony, and the other An Act for the Better Support of the Contingent Charges of Government, by which said laws additional duties, amounting to fifteen per cent were imposed upon every purchase of slaves imported or brought into that colony over and above a duty of ten per cent payable by former laws then in force; and whereas it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.


 * Dec. 10, 1770.

I know you keep saying you don't want Jefferson history books around here, you don't want some other history books around here, or the books can't be slavery books they have to specifically be abolition books and only abolition books,(slavery books don't count) but it doesn't really work that way. You can't construct a unicorn for your STONEWALL. There's an overlap in history which is why the Wikipedia article in its long-standing form already includes many of these different types of books. In the references and further reading cites sections there's religion books, there's Andrew Jackson books, there's books cited about specific American states, there's general American History books, there's a book about a college, books cited about other countries, there's books cited about Women's rights, there's Alexander Hamilton books cited, there's already several Jefferson books. If you need to, please take the time to create a WP:RFC, so that books not about abolitionism but instead only about slavery or books about specific people or any others deemed off-topic by you might be removed and half of the article's content can also be removed to meet your standards.

Perfection is not required and these are all extremely good historians; good abolitionism and slavery historians. And all of these historians are in agreement. Give WP:FIXFIRST a try it's a good one. Progressingamerica (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Impressive as your quotations are, I still can't see a serious connection between the tax and the abolitionist movement. So now, please stop edit warring (yes, you are edit warring, i.e. repeatedly restoring your favourite version, albeit with some changes). To move forward, I see two possibilities: You could explain to me why you think that I don't read Onuf correctly, or you can seek WP:conflict resolution. But while there is no consenus, the last stable version will have to stand (see WP:NOCON). --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This is pretty clear an example of textbook Gaming the system by abusing Wikipedia rules in bad faith while hiding behind consensus - No one is obligated to satisfy you. It's quite sad to see a Wikipedian make requests for a certain type of citation as you did here (and elsewhere) then once the request is fulfilled to then level an accusation of edit warring when said request is fulfilled.  Why do you request things and then not even take the time to read the changes made? and why did you lure me into a trap knowing I would make future edits to try to meet you as an equal?  That's called Sealioning.  I didn't use Onuf as a cite.  I used the lead of academic scholarship, remember your request?  You wrote it.  I've been reading your words, that's the decent thing to do.  I've been fulfilling your many requests as best I could, that's the decent thing to do.  And your next request, i'll answer that one in good faith too.  That's the decent thing to do.  Onuf isn't specializing in abolition, but the cites you didn't even bother to take the time to read were.  You've made only the most generic of requests, making it virtually impossible for me to meet demands that aren't even stipulated by Wikipedia's rules(I know I met V. I exceeded V.) So what we are left with is you won't read the cites - and thus, you're not making improvements of your own - and you're completely preventing me from making converse improvements therof on my own because what it is you really want is being kept a secret.  Could you please open up and tell me what is left behind, what are you looking for that the historians themselves have not already made clear?  Progressingamerica (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion has become very frustrating because you don't seem to understand what I want to say. And I don't understand what you want to say. So I suggest you start a Mediation. But please don't waste your or my time with unjustified accusations. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In Timetables of African-American History, historian Sharon Harley writes the following, page 40:
 * The Virginia House of Burgesses enacts a prohibitive duty on slave imports and requests the crown to accept this curtailment of slavery; the crown vetoes the bill.
 * Again:
 * Pennsylvania slave trade is stifled after a 20-pound tax is imposed on every imported slave
 * Bio:  Associate Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, researches and teaches black women's labor history and racial and gender politics.


 * In The Complete Antislavery Writings of Anthony Benezet, 1754-1783, David L. Crosby wrote
 * Before Indepenence Benezet had sought to place most of the guilt for the slave trade at the door of avaricious British merchants and an accomodating English government; he now accused the colonists in America of ignoring evidence of the cruelty and inhumanity occasioned by slavery so that they might, using slave labor, increase their substance and amass great wealth.
 * Bio/note ''Despite Benezet’s pervasive influence during his lifetime, David L. Crosby’s annotated edition represents the first time Benezet’s antislavery works are available in one book.

''

In The Slave Struggle in America, Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner wrote:
 * In 1761 ... a prohibitory duty on the importation of Africans ... negatived by the aristocratic government in England
 * And
 * George III commanded the governor, "upon the pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the imporation of slaves would be in any respect prohibited or obstructed."

In The South in the Building of the Nation, historian John Bell Henneman wrote:
 * Some of the bills passed by the assemblies looked to a prohibition, others merely to a taxation of the trade. The British crown, meanwhile was safeguarding the interests of the slave traders, and was prone to veto restrictive measures.
 * Bio Distinguished historian and bibliographer for the Firestone Library at Princeton

In Enjoy the Same Liberty - Black Americans and the Revolutionary Era, Edward Countryman wrote:
 * (The Crown) did not veto the early colonial laws that created and governed slavery, but it did veto later colonial laws that tried to tax the slave trade out of existence

In Patrick Henry - Champion of Liberty, Jon Kukla wrote:
 * British officials began vetoing Virginia's import duties on slaves because they impeded "the importation of a considerable article of British Commerce."

In Challenging Slavery in the Chesapeake - Black and White Resistance to Human Bondage, 1775–1865, T. Stephen Whitman wrote: (page 23)
 * By 1772 the Virginia House of Burgesses sought to tax the slave trade to reduce the number of blacks entering the colony and thereby diminish fears of slave rebellion. Acting on royal instructions aimed at protecting English merchants Virginia's new governor, John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, vetoed this restriction on the slave trade.

Bio: assistant professor of history at Mount Saint Mary's University


 * At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Founder George Mason noted:
 * Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition.
 * And yes, historian Duncan J. MacLeod confirms that he really did say what we think he said.


 * In Death Or Liberty - African Americans and Revolutionary America Douglas R. Egerton wrote:
 * In 1772, the House of Burgesses ostentatiously announced its intentions of increasing the tariff on "a trade of great Inhumanity." An offended Parliament promptly disallowed the higher tax, which permitted white Virginians to renew the tired complaint that they had never desired enslaved workers, who had been forced upon them by the crown.
 * Did not find a bio but he has been cited in the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressingamerica (talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you please, please read the "Good practices for talk pages" at WP:TPYES ? My special recommendation is the paragraph "Be concise". --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)



Thank you for your edits in the article earlier on this. I was curious, in the history books you have written did you ever research this topic? One of the concerns raised was of a particular type of phrasing I used, but I cannot just cut and paste entries from other works not in the public domain. Perhaps a better phrasing based on the many cites I provided could help here? Progressingamerica (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I taught the history of slavery for many years and tried to keep up with the scholarship, but I never published any major research studies on slavery or abolition. Rjensen (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Benezet and the slave trade
Surprisingly, this article doesn't mention Anthony Benezet who was one of the more important abolitionists of the pre-revolutionary era. That omission alone probably had a role to play in the previous consternation. The early abolitionists like (but not limited to) Benezet wrote both of slavery and the trade, but focused mainly on the slave trade. The article already states this much in the third sentence: The anti-slavery movement originated during the Age of Enlightenment, focused on ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade - though sadly that isn't connected very well throughout. Benezet is one of the main gaps in the history as it happened.

In Unrequited Toil, A History of United States Slavery, Calvin Schermerhorn writes: (page 43)
 * There were mixed motives behind the colonial attempts to tax or prohibit the importation of slaves. But for American Quakers like Benezet and Robert Pleasants, the actions of the Virginia General Assembly - coupled with Arthur Lee's much quoted "Address on Slavery" - could be used to show that the colonial cause was not only sincere but embodied the noblest principles of an enlightened age.

Bio: ''He teaches slavery and human trafficking in comparative perspective, viewing modern slavery in historical terms and is engaged in public history shining a light on the domestic slave trade. His research has been funded by fellowships and grants from the Smithsonian, Huntington Library, Gilder Lehrman Center, American Philosophical Society, and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, among other organizations.'' On pages 14 and 15 Professor Schermerhorn notes that Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all passed some sort of anti-slavery measure in one degree or another and in all cases, the King overruled the measures. 

In Migration, Trade, and Slavery in an Expanding World a collection of essays where one in particular titled Divergent Paths historian Seymour Drescher writes: (page 263)
 * The first serious initiative against the slave trade came from the North American Continental Colonies during the decade before the outbreak of hostilities with Britain.

Again:
 * 'By the early 1770s Benezet took advantage of broadening hostility to the slave trade to expand his appeal."

He explains that where there were absolutely no voices raised in Britain against slavery, "American colonial legislatures from Virginia northward" passed law after law after law to prohibit or curtail overseas slavery and in every case, these measures were vetoed. He further explains that Virginia and Maryland were particularly anti-slavery according to one Quaker author, and writes of Benezet's letters to Granville Sharp. Bio: Seymour Drescher (born 1934) is an American historian and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, known for his studies on Alexis de Tocqueville and slavery. Source:Wikipedia.

In The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History, professors Vincent Brown, Jorge Canizares-Esguerra, Laurent Dubois, and Karen Ordahl Kupperman collaborated, where the following is written: (page 253)
 * Also prominent among colonial grievances was the forced transportation of Africans to North America. The denunciation of the transatlantic slave trade that the Virginia slaveholder Thomas Jefferson included in his rough draft of the declaration was of course hypocritical, but he was serious about it.

Again:
 * "tried to curtail the African trade.... only to be thwarted by George III and his cabinet."

Bio: Vincent Brown (historian) is Charles Warren Professor of History, Professor of African and African-American Studies, and Director of the History Design Studio at Harvard University. Source:Wikipedia.

Bio: Jorge Canizares-Esguerra is a faculty member in the History Department at the University of Texas at Austin, where he holds the Alice Drysdale Sheffield Professorship in History. He is most notable for his work in Atlantic history, the history of science in the early modern Spanish empire, and the colonizing ideologies of the Iberian and British empires. Source:Wikipedia.

Bio: Laurent Dubois Laurent Dubois is the Marcello Lotti Professor of Romance Studies and History and founder of the Forum for Scholars & Publics at Duke University. His studies have focused on Haiti. Source:Wikipedia.

Bio: Karen Ordahl Kupperman is an American historian who specializes in colonial history in the Atlantic world of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Source:Wikipedia.

In Barbaric Traffic, Philip Gould writes the following: (page 192)
 * After 1808, antislavery movements naturally redirected their energies from the slave trade to chattel slavery.

Bio: Philip Gould is the author of numerous books focusing on British America. 

In Let this Voice be Heard, Maurice Jackson wrote the following: (page 198)
 * In the last chapter of his narrative Equiano wrote on his thoughts about the Quakers and especially about Benezet.

Bio: Maurice Jackson is an Associate Professor of History and African-American Studies and an Affiliated Professor of Performing Arts (Jazz) at Georgetown University. Source:Wikipedia.

In Sugar and Slavery, Richard B. Sheridan wrote the following: (page 484)
 * The interesting thing is that three of England's pioneer anti-slavery leaders - Granville Sharp, John Wesley, and Thomas Clarkson - were inspired by Benezet's tract.

Bio: Sheridan dedicated his academic career to the study of slavery in the Caribbean and is acknowledged as one of the pre-eminent historians of the British West Indies, best known for his pioneering works, Sugar and Slavery: An Economic History of the British West Indies, 1623-1775 (1974), and Doctors and Slaves: A Medical and Demographic History of Slavery in the British West Indies, 1680-1834. 

In African's Life, 1745-1797: The Life and Times of Olaudah Equiano James Walvin writes the following: (page 103)
 * Benezet was the best-known Quaker publicist against the slave trade, prompting friends on both sides of the Atlantic..... The end of the American war in 1783 enabled Quakers to renew their activities and focus attention on the need to end the slave trade.

Bio: Walvin has written widely on slave history and on British social history. 

All of this and in particular this last one from Professor Walvin explains the following. The early Quakers focused on the slave trade, they had to stop because of the revolutionary war, and then they got back to it after 1783.

In Remaking Custom, Law and Identity in the Early American Republic, Ellen Holmes Pearson writes the following:
 * (page 129)
 * ... 1772 petition from the House of Burgesses... deemed the importation of africans for the purpose of slavery "a trade of great inhumanity"'''

In the book Race and Liberty in the New Nation: Emancipation in Virginia from the Revolution to Nat Turner's Rebellion, historian Eva Sheppard Wolf writes the following: (page 23)
 * The burgesses wrote an addres to King George III arguing that the slave trade "greatly retards the settlement of the Colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence."

Bio: two books concerning slavery, manumission, and race in Virginia

In Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Junius P. Rodriguez writes: (page 20)
 * In Virginia, the House of Burgesses enacted a substantial tariff on slave imports in an effort to curtail the practice within the colony. Officials in Virginia requested that the British government support this action against "a Trade of great Inhumanity".

The full text of that petition against that "trade of great inhumanity" can be found here at the Library of Congress. It reads:
 * To the King's most excellent Majesty, The humble Address of the House of Burgesses of Virginia.


 * Most Gracious Sovereign, We your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal Subjects the Burgesses of Virginia, now met in General Assembly, beg Leave with all Humility to approach your Royal Presence.


 * The many Instances of your Majesty’s benevolent Intentions and most gracious Disposition to promote the Prosperity and Happiness of your Subjects in the Colonies, encourage us to look up to the Throne, and implore your Majesty’s paternal Assistance in averting a Calamity of a most alarming Nature.


 * The Importation of Slaves into the Colonies from the Coast of Africa hath long been considered as a Trade of great Inhumanity, and, under its present Encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very Existence of your Majesty’s American Dominions.


 * We are sensible that some of your Majesty’s Subjects in Great Britain may reap Emoluments from this Sort of Traffick, but when we consider that it greatly retards the Settlement of the Colonies with more useful Inhabitants, and may in Time, have the most destructive Influence, we presume to hope that the Interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in Competition with the Security and Happiness of such Numbers of your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal Subjects.


 * Deeply impressed with these Sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those Restraints on your Majesty’s Governors of this Colony which inhibit their assenting to such Laws, as might check so very pernicious a Commerce.


 * Your Majesty’s ancient Colony and Dominion of Virginia hath at all Times and upon every Occasion been entirely devoted to your Majesty’s sacred Person and Government, and we cannot forego this Opportunity of renewing those Assurances of the truest Loyalty and warmest Affection, which we have so often, with the greatest Sincerity, given to the Best of Kings, whose Wisdom and Goodness we esteem the surest Pledges of the Happiness of all his people.


 * 1st April 1772

As a bonus, I'll add that it wasn't all too long before this that Britain passed An act for extending and improving the trade to Africa, which opens with the following:
 * WHEREAS the trade to and from Africa is very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for the supplying the plantations and colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of negroes, at reasonable rates

These historians and their work also do well to explain what is meant in the third sentence: The anti-slavery movement originated during the Age of Enlightenment, focused on ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. That one line in and of itself explains how pre-revolutionary colonies came to attempting to put an end to the slave trade, the King's machinations notwithstanding. Progressingamerica (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Motivation and focus on the trade
The article starts with this (accurately) in the third sentence: The anti-slavery movement originated during the Age of Enlightenment, focused on ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Prior to 1808 and indeed for several decades(some of the information above already touches on this) abolitionists focused exclusively on putting an end to the slave trade and naturally, legislative acts followed the same pattern - ending the slave trade. The celebrated historian David Brion Davis stated that "there was widespread confusion of "slavery" with the "slave trade."" in the days of early abolitionism. This isn't to say that abolitionists were clueless and didn't see the distinction, of course they did. What Davis is getting at is that abolitionists were motivated to end the trade because they believed that ending the trade would accomplish the goal of also ending slavery as a "two birds with one stone" scenario.

Helen Thomas quoted Clarkson: "By aiming at the abolition of the sslave-trade, they were laying the axe at the very root." 

So from that point of view, the "issue" was "confused" in that killing one killed the other. This is recognized quite often, ".... that the movement's objectives were confined to the African Trade."; "Abolitionists had hoped that the end of the trade in slaves would lead naturally to the end of slavery itself...." ; "The abolitionists were so explicit in the distinction they drew between amelioration and emancipation that it is surprising that they should have been misinterpreted, then or now." ; "In 1775 the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, founded by the Quakers, sought to abolish the slave trade and slavery. ... The slave trade was the initial target of abolition because abolitionists calculated that fewer people profited from the trade than from the larger institution of slavery." ; ""Without purchasers," he argued, "there would be no trade."

However, those hopes went further. "Abolitionists hoped that an end to the trade would bring about not only an end to the inhumanities of trading on the African coast and the high seas, but would persuade West Indian planters to rethink their treatment of the slaves on the islands." ; "Initially, the abolitionist movement concentrated on making the slave trade illegal. Their hope was that by ending the trade, the value of individual slaves would rise dramatically, forcing owners to treat their slaves better." 

Ron Walters notes that :"One source of alienation of the colonists that led to the 1776 Revolution was that when they became alarmed at the growing number of Africans in their midst they attemtpedt to curtail their importation....... Antislavery measures began to be passed.... Massachusetts, 1771; Pennsylvania levied stiff tariffs, 1773" and "Virginia, and North Carolina in 1774 and Georgia in 1775". Walters too (again) notes that these laws were vetoed. At the time it was damaging to "the importation of a considerable article of British commerce". but the efforts of abolitionists like Benezet were taking hold. As already noted above by Drescher: "By the early 1770s Benezet took advantage of broadening hostility to the slave trade to expand his appeal." Benezet's influence at ending the slave trade is widely recognized. 

"The Quakers helped the cause along. In 1767, an attempt was made in the legislature to discourage the slave trade, but it failed." And "In 1774, an act was passed ... to prevent importation... but it was vetoed by Governor Hutchinson." ; "From a similar motive, the Quaker-controlled Pennsylvania Assembly in 1712 imposed prohibitive tariffs on the importation of slaves, but the Privy Council in London vetoed this action, to keep up the lucrative slave trade." 

It's also important to note that the abolitionists on both sides of the ocean were in communication with each other (Benezet and Granville Sharp, for example) so while many had different reasonings for holding certain views they had an idea what each was thinking through direct contact. Progressingamerica (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am most interested in using COLLAB. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Virginia colony prohibitive taxes
Should the historian-acknowledged veto of prohibitive taxation for the purpose of stifling the slave trade passed in the colony of Virginia be included? Progressingamerica (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a lot that has happened on this talk page, here is a summary. At issue is whether or not the historian-acknowledged veto of anti-slavery laws passed in the colony of Virginia be included or referenced.  Abolitionists spent decades with a focused target on the slave trade, not necessarily slavery itself.  As such, once laws started getting passed that limited the slave trade this was a major victory for early abolitionists and that makes it central to what was happening.  In the article of this Wikipedia page, the timeline is incomplete and leaves the reader with a false narrative that with the exception of perhaps one or two colonies, abolitionists found no success until after the American Revolution began.  In reality, abolitionists found success in the majority of the colonies several years before Independence had been declared.  That the abolitionists successful attempts were vetoed by the king is also a major notable point in preventing abolition sooner, rather than later, and the tactics used have been noted to include prohibitory taxation.  And finally, whether or not this is what I believe, I have presented easily over a dozen historians who have acknowledged these events, including historians who have won Pulitzer prizes for their work and other major historians who have formed entire institutions for furthering historical practice.  From the historian standpoint, there is not an issue here. Progressingamerica (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not a neutral RfC The term "prohibitive taxes" used in the headline and in the question is supported by some historians, but not supported by others. Peter S. Onuf calls it "a small duty on slave imports". Additionally, the term "historian-acknowledged" is far from showing the neutrality that WP:RfC demands. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Correspondence of William Nelson
I've been looking into this further as to why this veto should be known by historians to be so aggressive when compared to the vetos of anti-slavery laws in other colonies. The text of the King's veto(above) also appears in the writings and correspondence of William Nelson (governor), who was known to be favorable to the needs of the colonists over the King's needs. Nelson was only interim governor for about a year and was replaced by a completely loyal King's-man, Lord Dunmore who became very unpopular. William Nelson's son grew up and was a signer of the Declaration. Surely there might have been other factors, such as how much tax revenue was generated for England from so big a slave market.

The veto appears on page 82. Progressingamerica (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this article is about Abolitionism in the United States, not about the relationship between the colonists or patriots and the governors, nor about the King's veto. And so, the only relevant question here is, whether historians of the abolitionist movement included the Virginian tax laws in their writings or not. I think, I said so before. Nelson, being a primary source, is totally irrelevant. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what I don't understand. I tried stopping responding to you out of respect for your wishes, you told me to try to go get additional opinions from others, so I did.  There's an RFC out there.  But here's what I find even more confounding.  You keep setting up these arbitrary rules that only historians of the abolitionist movement have any say or importance, which you also did here: "focussing on abolitionism in the United States" and here: "academic books focusing on abolitionism in the U.S. are the judges for what is relevant for this article".  But yet you have hung your hat on a historian who isn't a historian of abolitionism at all.  How does that work exactly?  You are violating your own rule.


 * I'm trying to learn the topic. This way when other Wikipedians do eventually come here, they can have a more well balanced knowledge of what happened during this attempt to pass anti-slavery laws in colonial British Virginia.  Now, consistent with your rule that you have stated now three times, let me state your rule one more time:


 * the only relevant question here is, whether historians of the abolitionist movement included the Virginian tax laws in their writings or not.


 * They have. Many, many historians of the abolitionist movement have included Virginian tax laws in their writings and its role in anti-slavery.  I already proved this and you laughed at me.  Right here, here's what you said: "Impressive as your quotations are"


 * I have already surpassed Verifiability. I brought in historians who won Pulitzer prizes for their work and ran whole institutions dedicated to the study of slavery and abolitionism.  But you abuse the undo button and other Wikipedia policies and then accuse others of warring in the process. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, look, in light of BRINK, I don't want to go back into the heated exchanges from earlier. I only have one single question for you, this is a yes or no question. Just want to keep it simple, straightforward.

Will you accept historian David Brion Davis as a historian in the field of slavery and abolition? Progressingamerica (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you please tell me where I violated my "own rule" (which is not my own, BTW) ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An afterthought: I found my "own rule": editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible., see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. You might also want to look at WP:ONUS. And finally, no, I didn't laugh at you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

David Brion Davis
I humbly ask, will you please accept historian David Brion Davis as a historian in the field of slavery and abolition? Progressingamerica (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. But: This article is about abolitionism, not "curtailionism". An effort to curtail the slave trade is not an effort to abolish slavery. I think I already mentioned that. I also mentioned WP:SYNTH, which is what you do: You take two claims, A (for abolitionists slavery and slave trade were synonyms) and B (Virginia wanted to curtail the slave trade). Then you make the synthesis C, the House of Burgesses was abolitionist. To me that's an extraordinary claim, because I find it hard to believe that an assembly of slaveholders was abolitionist, even more so, because after Independence they didn't enact abolitionism. See WP:REDFLAG for how to deal with extraordinary claims. And: Please read the talk page rules at WP:TALK and be concise. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a straight yes/no answer. You just said: "But: This article is about abolitionism, not "curtailionism"." Earlier, you said: "the only relevant question here is, whether historians of the abolitionist movement included the Virginian tax laws in their writings or not."


 * Which is it? It's only been a few days.  Is this your final answer?  Please pick one, only one, and stick with it.  I can work with the one and only the one, but I should not have to chase ghosts.  Those who may at some point(whenever that is) come for RfC should not have to chase ghosts either.  Pick.  Just.  One. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by both answers. I think the word "included" in the earlier answer can be understood as "included in a way that makes it relevant for this article". --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, well in any case, after all this time we're actually discussing substance instead of off-topic Wiki rules which is good and I think we can work through this. This is probably the most glaring: "Then you make the synthesis C, the House of Burgesses was abolitionist."  I don't believe I ever said this, and after looking at edits I made in the Article, I don't even see a place it is implied.  For example,  and  and the first edit, I can't find any edit that is a reference casting the Burgesses in some specific light.  Everything I've said is a CLOP or direct quote from a historian solely about this one singular or series of similar laws in a small time frame.  In case I made some off handed comment, then I apologize.  Why didn't you just simply directly ask "do you believe the House of Burgesses to be abolitionist?" - that could have gone a very long way.  The obvious answer to the question is no. Where did I say that? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the "small duty" (Onuf) was not motivated by abolitionism, why should you want to mention it in this article ? And now: Enough. You wrote WP:walls of text, you started an RfC that was far from neutral, and which has been automatically ended by Legobot after 30 days. I will do my very best to ignore you in the future. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to mention it because many mainstream historians are saying it. It's widespread, in many, many historical works.  I did exactly what you told me to do.  Academic books focusing on abolitionism in the U.S. are the judges for what is relevant for this article, and that's what's in the books.  What I personally think is irrelevant for what goes into the article.  Also, it needs to be said that you didn't provide any proof for your claim of C when I requested it, that makes your claim of C a WP:REDFLAG - it's an extraordinary claim.


 * As for the other that you said: "and B (Virginia wanted to curtail the slave trade)", my fingerprints are not on this WP:SYNTH. Historian David Brion Davis (must be?) guilty of WP:SYNTH if this is the low standard, here is what he wrote: "The British Crown had, after all, promoted the African slave trade and vetoed Virginia's efforts to curtail it."  Why don't you open the links and read them? You keep making this unnecessarily difficult when you could simply click the link and see "Oh yeah, the historians really did say that.  A lot of them.  This user isn't WP:SYNTHing after all.  It's right there on the page.  I should probably stop making accusations since it is not accurate."


 * Take 5 seconds and click a link. It's not a lot to ask. You can't call me a liar when you have covered your eyes from the historians' work.  You do not appear to have ever once WP:AGF.  Even from the beginning you were accusing me of WP:SYNTH instead of using WP:AGF.  I didn't WP:SYNTH, the historians are guilty of WP:SYNTH. I cannot help that the historians are WP:SYNTHing. I do not know how else to word things if you won't even take the common courtesy of clicking the history book and reading what they are writing.  I'm giving the link, everybody can see that in my article edits.  Progressingamerica (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Virginia colony prohibitive taxes (second)
Should the historian-acknowledged veto of prohibitive taxation for the purpose of stifling the slave trade passed in the colony of Virginia be included? Progressingamerica (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * : there appears to have been a number of sections of pre-RfC discussion, but it's not quickly clear what the proposed edit is or what sources support it. Could someone lay that out, or point to a specific part of prior discussion that does so? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good evening, thank you for your query. There were many revisions and proposals over time but it might perhaps be best to start from the beginning.  Here is a proposal with four citations:


 * Pulitzer prize winning historian Alan Taylor wrote of Virginia that "To discourage more slave imports, the colony's legislature levied a heavy tax, but the imperial government vetoed it in defense of the interests of British traders." Yale historian and former director of The Lehrman Institute David Brion Davis agreed, writing "The British Crown had, after all, promoted the African slave trade and vetoed Virginia's efforts to curtail it."  Historian Eva Sheppard Wolf noted that "one English factor stationed in Alexandria considered it prohibitive", and historian John Kukla agreed, writing that "British officials began vetoing Virginia's import duties on slaves because they impeded "the importation of a considerable article of British Commerce.""


 * This is comprised mainly of direct quotes from these referenced works, I would prefer to edit them down a bit and summarize the more pertinent bits if you agree. Progressingamerica (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good evening to you as well. I think the main issue is the lack of connection to abolition of slavery. Are there any sources that make that connection? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I can give additional background information, historians make that connection in several ways:


 * This demonstrates most clearly what Virginia's motivations were for the tax and points to the success of the proliferation of abolitionists views. These laws were passed affirmatively in colonial legislatures and it was responded to, from thousands of miles away overseas.  That kind of response is a big deal and so in part also because of the colonists plea it elicited.  Edgerton and Davis and Rodriguez highlight that the Burgesses response recognized "a trade of great inhumanity".(This is a direct quote from the actual plea itself, "a trade of great inhumanity")

Historian Maurice Jackson notes a campaign conducted in Pennsylvania of both Benjamin Rush and Anthony Benezet that resulted in the imposition of a higher tax to discourage slave trade imports. That campaign didn't just locally affect Pennsylvania, it was followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware. Historian Garry Wills notes that prohibitive taxation was used as early as 1712 by Pennsylvania Quakers, again to be vetoed by London.


 * Historian James Walvin writes that Benezet was influential among prominent individuals, and Benezet also influenced "So too was the Virginia House of Burgesses" in 1772. The action of Virginian Robert Pleasants to free his slaves was well known at the time, and Pleasants distributed Benezet's pamphlets to some members of the legislature, while Benezet personally corresponded with some of them. Benjamin Franklin credited Benezet's pamphlets with the decision/plea in Virginia.

Its worth pointing out that some historians note also the popularity of Montesquieu's works throughout this decade and with Benezet himself, and Montesquieu similarly Adam Smith opposed slavery in addition to Benezet. Benezet was not the only voice of opposition received. The popularity of both Montesquieu and Adam Smith in the colonies during this period has been widely acknowledged by historians but for other reasons not necessary for this discussion.


 * See the numerous citations in this Talk Page section above titled "Motivation and focus on the trade" and also parag. 2 parag. 1 parag. 2    .  Abolitionists in those days believed(according to many historians) that slavery was a lake and the slave trade was its source of water.  Dry up the river and the lake would disappear.  Clarkson is quoted by historians as using a tree/root analogy in disrupting the first to eliminate the second.  Its worth noting that the main Wikipedia body already has some acknowledgment of this.  In the third sentence at the top of the article it states: "The anti-slavery movement originated during the Age of Enlightenment, focused on ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade."  What was this focus about?  What did the focus look like?  What were their successes of the focus?  Virginia is on that success list.  The abolitionists did not lose Virginia according to historians, the bills passed in the Burgesses and were becoming law.  What they lost was the crown, the crown probably never read Benezet.


 * 5: These are historians in the field of slavery and abolitionism that I am citing, at least the majority of them.(I would like to primarily rely on the work of Davis, perhaps Taylor and 1 or 2 others) With this Virginian effort being in so many of the abolitionist historians books then the books themselves are the connection. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)