Talk:George Washington/Archive 32

Readable prose query
I'm wondering what the current count is for GW. I know this has been referenced in the past; I'm not raising the issue here and I know we don't let numbers control things. I am only asking because Eisenhower has been tagged as too long, and just wanted to use GW as a ref. Hoppyh (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Eisenhower is currently 95kb/15358 words of readable prose. Washington is currently 88kb/14015. Factotem (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The tag has been there since January of this year, and no one seems to care about the length. There's not even a discussion on the Talk page about it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble loading the page. This with high-speed internet and a fairly new laptop. Can't imagine loading it into onto the mobile app or reading it on a phone!!! Victoria (tk) 22:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, trying to read a WP article on a phone would be like taking a scooter to the grocery store to buy groceries for the week. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's kinda funny, but the reality is that more and more people are reading on their phones. Here's what the article looks like in mobile view, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 01:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a smart phone and from time to time when I'm out and about I'll do a google search for something, but when I want to do some serious reading and/or studying I just fire-up the ol' desk top rig. I suspect that most internet-phone usage involves quick searches for restaurants, news blurbs and such. I just don't see people abandoning their computers because they have a smart phone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2016 the traffic was about evenly split between the mobile platform and the web platform. I wouldn't be surprised if the mobile now surpasses web. The point, not so much to debate the issue, is that editors need to keep mobile readers in mind. The mobile version lacks a table of contents, instead readers choose which sections to browse. I firmly believe that an article of this size attracts readers to specific sections, hence the importance of getting it right. I also firmly believe we don't want to choke loading, which is happening. If I can't get a page to save, it's a barrier to editing. Victoria (tk) 15:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've got to disagree on some points. If someone wants to do some serious editing, then they better get the right equipment. Again, most of the mobile traffic is for the sort of things I mentioned. i.e.Simple searches for restaurants, movies, music, You-Tube stuff, etc. I seriously doubt many people are using a cell phone to write articles. What about all the tables and charts, many columns wide, here on Wikipedia? How do they expect to view these on a cell phone? Trying to accommodate cell phone users would require that we dumb down the format of WP immensely. Anyways, we're getting a bit off topic in terms of improving the Washington article, so if you have any last thoughts you'd like to share I'll just read them and move on. In any case, the concern is appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not referring to Youtube, etc. Specifically Wikipedia splits readers between it's mobile version & the other. So it's not off topic, because article size is a valid concern. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington, slaves and "Mt. Vernon estates" operating loss

 * Cmguy777 deleted the following passage on May 4, complaining that the passage was misleading. He citing the potential valuation of Washington’s undeveloped frontier acreage. He also observed that Washington did not employ all his slaves in plantation gangs immediately about the Mount Vernon great house on the Potomac River.
 * Referencing Wiencek (2003), Flexner (1974), Hirschfeld (1997), and Ellis (2004), the deleted passage read: “Washington supported many slaves who were too young or too old to work and did not permanently split up families without the slave's consent, greatly increasing Mount Vernon's slave population and causing the plantation to operate at a loss in the process.”
 * - Although I know we are collaboratively trying to reduce the length of the article, perhaps the passage might be recast, adding some explanatory detail, I suggest reintroducing an amended passage:
 * “Washington supported cultural and economic autonomy among his slaves, setting up separate farms with enslaved farmer managers living in family units removed from Mount Vernon. Those farms were later bequeathed to those he freed in his will. Washington maintained slaves in families including those too old or too young to work, avoiding permanent involuntary separations. Their expense contributed to an operating loss for his Mount Vernon estates. During his presidency and after, Washington suffered cash flow problems when he refused to resell his land holdings to speculator syndicates, and his frontier land holdings could not be otherwise sold directly to settlers.”
 * TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I thought that deletion was dubious as well, though the removed text was not without one issue relating to the statement "slave population...causing the plantation to operate at a loss..." (my emphasis). From my reading, it appears that Washington's financial problems had a number of causes, amongst which were his profligate spending on luxuries (certainly before the revolution, see Ferling 2009 p. 56, Ellis 2004 p. 49 and Chernow ch. 13), poor crop yields (Chernow pp. 552-553) and, it would appear, having his fortune locked up in real estate that he couldn't sell (can't give a source for that right now, will find one or retract if anyone wants to challenge me on that). So writing that the surfeit in slaves contributed to rather than caused losses is I think a more accurate representation.
 * Is it accurate to state slaves "living in family units" and "Washington maintained slaves in families"?
 * Kenneth Morgan writes on p. 281 "Slaves were kept on each of these properties and lived on the farm where they were assigned to work rather than in family units...".
 * The MVLA write, "Of the ninety-six married slaves on the five farms at Mount Vernon in 1799, only thirty-six lived in the same household as their spouse and children. Another thirty-eight had spouses living on one of the Washington's other farms, a situation related primarily to work assignments as many of the slaves lived at the farm where they worked." Factotem (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some slave families lived seperately due to their work assignments. Washington's plantation was not operating at a profit, but Washington was certainly rich enough to free his slaves. I disagree with "cultural and economic autonomy" phrase. The slaves were Washington's property. How can property be autonomous? Is a couch autonomous? Is a coin autonomous? These slaves had abosulutley no rights under Virginia law and subject to being whipped. Washington was not operating a co-op commune. Mount Vernon was a for profit business, not a charity for slaves. That is white washing the situation. Are editors aware that slavery has no or little affect on Washington's reputation among historians. He recently was ranked number one. He has always been in the top four. There is no reason to defend his reputation in the article. Washington does not need to be defended. Nothing in the article says Washington was a bad person for owning slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I put some of the slave families were seperated by their work assignements. I put Washington had debts and overstocked slaves. As mentioned above Washington's debt may have been his own doing. Washington did not want to break up Mount Vernon because he feared he would loose money. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Slaves lived in family units unless they voluntarily agreed to work away on other farms. According to our sources, “Washington …. did not permanently split up families without the slave’s consent.” Washington did not culturally intervene in slave free association in religious worship (some African customs were maintained).
 * We find on the Mount Vernon site, “Caesar, an enslaved field worker at Union Farm, was also a minister who preached to local black communities.”  Washington enabled eleven of his slaves, both adults and children, to be baptized in Williamsburg in the 1760s, perhaps influenced by Thomas Bray and the presidents of William and Mary who taught at the Bray School for slaves 1760-1774. One account relates Mount Vernon in communion with Baptists, Methodists, and Quakers, all of whom allowed participation in congregations and in leadership by free blacks and slaves in Virginia.
 * Washington did not sell of the land he passed on to his emancipated slaves for their economic self-reliance. Were he interested in “profit” during his cashflow problems, he would have sold off those very parcels that had immediate market demand with producing farms and good connecting infrastructure, unlike the unsold frontier parcels that he could not liquidate, nor borrow against.
 * I’m not sure Washington’s vision of free, literate, baptized African Americans living in family units, on self-supporting farms was “a charity for slaves”, considering their substantial contribution to his career as a Virginia gentleman over the course of 50 years. But noting his determined economic choices --- that he maintained in his declining years at a financial loss --- cannot be attributed to profligacy in the 1760s, nor can it be fairly characterized as “white washing”. —— I agree with that “autonomous” is not the best word, we should use “cultural and economic self-reliance”.
 * The proposed passage is collegially amended thusly:
 * - “Washington supported cultural and economic self-reliance among his slaves, setting up separate farms with enslaved farmer managers living in family units removed from Mount Vernon. Those farms were later bequeathed to those he freed in his will. Washington maintained slaves in families including those too old or too young to work, avoiding permanent involuntary separations. Their expense contributed to an operating loss for his Mount Vernon estates. During his presidency and after, Washington suffered cash flow problems when he refused to resell his land holdings to speculator syndicates, and his frontier land holdings could not be otherwise sold directly to settlers.”
 * TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources, especially for the "without the slave's consent"? The two sources I provided above give no indication that the slaves had any say in the matter of where they worked. I'm also not sure about "enslaved farmer managers". Morgan 2000 pp. 283-284, writes, "Washington mainly employed white overseers at Mount Vernon, though he also tried out some black superintendents..." Morgan 2500 p. 410, writes, "From 1766 onward, Washington employed slaves as overseers; at one point three of his five farms were under black supervision." Factotem (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Voluntarily agreed ? Is there a recorded incident of any Washington slave voluntarily agreeing to anything ? What if a slave dared say no to George Washington ? This all seems to be designed to make Washington the nice slave owner. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the "without the slave's consent" comes from the previous editor’s contribution, citing four sources for the complex sentence. I’ll search to see if I can nail it down.
 * a) Washington may be “the nice slave owner” for you, since there is documentary evidence that he believed slaves had souls and he acted on it for their benefit, allowing ("nicely"?) the development and maintenance of a self-reliant, self-determined, autonomously-referential, slave culture in family unit worship and religious rites --- including aspects of African tradition --- that were independent of the Washington family practice, if I may be so bold as to use the term "independent".
 * b) There is ample documentation in the literature, and specifically in the work of Ira Berlin, that master-slave economic relationship was one of give-and-take bargaining, hence
 * - i) the widespread practice in Virginia for as much as 50% of an artisan’s wages in the city during the winter to be paid to the slave himself, enabling him to buy his family and then himself out of slavery (bricklayers, carpenters, blacksmiths, seamstresses, cooks, launderers, etc.).
 * - ii) Also, in Virginia, the enslaved freight boat captains plying the Potomac, York and James Rivers, as well as those in the Richmond-Norfolk-Baltimore trade, would usually receive a commission on goods sold and bartered during each trip.
 * - iii) And, there was always the stop-workage in the face of an abusive overseer, running away for a number of days, escaping altogether, as well as slave-arson of crop-filled barns or outlying buildings . . . and not to be summarily dismissed in the calculations of slave-owners, the rare murder of overseer or master or master's son by abused slaves . ..
 * unlawful, of course, and not often found among your "nice" slaves with your "nice" masters, although I don't think the term "nice" is much used in modern historiography, nor should it be used in this article to describe either Washington or his slaves . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A view that slaves have souls does not make Washington a nice slave owner. There was no out of control cruelty at Mount Vernon, compared to another slave owner, but there was the cruelty of the whip. Cruelty or kindness does not need to be mentioned in the narration. Let the reader decide. Slaves were whipped at Mount Vernon. That is all that needs to be said. Washington's religious beliefs are unknown or complex. He refused to take communion. Did Washington reject Christianity or the divinity of Christ ? He was chastized for the non participation. Washington was a proud man and did not attend Communion shensnenehen. Did Washington believe in a spritual world or a soul ? Did Washington have a concept of original sin ? Is forced labor of Africans compatible with the Christian gospel ? This is just for the talk pagemjjjsjsnwjwjs. I don't think these areas need to be included in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To put the situation in context, while in no way ameliorating the state of slavery, Washington's soldiers could be flogged on occasion.

JF42 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 The source for not splitting up families without the "slave's consent" comes from Flexner, 1974, p.386, 3rd paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777 : We already cover Washington's religious and spiritual involvements, that he prayed before the Bible each morning, was a life long member of the Anglican church, etc. A view that slaves have souls doesn't make him a cruel slave owner either. Both punishment and good deeds needs to be mentioned in the slavery section. Once again, we write the narrative with context, per FA criteria. Also, families working at different plantations is not permanent separation. Sometimes slaves only got to see other family members at a frequency that was no differently that many white families who were also separated and lived in the next town. Slave families were within walking distance from one another. In any case, this has nothing to do with Washington supporting many more slaves than he had use for. The entire statement in question is cited by several sources, including Wiencek and Hirschfeld. We only say what the sources say, while all along you've objected to much of what the sources say, which is a little troubling. Often times you've removed such information from the narrative, in defiance of the sources, with the rather insipid claim that this is "white washing". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers : My sources have been Morgan (2005) and Morgan (2000). I have the Chernow (2010) and Taylor (2016) books. What are good deeds ? Productive work so Washington can make a profit. Africans as a class were enslaved for life along with their children. There were no White slaves. Indentured servants. Yes. But no White slaves. The two can't be compared. Even the slaves freedoms was entirely at the mercy of Washington. There is a danger in saying slaves are awarded for good deeds. That is POV for advocating slavery. Wikipedia is not to make judgements on slavery, Washington, or Washington's treatment of slaves. Wikipedia is not suppose to promote slavery, Washington, or Washington's treatment of slaves. That is called neutrality. Neutrality is not defiance. It is Wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You really need to back off with your not so subtle accusations fella. Your recital about "neutrality", etc, now sounds moronic. This coming from someone who wants to exclude much of the truth. Is Wiencek, Chernow, Flexner, etc, "promoting slavery" with some of their coverage? Are they being less than neutral? That you have to ask what are good deeds only exemplifies your unwillingness to abide by the sources. We say what the sources say, and if you think this amounts to POV pushing that's something you, as an adult, will have to learn to deal with. Your reaching attempts to exclude this sort of context is the only POV pushing around here. Done trying to reason with you. Meanwhile, we say what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I need to "back off" ? Editors can express their opinions freely in the talk page without being told to "back off". You say I am "moronic". These are personal attacks. I said what the sources said: Morgan (2005) and Morgan (2000). I never said Wiencek, Chernow, and Flexner were promoting slavery. I just said my opinions. I have a right to my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't attempt to be clever. You more than suggested that my edits were POV and advocating slavery. Though it was not direct it was clearly a personal attack. Expressing opinions in such a tacky manner can be a two way street, so you really don't want to go there. If you say, "I never said Wiencek, Chernow, and Flexner were promoting slavery.", then neither am I when I cite these sources. Once again, we say what the sources say. Please try to cope and stop these attempts to censure the truth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a summary article. All that needs to be said is slaves were whipped at Mount Vernon. I have no issues with Washington giving incentives to slaves to work. A working slave is profitable for Washington. Slaves should not be equated to white workers nor considered employees. I have not censured the truth. The narration in this article should be clear and concise concerning Washington's treatment of slaves. The article should neither make Washington cruel or nice. In my opinion, there has been a certain effort to whitewash Washington's treatment of slaves. Nothing in the article says Washington was a cruel slave owner. There is no need to prove he was a kind slave owner. The treatment section should not address kindness or cruelty. The readers can make that decision on their own by the article narration. Washington considered African slaves human property, not citizens. Can we please keep the personal attacks in the talk page to a minimum ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your comments have matured over the months becoming more inclusive and balanced, less severe generally, and your ongoing collegiality — although peppered with ideocentric barbs — makes your contributions on this talk page overall a valuable contribution to our common effort.
 * I do think it is important not to confuse our admiration for Washington’s good personal qualities in the particulars of his daily practice to be confused with the overarching, systemic and fundamental moral corruption that slave-holding in any age entails, — however it may be mitigated in relative implementation by personal relationships, including the various schemes that evolved for some level of personal and work autonomy, even manumission and free black community within the Virginian slave regime 1750-1800.
 * (a) It is likely that Washington did not take communion because he was a slave owner.
 * - In the “| exhortation for communion” found in the Anglican, then after 1785, the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, “as the benefit is great, . . . so is the [spiritual] danger great, if we receive it improperly”.
 * - The predicate for beneficial communion by the faithful, that taking it NOT be spiritually damning, is that the communicant ”Examine your [life] and conduct by the rule of God’s commandments, that you may perceive wherein you have offended in what you have done or left undone, whether in thought, word, or deed. And acknowledge your sins . . ., being ready to make restitution for all injuries and wrongs done by you to others.”
 * - Scripture is plain, in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, the first commandment is to love God, the second is to love your neighbor. As Paul instructs in Collosians 4:1, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” And again directly concerning a runaway slave who was “unprofitable” to his master before, but since converted to Christianity, “receive him … not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved … If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.” | Philemon 1:11, 16, 17
 * (b) You say, “A working slave is profitable for Washington. Slaves should not be equated to white workers nor considered employees.” — Yet Washington kept slave family members who were unprofitable, and he set up slave-managed farms of wheat that CAN in some cases, be equated to contemporary white workers who were tenant “employees”, with the same privileges in freedom of movement and contractural obligations as contemporary whites. Interestingly by 1793, | Washington reminded a manager that “admonition and advice” sometimes succeeded where “further [corporal] correction” failed.
 * (c) Again, this is not to justify the slavery regime of Virginia 1750-1800, only by way of explaining Washington’s practice of it. You say, "All that needs to be said is slaves were whipped at Mount Vernon."
 * - I believe we have enough evidence in the sources to note in the article an evolution from Washington’s 1760s practice of tobacco slavery in closely supervised gangs where whipping was more frequent, versus his 1790s practice of wheat slavery in a loose constellation of self-reliant farms that were bequeathed to Washington’s manumitted slaves for their economic independence as freedmen.
 * - In any case, it is important not to conflate Washington’s far-flung estates producing wheat in the 1790s with the slavery work-gang regime of an 1860 Mississippi cotton plantation as described in most high school textbooks for their chapter on “slavery in the United States”. That is useful to account for 85% of America’s enslaved population at the onset of the Civil War, but it is not the purpose of this article on George Washington. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said TheVirginiHistorian. I am not here to cause trouble but to contribute to the article or talk page. Washington's slaves lives were under Virginia Law were severely restrictive. Baptism could not free you from slavery. Mindful, Washington led a rebellion against Britain for the cause of freedom. But he held the African slaves in bondage. Washington was not content to be a British slave, which he was not, so why should he keep enslaved Africans? Washington volunteered his service to the country. African slaves were forced into labor always under the possiblity of the whip. They were imprisoned on the plantations and had to receive a parole from Washington to leave the estate. Christ said we are all brothers and sisters. Mark 3:35. Matthew 20:25-27 Christ says not to lord it over like the Gentiles do. Washington was not exessively cruel with the whip. But for the article to be neutral it is best to let the reader to decide whether Washington was cruel or kind. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777 : The only way to let the readers make up their own mind is to include all the facts, not try to censure them. Re you comment above : "This is a summary article. All that needs to be said is slaves were whipped at Mount Vernon." Yes, this is a summary article, but not an outline of truncated and out of context statements. FA criteria maintains that we present the topics with context and in a well written and engaging manner. The obtuse statement that "Disobedient slaves were whipped by overseers" doesn't even approach this end, and without context, the young and/or naive reader will be taken away by modern day stigmas and distortions, which I believe you're counting on. Since this has been explained to you numerous times I can only conclude that you're determined to author a simplistic and condemning account on Washington and are attempting to keep as much context out of the narrative as is possible, as you've demonstrated before just recently, and much more than once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777 : Odd that you would say "well said" to TVH as he has echoed many of my assertions, the likes of which you have objected to before, including his thoughts on indentured servants, and his reminder that Washington kept on many more slaves than he had use for, the likes of a passage you've attempted to remove from our article, twice now. How do you spell "intellectual honesty"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers TVH is not so judgemental in his TVH conversations with myself. You alluded to myself that I was moronic and told me to "back off". I added an edit that Washington's slaves were overstocked. This section is on slavery, not indentured servants. We could keep adding and adding to this section. In an FA review it is possible a reviewer will say the section is too long because it has a main article. I wanted this section to be 5 paragraphs. Being neutral does not mean adding and adding information. Washington had debts independent of overstocked slaves. He did make profits from slavery. He had enough money to free his slaves. This article should stop treating Washington like he is impoverished. Washington was a shrewed businessman and slave owner. Washington did not like splitting families but he did on his farms. Not all families were together due to work assignments. I am going by Morgan 2000. I put in the article Washington had debts. Please don't bring in "intellectual dishonesty." Unfounded accusations don't help. I had removed that Washington's "poverty" was linked to overtocked slaves. Washington had debts because he was a spender, crops failed, and his wealth was tied to land. The overstocked slaves were a burden financially. That would be more accurate. But again Washington had enough money to emanicpate his slaves. TVH treated me with respect. That is why I said "well said." Cmguy777 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

editbreak2
Cmguy777: Actually, TVH was a bit judgemental, saying that your comments are getting more mature, etc. Reread the first passage in his last message to you, directly above. It's a rather complimentary judgement, though I disagree with it almost entirely. Sometimes my tone, and my judgements, are such as I believe you are not always being honest, while you routinely ignore past discussions, talking as if we all have failing memories. This is compounded by your continuous effort to remove important context, knowing full well how the resultant edit(s) will be interpreted by the young and naive. Nothing amazing. We would make better progress if your Talk was consistent and you didn't scoff at and remove what multiple sources are saying. Your accusations of "whitewashing", as if there is this effort to coverup something, doesn't help either. Once again, Washington was not a very wealthy man in the latter years of his life. Wealthy or not, he still supported many more slaves than he had financial or other uses for. He was entertaining the idea of emancipation with Lafayette, Humphreys, Lear and others, as early as 1789, but fortunately was wise enough to know that setting slaves free, with no means of support, esp those with children, and with nothing but a pat on the back, would have been a disaster. This has been explained for you numerous times, yet you wonder about my tone when you simply ignore it all and repeat the same lines and veiled accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. I want a civil conversation. You keep making personal comments on my integrity as a Wikipedia editor rather than have a discussion. The sources I used are Morgan (2005) and Morgan (2000). There is no Wikipedia policy that says attack the integrity of other editors. I don't ignore past discussions. I will discontinue discussions when my integrity is attacked. Now you are insinuating I am not "honest" and I "routinely ignore past discussions". You tell me to "back off" when expressing my opinions in the talk page. You say I am "moronic". That is just getting too personal. I have a right to edit in the best interest of this article to get to FA. Let's work together to get this article to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could easily outline the edit history involved in any given instance, starting with your claims of "neutrality" when you remove context that indeed maintains neutrality, and your not so veiled accusations when you claim "WP is not supposed to promote slavery", in response to my editing, which I indeed referred to as "moronic". I will not sit still for this not so clever behavior. If you don't forget past discussion, why must things be explained to you numerous times, as I'm doing now, before you acknowledge and/or comply? My criticisms are not spun out of thin air, so please don't carry on, quoting me out of context, as if everyone around here just arrived. Will try to move on. We're trying to compose a FA article. This requires context and an insight into real life human affairs during Washington's day. You take us backwards every time you try to remove such coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Insert: Gwillhickers. I struck out two comments above. I am all for context and insight, in a summary style. I hope we can move on. I am more that willing to do so. I believe my edits left neutrality in tact. You have the freedom to disagree. I kept the information concerning Washington was in debt and he was overstocked with slaves. All I did was remove the link between the two in the narration. I used Morgan (2000) as a reference. Morgan (2000) does say Washington's Mount Vernon was profitable a few times. Unlike Jefferson, Washington was not bankrupt. He had enough money to free his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Of some relevance to this discussion, I see a new edition from Sean Wilentz, | No property in Man: Slavery and Anti-slavery at the Nation’s Founding.
 * While giving the "largest" thanks for bringing the publication to light in the book's introduction to Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, - Wilentz took issue there with Thurgood Marshall’s 1987 take on Fourth of July and the Constitution in a “controversial reconsideration [that] upends orthodox views of the Constitution” the book blurb says. "It abided slavery without legitimizing it. As Southern Fire-eaters invented a proslavery version of the Constitution, antislavery advocates, including Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, proclaimed antislavery versions based on the framers’ refusal to validate what they called 'property in man'."
 * They quoted James Madison at the Convention in the hearing of George Washington, insisting that it would be wrong for the Federal Constitution to admit, “the idea that there could be property in men.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Review by Victoria
I'm looking at this as a reviewer, and as such I would want to see improvement in the section were it at FAC. Some examples, (and fwiw, it's taken me an hour to check the first para and only two sentences of the second) working from this version: Only some of the issues at hand have to do with sourcing, presenting the nuances as previously discussed, and as far as stability, adding and re-adding does seem to move the text away from the cited sources and close paraphrasing is being introduced, (see bolded text). The section is important and to echo Wehwalt again, does and will continue to invite scrutiny, so the it's best to spend the time to find the best sources, read them, and then re-do the section. If someone else wants to go through sentence by sentence it might be a valuable exercise, but I don't have any more time to give to it at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is a good start but as I believe has already been mentioned somewhere here, he wasn't a tobacco farmer throughout his life, so that might be introduced early on, or the maybe the tobacco verbiage removed.
 * Second para, first sentence: FN 366 cites Ferling, Flexner, Hirshfeld, Morgan. Flexner has no mention of Lafayette on cited pages; Hirshfeld, no mention of Lafayette on cited page, does mention that GW decided to keep “the army white and to bar African Americans from being recruited or from volunteering”. It goes on to say that “Only a surprise tactical move by the enemy forced Washington to reconsider this exclusionary policy”, note this point is more nuanced and presented differently, I believe in Twohig; Ferling, neither Lafayette or slavery mentioned on cited pages, page 163 is here. Morgan, not seeing Lafayette on cited page.
 * Second para, second sentence: Text is cited to Morgan and says "Washington admitted that he had not given much thought to the prospect, but was now worried that arming Blacks would cause the British to do so also, believing that the outcome of the war depended on "...which side can arm the Negroes faster"." Morgan, page 290, states: "Washington stated that he had not given much thought to the position of slaves in the War of Indepence, but he was worried that arming them would cause the British to follow suit .... He came around to the view that the outcome of the war depended on which side can arm the Negroes faster", (Morgan 290-1)


 * Should I move the above comment down to the "critique" section? At the least sourcing and CP need to be addressed. Victoria (tk) 13:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No issues here if you do. You can place it above my tome, if you like. Factotem (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, moved this comment to appropriate section. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving on, hoping someone will take care of the issues raised. Working from this version:
 * Second para, second sentence says "As the war progressed into 1778, he endorsed the New England states' plan to recruit slaves, emancipate them, and compensate the slave owners.", cited to Kenneth Morgan (2000), who writes on page 290, "At at a number of public occasions where slavery could not be ignored. At the beginning of the revolutionary war, the Council of War at Cambridge, Massachusetts, at which Washington was present, rejected having slaves in the Continental Army, a position reiterated by the Continental Congress.58 The position was different for free Negroes. On 30 December 1775 Washington wrote in his orderly book that, since a number of free blacks wished to enlist, he would bring the matter before Congress, which he felt would approve of their inclusion in the army. The desired outcome soon arose. On 16 January 1776 Congress resolved that free blacks who had served faithfully in the army at Cambridge could enlist but no others : slaves were excluded from American armies." Note the discrepancy between recruiting slaves with promises of manumission & compensation, vs. the cited source clearly stating only free blacks and no slaves.
 * 2nd para, third sentence is cited to Shenawolf - that issue still needs resolution.
 * 2nd para, fourth sentence claims one-tenth of the army = Blacks. Unable to see the relevant book pages to verify.
 * 2nd para, fifth sentence: "On May 6, 1783, at a conference held in Orangetown, New York, Washington petitioned British Major General Sir Guy Carleton to return American slaves manumitted and enlisted by the British Army. 'When Carleton refused, Washington and Congress allowed the loss of these former slaves, to prevent war with Britain. Kenneth Morgan (2000), writes on page 291, "On 6 May 1783 at Orangetown, New York, Washington held a conference with Sir Guy Carleton, the British Commander-in-Chief, to discuss the recovery of American blacks evacuated with the British towards the end of the war.... To prevent a resumption of war, Washington and Congress accepted the loss of slaves" This seems very close to the source (see bolding) and should be recast. Victoria (tk) 20:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3rd para: First sentence, tense issues, though the odd little tense shift does save the sentence from being verbatim with the source, Morgan (2000), p. 291 writes: "he did not see abolition as extreme", we say "he did not view abolitionism was extreme"
 * 3rd para, 2nd sentence: lacking logic/linkage with the previous sentence. And, three sources for one sentence? It takes too long to check, so haven't in this case.
 * 3rd para, 3rd sentence: Following this handy-dandy link to Dorothy Twohig's excellent piece, a woman whose scholarship is impeccable, we find the statement to be true. Why now swap out the source?
 * Does Twohig support the statement that Washington spoke privately of freeing his slaves often? I can see only the 1794 letter to Tobias Lear, in which he talks of the desire to "liberate a certain species of property". But that is followed by the letter to Alexander Spotswood the same year, in which Washington says the only reason he still has slaves is because he is principled against selling them like cattle. If he wanted to liberate them, that principle would be irrelevant; emancipation would not involve any kind of sale, surely?
 * From what I've gleaned (which is to say, I have no sources to support this), he was opposed to the institution, and wanted himself to be free of it, but he still regarded his slaves as his property with a significant value attached to them.
 * In 1779, he said he would abandon slave labour when the war ended, but he still intended to accomplish that by selling his slaves. (Ellis 2004 p. 164)
 * In 1791 he arranged for those he took with him as President to Philadelphia to be returned to Mount Vernon before they became eligible for emancipation after six months residence per Pennsylvanian law, and in 1795 he ordered the recapture of a fugitive slave,(Twohig) which suggests to me he's still concerned to retain his slaves that late in life.
 * As for the sources currently provided:
 * I checked the pages given for Ferling 2002, but there's nothing there to support speaking privately of wanting to liberate his slaves, only that Washington wished to see the end of the institution of slavery (which we know from Twohig he saw as a gradual, legislative process).
 * The Gbooks preview I have for Stewart won't give me pp. 257 & 258, but I'm a little suspicious because p. 256 is not discussing slavery at all, p. 259 is a new chapter and a search for "slaves" and "slavery" does not give any hits on p. 257. Factotem (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Para 3 is a short stubby three-sentence paragraph, none of which appear to have any relationship to the others. Yet it introduces crucial ideas, which, in my view, the section should delve into: abolitionism, the tension re slavery at the Constitutional Convention, and the reasons for Washington's reticence re the divide issue. The paragraph should be rewritten. Victoria (tk) 22:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So, yes, in my view, that sentence can be cited to Twohig with some modifications. Of course our article barely scratches the surface; getting below that surface should be the emphasis of the slavery section, in my view. Thanks, btw, for reading my comments. I was beginning to wonder ... Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem, this where nuance and attribution to cited references is vital, and yes, there is a vast difference between condemning the institution vs. a willingness to free his own slaves (I might have been getting tired and discouraged). The sentence we have is grossly oversimplified and the word "often" is misleading. I'm working from Twohig's online version.
 * A few paragraphs in she writes,.
 * She goes on to say,
 * A few paragraphs later, she goes on to say,
 * Skip a few more paragraphs and there's this:
 * Re divisiveness she writes,
 * She follows the same vein throughout the paragraph and the next, stating three paragraphs later,
 * Skip down a few paragraphs, and there's this:
 * It's the "Washington often spoke privately of freeing his slaves..." bit I see no support for in the sources. The rest of it, yes, that's well supported, goes to the heart of the subject and should definitely receive a lot more attention. Factotem (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about writing and citing to Twohig: "Washington never publicly condemned the institution of slavery, believing that the issue would divide the new nation, but in private he expressed opinions against it." Or something along those lines? Essentially it should be a topic sentence at the beginning of a paragraph that then spins out the very important issues Twohig addresses. Victoria (tk) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. support that. Factotem (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've sandboxed a rough and ready first draft run through of what I perceive to be the key issues. The framework is based on Philip Morgan's account, and it draws almost exclusively on the accounts of the two Morgan's and Twohig. I have no opinion on the relative merits of those three; I believe them all to be very solid sources indeed. I'm fairly sure it's too long to serve as a summary section for this article, and that's not it's purpose; it's primarily designed as a learning exercise for myself. Maybe it will be useful, hopefully it will not be an unnecessary distraction. Feel free to draw on it/ignore it as appropriate. Factotem (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've been offline, but peeked at it briefly this morning. Looks good. This evening I hope to finish what I started above, then will read through your sandbox. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Carrying on, working from this version: Conclusion: the entire section needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. 's sandbox version is very nice (though trimming back a bit from 1500 words wouldn't be a terrible idea). The current main-space version includes text/source discrepancies (which, really, should be tagged), close paraphrasing, factoids, inaccuracies, and prose issues. As a FAC reviewer I'd oppose based on this section alone (I didn't get this far during the FAC review). Keep in mind that many readers don't read an article such as this in its entirety but will skip around from section to section. So each section, particularly on a subject such as this under close scrutiny, should be approached as if a small standalone article, written in summary style, impeccable referencing using the best secondary sources, and copyedited to an inch of its life. :) Victoria (tk) 00:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Para 4, first sentence tells us that President Washington was in touch with his overseer, cited to Chernow, Ferling, MVLA. I've read this elsewhere, so don't dispute it's veracity, but it's a factoid. Is that all he did as president? Was he in touch with the overseer only when president and not the many other times he was gone? It does little to move narrative.
 * Para 4, 2nd sentence tells us that slaves ran away, with lots of citations. Another factoid. He was a slaveowner most of his life and some percentage of slaves were runaways, not only during his presidency.
 * Para 4, 3rd sentence to the end of the para: Franklin suddenly appears with his petition, (without mention of Quakers, Abolitionists, or Franklin's motivation) and subsequent events. Should these presidential actions be moved to the presidency section? I checked the citations when I tried to edit there and unless they've been changed since, should be ok.
 * Para 5, has been rewritten and sources checked (I think, unless they've changed again). Generally ok, but preferred the version that attributed to specific historians and would prefer to see it trimmed back a bit from 9 sentences (vs only one that mentions he condemned the institutions and was reticent about expressing opinions).
 * Para 6, this version is new since I looked at it last. Probably could be collapsed to one or two sentences and the rest moved to the dedicated subarticle, plus don't know what's going on with the sourcing that's been swapped.


 * Final thoughts: it seemed to me that instead of simply saying the section needs work, it would be more productive to present an alternative (hence the suggested rewrite above) and to review sentence by sentence. That's now been done and is being discussed. I'd hoped some of the more egregious issues at the least would be addressed, i.,e CP introduced here, and here, discrepancies between text and source and so on. So I've made some fixes and leave it you all to carry on. The takeaway to the main editors should be that the section does need work, whether or not this ends up at FAC again. If it does end up at FAC again, then the entire article has to be checked for errors found in this section. The article gets 20,000 to 40,000 page views a day, which is really high and that puts the onus on us (collectively) to get it right. Victoria (tk) 15:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be interested to know what the sentiment is now among the main editors in the light of two reviews suggesting a rewrite, and if so what their views are on the suitability of my sandbox version as the basis for that. Factotem (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The resounding silence seems clear. That said, anyone can edit. Deferring to the main editors is the polite thing to do, but at least an acknowledgment of time & effort would have been equally polite. Maybe just hat the whole section? Victoria (tk) 15:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Review by Factotem
Review by Factotem: Based on this version, current at the time of writing, I'm afraid I find very little to recommend the section as currently written. It's little more than a collection of often poorly written factoids arranged loosely in chronological order. There's little in the way of a cohesive narrative, sentences are thrown together in a sometimes misleading way, the stories that do emerge are too often distorted, there's unnecessary detail, omission of important detail and the sourcing could be significantly more appropriate. Some specifics:
 * First paragraph:
 * We already know Washington was a Virginian;
 * There's no need to state "African" slaves. Slaves will do;
 * We already know Washington owned Mount Vernon, no need to restate it;
 * The slave count is incomplete. Why end at 1786 with 224? Why not state the final tally of 1799? Why not simply state that he inherited his first slaves from his father, acquired more through inheritance, purchase and marriage, and by the time of his death owned 124 and had control of a further 193? That tells us all we need to know.


 * Second paragraph:
 * Washington's views on slavery were complex..., yet that complexity is not explored in the rest of the section (more below);
 * ...and changed over time..., again, not explored. As far as I can tell we have Washington and slavery pre-Revolution, then Washington and slavery post-Revolution, like a binary switch;
 * ... Cmguy777 was absolutely right to include "private" in that introductory summary, per the sources:
 * "Virtually all of Washington's comments on slavery were expresed 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." Twohig 2001 p. 116;
 * "The evolution of Washington's ideas...was confined mainly to private remarks in his diary and in correspondence...Washington made few public pronouncements on the subject." Kenneth Morgan 2000 p. 280
 * ...having been influenced by anti-slavery people like Lafayette. The sentence that begins by stating the complexity of Washington's views hasn't even ended before contradicting itself with an oversimplification that reduces the evolution of Washington's attitudes to the influence of friends. Compare with the following sources:
 * "...the first turning point...is his decision to abandon the cultivation of tobacco..." between 1763 and 1766. "Whatever opposition to slavery was emerging in Washington at this point was almost entirely economic." Philip Morgan 2005 p. 413;
 * "...the most plausible speculation is that the decision to abandon slave labor as a labor force followed logically from his earlier decision to abandon tobacco as a cash crop in favor of wheat." Ellis 2004 p. 165;
 * "In fact, it is difficult to discern from his meager comments whether Washington's disgust with slavery rested on moral grounds (although there are some indications that this was so) or primarily on the grounds of the institution's economic inefficiencies." Twohig 2001 p. 122, writing in the context of the Confederation period;
 * "Whereas Kenneth Morgan cites 1783 as a critical year in Washington's thinking about slavery, Henry Wiencek 1769, and Joseph Ellis 1794..." Philip Morgan 2005 p. 406;
 * "...moral considerations were always mixed with economic assessments...there were no dramatic epiphanies, but rather a gradual and always contested thought process." Ellis 2004 p. 311 n.22, writing about how Washington's mind worked on slavery;
 * "Hitting Washington where it hurt most, [Robert] Pleasants claimed [in 1785] that Washington's reputation would be forever tarnished if he did not free his slaves. A few months later, perhaps with Pleasants' lecture still ringing in his ear, Washington wrote a series of letters endorsing slavery's eventual end." Philip Morgan 2005 p. 418. Ellis makes the same point on p. 161 (and kudos to Cmguy777, who once again, as they so often do, made the same pertinent observation with this edit);
 * On January 16, 1776, Congress allowed free blacks to serve in the militia. Washington admitted that he had not given much thought to the prospect, but was now worried that arming Blacks would cause the British to do so also, believing that the outcome of the war depended on "...which side can arm the Negroes faster". Two events that are separated by three years have been conflated. If you check footnote 60 in Morgan 2000 p. 290 to which the two sentences are sourced, you'll see Washington's lack of thought on the issue and his concern that arming blacks would encourage the British to do the same was expressed in a letter to Henry Laurens dated March 20, 1779 and had nothing to do with the January 1776 decision to allow freed slaves to enlist, as the article seems to say. Washington's statement about not giving much thought and concern about the British reaction was actually prompted by John Laurens's 1779 proposal to arm 3,000 South Carolinian slaves, per Ellis 2004 p. 162, Twohig 2001 p. 119, Morgan 2005 p. 416;
 * The arming of freed slaves in 1776 was a reaction to Lord Dunmore's proclamation offering emancipation to slaves who joined the British forces, per Twohig 2001 p. 118 and Morgan 2005 pp. 414-415. This should be stated to avoid the impression that the decision was motivated by anti-slavery sentiment, as the article, with its preceding sentence, currently gives;
 * As the war progressed into 1778, he endorsed the New England states' plan to recruit slaves, emancipate them, and compensate the slave owners. sourced to Morgan 2000 pp. 290-291, who does not mention this event at all. To clarify the apparent confusion in the response the first time I raised this, "New England states' plan" is plural; it means at least two states, and by my reading all of them. Twohig 2001 p. 119, Morgan 2005 p. 416 and Lengel 2005 p. 314-315 all refer only to Rhode Island, and nowhere mention emancipation or compensation. And of course, Lengel specifically says Washington did not endorse the plan. Chernow (ch. 27) does also mention initiatives by Massachusetts and Connecticut. Only Taylor 2016 p. 231 supports the statement in its entirety. But herein lies a problem; how do we accommodate such significantly different statements from reliable sources?
 * On the same sentence, most of the sources mentioned above directly link the Rhode Island/New England states' initiative to a shortage of manpower ("the exigencies of war drove Washington", Morgan 2005; "the army was in the midst of a recruiting crisis", Lengel; "the projected shortage of soldiers led Washington", Chernow; "to bolster his undermanned army", Taylor). Why does the article ignore this? Without this important detail, the enlistment of African Americans might be incorrectly interpreted as a sign of anti-slavery sentiment.
 * On October 19, 1781, he ordered that runaway slaves who sided with the British should be returned to their former masters. Still sourced only to Schenawolf, which we both agree, albeit for different reasons, is not a reliable source;
 * ...Washington and Congress allowed the loss of these former slaves... "Allowed"? They had no choice in the matter. I would also argue that Washington's refusal to accept compensation for the slaves the British refused to return, per Morgan 2005 p. 418, is highly revealing of his attitude towards slavery at the end of the war and should be mentioned.


 * The end of paragraph on the Revolutionary War period is completely at odds with some key sources:
 * Morgan 2005 p. 417 writes, "[Washington's] public and private behaviour at the end of the war was hardly anti-slavery in intent" and goes on to describe his efforts to recover his own slaves and the negotiations with the British. Twohig 2001 p. 120 discusses Washington's Circular to the States, ("probably, except for the Farewell Address, his best-known public document" according to Twohig), in which Washington presented, according to Twohig, "a vista of the limitless opportunities available to the new nation" and quotes Washington's advocacy for an "indissoluble Union of the states under one Federal Head." At this pivotal moment, when Washington hoped to use his position to advocate for the future direction of the new republic, he made "no mention of slavery per se" (for a commentary on the significance of the circular, see Gary Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment, 1984, Doubleday, New York, ISBN 0385175620 pp. 3-10). In contrast to this decidedly non abolitionist stance at the end of the war, the article's final two sentences in the paragraph that covers the war are blatantly pro abolitionist...
 * In 1783 Lafayette encouraged Washington to take action regarding the plight of slaves. Along with other leading figures, Washington no longer saw abolition as an extreme or forlorn measure, and signed an anti-abolition (sic) tract published that year, written by a leading abolitionist. The first sentence is a misleadingly partial representation of the source, which actually goes on to state that Lafayette was proposing an experimental settlement for freed slaves, to which Washington gave moral support but otherwise did nothing (Morgan 2005 p. 417, Twohig 2001 p. 122). It also sets up the final sentence as the "action" Lafayette was encouraging, which is not at all what the source says.

I think that's enough to illustrate my belief that this section as a whole is deficient. I will add the following general issues:
 * Insert : This is not making any sense. The fact that Lafayette was proposing an "experimental settlement for freed slaves", which Washington lent his support for, does not negate in any way that Washington had signed an abolitionist tract, which, btw, is far from keeping his views on slavery "private". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. The sentence talks about Lafayette encouraging Washington to take action, but omits the fact that Washington did not take any action as a result; he gave Lafayette moral support only, nothing more.
 * 2. The signing of the tract is entirely unrelated to Lafayette (in fact, the source discusses the tract first, then Lafayette). But because the preceding sentence is vague about what action Lafayette is encouraging Washington to take, there's an implication that it's the signing of a copy of the tract that he was encouraging – Lafayette encourages therefore Washington signs. This is an example of factoids and of sentences being thrown together in a misleading way. Factotem (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, there is an insidious element of whitewashing:
 * The article states that Washington did not split up families, but neglects to say that this relates only to the separation of families by purchase or sale, and that families were separated across different farms within the Mount Vernon estate. Twohig 2001 p. 117 writes, "...even though families often worked on separate plantations, they were not separated by purchase or sale." Morgan 2000 p. 281 writes, "Slaves...lived on the farm where they were assigned to work rather than in family units" and (p. 285) "...some of the married slaves did not therefore live in the same dwellings as their spouses." Chernow 2010 ch. 10 writes, "This sexual division meant that only a little more than a third of Washington's slaves enjoyed the luxury of living with their spouses and children. Since the slaves worked a grueling six-day week, from sunup to sundown, they had to tramp long distances on Saturday evening or Sunday to visit their far-flung families." I realise I'm repeating myself here, but the response the last time was not acceptable, particularly in changing Chernow's "long distances" first to "some distance" then to "short distances", or indeed the highly questionable equivalence of a slave's lot to that of a free farmer;
 * Insert : Though some slave families worked in different plantations they were still within walking distance and were allowed to leave a given plantation and visit loved ones in another. For all practical purposes, splitting up a family was something that resulted in loved ones never seeing one another ever again. Even people in the free world were often separated, sometimes permanently, by circumstances. If you feel the need to cover the various distinctions along the idea of separation, feel free. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article introduces a degree of separation between Washington and the cruel treatment of slaves. For example, in the third paragraph we read that "Washington discouraged cruelty to slaves..." while harsh punishments, including whippings, were inflicted by the overseers, sometimes without authorisation due to Washington's absences. The Mount Vernon Ladies Asociation website, which one might expect to be very partisan about Washington, is not so shy about placing Washington front and centre in this cruelty. The one whipping that is discussed in detail in the article is of a slave who beat his wife – can someone explain to me in what way this illuminates our understanding of Washington's attitude to slavery? I'm really quite suspicious why it's felt necessary to relate this überfactoid, and would have thought the whipping of a carpenter for producing faulty work would be more illustrative of Washington's attitude towards and expectations of his slaves i.e. he expected them to work hard and be productive (Morgan 2005 p. 408).
 * Insert : There's nothing really amazing here. Washington discouraged cruelty yet sometimes this occurred at the hands of overseers in his absence. The example involving a whipping to a slave who badly beat his wife gives us an example of the sort of offenses that were dealt with in this manner. Nothing was said here that the sources don't cover. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Summarily dismissing my observation about Washington's concern for his slave's welfare being motivated by both financial considerations and genuine human concern does not, in my opinion, address a perfectly valid point, and is surprising coming from someone so tenacious about "context".
 * Insert : This is yet another example of context, and I really fail to see any valid issue here. Washington was not alone in the efforts to get slaves to comply without the threat of punishment. Jefferson and Madison employed the same methods. This gives the reader more of an insight into the mindset of Washington in his efforts to manage slaves. Speaking of a mindset: we are often writing for those who are very ignorant about slavery, who often assume that all whites had 'two slaves in their garage', kept them in chains, fed them slop and whipped them daily on a routine basis as they went along in the fields doing work. This was far from the case. It's a little troubling to see at least one editor making concerted efforts to portray matters in such a fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The sourcing for this section does not make best use of scholarly works that focus specifically on the issue of Washington and slavery, and leans too heavily on general works instead. By my count, there are 48 references in this section, of which 22 are cited to works that are specifically about Washington and slavery. Removing Schenawolf (still cited four times) and the potentially partisan Mount Vernon Ladies Association sources leaves us with just 13 references used that cite to high quality, scholarly works focused specifically on Washington and slavery. I don't suggest excising the general works altogether, but I do think the article should be fundamentally based on the more focused sources;
 * Off the top of my head, because I'm tiring now, some important questions that are not discussed in the article although they are in the sources:
 * Why did Washington not free any of his own slaves in his lifetime as he became more receptive to abolitionist sentiment after the revolution?
 * How did Washington envisage the end of slavery?

I would not call this a particularly thorough review of all the nuances of the subject, not even across the limited segment I reviewed, but there's more than enough there for me to support a full overhaul. Factotem (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Factotem. I agree there should be no white washing concerning George Washington and Slavery. Washington kept his views private on slavery while he was alive. His 1799 was a public document after his death. Maybe the term "while he was alive" should be put in. The 1799 will could be considered an abolitionist document. With that said. It does not explain why Washington remained a slaver holder all his life. Prior to his death there is not even a hint on setting his slaves free. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777, once again, including context covered by the sources is not "whitewashing". Intentionally leaving these things out, and employing blunt and divisive statements is reverse white washing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Insert Gwillhickers. Taking out white washing is making the article neutral. It is not reverse white washing. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Factotem, you make issue of the statement that Washington's views on slavery were complex, criticizing that it contradicts itself, which it doesn't - then you cite a string of sources that indeed exemplifies the point that Washington's views on slavery were indeed complex. Also, none of the sources say for certain why Washington didn't free his slaves and only offer speculation, as Washington never said exactly why – yet you present the question with the apparent expectation that we provide some definitive answer. Further, I outlined the structure, before, twice pointing out that each paragraph covers a theme, starting with the opening paragraph, on through to the closing paragraph covering Washington's will, yet you brush this off and refer to the entire section as a collection of factoids, however you do mention chronological order – all the while you offer no proposals for any of the given paragraphs. This is just a sampling of your prolonged and sometimes disjointed account above. Another gross misrepresentation on your part is your abhorrent claim that "there is an insidious element of whitewashing" going on, more than suggesting that falsehoods are being asserted, while nothing more than facts from the sources have been added all along. We have not cherry picked the facts – we mention whippings, poor housing, etc, along with care and time off for slaves, etc, thank you. Also, sometimes general facts are repeated in opening statements in major sections. e.g. "Washington was a Virginian who owned African slaves throughout his adult life" This is nothing amazing and is what the sources often do. i.e.Readability. We are not writing for robots. Your Talk is rife with highly opinionated claims. e.g. "The sourcing for this section does not make best use of scholarly works that focus specifically on the issue of Washington and slavery", which seems to insist that we begin the monumental, and unnecessary task of swapping sources, which would no doubt involve further and prolonged debate. Virtually all biographies cover Washington and his slaves, some of them very well, like Chernow and Ferling. Meanwhile, Cmguy777 jumps in and does his usual, making major changes during the middle of a discussion, replacing contextual statements with the usual obtuse and misleading account, bringing major instability to the article once again. I will have to further comb through edit history and restore any important points that were lost in the reverse-whitewashing. Cmguy777, please make an effort to use truthful comments in edit history. Your claim of "neutral wording" while removing important context comes off as intentionally dishonest. I would advise other editors to scrutinize any edits made with the claims of "neutral" in edit history, as you've done this many times before. Sorry, you've brought this on yourself and unfortunately this needs to be said at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your Talk is rife with highly opinionated claims...
 * You asked me what is wrong with the section inasmuch as it makes you feel that it needs an "overhaul"? so it should not really come as a surprise that there would be some opinion in my response. I did try and keep it to a minimum and provided lots of sources when I went into specifics, considerably more sources than appears in your talk. That critique, BTW, is the kind of scrutiny you can expect at FAC.
 * ...e.g. "The sourcing for this section does not make best use of scholarly works that focus specifically on the issue of Washington and slavery"
 * Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which states "...editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible".
 * ...all the while you offer no proposals for any of the given paragraphs
 * Respectfully disagree. I support the proposal to overhaul the section using sources focused on the topic at hand.
 * Insert : Likewise. My referral to a "proposal" was in terms of an actual written proposal, not the general declaration that the section needs an "overhaul". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another gross misrepresentation on your part is your abhorrent claim that "there is an insidious element of whitewashing" going on, more than suggesting that falsehoods are being asserted, while nothing more than facts from the sources have been added all along. We have not cherry picked the facts...
 * 1. Please tone the language down.
 * 2. You've just restored the statement Washington discouraged cruelty to slaves on his plantations yet there are records of harsh punishments inflicted on male and female slaves by their overseers, including whipping. He directed that a warning be given to first offenders before resorting to whipping, which was then subject to his prior approval; this was not always enforced, due to his prolonged absences. One of the sources you've given to support that statement is Ferling 2002 p. 46. This is what Ferling writes on p. 46: "When a slave was too idle, Washington directed his manager to 'give him a good whipping.' He also sanctioned the flogging of female slaves. An English traveler, who visited several plantations in Virginia, believed that Washington treated his slaves "with more severity" than any other planter he had observed." Factotem (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

editbreak1
We already mention that this didn't occur unless a violation was repeated. i.e."first offenders". In any case, none of this doesn't negate the general idea that Washington discouraged cruelty. We already mention that female slaves were on occasion whipped, but slaves were not tied to a wagon wheel and whipped to a pulp. That was considered cruel. Such cruelty would prevent them from working, create (much more) resentment and encourage runaways. Even today children get a "good whipping" by their parents, usually with a belt on the hind quarters, for doing something very wrong, so let's not get carried away with the stereotypes that seems to have permeated much of "modern" thinking since the 1960's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Astonishing! I fixed the problem with this edit. Factotem (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Now this edit. Factotem (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. I'll accept the inserts in the critique, as it's so long, and anyway that's how FAC operates, but please do not break up any of my other posts, as you do with this edit inserted into my post immediately before the break above. You've been advised of WP:TPO already. Please refactor that insert and place it below my post. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replied to one of your comments inserted into the critique (Lafayette and the abolitionist tract) because it's a prose issue that I might hopefully be able to clarify for you. If you want me to respond to any of the other, facts-based comments, you first need to provide sources to support your arguments. I'm not going to respond to opinion, speculation or unsupported assertions. Factotem (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Strike and clarify: I'm not going to respond to speculation or assertions of fact that are not supported with sources. Factotem (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. All that needs to be said is slaves were whipped on Mount Vernon for "punishment". There is no need to sugar coat the situation. Thanks for keeping the paragraph intact. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is too much whippings push in the article. More whitewashing and sugar coating. Now there is mention of historians to make the brutal practice of whippings look less painful or torturous and more academic. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a high profile subject and a sensitive issue. It's vital to accurately represent the sources. But it's surprisingly easy to introduce inadvertent infelicities into the prose, even with the best of intentions. When I read that original statement, the meaning I take is that responsibility for the floggings lay primarily with the overseers, who acted without the authority of Washington. Washington may have preferred less brutal methods, but he still countenanced the use of the lash when he felt those less brutal measures weren't being effective, per Hirschfeld pp. 36-37 and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. That's the level of nuance that I have tried to capture with this edit. This is also why I wondered whether it was wise to try and accommodate this level of detail in this article, rather than leave it to the dedicated article. As Cmguy777 rightly suggests, all that really needs to be said is that corporal punishment was one of the methods by which Washington managed the discipline and productivity of his slaves. Factotem (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem. The information given on whippings is accurate. There is no sugar coating. Mentioning the whippings is good, I would just leave out any author or website names. That sounds too academic in the article. Just mention there were whippings or floggings. This underlies the contradiction of this article. A nation founded on liberty. Washington owning slaves and having them whipped. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

editbreak1b

 * Insert : [To Cmguy777] This is the statement you removed :       — "Washington discouraged cruelty to slaves on his plantations yet there are records of harsh punishments inflicted on male and female slaves by their overseers, including whipping. He directed that a warning be given to first offenders before resorting to whipping, which was then subject to his prior approval; this was not always enforced, due to his prolonged absences." This is the 'statement' you left in its place:       — "Disobedient slaves were whipped by overseers." There are many things to be considered, and attempts by you to sweep these things under the rug is an affront to honest editorship, not to mention FA coverage, as you know full well what you're trying to do. It would be one thing if you were simply ignorant about the history, but you're not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was taken aback by how contradictory Ferling's account was compared to the statement in the article that was sourced to him. I assumed, silly me, that the sources differed, which is actually what the section asserted when it was at FAC last year. When the sources cannot be reconciled like that, it's usual practice to attribute conflicting statements, per WP:WIKIVOICE. I don't believe doing so de-brutalised the cruelty in any way, though you obviously did. Fair enough. When I checked the sources this morning, I realised that they generally agree Washington preferred not to resort to the lash unless slaves did not "do their duty by fair means." That's why I recast the text again. I still maintain the original introduced an unwarranted degree of separation between Washington and use of the lash, did not accurately reflect all the nuances in the sources and inappropriately cited Ferling. I hope the current version does a better job, but even if it does, it's not enough to alter my opinion that the section as a whole needs significant attention. Sorry. Factotem (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem : Finally, a version I can live with. Wikipedia's voice. Thanks for giving us an account that approaches the whole truth. Some people refer to telling the whole truth as "sugar coating", but almost always they harbor a deep-seated negative POV in the first place. Given Washington's character, I can only assume, admittedly, that when whippings were approved, they were effected in such a capacity that didn't leave a slave bleeding and incapable of working. As mentioned, given modern day stereotypes, when "whipping" is mentioned many people assume, and as we've seen around here, are eager to assume, the worst. Cruelty, esp brutality, to slaves was frowned upon by much of society, esp Christian society, and this simply is not consistent with Washington's overall character. We should also not forget the context of that day and age, where people were hung for stealing horses, soldiers were often shot on the spot for desertion, or were whipped, brutally, while tied to a post, or even branded, for misconduct. Many others were imprisoned for life for not being able to pay a dept. On Jefferson's plantation, so called whippings were usually in the form of 'switching', with a rod or stick, on the hindquarters and legs. One thing missing from the section is the 'frequency' of whippings, and I've read, somewhere, that whippings were altogether rare. I'll see if I can find a source that helps to clarify that. One of the problems of owning many books is that when something like this is remembered it can involve a lengthy search to recover it. I'll see what can be found. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem : The other day you rightly pointed out a statement made by an observer at Washington's estate, covered by Ferling, 2002, p.46: Washington treated his slaves "with more severity" than any other planter he had observed.  This statement was once included in the article, however, it was balanced with another statement from Weincek, 2013. You expressed concern that "scholarly works that focus specifically on the issue of Washington and slavery" be better put to use. Wiencek, 2013 is one such source and was used to support this balancing statement in the article in September, 2018: "There are conflicting reports of slave treatment at Mount Vernon. While one visitor said Washington treated his slaves "far more humanely" than other Virginia slave owners..."  It seems we should mention the discrepancy among accounts regarding slave treatment and restore that statement to the article. It would be nice to get a consensus on that before making major edits to the section at this point. This is the entire passage once included in the section :
 * "There are conflicting reports of slave treatment at Mount Vernon. While one visitor said Washington treated his slaves "far more humanely" than other Virginia slave owners, he also noted that the slaves "work all week, not having a single day for themselves except holidays. One sees by that that the condition of our peasants [in Poland] is infinitely happier. Another visitor indicated Washington's neighbors felt that he treated his slaves "with more severity than any other man. " -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you think this adds more to the wordcount than it does to our understanding of the subject? Factotem (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject is best understood by mentioning that there are conflicting accounts. We should present the topic as something subjective, rather than trying to present it as carved in stone. I would think this is far more important than the small increase in word count, which at this point, is much lower than a good number of other FA's. Don't know why this balanced statement was removed in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my feeling is that they are effectively primary sources that tell us what two people thought at specific moments in time. I believe we should be focusing on properly and accurately representing what scholarly, high quality secondary sources have to say on the subject. You know my feelings on wordcount. See no profit in tussling over that any further. Factotem (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This section might be overly sourced and referenced. Morgan (2000) is solid. Maybe Morgan (2005) and Chernow (2010). Wikipedia is not putting Washington on trial. Witnesses ? That sounds like a court case. It is best to state the facts. Tell it like it was at Mount Vernon. Washington in this article is not guilty or innocent. We need solid author sources and every sentence should be referenced. No websites. No need to mention conflicting accounts. Washington's reputation does not need defending concerning slavery. Historians, for the most part, ignore this part of Washington's life. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777. I generally find your observations to be well-grounded in Wikipedia guidelines and policy, but I disagree on some of your points here. Although I find Twohig and the two Morgan's to be the best sources for the political aspects and the evolution of Washington's attitude (and will surely add Wiencek and Hirschfeld when I receive them), I find the Mount Vernon Ladies Association website on slavery to be a useful source for the social aspects. It well may well be proved superfluous when Mary Thompson's "The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret": George Washington, Slavery, and the Enslaved Community at Mount Vernon ISBN 9780813941851, comes out at the end of the month, but for now I have no issues with the appropriate use of that website. And sometimes it's necessary to discuss conflicting accounts. I do not know what level of detail the proposed rewrite will go into, but we may need, for example, to accommodate Wiencek, the two Morgan's and perhaps Ellis, all of whom differ on key moments in the evolution of Washington's attitudes to slavery. We can only do this by attribution, per WP:WIKIVOICE. Factotem (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem. I don't have any issue with the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. The issue is when the MVLA articles were authored. I don't mind MVLA used for a supplementary purpose. As long as the MVLA website has an author and a time of publication I don't mind. There was mention of the article being overhauled. I was doing that in part. I am just focusing on the sources. I think every sentence should have a reference for this section. I also think that too many sources with their opinions can confuse the narration. My idea of an overhaul is to use a few sources for the rewrite and then add other sources later for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Conflicting accounts could be but in the dedicated main article on Washington and slavery. I think it would confuse the reader here. In my opinion it makes it look like Washington is on trial for slavery. The whippings or collarings of slaves is controversial. Washington was fighting for liberty and yet he held slaves in forced labor camps called plantations. The reader is left to the question Why? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem : Wiencek is a secondary source that refers to primary sources, just like any other secondary source. Don't really want to get into another fuzzy debate about which sources are better than others. You expressed a desire to use sources that concentrate on Washington and slavery. A perfectly neutral statement from such a source has been presented. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Presenting the scholarly analysis and conclusions of a reliable secondary source is what we are supposed to be doing. Presenting the words of a primary source is none of those things. That you read that primary source in Wiencek does not suddenly make it a secondary source. They are the words of someone directly connected to the event. They provide no meaningful insight into the subject. And my "brush off" was more than a concern for the wordcount, though that is enough in itself, so please do not misrepresent me like that. Factotem (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your concern was for word count, rather than for a neutral statement from the very type of source you asked for. Once again, all secondary sources use primary sources. The statement in question comes from a secondary source, and there are indeed conflicting reports. The statement about "conflicting reports" is from Wiencek, not from a primary source. Even if it was, primary sources are allowed so long as we do not try to change their meaning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-read the conversation. My concerns were wordcount, understanding of the subject and use of primary sources. No, they are not Wiencek's words, they are the words of what appears to be a Polish visitor. Wiencek is simply where you read them. If Wiencek draws any conclusions from them, that's what you can write about, though I think enough's been written already. Yes, primary sources are not verboten, but we have more than enough secondary sources to adequately cover this aspect. Factotem (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-read the conversation yourself. Primary sources are allowed. Wiencek's observation is revealing and demonstrates a wide variance in the accounts, and he backs them up with actual examples. This comes from a source that concentrates on Washington and slavery, as you originally asked for. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I didn't read your last post properly. Apologies. Say there are conflicting reports, per Wiencek, plus whatever else Wiencek says about the treatment of slaves, if he adds anything new to what's already there. That's fine. No need to add the examples though. Wiencek is authority enough. Yes, I agreed that primary sources are allowed. We don't need to use them though, and from what Victoria says, we shouldn't be either. Factotem (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Btw, thanks for your honesty during a somewhat heated and contested debate! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 : Overall, slaves were treated far better than soldiers, starting with the 2,500 soldiers who perished at Valley Forge from exposure, lack of food and supply, not to mention the sort of punishment that they were subject to. Above we received a criticism that sources that concentrate on Washington and slavery should be used more, yet when I find a perfectly neutral statement from such a source, Wiencek, 2013, about conflicting reports regarding punishment, I'm seeing an effort to brush it off. i.e."Word count", "confused" readers. If the intelligent and/or inquisitive readers are informed that there are indeed conflicting reports, it will prompt them to look into matters further, and should be encouraged. The controversy is highly subjective and is often subject to emotion and various sorts of POV on both sides of the fence. Hence we should strive for as much neutrality and context as possible, per sources. As was recently attempted, we don't want to simply say, "Disobedient slaves were whipped by overseers", period, misleading the reader into thinking this was a routine and common practice, with no human discretion and moderation involved. The statement in question is a general statement and belongs in the section here. If you want to start moving things from here to the dedicated article, there are many more detailed items we can move, rather than this general and neutral statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a look and found the example about the Polish visitor - it's definitely a primary source. Looking at reviews for Wiencek is useful (I've read a few today and most mention his use of primary sources), one of which I'm posting,, because it gets the crux of what this section should be focusing on. It's only a few pages long but happy to quote from it for those without access. Also, re primary vs. secondary, my sense is we understand the difference (see this absurdly long and yet absolutely fascinating conversation from a few years ago). GW is a prime example of when we should not use primary sources, for many reasons the least of which is cherrypicking. And yes, word count is an issue. Am about to post about that in the thread below. Re recent edits, my sense for some time now is that the section is undergoing a slow edit war and it's best to avoid that for obvious reasons. Revert only when necessary is helpful. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have only limited free access to JSTOR. When you get a chance I would be interested to read the quote from it. No rush. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've downloaded a review that I'm happy to send on to anyone. The reviewer (Dan Higginbottom of UNC, Chapel Hill), writes of Wiencek's book, A few paras later he says, Victoria (tk) 23:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, primary sources are allowed if used in a way where we are not advancing a new or unusual idea. Word count is a guideline, and all guidelines allow for exceptions and editor discretion. The Washington biography is an exceptional article involving much more than an article for i.e. 'Congressman Smith'. There is a reason why there are guidelines 'and' policies. They are not the same. Also, "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length;" The size is down to 88k of readable prose, much lower than numerous FA articles. Let's not exasperate another issue. Once again, the debate is fragmenting into numerous directions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the guidance on the acceptability and use of primary sources so please stop repeating that. I read somewhere that there have been some 900 books published on Washington, so we have more than enough secondary sources and don't need to use primary sources. If we're going to start on article size again, suggest a new section for that. Factotem (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Victoria who brought the subject up again and apparently missed our conversation, which wouldn't surprise me, as the numerous and lengthy discussions often digress into an argumentative blur. Getting back to the original issue, sometimes referring to primary sources is desired, as Wiencek did. Also, quotes are also primary sources, are employed in this article and in numerous others, and often times are very useful. Primary sources are used throughout Wikipedia, and if done appropriately, are fine, and in some cases, preferable. I already said I would go along with your idea of not repeating what the visitors said, e.g."with more severity than any other man", a quote you used to make a point. The quote, however, is indeed quite to the point, but yes, let's not use it in the article. I'm open to any reconsideration if you should want to emphasize that point with this short quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that you don't see any issues with the sentences on reward and punishment, so we're talking about the first three sentences of the fifth paragraph, beginning "Washington treated his slaves rigorously..." and ending with food, correct? I think they represent the source fairly, and I don't have any sense that the few other sources I've seen differ to any significant degree. Does Wiencek's account offer anything significantly different or new? I understand the point your making about Wiencek saying there are conflicting reports, but if all the significant secondary sources such as him, MVLA, Morgan, etc. all basically say the same thing about Washington's treatment of his slaves, then do we really care that contemporary visitors came away with different impressions? Factotem (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is this push to show slaves were treated well by Washington, better than soldiers. This is POV. A neutrality tag could be in order. The white washing continues. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Victoria : Thanks for sharing the review about Wiencek's book. It's been used to cite several things in the slavery section. It also points out how the various accounts regarding Washington's treatment of slaves are often conflicting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem : The sources give varying accounts regarding Washington and slavery. Wiencek, comes right out and says this, giving actual examples. Given that slavery is a controversial topic, it is highly appropriate that we mention Wiencek's neutral and rather revealing statement, coming from the sort of source you had asked for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777 : There is only a need to provide the entire truth. No one has proposed to mention that soldiers were treated better than slaves, even though it can be definitively proven coming and going. In any case, "white washing" is a term that's used to refer to someone trying to cover up something. Can you show us where anyone has removed various facts in an effort to cover up Washington's not so nice side? You can not. Otoh, I can show several recent examples were certain facts were removed to hide various aspects of Washington's good side, starting with your edits. You really have some nerve with that last hypocritical remark, again, carrying on as if editors can't remember past yesterday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

David Humphreys (soldier)
This series of edits mentions David Humphreys (soldier) and Lafayette in an unrealized scheme to emancipate slaves in 1794, cited to Wiencek, Flexner, Twohig. No mention of a David Humphreys (soldier) in any of these sources. can you please type out the exact quote that mentions this person? Twohig writes,

The incident with Lafayette occurred in 1783, so can you also type out the relevant passage re 1794? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 15:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * David Humphreys is mentioned in Flexner, 1974, p.389, as the citation (currently #390) indicates . ""As he told David Humphreys, he did not hope actually to prepare slaves for freedom, but only to lay down a foundation on which they could be prepared."
 * Humphreys is again mentioned in Wiencek, p.275, as the citation in question indicates: "But his remarks about slavery to Humphreys, and the plan he outlined to Lear to sell his land to finance an emancipation, showed that he had already decided on emancipation as early as 1789." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I can’t see the relevant pages on gbooks (not everyone sees the same thing, so links are mostly useless), hence the request. I did find some snippets in editions other than the ones you provide links to.Our article says, .On page 387, Flexner writes, On page 388, Flexner writes, I can’t see the cited page on Wiencek but page 277 is visible, where the text is picked up from the previous pages. He writes, Twohig is quoted above.


 * Our text needs to be rewritten to avoid the following:
 * Apparently neither Flexner nor Wiencek mention the date of 1794. In 1791 Washington wrote to Young laying out the idea of selling land to English farmers & rent his slaves to them, which apparently was mentioned to Humphreys - sometime earlier. I'm unclear from the sources whether there were two letters to Lear, one in 1791 and another 1794, or whether there were two
 * The cited sources don’t say Humphreys “helped” in the nascent plan
 * The 1794 and “secret” part comes from the letter written to Lear (quoted above in Twohig). But it’s unclear whether this is a different scheme or the scheme he considered in 1890-91
 * Neither Flexner nor Wiencek mention Lafayette. Twohig mentions Lafayette in conjunction with an idea to toward liberating slaves in 1783.
 * As it is now, various events and correspondence to various people are conflated. The result is that the sources are misrepresented in the text. I considered reverting but decided to bring it to the talk first. Victoria (tk) 20:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The statement in question is a general one. It doesn't require that we outline exact dates and places, only that Washington was considering a plan, one, for emancipating slaves as early as 1789, with encouragement from people like Lafayette and Humphreys. Flexner, p.389, was cited to cover Washington's desire for secrecy. Wiencek and Flexner don't mention Lafayette, which is why I added Twohig to the composite citation when I finally mentioned Lafayette in a latter edit. However, I did see an instance where a more appropriate term was called for, and have made that change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose in that case it's ok to remove the date. Thanks for the reply. Also, fwiw, I'm neither young nor naive. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, any reference to "young and naive" was cautionary and a general comment. Don't recall directing it at you, even remotely. Washington and others were entertaining the idea of simply emancipating slaves, keeping them on at the plantation with its familiar surroundings, where they already had established communities, and simply paying them. He was already paying some of his slaves for doing specialized jobs. There were a number of reasons, both social and political, why the idea didn't pan out. Flexner, 1974, pp.386-389, covers this area quite well. However, for purposes of our summary section, all we need do is make a general statement along this line. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Lukewarm abolitionist
Only one Hirschfeld 1997 source says Washington was a lukewarm abolitionist. I can't find in Chernow (2010), Morgan (2000), and Morgan (2005), Taylor (2016) calls Washington a lukewarm abolitionist. He never freed his slaves while he was alive. While he was President he strengthened southern slavery. I think this is a stretch and the sentence should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Only one"? Other sources cover Washington's hopes to end slavery, though they don't refer to the exact phrase Hirschfeld uses. Hirschfeld says "luje warm abolitionists", and backs it up well. MVLA says Washington "spoke frequently of his desire to end the practice". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

new section about George Washington personal flag
''"Revolutionary Americans adopted various symbols to represent the new republic that they created after the Declaration of Independence," said Dr. R. Scott Stephenson, vice president of collections, exhibitions and programs for the museum. "Washington's Standard includes a blue field with thirteen white stars representing a new constellation, which Congress adopted in 1777 as a component of the now familiar 'Star-Spangled Banner.'"''
 * source:
 * witf.org "George Washington's battlefield flag on view at revolution museum"
 * (Written by The Associated Press | Jun 14, 2018 12:18 PM )

Why nothing about the George Washington's personal flag on this article?

--151.36.217.67 (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no objection about covering this flag, but we need not create a special section for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In the website below there is a lot of info about the original "Headquarters Standard", as the size, material:
 * philly.com "In time for Flag Day, George Washington’s personal standard gets its debut at Philly museum"
 * by Tommy Rowan, Updated: June 13, 2018
 * ...but a photo of the original is probably needed on Commons (showing only the above inspired-reproduction would not be the best encyclopedic way of doing)
 * --151.82.137.28 (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...but a photo of the original is probably needed on Commons (showing only the above inspired-reproduction would not be the best encyclopedic way of doing)
 * --151.82.137.28 (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Felicity with the sources
This edit introduced the following revision to the narrative on Washington's treatment of slaves: There are conflicting reports of slave treatment at Mount Vernon. sourced to Wiencek p. 348, followed immediately by By some accounts Washington treated his slaves rigorously and spoke to them a military tone, instructing his overseers to see that were worked diligently and to be productive. Slaves were poorly clothed, had poor quality beds, but were fed sufficiently. sourced to Kenneth Morgan pp. 286-287. This combination misrepresents the sources: If there is any disagreement in reliable secondary sources on Washington's treatment of slaves, then it would of course be appropriate to identify that in the narrative. In the meantime, I've recast those sentences to restore the original tone and more accurately represent the source. Factotem (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence represents Wiencek's statement about contradictory accounts by contemporary observers;
 * 2) The following two sentences in the article are not referring to the perceptions of contemporary observers, they represent what a scholarly, reliable secondary source has written on the subject in 2000;
 * 3) The sequencing of sentencing strongly implies, and the addition of the preface "By some accounts..." to the second sentence explicitly states, that accounts of slave treatment in reliable secondary sources are conflicting, but this is not supported by any of the two sources provided.

In this edit, Lafayette has been reintroduced to the narrative on Washington's mid-1790s schemes to re-order his finances and emancipate his slaves, sourced to Wiencek, Flexner and Twohig. It has already been confirmed in previous discussions that neither Wiencek nor Flexner mention Lafayette in this context. Twohig also does not mention Lafayette in the context of these schemes. I've removed Lafayette and amended the narrative to reflect Wiencek's account of Washington's 1794 plan to sell land and emancipate slaves. Wiencek alone supports the basic points being made, so I've removed the Flexner and Twohig cites as unnecessary. Factotem (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit restored the following to the article: Washington supported many slaves who were too young or too old to work and did not permanently split up families without the slave's consent, greatly increasing Mount Vernon's slave population and causing the plantation to operate at a loss in the process. sourced to Wiencek 2003 pp=122, 319, 348–349; Flexner 1974 p. 386; Ellis 2004 p=167; and Hirschfeld 1997 pp=2, 13 (expanded to include p. 3 with this edit). I have access to all those sources except Flexner, and of the seven cites I can check:
 * 1) As far as I can see, only Wiencek p. 122, Hirschfeld p. 13 and Ellis support any of the statement being cited to them; I fail to see anything in Wiencek pp. 319 &  348–349 or Hirschfeld pp. 2 & 3 relevant to the statement being cited to them, and wonder why they have been cited;
 * 2) The relevant text in Wiencek appears to be "Later in life, he expressed great concern for the slave families, refusing to break them apart by sale and in his will expressing great anxiety lest families be broken up after his death.", but that "later in life" time qualification nuance is not reflected in the article;
 * 3) Per this reply, Flexner appears to be the only source to support the assertion that Washington did not break up families without their consent. The only place I've seen this mentioned in other sources is in a 1778 letter from Lund Washington, quoted by Wiencek p. 230. Although quoted in a reliable secondary source, the words themselves are a primary source; Wiencek offers no "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim" on that specific issue that we can represent in the article. Does Flexner? Or does he also simply quote the letter? Factotem (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree there seems to be a purposeful narration design in the section, in my opinion. I had replaced that sentence that Washington had debts and some slave families were spit up at Mount Vernon due to work assignments. This was sourced by Morgan (2000). Now the narration reads Washington was a "lukewarm abolitionist" and only was one reference on that. From a reader view, the current section reads, Washington is a kind hearted slave owner and a lukewarm abolitionist. The truth of Mount Vernon is swept under the historical rug. The section is suppose to be neutral. Morgan (2000) and Morgan (2005) helped make this article section neutral. One primary source is not reliable. There seems to be a cold edit war in this section. A neutrality tag may be in order. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have simply pointed out what I see as issues in my post above, and offer no judgement on what might have caused them. Factotem (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence has been brought up before. This is a repeat. It was changed and then reverted again. To get to FA this article needs better editor cooperation, civility in the talk pages, and compromise. I support your recent edits Factotem in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem : As mentioned before, primary sources are allowed, esp when covered in secondary sources, yet you continue with your objection to them even though this has already been well addressed. The information in question comes from the type of source you had asked for, yet you still have the same issues. Once again, Primary sources are allowed on WP so long as they are not twisted into conveying a different meaning. This has not occurred. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care," -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Not only does Wiencek say reports on slave treatment are conflicting, in regards to the two observers, he goes on to say that, "Contradictions such as these multiply in the record at Mt. Vernon." We also have to remember that even in Washington's day, the issue of slavery was used to attack Washington by some of his contemporaries and competitors, not to mention via Britain's revolutionary propaganda campaign, so many of the accounts are going to be exaggerated if not outright distorted or fabricated. This sort of behavior has continued to this day and has reared its little head even here at WP. In fact all statements regarding treatment should be qualified with the phrase, "by some accounts", or some such phrase. Most if not all dealings with slaves were not officially documented, so it stands to reason that the accounts, most of them hearsay, are going to vary considerably. Since this is a controversial issue, it needs to be presented with the utmost objectivity and neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What relevance do conflicting contemporary reports have to the accounts provided by reliable secondary sources? Do reliable secondary sources provide conflicting accounts of Washington's treatment of slaves, and if so, which accounts are they? Factotem (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondary accounts do indeed vary. Some refer to families being "separated" for merely working on a different plantation. Morgan, for example, does not and only mentions the different plantations, all owned by Washington. Since they were within walking distance from one another it's very misleading to claim that families were separated, more than suggesting they would never see one another again. As explained, treatment overall is a very subjective topic, so we should at least mention that accounts vary and can be conflicting, as was demonstrated by two actual examples provided by Wiencek, not to mention his finding that accounts overall were not consistent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The accounts I've read that mention it are clearly talking about the separation of husbands from their wives and children across the five farms of Mount Vernon. Wiencek devotes pretty much a page to it (pp. 122-123). Kenneth Morgan mentions it, as we know. Twohig, too, on p. 117. Chernow also mentions it in his chapter on slavery, where he writes of the males being held at the main Mansion House, "while the four distant farms held [the females]", of slaves working sunup to sundown and that they "had to tramp long distances on Saturday evening or Sunday to visit their far-flung families." (my emphasis both times) But I've already quoted this once before, so on what basis you say the farms were all within walking distance I do not know. And if you think it misleading to claim that families were separated in this way, you'd best take it up with those sources. So we're still waiting on evidence of conflicting accounts of slave treatment in the secondary sources... (and can you please thread the conversation with proper indenting? Thanks). Factotem (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Above you point out a rather long sentence, and then make issue that it's cited by three sources with the complaint that items in the statement are not found in each and every source. You should know by now that often times, one sentence can be composed of items found in one or more sources. If you feel the need to cite each item in the sentence, rather than using a composite citation at the end, feel free. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It was Lafayette that first introduced the idea to Washington of selling land to emancipate slaves in 1783, and this idea carried over into his failed efforts in the early 1790's. Yes, Flexner nor Wiencek mention this, Twohig does, and here information was incorporated into the overall general statement. As I already mentioned, we don't need to outline dates and places over the years he was entertaining this prospect, but only indicate that Washington pursued Lafayette's idea to sell land to emancipate slaves, an effort which extended into the 1790's. Lafayette needs to be mentioned here, as he was a major factor in Washington's ongoing reassessment of slavery which began during the Revolution and continued on past his presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly does Twohig say about Lafayette in the context of the selling land to British farmers? Where does Twohig state that Lafayette proposed in 1783 the idea "of selling some of his lands to British farmers to whom he would rent his slaves as a means to facilitate eventual emancipation," as you've now re-added with this edit? Factotem (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the opening passage: "When Lafayette, an outspoken opponent of the system, wrote Washington from France in 1783 suggesting they cooperate in an experimental settlement for freed slaves". The citation/source listing has a link to Twohig's article. Didn't you bother to read it? Don't appreciate the implication that I'm just making this stuff up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not in the context of the mid-1790s scheme. Lafayette's 1783 proposal was a completely separate issue, one that the sources say Washington did nothing to support. You are linking two separate events where the source makes no such link. Factotem (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The idea of not splitting up families is covered by Flexner, and by Wiencek, who indeed backs this up with a primary source. Secondary sources routinely refer to primary sources, yet around here you apparently expect us to believe that such a practice is somehow wrong. You've filled up the Talk page with a lot of such conflagulation, but as of yet have not presented anything that actually justifies your recent edit. Therefore, I restored much of the prior version, with a few changes, until this issue is more accurately addressed. However, I left out the comment about ""by some accounts", until we get a better agreement as how to present these things with more objectivity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Does Flexner simply quote the same letter as Wiencek? Factotem (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's enough that both Flexner and Wiencek chose to make reference to not only letters, but actual accounts. More than adequate sources have been used to cite these things, so it would be nice if you simply don't sit back and ask endless questions like this, unless it involves an actual citation error and/or a falsehood. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a simple enough question. Does Flexner simply quote the same letter as Wiencek? Factotem (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 : You say the truth is being "swept under the rug", (a rewording of your failed "whitewashing" claim) yet you forgot to give us any example. Unless you can show an actual example of something removed, or covered up, by myself, or anyone, you should strike the above comment and apologize for saying something entirely untrue, once again. Before you accuse others of this sort of thing, you should refrain from the practice of sweeping things under the rug yourself. It's difficult to "cooperate" with a given editor when he says one thing and does another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless if slavery was strengthened in the south, involving efforts to preserve the union, Washington was still involved in efforts to find a way to emancipate slaves. He was unsuccessful given the political instability of the era, as was covered in a discussion involving you, as you of course remember, but this still qualifies him as being a "luke warm" abolitionist. The term is a quote, and was presented this way. Hirscfeld, yet another source that concentrates on Washington and slavery, as requested, bases this on Washington's letters, diary, official documents and accounts from many others. It's unfortunate that some individuals can't accept the fact that the abolitionist movement was largely promoted by slave owners, and continue to embrace many of the flat-earth notions about slavery that were propagated in the 1960's by activists, largely ignorant of much of the actual history involved, and of course by the 'friends of America' crowd. From a source you introduced: Despite having been an active slave holder for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and spoke frequently of his desire to end the practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Another: This edit deletes the crucial information that families were separated because of work assignments. cf Some slave families lived at different nearby plantations due to their work assignments. that now appears in the article, with the source that says ...some of the married slaves did not therefore live in the same dwellings as their spouses. Factotem (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this above. Morgan, the source for the statement, simply says that some families lived at different plantations, all owned by Washington. His plantations were within walking distance from one another. Referring to and emphasizing that these families were "separated", esp out of context, is very misleading, esp since Washington expressly indicated he was against separating families. Many families lived in different nearby towns or farms and, technically speaking, were "separated". Here is yet another example of varying accounts, e.g.where once source will say families worked at different plantations, while another source will say Washington "separated slave families", with the obvious implication. This is why it's important to indicate that accounts vary and are often conflicting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe you have. His plantations were within walking distance from one another Source? Especially given what Chernow writes as quoted above.
 * This is why it's important to indicate that accounts vary and are often conflicting Indeed, where they are in fact conflicting. Still waiting on evidence for that (and the hairsplitting over "different plantations" vs "separating families" in sources that are clearly talking about the separate domiciling of husbands from their wives and children ain't it) If you want to say that accounts vary, you need to find a source that says accounts vary. And Wiencek does not say that, he says contemporary reports vary. Do you at least accept that? Factotem (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Factotem on these arguements. Morgan (2000) clearly says families were seperated on different farms due to work assignments. We should not say "accounts vary". This section should be five paragraphs. We need to say what Morgan (2000) says, a reliable secondary source. Here is another source that confirms this: At Mount Vernon, many families were separated across different farms due to their work assignments. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association This article needs to say families were seperated on Mount Vernon. The article does not make any judgements on Washington. It should just say the facts. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ""Joe, a ditcher, lived in the greenhouse slave quarter on Mansion House Farm. His wife Priscilla, a field worker, lived in a cabin at Dogue Run Farm with their six children. Joe could visit his family on Sundays or holidays. Sometimes he may have walked the three miles to Dogue Run after sunset, returning in time to begin work the next morning. Washington occasionally complained that his enslaved workers were fatigued from this “night walking” to visit their families." Source: Family Life Retrieved 05-11-2019 Cmguy777 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)"

This edit now states Mount Vernon slave families were seperated due to their work assignments, which implies all slave families were separated. Kenneth Morgan states "some" on p. 285, Wiencek states "many" on p. 122, as does the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. Some middle ground needs to be found between obscuring the fact that slave families were separated across different farms and overstating the case to imply all were.

Another problem: This and the sentence immediately following are supported by no less than ten references across five sources, making it unnecessarily arduous to improve the prose and all but impossible without access to all those sources. The prose does need improving; the two sentences are not related, causing a leap in the narrative which will, I believe, cause problems with the "engaging prose" requirement at FAC. Factotem (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Another: I don't believe this edit, which adds the statement Slaves were whipped, beaten, and put in restraints at Mount Vernon accurately reflects the tenor of the sources overall. It's an oversimplification that lacks nuance, gives no indication of the frequency with which such punishments were carried out and might be misinterpreted to suggest that they were routine, contrary to the sources. Hirschfeld, for example, writes on p. 36, "In principle, Washington was opposed to the use of the lash...But occasionally, and generally only as a last resort, he relied on the whip as a necesary evil." (my emphasis throughout). The same reluctance to employ physical punishment is reflected by Chernow and the MVLA. This statement repeats information that substantially appears in the subsequent sentences in a way that risks prejudicing perceptions. Factotem (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some changes or fixes to the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And with this edit you've made it worse, not better. Why have you excised the nuance that appears in reliable sources and left the oversimplification? How is that being true to the sources? Factotem (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem. You are more than welcome to make changes to any of my edits in the article since you have a thorough understanding of the sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case I restored the narrative I put there a while back. I believe it is true to the sources as a whole in both content and tenor, Gwillhickers seemed happy with it, so if you're OK with it we can put this one at least to bed. Fair? Factotem (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was at 265 words. That is too large. I should either be reduced or split. My problem with the narration is that it tries to explain Washington's treatment of slaves, but leaves the reader confused. Overseers apparently had job security for whipping slaves without Washington's permission, so in effect, was there an actual slave policy? I would say no. A policy that is not obeyed is no policy at all. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can accept the section as edited now. The understanding is that we can't continually reedit the section. It is up to Gwillhickers. I would keep the section as is now and get the rest of the article ready for FA nomination. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Another: The reasoning provided in the edit summary for this edit, which installed the statement, "He rarely condemned slavery publicly, but in private he often expressed opinions against it" is faulty. I have changed the text in the article to more accurately represent the source. I'll leave it to the main editors here to address the statement in the article that "In 1783, Washington signed his name to a leading abolitionist tract" in the light of Furstenberg's comments on that issue. Factotem (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The tract mentioned in the edit summary is covered by Morgan 2000 p. 291, who writes, "He signed a copy of one of the leading abolitionist tracts published in that year..." and then identifies the title, author and where it was published;
 * There is nothing in what Morgan writes to suggest this was a public statement by Washington, or indeed, on careful reading, when Washington signed it; the year refers only to when the tract was published;
 * Furstenberg gives us more detail about the significance of this tract and Washington's signing of it in this article. He states on p. 264 that Washington "signed it on the cover page" and illustrates on p. 255 another example of Washington signing a document, this time Thomas Paine's Common Sense (pamphlet);
 * It is clear that Washington signed personal copies of such documents in the way people sometimes write their names into the first page of a book they own, and that his signature was neither part of the original document nor a public endorsement of the contents. Understandable error; Morgan's statement is nuanced and I misinterpreted what he was saying myself until I read Furstenberg;
 * What is less understandable is how Twohig's statements that "On no occasion did he reveal publicly his own antipathy toward the institution," and "On slavery, as on many other matters, later generations can only interpret Washington’s views from the meager private comments he made on the institution," can be interpreted as "rarely" condemning slavery publicy and "often" expressing opinions privately.

Another: This edit which introduced the statement, His remarks about slavery, and the plan he had outlined to Humphreys and Lear to sell his land to finance emancipation efforts showed that Washington had already given serious thought to emancipation ten years before his death, fails to accurately represent both the source and the sources.
 * Wiencek writes, "But his remark about slavery to Humphreys...", i.e. a single, specific remark, not remarks in general;
 * Wiencek continues, "...and the plan he outlined to Lear to sell his land to finance an emancipation...", i.e. the plan was outlined only to Lear, not Humphreys;
 * Wiencek concludes, "...showed that he had already decided upon emancipation as early as 1789, ten years before his death.", a conclusion that is disputed by other sources (discussed below). Factotem (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
I've tweaked the prose somewhat. No change in meaning was intended, and feel free to revert anything you do not like. I have not read the sources and so don't feel like opining much about the section. The prose could probably use more work. For example, "Although Washington was mutually obligated to his slaves, he did not sympathize with their plight." seems a bit unclear, especially the first half.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt : Accounts on Washington and slavery vary. We have accounts that say Washington showed sympathy to slaves and we have the one you just quoted here. I added the general statement by a scholar who deals with Washington and slavery specifically who cites actual examples and the many records and documents at Mt. Vernon which indicate that accounts covering slave treatment are often conflicting. This statement was removed. I restored it, as it sets an objective tone for all statements covering the treatment of slaves, for better or worse. Apparently there are individuals out there who would rather we not take things objectively and accept all accounts at face value, with no questions asked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Factotem : As was explained, Lafayette first proposed an idea to sell land and use it to support emancipated slaves and ran it by Washington, who approved, but remained uncommitted. Later, Washington was entertaining a similar idea in 1794. The original statement was just an overall general one in regards to selling land to use for freed slaves. No one attempted to link 1783 events with those leading up to 1794 as if they were all one concerted plan of action. The idea of selling land to use for freed slaves, previously covered, was a general one, first introduced to Washington by Lafayette. Since Lafayette played a significant role in Washington's changing attitudes about slavery, he should be mentioned here in the general capacity that was covered in our section. If you feel that the previous mention of Lafayette leads the reader to assume that Lafayette's original effort will be confused with Washington's later considerations I would be open to any rewording of this overall affair you may have to offer.  Lafayette, Washington's close friend and mentor, should be mentioned here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem here. Lafayette does indeed appear in the sources as a factor in Washington's thinking on slavery, one of many factors, none of which are adequately discussed in the article, if discussed at all. However, he is mentioned primarily in the context of his 1783 proposal, which Washington did nothing tangible to support, and not at all in the context of Washington's schemes of the mid 1790s. To mention him in the context of those later schemes would be WP:OR. Factotem (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, "The Frenchman deserves some of the credit for Washington’s slow but steady growth on the race issue, and for his decision to free his slaves in his will." LEIBIGER, STUART. “George Washington and Lafayette: Father and Son of the Revolution.” in Sons of the Father: George Washington and His Protégés, edited by ROBERT M. S. McDONALD, University of Virginia Press, 2013, p. 227. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wrr0t.15. (citing the 1783 proposal). François Furstenberg. “Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 2, 2011, pp. 247–286. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5309/willmaryquar.68.2.0247 was also an interesting read on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I think Gwillhickers and I are talking at cross-purposes somewhat. My objection isn't that Lafayette had played no part in this story; just about every source mentions the influence of young anti-slavery officers during the war generally and Lafayette's 1783 proposal specifically. My objection is linking Lafayette to the mid-1790s schemes, a connection I have not seen in any source. That sentence from Leibiger appears, from my limited GBooks preview, to be the sum total of his coverage of slavery, so by no means a quality source on the subject in my view. Would love to read the Furstenberg article, but sadly my freeview JSTOR access won't give it to me for free. Factotem (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you email me, I can send you as attachments both sources (one chapter of Leibiger and the article). I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion. What is necessary is that the regulars come to a consensus that they not only can live with, but can defend without internal dissent at FAC. I see such agreement on how to present Washington as slaveowner as critical to success, and if you can't agree here, you won't agree there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we say what the sources say and not suppress important context there should not be any disagreement anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 : After the last round of edits over the last couple of days by yourself, this statement, "The understanding is that we can't continually reedit the section. It is up to Gwillhickers. " is sort of nonsensical. Not only do you "continually reedit the section", you've made some highly questionable edits at that, removing several points of context. Then you turn around and say matters are up to me, as if everything depends on my edits alone. Please stop with the hypocritical statements, making me your scapegoat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Lafayette and the statement in question: I simply mentioned that Lafayette had influenced Washington in 1794. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't for me. The sources cited do not claim the 1783 incident informed the 1794 incident as our article now claims. Maybe a source exists that ties the two together, but we can't misrepresent the sources. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor me. Factotem (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay – I hid the phrase about being influenced by Lafayette. Since both Washington's and Lafayette's ideas were virtually the same, i.e.selling land to use for emancipated slaves, and since Lafayette shared this idea with Washington in 1783, it seemed that we could have said that Washington was influenced here, using Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps we can use two stand alone statements: One for Lafayette discussing his idea with Washington to sell land -- and another, the existing statement, about Washington's idea, leaving the reader to decide if Lafayette had influenced Washington. Many sources have Lafayette being an influence on Washington in regards to slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Amended to more accurately represent the source. Factotem (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You left out Wiencek's coverage about Washington's discussion with Humphreys and Lear, that he was entertaining emancipation efforts ten years before his death. This major detail is more significant that GW's approval of Lafayette's plan and should be mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE, tagged in article with undue weight and discussion started below. Factotem (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts
Here is another account, as it currently reads in the section, that seems contrary:
 * " Washington's attitudes toward his slaves were patriarchal, paternal and commercial, and he had no empathy for the plight of his slaves. "

Morgan, 2000, seems to contradict himself here. From my understanding, the term parental, as in 'parent', i.e.a guardian who is concerned for one's overall well being, conflicts with the idea that Washington "had no empathy for the plight of his slaves". The idea that Washington held no empathy also conflicts with the idea that he supported many more slaves than he had use for and didn't split up families other than to station them at different farms, within walking distance. Giving them a full two hours off every day, with Sundays and religious holidays off, and working them no more than the average farmer had to work, i.e."from dawn to dusk", also undermines the idea that Washington felt no empathy. It seems there are simply too many other such factors to consider for this to be true. The term 'empathy' means, the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. The statement regarding conflicting accounts should precede all statements regarding treatment of slaves, so each statement can be considered in this light. As it is, it was moved so that it now follows all such statements about treatment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing conflicting with Morgan 2000. Lacked empathy or emotional connection with his slaves plight is accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's far from accurate when the term 'parental' is used in the same sentence as lacking empathy. Once again, the idea of 'parental' implies care, concern, etc. How can one have parental concern for someone, without being concerned about their plight? lacking empathy is also in conflict to other things Washington said about and did for slaves, as was explained.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That only proves Washington's views on slavery were contradictory. It is not up to Wikipedia to correct any of Washington's contradictions in the narration on slavery or to conveniently tie things together in the narration for the reader. This is summary article. Morgan (2000) says he lacked empathy, or emotional sympathy, for his slaves plight. In other words, there was no moral outcry from Washington to end slavery in the United States. There were plenty of Baptists and Methodists who preached out against slavery in Washington's day. Washington was silent. Because things are just kept added to the section to explain this or that, it is too long for FA review. Readers have plenty of sources on Washington. This section should be trimmed. I tried to do that, but then it will be argued too much essential information is taken out. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was Morgan that said Washington was paternalistic but lacked empathy. That's a clear contradiction on his part, not Washington's. Also, Washington made no "moral outcry" about slavery and didn't use the federal gov to intervene in such state affairs because it would have driven a wedge between the states. Numerous times, however, he spoke against it, entertained the idea of selling land to help in the process of emancipation, and signed his name to a published abolitionist tract. among other things. In his will he freed all of his slaves, which became a world famous statement against slavery unto itself. Again, you carry on as if these things have never been explained to you and in spite of the fact that these things are clearly covered in numerous sources, not to mention our article. Also, as editors at Wikipedia we use many sources, which make WP articles unique, so when we encounter discrepancies and outright contradictions we say so in Wikipedia's voice - esp when a leading source on Washington and slavery says so. We are not copy-paste bots. Intellectual honesty is the best approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For what years is the Morgan 2000 three characterizations, applicable -- "patriarchal" (responsible), "paternal" ('loving' in that generationally stern generation) and "commercial" (as the old were generally dependent upon their children' continuing support then), to Washington's relationship to slaves regarding (1) Washington as a direct field overseer in his young manhood, (2) Washington as an absentee estate master at war or in remote government posts, -- or -- (3) Washington as estate master directly supervising white overseer(s) and black farm managers after political retirement when he is free from the political constraints of a publicly facing persona in slave-holding state?
 * Apart and aside from those three "relationship" roles, How does Morgan characterize the character and motives of Virginia slave-holders (1) during their youth, (2) in their lifetime, and (3) at the execution of their wills, manumitting their enslaved persons in the tens and hundreds (versus Jefferson's miserly manumissions and "let go" practice for Sally Hemings' five children), resulting in
 * -- (a) individual deportation from Virginia,
 * -- (b) nuclear families to join the established but problematic free-black urban Virginia communities in Alexandria, Norfolk and Richmond, or
 * -- (c) in Washington's case by his will, nuclear and extended families, with
 * (i) heads-of-households of proven wheat farm management apprenticeship,
 * (ii) established commercial connections with international grain merchants who would trade with free blacks, and
 * (iii) grants of land to support self-sustaining family farms of proven profitability -- not on far away unproven frontiers without roads or river access to market, but adjacent to plantations holding enslaved relations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * – Thanks for the in depth analysis. No doubt Washington's commercial concerns about slavery was a constant factor. However, his paternal characteristics became more pronounced as time went on, esp in the latter part of his life. Morgan doesn't quite make those distinctions. Also, there are just too many things to ignore to maintain that Washington had no sympathies for slaves, and unless there are other sources that clearly say this, and in no uncertain terms, Morgan's opinion on that note should be removed, as he clearly contradicts himself in the same sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Morgan (2000) should be kept in the article to keep the article neutral. There are no contradictions in Morgan's article. Editors are free to disagree with Morgan, but that does not substantiate Morgan's removal from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't have access, the relevant paragraph from Morgan is here: Morgan, Kenneth. (2000). page 282. . Victoria (tk) 21:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Victoria : Thanks. As we can see, there's much here that supports the idea that Washington had emotional concerns for slaves, esp slave families. i.e.How can one have concern for families without any "empathy"? Moreover, how does one support many slaves, i.e.children and the elderly, that served no commercial interests? If Washington was so cold and calculating he would have sold off slaves anytime it served his financial needs. Also, the phrase in question, "even though he did not identify emotionally with their plight. " is a bit sketchy. This also could mean that he simply did not acknowledge his emotions and concerns. To identify with something it must be acknowledged. Morgan's phrase could simply mean that Washington kept his emotional concerns to himself. It doesn't necessarily mean he didn't possess any emotional concern. Given his care for slave familiess, he clearly had emotional factors at work here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777 : The definition for empathy was spelled out for you above. The idea of paternal is also a basic concept, i.e."showing a kindness and care associated with a father; fatherly." Also, no one said we should get rid of Morgan, only that we leave out one of his conflicting notions, in light of his preceding words, not to mention overwhelming facts and sources that say otherwise. Last, it is misleading, to say the least, that the neutrality of the article depends on Morgan. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers with all do respect Wikipedia is not a palette to paint whatever portrait we want of Washington, nor to hide his personal contradictions. Paternal has to do with the physical well being of his slaves. Some families were broken up. Washington complained that slaves were late for work because they had the gumpsion to visit their families walking miles in the rain or snow. That is the emotional disconnect Washington had and what Morgan 2000 was talking about. Washington dislike splitting families up, but he did it anyways, despite in good intentions. Morgan specifically says Washington acted rigorously to his slaves, not his overseers. Not indentifying emotionally with the slaves plight is called lack of empathy. I just said it in other words. We must stop this continued battling in the talk pages and the slavery section to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There may well be good reasons not to discuss Morgan's contention that Washington was both paternalistic and did not identify emotionally with the slaves' plight (I don't see any, though it could perhaps be better explained in the article), but any opinion a Wikipedia editor has about whether or not Morgan is correct in his assessment is utterly irrelevant and not one of them. What are the "overwhelming facts and sources" that dispute Morgan's assessment? Factotem (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see continued discussion below:
 * Why did you not just continue the conversation here? Now we have one conversation split into two, separated by an unrelated section. What happens when one part gets archived? Factotem (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight tag - May 2019
I've tagged the sentence about Washington giving serious thought to emancipation ten years before his death, introduced with this edit as undue weight. It's a WP:FRINGE theory about a "moral epiphany" based on words that were written in Washington's voice by his contemporary biographer Humphreys. Not only is Wiencek's theory not repeated in any other sources I have seen, it is disputed by Professor Philip D. Morgan (pp. 422–423, 425), Professor Joseph Ellis (pp. 257, 311 n22) and Professor Peter Henriques (p. 159), all of whom specifically reference Wiencek's conclusion in some way in their dissenting comments: It's worth quoting Henriques on Wiencek: "Given the plethora of antislavery quotes from his pen, it is easy for a sympathetic biographer to make Washington into more of an antislavery advocate than he was in reality. Henry Wiencek, the author of the most comprehensive treatment of Washington and slavery, occasionally falls into this pitfall." His review of Wiencek's book is also an interesting read. Factotem (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Morgan, pp. 422–423, on Humphreys' passage, "This passage is a private expression of remorse, not the draft of a public statement in which Washington intended to announce he had freed some of his slaves before taking office." He is addressing Wiencek's interpretation of the Humprheys passage, as he makes clear in n31 on p. 423.
 * Morgan, p. 425, "Washington experienced no epiphanies, no last-minute revelations, no Road-to-Damsascus-like conversions concerning slavery. There was no single turning point..."
 * Ellis, p. 257, on the plan outlined to Lear in 1794, "Here is the first clear statement of his intention to free, not sell, his slaves..." (my emphasis);
 * Ellis, p. 311 n22, "[Philip] Morgan and I tend to disagree with Wiencek about how Washington's mind worked on this tortured subject, concluding that moral considerations were always mixed with economic assessments, and that there were no dramatic epiphanies, but rather a gradual and always contested thought process."
 * Henriques, p. 159, "Phil Morgan is correct in describing the process of Washington's evolution on slavery issue as 'torturously gradual'. Joseph ellis concurs..." (and then quotes the above statement by Ellis);
 * There is undo weight on Washington's intentions. In one instance Washington said he would not purchase anymore slaves, then he purchased more slaves. My objection is the way the sentence is written to prove Washington was anti-slavery. Wiencek was sympathetic to Washington. All this section needs is to be is neutral. Washington was a stern slave owner who wanted to profit from slavery. That is a neutral statement without judgement or condemation nor sympathy. There is disagreement among historians concerning Washington and slavery, but that goes beyond the subject matter of this section. There is a dedicated article on Washington and slavery. The sentence should be put in the dedicated article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Factotem : Before you were asking for scholars who concentrated on Washington and slavery, now it seems you are reaching for ways to ignore them. The idea that Washington pursued anti-slavery prospects is supported not only by primary sources, like Humphreys but by Washington's action's, in particular, his endorsement of an abolitionist publication, not to mention his will. Also, Morgan actually supports Wiencek's account:

P. Morgan, pp.422-423, indeed cites Humphreys' notebook, mentioning that it "is instructive for its emphasis on the unavoidability of his [Washington's] position." Though Morgan mentions that it was not a public document intended to announce that he had freed some of his slaves, Morgan goes on to say, "Here is an intimation of the emancipation clause in his will, with the reference to care for the elderly... The mid-1790s, when Washington was president, saw his first sustained attempts ... to extricate himself from the institution."

Morgan also says that Washington was indeed entertaining the idea of selling land for purposes of emancipation, and on more than one occasion.


 * "Another possibility he entertained was to hire out some slaves to farmers who settled on his Western lands and from that income build up enough resources to free the slaves. ''


 * In another plan, that Washington was entertaining a plan to free the Custis slaves by hiring them out on an eastern shore plantation. The income from the rental, he hoped, would pay for their emancipation."

All this can be found in the last paragraph on p.423.

No where does P. Morgan even attempt to refute the idea that Washington was indeed leaning towards abolition and emancipation – long before his death. Instead, he confirms the idea.

Accounts of these efforts are not "fringe" simply because some authors attempt to cast aspersions on the idea. Do they offer any proof and/or, primary sources, that these things are not so – or do they offer nothing but conjecture and dissenting opinion, typically. Again, accounts on Washington and slavery are often conflicting. We should offer both sides to the slavery issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ellis: The only thing he offers is doubt, with, again, nothing but conjecture to back it up. "Morgan and I tend to disagree with Wiencek about how Washington's mind worked on this tortured subject, concluding that moral considerations were always mixed with economic assessments..." The only thing that Ellis gets exactly right is that Washington struggled with the idea of slavery, which, when you think about it, only supports the idea that Washington wanted slavery to end, but was caught in the middle of an unstable nation he was trying to hold together. This is central to Washington and his position on slavery, and deserves plenty of weight. The tag is highly inappropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Twohig, covers Washington's first thoughts about using land for slaves as early as 1783:

"When Lafayette, an outspoken opponent of the system, wrote Washington from France in 1783 suggesting they cooperate in an experimental settlement for freed slaves, Washington responded cordially, as he always did to Lafayette, but without committing himself to any course of action. Lafayette proposed that he and Washington “Unite in Purchasing a Small Estate Where We May try the Experiment to free the Negroes, and Use them only as tenants. Such an Example as Yours Might Render it a General Practice.” In February 1786 Lafayette informed Washington that he had bought a plantation in Cayenne for a “Hundred and twenty five thousand French livres . . . and am going to free my Negroes in order to make that Experiment which you know is my Hobby Horse.” Washington praised the project..."
 * Yes, this was Lafayette's plan, but clearly it was something Washington praised and later, he was entertaining similar plans -- many years before his death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777 :, if there is neutrality that belongs in the dedicated article it belongs here. You proposal to remove the statement about conflicting accounts only exemplifies your long and established tendency to scoff at context and render the subject of slavery in less than a neutral light, ignoring sources in the process, as you've done here, and elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers: You inserted the statement that Washington had already given serious thought to emancipation ten years before his death (my emphasis, and so that we're all clear, that means 1789) sourced to Wiencek p. 275. To add context, Wiencek believes Washington to have had a "moral epiphany" that year; you have not stated it, but Wiencek does, immediately after the statement you closely paraphrase, specifically in the context of this theory. Addressing your comments in order:
 * Morgan actually supports Wiencek's account is the exact opposite of Morgan's stated position, as explained in my opening post;
 * Morgan's statement about the Humphreys passage being an "intimation" is a far cry from "serious consideration";
 * Morgan does indeed discuss Washington's mid 1790s emancipation plans, but that does not support Wiencek's 1789 emancipation theory;
 * Nowhere do I claim that Morgan refutes the emancipation plans of the mid 1790s;
 * It is indeed WP:FRINGE when one account (not "accounts") claims a "moral epiphany" for 1789 and three other scholarly, reliable sources specifically refute that, as explained, with page numbers, in my opening post. Please provide sources to support your assertion that three professors are only casting "aspersions", "conjecture", "dissenting opinion" or "doubt";
 * The only thing Ellis gets exactly right... Says who? Source please;
 * Lafayette's thoughts, not Washington's, and already discussed ad nauseam.
 * Additionally:
 * The idea that Washington pursued anti-slavery prospects is supported not only by primary sources, like Humphreys Humphreys does not explicitly support any statement that Washington "pursued anti-slavery prospects" and as a WP:PRIMARY source cannot be interpreted by us in any way. Even Wiencek says "As vague as the statement was..." and concedes that his analysis based on Humphreys, by itself, "seemed somewhat far-fetched" (p. 273);
 * his endorsement of an abolitionist publication I've addressed the abolitionist pamphlet in this edit, in the ever-growing list of examples of statements that do not accurately reflect the sources a few sections up. Short version: there is nothing in the sources to support any assertion that it was a public endorsement. Please provide sources that say otherwise or stop claiming that it was;
 * Can you please also respond to this notification of errors in accuracy between statement and source?
 * Please thread your posts with proper indentation. I've left space for you to go back and do that.
 * This is an issue of detail. Washington is on record as early as 1786 expressing support for general emancipation by a gradual legislative process. The consensus in the sources is that he did not start seriously considering freeing his own slaves until the mid 1790s, for reasons both moral and economic. Wiencek's theory that he had a moral epiphany regarding his own slaves in 1789 is fringe, so adding only that to the article in the way that you have is undue weight. I've restored the tag. Please do not remove it until this issue is settled here on the TP. Factotem (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. The context you want added is your context. I don't scoff at anything. Morgan says winter. The slaves were forced to work. The slaves were property of Washington, not employees who had a choice to quit. You have been freely allowed to edit in this section. Morgan's views are reliable. You are free to disagree. I have no problem with that. Why is it so needed to make Washington look anti-slavery ? Historians, no matter what is put in this section, will rank Washington highly. There is no need for this protectionism. The narration should neither protect, "added context". nor condemn Washington. All of this is delaying Washington to get to FA. You think I am all out to get Washington. Not true. I have been to his home Mount Vernon in Virginia. I saw where he lived and walked. I recommend people to go their. It would be an honor to Washington to get to a Featured article on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Let's stop the edit warring. All I ask is a few of my edits to be kept in tact. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Factotem : All that was/is said in the article is that Washington was entertaining ideas of emancipation long before his death, giving serious thought to the idea, regardless if he never freed his own slaves while he was alive. No one advanced the idea of "moral epiphany", even though it's rather obvious there were moral factors involved in Washington's thinking. You can't call the idea "fringe" simply because his ideas didn't materialize to the point where he offered his own slaves, due to pressing national and political concerns. Because his ideas didn't reach fruition doesn't negate the idea that Washington was serious in this pursuit. Are you saying Washington was just BS'ing everyone all those years?  Washington's support for the "legislative process" of emancipation was mentioned here in Talk only to exemplify his inclinations on the overall prospect of emancipation. His thoughts on emancipation is not at all a fringe idea.  Several sources, one which is dedicated to Washington and slavery, have Washington giving serious thought about selling land to promote emancipation long before his death. You asked for such a source. Now you're dismissing it with a lot of sketchy opinion. Re your quote: "Morgan does indeed discuss Washington's mid 1790s emancipation plans, but that does not support Wiencek's 1789 emancipation theory" You've offered nothing that comes close to refuting this idea. Maybe someday we'll remove your tag, but not before we sift through all the conjecture and various reaching attempts to dismiss Washington's desires to end slavery via gradual steps long before his death. All you've done thus far is offer a lot of overly compounded conflageration and opinion about what we shouldn't say, with no proposal about what we should say. Also, please don't peck at me about 'proper indentation'. Many editors besides myself have indented in a custom fashion, for years, on various president's pages, with no issues, except from yourself. Would you please just leave it alone and stick to the topic, without compounding the Talk. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 : The only "need" around here is to tell the truth as the sources, mostly, have. Why is there this need by you to swept context under the rug? Your edits are "left in tact" when you don't remove context or make efforts to write the narrative in obtuse and overly divisive terms. Same as for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Insert : Undo weight is not context. Additional reliable context can be added to the main article on Washington and slavery. We can't turn this section in the biography summary article into a book. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe I haven't expressed myself very well, though I fail to see how I can express things any clearer. I'll try harder. You have obviously not understood some key points I am making:
 * No one advanced the idea of "moral epiphany"... And full credit to you for not doing so in the article. But Wiencek does advance the idea of moral epiphany, you are using the theory he has come up with based on that idea and several reliable sources refute that idea.
 * You can't call the idea "fringe" simply because his ideas didn't materialize... & His thoughts on emancipation is not at all a fringe idea Nowhere do I refer to Washington's thoughts on emancipation as fringe. I call Wiencek's 1789 theory fringe because several reliable sources specifically refute it;
 * Several sources, one which is dedicated to Washington and slavery, have Washington giving serious thought about selling land to promote emancipation long before his death They all refer to the mid-1790s plans. If you have any sources that discuss serious thought before that, please provide them (and Lafayette's 1783 proposal did not involve selling land and was not given even remotely serious thought, as pointed out in this edit and subsequent discussion).
 * On re-reading Morgan 2005 pp. 422–423, I understand where you're coming from with the claim that he supports Wiencek, but he does not. Morgan still only characterises thoughts of emancipation in 1789 as an intimation, and he still refutes Wiencek's analysis and conclusion, as explained in my original post. A more accurate representation of the sources would be along the lines of:
 * The first intimation that Washington was giving serious thought to freeing his own slaves comes in 1789, in words attributed to him which speak of slavery as "the only unavoidable subject of regret." The first clear indication that he intended doing so comes in the mid 1790s, when he began considering various plans to rent or sell his land to finance their emancipation. None could be realised because of his failure to find renters and buyers, his reluctance to break up slave families and the refusal of the Custis heirs to help prevent such separations by freeing their dower slaves at the same time.
 * If you and everyone else watching this page OK with this, we can put this one to bed. Factotem (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Questioning sources
Gwillhickers. In your responses above you characterise the work of Ellis, Morgan and Henriques as "casting aspersions" and "conjecture". Do you have any reliable sources to support that? You question whether the authors "offer any proof and/or primary sources". Do you have any reliable sources to support the implication that the authors have been deficient in their research? Do you have any grounds in WP:IRS to support the case that these are not reliable sources? Factotem (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You could ask yourself the same questions: You complained that we were not using scholarly sources that concentrate on Washington and slavery. When this is done you turn around and challenge these – with sources that do not concentrate on Washington and slavery. e.g.You bring in Ellis who only challenges Wiencek's account with his own opinion, a source who doesn't present any facts to refute Wiencek and only offers remarks about Humphreys' account, a primary source who was close to Washington no less. We have Washington lending support to any legislative process that was offered; We have him praising Lafayette's plan to sell land to promote emancipation; We have two examples of Washington entertaining a similar idea to free the Custis slaves and another to hire out some slaves to farmers who settled on his Western lands. No one is attempting to make statements about Washington's mind any more than to say he was entertaining ideas about emancipation long before his death. That is all. We are not making statements about "moral empathy" or anything of that sort. This discussion has become much more involved than is warranted for the simple and general statement that we have in our article at present. If you would like to add some context to this statement, as you mentioned above (e.g.couldn't find buyers, etc) I'd have no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you answer my questions, please? Factotem (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we are not trying to determine matters of "moral empathy" and such, so in light of the general statement we have in the article there is is simply no need to keep answering your never ending and belaboring questions, all the while you ignore the simple fact that all we've done is make a general statement. Washington was entertaining emancipation years before his death. You could throw in a dozen more questions and this fact would not change. If you are going to challenge any sourced statement the burden of proof is on you, and will require more than a dissenting 'opinion' from another author – one who doesn't refer to any other primary sources or established facts to challenge Humphreys' account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts, cont
(Continued from above so others might not overlook it)


 * Factotem : Editors decide which sources are reliable and which are not. There is no 'Official list' of RS's that we are forced to ascribe to. Editors make that call. Likewise, when any discrepancies or contradictions are noted among the given sources, we shouldn't blindly copy it into the narrative without discussing it, which is all I've done. I have not removed Morgan's comment about no empathy. What is a reader to think if one statement says Washington cared for slaves, esp the preservation of slave families, yet another statement says he had no emotional, or paternal, concerns for their plight? This is a glaring contradiction, and should be weighed in light of "overwhelming facts and sources" as you mentioned. That is all I have proposed we do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors make that call with reference to WP:IRS, not their own assessment of the quality of a source's analysis and conclusions. This was pointed out to you last month here and again here. Factotem (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a glaring contradiction, and should be weighed in light of "overwhelming facts and sources" as you mentioned. That is all I have proposed we do. What you have proposed is to remove Morgan's opinion, based on your opinion that the statement in the article is contradictory. Morgan discusses the mixed attitudes of Washington that "intermingled to make up a complex view of slavery." He discusses himself Washington's concern for families in the sentence immediately preceding the one in which he talks of Washington not identifying "emotionally with their plight." If the article fails to adequately represent that complexity, then the solution is to agree a better statement that does, not declare the source itself invalid. Factotem (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 : Washington did not separate families in the manner you would have us believe. "Slaves were kept on each of these properties and lived on the farm where they were assigned to work rather than in family units, though they moved regularly from one farm to another." In fact, Morgan doesn't refer to families as "separated", yet that is the term you added to the statement. They were also allowed visits on Sundays and holidays, and often times walked at night, and not always through the "snow and rain", btw, to visit one another. Let's not carry on as if slaves were the only humans in the world that were away from their families much of the time. By emphasizing this in the section, and in terms of "separation", this is exactly what we've done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine whoever added "separated" to the statement had read p. 285, to which the statement is sourced, where Morgan writes, "...some of the married slaves did not therefore live in the same dwellings as their spouses." Or maybe they read Wiencek pp. 122-123, "...many families lived apart - husbands at the 'Home Farm', wives and children on the outlying farms," and just forgot to cite that too. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In an other instance of conflicting reports, our article currently says, "His slaves were poorly clothed and bedded, but were fed sufficiently." K. Morgan is the cite/source for this claim. However, this is what K. Morgan actually says about the matter:
 * "Visitors to Mount Vernon commented on Washington's good treatment of African Americans. A French savant wrote that the slaves were "well fed, well clothed, and required to do only a moderate amount of work." One Polish visitor, who left a detailed account of his visit to Mount Vernon stated unequivocally that Washington treated his slaves far more humanely than his fellow Virginians."

On page 286 Morgan says Washington was "parsimonious" (frugal) in his spending on cloths and bedding. He doesn't say "poorly clothed and bedded". This is yet another slight added by an editor, one who also wants us to remove mention that accounts vary and are often conflicting, understandably. Obviously we still have work to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Morgan says the slaves were not in family units. That is a divided family. That is seperation. Why else does one slave have to walk for miles to see that slave's family. This is hairsplitting to make Washington a nice slave owner. This is all keeping Washington from getting to FA. Do you want to get Washington to FA or keep edit warring in the talk page and article ? I will have to stick by my edits. Do I need your approval for every edit ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement about separation has not been deleted. While we don't want to "split hairs" just to make Washington look like a nice guy, we also don't want to remove context, routinely, while resorting to using obtuse and divisive statements to make him look like less than a nice guy, as you seem to have done, here and here, when you removed mention of Washington supporting many more slaves than he had use for, among other places. e.g.Morgan doesn't say "poorly clothed and bedded". Those are your words. Morgan, nor anyone, mentions walking through "rain and snow" to visit family, as if this was the rule. That is your emphasis, albeit here in Talk. Kindly not infer that it is my edits keeping us from reaching FA, esp since I did not initiate this slavery issue, weeks ago. Perhaps you should tend to your own laundry before you attempt to make an issue with someone else's. That would be the honest thing to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like Morgan's views have been deleted from the article. This section currently written is not neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which Morgan are you referring to? I don't recall removing anything by either Morgan. Morgan 2000 is used to cite the statement about family separation, such that it is, he doesn't use that term, and he is also used to cite the statement about empathy. Morgan 2005 is used in three different citations. If you can't speak in terms of specifics when making complaints I can only wonder if you're being less than honest, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Morgan 2000. Nothing about Washington working his slaves dawn to dusk and being a rigorous slave master. The slave family seperation, I could not find, somewhere lost in the narration. Whatever narration I put in this section has been washed away by a tidal wave of "context". You might as well just say Washington was a nice slave master. That is essentially what the current narration says. Readers nor editors have time to think. You seem to have taken over all of the section Gwillhickers. There is no critical assessment of Washington in this section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Insert:I had had added that Washington's slaves were overstocked and he was in debt. There was no link between the two. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The French savant, Jacques Pierre Brissot, spent two days at Mount Vernon in 1788 (src: Furstenberg pp. 279-280), the Polish visitor twelve days in 1798 (src: Wiencek p. 347). They are not the kind of authoritative, well-researched secondary sources we should be using to support statements about the treatment of slaves, if that's where you're going. I've still yet to see your evidence for contradictory accounts in the secondary sources. Either way, if Morgan is not your cup of tea, we could perhaps use Wiencek, who writes on pp. 123-124, "Washington's own records indicate that the slaves were miserably clothed. A set of clothing was doled out just once a year, supplemented by a woollen jacket in winter." After detailing what precisely what clothing Washington issued, Wiencek writes, "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." Or we could consult the MVLA page, "By necessity, they had to wear the same clothing nearly every day while doing hard physical labor. Made in mass quantities, the linen and wool garments were coarse, plain, and often ill-fitting and uncomfortable." You do reveal an important nuance, though: that MVLA source tells us the house slaves were better clothed, which probably explains why the reports of contemporary visitors don't match up with the secondary source accounts, and should demonstrate the danger of using such primary sources. Factotem (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that first hand accounts are not the same as a well researched scholarly view of Washington and slavery. Most likely guests were there to meet Washington, not study how his slaves lived. Were Washington's slaves in rags ? That is a good question. Morgan 2000 says Washington viewed whites were racially superior to blacks. This might account for their poor treatment. There was a profit motivation for Washington to own and work slaves. To be neutral this article should not make Washington a "good" or "bad" slave owner. The reader can have their own conclusions. Wikipedia is not here to make moral judgements "good" or "bad" on historical people. Morgan 2000 is critical of Washington, but that makes this section more reliable. The goal should be to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To get to FA, the account must have context and be neutral. You've made a good number of deletions of such context, as has been pointed out to you time and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)