Talk:David Cooper (abolitionist)

Premature nomination closure
— The nomination was closed out before I had a chance to respond to the latest talk. Factotem, while citing Twohig, p. 116, regarding Washington's never speaking publicly against slavery, ignores the part where Twohig also says, "...in the face  of his own growing oppistion to the institution". While Washington may have not read every pamphlet on abolition, (indicating, btw, that he kept so much of this material that he didn't have the time to read all of it), he indeed read Cooper's tract, signed it, had it bound and kept it in his library. That's more than a "factoid", it clearly indicates that Washington was in agreement with Cooper's ideas, esp since Cooper's ideas of gradual emancipation via legislation were in line with his own. This was already explained. Also, anyone half familiar with Washington knows that he remained publicly silent on slavery because it was a highly divisive issue that could easily explode and cause a rift in the young and unstable nation. Pushing the slavery issue would have been the last straw for many of the southern states who were very reluctant about the idea of national unity - because of slavery. Cooper's tract gained notoriety largely because of Washington's signature and the fact that he had it elaborately bound ("stitched") together, and kept in his library. This was also explained above. Yoninah just referred to ATL11 as an excellent compromise. I have compromised numerous times in coming up with other hooks and finally came up with one that didn't mention the signing. Yet now we can't even mention that Washington kept it in his personal library because it suggests Washington approved? That was the whole point, and given the sources and circumstances, is called for. This seems like another effort to show Washington as a slave owner who couldn't care less about the issue of slavery, which is a falsehood. Merely saying that copies were simply handed out is next to meaningless, in regards to both Cooper and Washington. All points in ALT11 are covered by at least three sources.


 * Morgan, 2005, pp. 291-292: - "The year 1783 seems to have been a turing point in Washington's attitude towards the future of slavery in North America. Along with other leading public figures in the U.S., he did not see abolition as an extreme or forelorn hope. He signed a copy of one of the leading abolitionists tracts published that year..."


 * Hayes, 2017, p. 235: - "Though Washington privately looked forward to abolition of slavery, he remained diplomatic, hesitating to commit himself. (Which also explains Washington's public silence."


 * Furstenburg, 2011, p. 252, 263: - "The first pamphlet in Washington’s volume, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, was penned by New Jersey Quaker David A. Cooper in February 1783. - Each of the volumes, without exception, bears Washington’s signature on the cover page of the first pamphlet, and some of them contain multiple pamphlets with signatures. In other words, these pamphlets, and not others, had been chosen to sit in Washington’s library".

Yoninah, if it's at all possible, could we use ALT11? Numerous sources cover how Washington was very sympathetic to abolition in his later years which is obviously why he embraced Cooper's tract. Littel more than beside the point conjecture has been offered here to oppose it, ignoring the bigger picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have to decide when enough is enough. Your nomination has been open for more than 2 months and every new hook is challenged. We finally found something that everyone can agree on and ... you disagree. If you like, I'll pull the hook. But I think we all have better things to do than argue it out some more. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for this long and belabored discussion. ALT11 sat there for more than a week and no one said anything, and you finally said it was an excellent compromise and approved it, yet another editor started the debate all over again, repeating the same failed out of context points already addressed. (i.e.Washington was publicly silent, etc) which is why I responded. Several reviewers had no issue with the part about Washington's signing, etc. Any disagreement should be based on sound reasoning, and no one, still, has offered any viable reason to keep mention of Washington's feelings about abolition, and Cooper's tract, out of the hook. Now we have a hook that doesn't even say the tract was specifically addressed to the US gov and barely a hint that it was read by Washington, even though his sympathies to Cooper's ideas are well covered by multiple sources. They say WP is not censored. If you have a mind to, I'm hoping you'll add something that indicates the tract was not merely handed out, but I suppose it's too late for that. The sources support that, and all the sources cover Washington's changing feelings about slavery and his sympathies towards abolition in his latter years, freeing all his slaves in his will and providing for the education of the young ones. If not, then ALT9 is better than nothing. In any case, thanx for seeing matters this far.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

New article
Content and other sources are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hidden sections
This article contains two hidden sections that were cited by a source deemed unreliable. If anyone can find sources for the material in question it would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)