Talk:Benjamin Kent

Ref to The Works of John Adams
"Prior to the American Revolution, Kent was the lawyer who took on most of the cases of slaves suing their masters, which contributed to the demise of slavery in Massachusetts." was ref'd to The Works of John Adams. I took out the ref. since I couldn't see anything in the linked page that backed up that statement. However it could be that the appropriate info is elsewhere in The Works of John Adams. Please reinstate if I've missed something.--Cornellier (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Legacy
Earlier versions were clear that Kent was a patriot. The sources cited don't support the idea in the text that there's really any controversy about this point. Kent moved to Halifax in his old age to be near his daughter, that's all. Wanted to air this concern with Hantsheroes before suggesting a revision. Sprucegrouse (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that the passage There has been controversy among historians over whether or not Kent was a Patriot or Loyalist ... some historians have labeled Kent a loyalist ... while Stark does not ... Sibley indicates Kent is a patriot ... Charles Adams ... identifies Kent as a patriot. is WP:SYNTHESIS and should be removed. Let the facts speak for themselves. --Cornellier (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sabine's Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution: With an Historical Essay, Volume 1 (p. 600) includes him in his list of loyalists, which was referenced in the article. As well, why was the fact that Kent had slaves himself removed from the article, which also had a reference.--Hantsheroes (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sabine admits that “his name is to be found among those of Samuel Adams, Cushing, Warren, Hancock, and other prominent leaders of the patriot band.” Sabine goes on to say, without any explanation or citation of evidence “to the gentlemen who suggested  that the subject of this notice was not a Loyalist, I return my warm thanks for the endeavor to correct an inaccuracy in this work; but the name was not inserted in the first edition without thought, and is retained now, after due consideration of the circumstances to which my attention has since been kindly directed.”

We can put something like the paragraph above into the article, if you think Sabine’s bald opinion is worth mentioning. But there is no evidence of any general “controversy” around whether Kent was a patriot or not, except between Sabine himself and the various gentlemen who offered good reasons why Sabine was wrong to list Kent as a patriot.

There is indeed a passing reference in Sibley to a provision of Kent’s will bequeathing other property and slaves to his daughter, with no further context. Without more detail, this seems more like a factoid than a fact, and plucking it out of one source to feature in the article seems to me to excessively discredit both Kent and his son-in-law, both of whom I think deserve to be remembered for their significant contributions towards the judicial abolition of slavery in Massachusetts and Nova Scotia.

I also think the discussion of the slave cases in the body of the article should be tied more closely to the Tyrannicide cases mentioned in the first paragraph, but I haven’t obtained a copy of that book yet. Sprucegrouse (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction contains the statement "He has been called an 'ardent patriot." The citation is to a letter from Kent to Benjamin Franklin, which does not support the statement in the text. Unless someone knows the actual source of the "ardent patriot" quotation, I propose omitting that clause, and maybe repurposing the reference to the Franklin letter for another purposes. Sprucegrouse (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the "ardent patriot" bit seems to be in a footnote, in the ref. deleted. --Cornellier (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)