Talk:Jean Baptiste Point du Sable/Archive 1

Possible document found..!
According to the Frontenac Amériques Association (website in French), a document in the register of the parish of Saint-Marc, National Archives d'Outre-Mer, dated April 11, 1745 the following act of baptism:

[A visual of a baptismal certificate] of a man named Jean-Baptiste, and mentions in the source that du Sable is a possible nickname. In any case, this documentation and information on this website closely resembles the findings of author Meehan and should be considered. I do not believe Meehan offers any possible findings of such and this would potentially help validate its case a bit further than these other theories mentioned that are all far off from one another. Savvyjack23 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To do to improve

 * 1) Reformat to improve readability
 * 2) Whose daughter did he marry?  Do we know her name?
 * 3) Why was he imprisoned in Detroit for spying?  Was this a factual allegation or something drummed up against him?
 * 4) What ever happened to him and his family?  Where "west" did they go?

Kudos!
Excellent! So few people know about the shameful way duSable was treated by those who promoted Kinzie as the "first resident of Chicago." Ortolan88

Jean Baptiste Guillory

 * Ran across this statement related to who was first: "Some historians say that Jean Baptiste Guillory was here first, but he didn't stay long and no one knows too much about him,..." ( see )  Pknkly (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another source for second resident possibly being Jean Baptiste Guillory is: . Pknkly (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Guillory, — often misspelled Guillary, Guilleroi, Gary, Garie, Guary, Guyari, Gauri, and Guarie; French trader whose Mackinac-based company owned a post on the W bank of the north branch of the Chicago River near the Forks, located where Fulton Street now intersects with the river. Quaife thought the trader’s correct name was probably Jean Baptiste Guillory, son of Joseph Guillory and Louise Bolon, but his opinion seems based on a misinterpretation of the name on a trading license issued in 1779 to a Jean Baptiste Guillon. According to John F. Swenson, and based on the Michilimackinac baptismal registry, he was a son of Simon Guillory who died at Mackinac c.1744. Gurdon Hubbard describes a remnant of the gardens and adjacent cornfields surrounding Guillory’s post, noted in 1818; Hubbard learned from Antoine des Champs, Louis Buisson, and other older voyageurs that the property existed prior to 1778, which would make Guillory an earlier resident of Chicago than Point de Sable, who settled there in 1782. Guillory’s name, in its multiple variations as listed above, was also used in the early years, and as late as 1830, for the north branch of the Chicago River—as Guarie’s River, &c." from the Early Chicago. Shsilver (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How interesting! He was so well known that they named the north branch after him! Maybe the article should reflect that there were others who were arguably first non-indigenous first residents but their stay was either too short or there weren't adequate supporting historical records.  By the way, I made a couple of changes to the article on Chicago River, the history section, to include an uncited statement about other early residents such as Guillory.   Perhaps you might want to take your above statement, as is, and place it there.  I think it would be good.  Thanks for the feedback, subsectioning the above statements, and the citation. Pknkly (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Move from Jean Baptiste Point du Sable?
I do hate to make trouble, but I think it's actually Pointe du Sable; and his given name should preferably be hyphenated Jean-Baptiste (this at least is the contemporary French use). Unless there's a compelling reason not to, I think we should move this page to Jean-Baptiste Pointe du Sable. QuartierLatin1968 17:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: There are 1,700 google hits for "Pointe du Sable" (in quotes) against 782 for "Point du Sable", and that of course includes Wikipedia lookalikes. You have to use quotes because 'point' is of course a common English word in its own right; otherwise you'll get hits along the lines of "I want to make a point about sable hunting".

WTF?
So what the hell did he even do to get his own article? The article doesn't say. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He was a Fur trader, a Farmer plus an Explorer, American History doesn't speak much about non-white explorers,it usually gets destroyed or an European face gets added.~  User:ttshorty history is end less  18 July 2011

Broken link

 * Chicago Public Library

Can anyone restore this link? It doesn't appear using the Library's search engine. I put the Du Sable Heritage Association's account in its place.Fconaway (talk)

African-American, African-French, or Haitian
I believe the reference to du Sable in the lead paragraph as an African-American is misleading. The sentence just before the reference, to me, would make him an African-French. However, the Bio section of the article clearly says he is from Haiti. Therefore, I believe the sentence should say he was "the first Haitian in the area". BTW - this is a much needed article. Congrats and thanks to all the contributing editors. Pknkly (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The "African American" article to which I linked gave the following citation: http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/BlackWhite/BlackDiversityReport/black-diversity03.htm. The link shows that there are black people in the United States who recognize themselves as Afro-Caribbean. Based on all the citations within the du Sable article there is no doubt that du Sable was a Haitian. Seems that would make him, based on the census category, an Afro-Caribbean. However, the article on "African American" basically says that a black person who resides in America and has decedents from Africa is an African American. Specifically, the "African American" article says people from the Caribbean are African Americans. Clearly, we need a good citation for the statement about du Sable being African American. Until then, I hope the compromise statement with the request for citation will do. I tried to find a citation that said he was an African American and could not find one. All the ones I looked at simply said he was a Haitian. Maybe this article should do the same. Pknkly (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DuSable's father - mate or captain?
Found a web source (see article and notes) that says his father was a captain. The web source isn't all that good, but for now, until a better source is cited, I hope it will do. Pknkly (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent name move
I would strongly advocate moving back to Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. I have never heard him referred to as de Sable, anything named after him in Chicago is called du Sable, although there might be more Google hits for "de Sable" the very top of that search asks if you meant "du Sable" and most of the hits show the name as du Sable. Shsilver (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the move because that is how it appears that his surname was spelt during his lifetime. Point de Sable biographer John F. Swenson states: "The fictitious surname Du Sable imposed on Jean Baptiste appeared only long after his death in 1818. Du is a corruption of the proper French pronunciation of de, which Anglophones write as du. George Rogers Clark, for example, had once planned to attack "Dutroit." In nearly all the many surviving documents, from 1779 to 1818, most of them written in French, in which Point was a party or was mentioned, his surname appears as Point de Sable." In Chicago: A Biography Dominic A. Pacyga states "Jean Baptiste Point de Sable's name is spelled in various ways. This book follows the most current research on early Chicago."


 * The statement I made about google was a mistake though—I misinterpreted the search results. However, the previous article name Jean Baptiste Pointe du Sable doesn't appear much outside of WIkipedia. I'd be OK with Jean Baptiste Point du Sable (no e in Point), but it seems to me that, as an encyclopedia article, the article should be based on the facts known about his life, and not fictions invented after he died (although I do intend at some point to add a section on fictional biographies, as there are many).—Jeremy (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced by Swenson's article (which I'll note is undergoing revisions) and which also shows at least one citation of him being referring to as Point au Sable (and of course throughout, Swenson refers to him as just Point). Interestingly, Bessie Pierce refers to him as Point Sable. The print edition of The Encyclopedia of Chicago (Grossman, et al., U of Chicago Press, 2004) refers to him as "Point DuSable" (p.5), Gerard Wolfe's Chicago: In and Around the Loop refers to him as Point du Sable (pp.14, 159, 213, 217), Donald Miller's City of the Century refers to Point du Sable (tired of grabbing books off my shelf), so if, as you say, you'd "be OK with Jean Baptiste Point du Sable," could you please move it there? I believe that is what it was when I originally created the article, but you'll note the comment above from April 6, 2005. (actually, I'm wrong. I created the original at Jean Baptiste Point de Sable, but referred to him as "Jean Baptiste Point du Sable" throughout the original entry.) Shsilver (talk)

Shady Edit
I'm really new to this, but there has been a last edit in this article that seems to have been added to fit with an ongoing ghost story. It's accompanied by a citation that leads to a page of scrambled text. The modification it's the added text about the way in which duSable died, the edit was done yesterday. The citation is the number 42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.231.85.78 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks… fixed. —Jeremy (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Swenson article in footnote two Reliable Source?
The monograph in note 2 states that it is unfinished and being revised. It contains original research and speculation (sometimes presented as "fact"). The Website is not a scholarly publication. I doubt its reliability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What in the Swenson article do you dispute? Swenson makes it clear what his sources are—what I presume you are calling original research is his uncovering of these sources (there is no requirement on Wikipedia that our cited source don't include original research—in fact, that's basically the point of citing sources). The website is an online version of the book A Compendium of the Early History of Chicago to the Year 1835, when the Indians left that was published in 2000. What makes you assert that the website is "not schorlarly"? The bibliography given with the website is extensive and should enable you to confirm pretty much all of the facts given on the site. Swenson's contributions to that book are cited by numerous sources, for example The Chicago River: a natural and unnatural history by Libby Hill (2000), Chicagoland: city and suburbs in the railroad age by Ann Durkin Keating (2005), and Chicago: A Biography by Dominic A. Pacyga (2009). In addition Swenson's research is mostly in line with, and builds on, that of Milo Milton Quaife who was the first historian to make an attempt at documenting Point du Sable's life and is also widely cited on this and a great many other subjects. If you examine all the original sources, many of which are now available online and linked from this Wikipedia article, I think that you will find that far from being unscholarly, Swenson's is one of the few scholarly articles on Point du Sable.—Jeremy (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article states that it is unfinished and being revised. Therefore, it is in its nature unreliable.  The naive statement I found most shocking in the article is the speculation Swenson parades as fact about Du Sable's mother being a free black woman from Canada just because 'the law in Canada requires the children of slave women to be slaves.' So what?  Slaves became freedmen at or after birth, especially the children of white men, through manumission, or just leaving their slave past behind when they went to the frontier.
 * I assert the website is not scholarly because the authors of the website, including Swenson, are not be scholars, by which I mean trained historians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be a trained historian to write in a scholarly manner. Swenson is not one of the publishers of the book A Compendium of the Early History of Chicago to the Year 1835, when the Indians left, so I believe that his contribution to that book fulfils Wikipedias definition as a reliable source—we can cite the book instead of the website if you'd prefer. It is not for us to critique sources in the articles—if another reliable source has critiqued Swenson's writing I would be happy to include that in the article. Regardless, almost all the facts in this Wikipedia article that are cited to Swenson are also backed up by other sources, and when I have added Swenson's opinions to the article I have made it clear that they are his opinions per our neutral point of view policy. —Jeremy (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the publisher ofA Compendium of the Early History of Chicago to the Year 1835, when the Indians left? Accoording to the website it is self-published by people who are not historians.  These are the same people who say the Swenson article is being revised and is unfinished, making it unreliable on its face. Wikipedia is not here to promote self-published works especially ones that are so unreliable, its been marked it as unfinshed and in need of revision.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Swenson is not one of the publishers, so his work is not self-published. Whether or not the publishers are historians is irrelevant. What are the facts cited to the Swenson article that you disagree with; if none then this discussion is pointless.—Jeremy (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arent DePeyster
I think that it is reasonable to treat Arent DePeyster as inaccurate. Although he is the source of the 1779 date that has often been given as the date of Pointe du Sable's arrival in Chicago, DePeyster was writing 34 years after this date. What is more the information that DePeyster gives is in a footnote to a poem; DePeyster says that the poem is a speech that he made to the Indians in 1779, but the footnote stating that Pointe du Sable is settled in Chicago is written in the present tense suggesting that he believed that Pointe du Sable was settled in Chicago at the time that he was writing (1813) not at the time that the poem was set. In any event there are many documents written in 1779 that make it clear that Point du Sable was settled in Michigan City at that time including the letters of Lieut. Bennett (cited—with a link to archive.org where you can read them—in the article) who arrested him there (note DePeyster also gets the name of the arresting officer wrong in the poem). See for more details. —Jeremy (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't make something a fact because you find it reasonable. You may think it reasonable but that's no cause to not say its disputed which it is in the historical accounts. Just because a man lives at the mouth of one river does not exclude him also having a settlement at the mouth of another river a short distance away.  Especially if you're like DuSable a wealthy and peripatetic fur trader in the 1700's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not my opinion that I give when stating that DePeyster is inaccurate—for example the Chicago Historical Society's publication the Encyclopedia of Chicago introduces DePeyster with the heading "Misremembered in Verse" and calls his book a "volume of fanciful verse". Your speculation about where Point du Sable was in 1779 is just that, speculation, not backed up by any historical documents. —Jeremy (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have obviously misread me if you claim I am speculating about Point du Sable's whereabouts. We do, in fact, have a historical document that claims that he was settled in Eschicagou.  That's what has led to this discussion and I believe the wiser course of noting the dispute, not blowing past it by refereeing the dispute and claiming there are established facts when there are not.  I merely pointed out that an individual person can, indeed, have two or more settlements at the same time.  Thus, when one person says he lived here and another says he lived there. It is possible that they are both right.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Catherine and sexism?
Reading this article, I am left with questions about du Sable's wife. It is likely there are even fewer records about her than him; but assuming they lived together at Chicago, she would also deserve the title "founder of Chicago." If anyone has sourced info that she lived with him at Chicago and can address this imbalance, it would improve the history in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right; lack of sources is the problem. As far as I know, the only primary source that mentions his wife is a record of their marriage being formalized by a Catholic priest at Cahokia in 1788. I have not seen this source, so all I know about it comes from secondary sources. Most secondary sources assume that they were married before this, either in an informal frontier wedding or perhaps an indian wedding. The minimal additional information about her in secondary sources is, as far as I can tell, conjecture. As far as the title of "founder of Chicago" goes, it is suggested in some sources that Jean Baptiste would have travelled to Chicago and built his farm there before bringing his family from (presumably) Michigan, where they had been living previously; but that would also be conjecture. There is speculation in some sources that her death might have triggered Point du Sable's moving away from Chicago—perhaps we could add this to the 'Departure from Chicago' section. Shirley Graham gives Catherine a more extensive back story in her novel and a lot of non-reliable sources (websites etc.) and even some sources that are reliable by Wikipedia's criteria repeat Graham's account of events as fact; but unfortunately Graham is unclear as to her sources, and states that much of her book comes from her own imagination, so I am reluctant to add any of that information into the article unless it can be confirmed by sources that pre-date Graham.—Jeremy (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Perrot 1671
Hi, I admit Chicago history is not my area of expertise so I'm not going to challenge the recent revert. I just wanted to explain that the source I had looked at, claimed it was Nicolas Perrot who was taken to a Miami village near the modern city in 1671, by the Potawotamie - not Marquette / Jolliette, who were apparently there in 1673. Kind regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Founder of Chicago' section might be a good place to mention Perrot. In that section I have tried to summarize what is known about those who had passed through or stayed at area around the mouth of the Chicago River before Point du Sable. There were many, including, of course, the Indians. But none are known to have stayed for any length of time, and it would be a stretch to claim of any of them as antecedents to the city of Chicago. On the other hand, the area around the mouth of the Chicago River has documented continuous human occupation from the time of Point du Sable onwards, and that is why he is regarded as the city's first permanent resident.


 * The possible visit of Perrot to the area in 1671 is difficult to get a handle on. As far as I can tell most Chicago historians don't even mention him. Andreas notes this: "Charlevoix, corroborated by others, says: 'In 1671, after having visited all the northern nations… he (Perrot) turned south and went to Chicago at the lower end of Lake Michigan where the Miami's then were.'" However, Andreas then goes on to say that the Chicago alluded to as the home of the Miamis is not the site of present day Chicago, but rather the name applied to a tract of country at the south end of lake Michigan. And Quaiffe states that "no Indians resided at Chicago when the explorers first appeared there". Shea, who translated Charlevoix's work, stated that Charlevoix had only inferred that Perrot visited Chicago and this was not borne out by Perrot's writings. Given the uncertainty, perhaps what I wrote in the 'Founder' section that Joliet and Marquette were "probably not the first Europeans to visit the area" is sufficient?—Jeremy (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you say so! Like I said, it's not my area of expertise at all, and I was only quoting something I had read in another source. I will leave this one in your hands!  Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits (February 26, 2014)
Before my edits, I found this article to be vastly fabricated beyond the truth from the references IT had provided. All I did was simply reread it all, to find many passages misconstrued. My arguments are as follows from former references:


 * Meehan [7] where this page quoted: "...there is no known record..." are untrue to the text of the reference provided.


 * Baumann, Timothy E. [8] where it mentions, "African descent" is not found in archive & untrue to the text that I read from its JSTOR ebook online.


 * Graham [40] "..pure fiction." untrue to text; actually says on pg. 442 in the Journal of Negro History: Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc. Vol. 38, No. 4. that Sable had an "amazing career of the Haitian who founded Chicago has long deserved a book."


 * Archive [42] ABC [43] "...early life, parentage, and birthplace, this popular story...being definitive." Both untrue to the text. In fact says, "widely accepted...a free black..born in Haiti." [Archive] "born..French..St. Domingue" [ABC]


 * Reference to "Saint-Marc" was not author Cohn, it was actually Graham 1953 pg. 169)


 * Swenson [4] "...called these claims "contemporary documents, long neglected and never assembled, that tell a fascinating story that is worthy of nothing less than the recognition of the facts of his life and achievements." was taken out of context and again untrue to the text of the referenced source. Swenson was also not making a counter response to Joseph Jeremie's claim to be the great grandson of du Sable, which it was made on here to appear. His point is now noted correctly, paraphrased in some instances and also quoted. In fact the true reference read close to this: he has said..."...the contemporary documents, long neglected and never assembled, tell a fascinating story that is worthy of nothing less than the recognition of the facts of his life and achievements." True to the reference he also says: "Although, at his burial ceremony there is no mention of his age, origin, parents, relatives or people present, a priest's handwritten entry on his tomb reads, nègre." "People of African descent were always called nègre in French America." In the biography paragraph, Swenson never says, "largely fictitious and wholly unauthenticated," he uses the words "obviously imaginary..." Quotes like this shouldn't be replaced with original work if it creates distinction. Also, his claim is also opinion ("theory"), one written 100 years later.

My take on Swenson: Swenson contradicts himself by saying he could be French-Canadian, but then says his surname isn't found in France, the United States, or Canada. Then says, Sable's ...English was rudimentary at best. (Swenson, John) If he was Canadian, or from Louisiana even, he would know how to speak both English and French well. The only close connection to his surname comes from Saint-Domingue as you read Swenson. So Canada? ...a theory. Even if he had a Canadian father and an American slave mother, he would be able to be fluent in the English language and not rudimentary. In Saint-Domingue, Gens de couleur (people of color in English), is the term for mulattos due to the slave masters relations with black slave women. These people of color (mulattos) were free people under French law and often times was customary for the offspring to study abroad in France and take on formal education. So the possibility that author Graham mentions in reference to a possibility of a slave black mother and a French father makes a lot of sense if in fact he was a gens of couleur libres (free people of color). A free black was much more rare in those times because of Code Noir (Black code), but a notable exception was General Toussaint Louverture who was said to be a military genius, educated in France and who fought for France and then against them. He was even permitted to marry. (Bell, 57-58) So for du Sable to be born in France seems like a stretch as well. But regardless of my own analysis here, all these scenarios have been accounted for and in the end, somebody got it right.

In conclusion, I have found that the text has been vastly misconstrued and fabricated so far on this wikipage, with the wrong references linked to passages that blatantly ignore the text and instead placed with original work untrue to its sources. I wonder how much more of the article is like this. I haven't looked past the introduction, biography and early life yet. It is also widely accepted that his place of birth was indeed Saint-Domingue, (the Former French colony and the modern-day Haiti) which his birth is unknown but many believe it is between 1745-1750, that is why I inserted a question mark succeeding 1745; an estimate based on the sources provided. But don't just take it from me, just a quick web search on Du Sable will confirm the consensus of this widely accepted belief. S J


 * Swenson, John. "Jean Baptiste Point de Sable—The Founder of Modern Chicago", Early Chicago, Inc
 * Madison Smartt Bell. "Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography", New York: Pantheon, 2007 (Vintage Books, 2008). ISBN 1-4000-7935-7


 * Please sign your comments.It seems to me your charges are overblown but I'll let the primary author of those sentences deal with that. The fact remains that his birth facts are unknown. Graham wrote a work of historical fiction.  You misunderstand Swenson, he is referring to his documents (from the Michigan archives) in your quote, and in referring to the Jeremie piece, he disputes its historical basis. And no, there is no reason a French Canadian or a French Louisianan would speak English well. Sure, it's a good possibility (even, perhaps, the best possibility) he was somehow connected with Haiti (he is known to be both a French speaker and of African decent, and to have died in the former French colony of Missouri -- his parentage under those circumstances could well have been in the French colony that became Haiti) but in the end that is still what it is.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would ask that you read WP:AGF—I find your accusations of fabrication very insulting. I spent a great many hours researching this article and everything I have added to it I have done so in good faith and with reference to reliable sources. I don't have time at the moment to write a detailed response, but let me start with your first criticism. You say Meehan [7] where this page quoted: "...there is no known record..." are untrue to the text of the reference provided. this is patently incorrect (did you read Meehan?). Meehan on the cited page (p447) states "As to when he was born and who his parents were, absolutely nothing is known."—Jeremy (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The second of your points: Baumann, Timothy E. [8] where it mentions, "African descent" is not found in archive & untrue to the text that I read from its JSTOR ebook online. I am holding in my hands volume 66 of the Missouri Archaeologist and on p59 Baumann states "the Du Sable Grave project was conducted to uncover the physical remains of Jean Baptiste Pointe du Sable, a person of African descent and the founder of Chicago."—Jeremy (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your third point: the description of Graham's book as "not accurate history nor pure fiction" is a direct quote from the book—are you accusing Graham of lying about her own work?—Jeremy (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Swenson never says, "largely fictitious and wholly unauthenticated," he uses the words "obviously imaginary..." Quotes like this shouldn't be replaced with original work if it creates distinction. I'm now wondering whether you read the article before accusing us of fabrication. This quote was correctly attributed to Quaife and can be read in the first sentence of the cited page of his book.—Jeremy (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference to "Saint-Marc" was not author Cohn, it was actually Graham 1953 pg. 169 the Cohn reference is used to show this claim is "commonly recited" as are the two news articles that you mention in one of your other points. The sentence in question makes it clear that the claim comes from Graham's book and states "(see below)" directing the reader to where Graham's book is discussed in more detail. In summary, I find that your changes to the article make it less reflective of the cites reliable sources and so I have reverted back to the last good version.—Jeremy (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do not be offended. I mean something had to go right for it to be a good article. Thank you for your contributions. Anyway, links were broken, had to find it all on my own for the most part. Those page numbers that were referenced to, some were not correct. If I cannot pull it out and read where it was referenced from and make a fair comparison, then why is it even referenced at all? From where I was reading, it appeared to be fabricated; why would I make it up? Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Every reference I have checked cites the correct page. JSTOR has been having some problems, the 'stable' link to Meehan worked last night, did not work this morning, and works again this evening, even when it was not working, it took me about 30 seconds to find the article on JSTOR by searching for its title. The PDF of Baumann was hosted on a university website, evidently they took it down; it was pretty easy to find an archived copy at archive.org and I have now replaced the link with an archive.org link. On finding dead links, the WP:AGF response is to assume that the page has been moved or taken down, not to assume that the editor who added the link fabricated it.—Jeremy (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, whoever referenced: Archive or Gramham [42] ABC [43] "...early life, parentage, and birthplace, this popular story...being definitive." I just read pages 3-11 where [42] is referenced to and there is no such in these pages. In fact the 1st page in the index says when Jean was eleven, the Spaniards raided Saint-Domingue, murdered his mother and destroyed his home. Plus why is only one sentence referenced to 8 pages (3-11 pages) anyway unless the text was being taken out of context? As for [43] (ABC), please tell me how do you get this, when it says, it has become widely accepted that he was a free, black man born in Haiti in the mid-1700s. He was the son of a African slave mother and French mariner. You did not explain these two. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So Graham does not say this then on pg. 442 in the Journal of Negro History: Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc. Vol. 38, No. 4. that Sable had an "amazing career of the Haitian who founded Chicago has long deserved a book."


 * As for Meehan and Bachmann, can you please tell me from what page(s) it was sourced from that explains how it had gotten interpreted to [7] and [8]. Yes, I did read and am an avid reader, otherwise there would be no reason for me to be on here. I just found it troubling from what I read and the pages referenced was vastly different. S  J  <<< my signature.


 * I'll take the Graham one - if you looked at her historical novel - that's the same thing Graham writes on the flyleef of her fiction - she means that he deserves an historical novel -- her book. (Also, you really should have a time stamp on your signature). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right about the time stamp. I've been meaning to get around to fixing that...Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear what you are saying in reference to Graham, but, accurate page numbers would be helpful. With the page numbers provided in this article, I find that it differs. I don't know why but it doe,; so I don't mean to be a nuisance. But do you see what I am talking about corresponding to [43]? Take a quick look at that article.Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Graham p157, as cited in the article: "My book is not accurate history nor is it pure fiction. It is an imaginative interpretation of the known facts in a sincere attempt to create a reasonable and plausible whole of essential truth.".—Jeremy (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are saying: There is a sentence that conveys that Graham in her novel writes he was the son of a slave and a French pirate, etc. (citing Graham's book) Then the next sentence conveys that this stuff is widely repeated (citing discussion/examples of the repetition) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In terms of not having documentation. We do not have any documentation that says Moses for example was born in Goshen, Egypt. Egypt yes, but from the text, it doesn't mention it; it was assumed. But for du Sable, there still isn't enough "evidence". Saint-Marc is more debatable, but Saint-Domingue, not so much. Also, why wouldn't he be "French-American"? We can all agree he was French, being born on any French territory made a person French regardless of if you were of African descent or not. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The sidebar should read: born: traditionally Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti), nationality: ***blank***. A Haitian did not exist at the time of his birth. Touissant Loventure doesn't even have Haitian on his sidebar, and of course we do not deny that he is Haitian but it worth noting. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The 'traditionally Haitian' part is a compromise attempting to maintain a neutral point of view. The only thing about saying Saint-Domingue is that I know of no source that says this. Juliette Kinzie said "St. Domingo", which I originally mistook for the Spanish colony that is now the Dominican Republic, but I now believe (based on other books from the same time period as Kinzie's) to be a general term for the whole island of Hispaniola.—Jeremy (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And in fact, the "Canadian" theory is the only theory standing in the way of du Sable being a "French-American." [Saint-Domingue, Louisiana (before its purchase of 1802), France] Canada has always been a commonwealth of UK. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on "African descent." [8], thanks for the fix on that link. (To note: I am obviously, not denying this fact) I was reading pages that move on from the beginning on du Sable onto finding out where he was from. It started off as a person of African descent. Ok, agreed. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If there were any documentation --at all -- produced during his lifetime or near his death that mentioned anything about his birth facts, we would likely have different scholarship -- but there apparently is not. As to "French" ok, but he was also negre, which has a different connotation then just French, as for American, there is dispute if he ever was. He lived in British lands sometime after 1764 and before 1784, but who knows if that made a difference for his nationality -- in the period we know next to nothing about concerning his life. And no, Canada was a French colony before 1764 -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, he is French. See Martinique and the rest of the French Caribbean, regardless of color are French. How can he just be "negre" as a nationality that doesn't make sense. Wasn't he a free man? Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He possibly (maybe probably) was French, but we have to be careful of WP:SYNTHESIS. Does any source say that he was French or is that a 'conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'?—Jeremy (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He was at some point free, but then there is also the story he was at one time a slave (which would be probable, if he was born to a slave mother). As I said, French is probably ok. French-American might also work considering he died in America. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in America but not American. How was US citizenship granted to the residents of what was New France? Was it automatic or did they need to apply?—Jeremy (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to remember we are dealing with a frontier, with the ambiguities that entails. But free French were probably made "subjects" of the British east of the Mississippi around the time the establishment of British Quebec in 1764 - and technically given the rights of subjects (the biggest issue there probably keeping their religion). When America took those lands in 1783, they were probably made "citizens" of the United States, whatever that meant on the frontier.  Would they have to apply?  If they wanted something from the government (what little there was) they probably had to take an oath -- otherwise there was likely little that mattered. No one asked them what they wanted, but they could also move west of the Mississippi to at that time become "subjects" of Spain, or remain and basically carry on as before.  And to complicate there was always an "alien" population, perhaps he was technically an Indian in that scenario. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right about that, he may not be American. I wonder why he was such a mystery man though? The stories of him are very interesting, but if it wasn't for his actual gravestone, I'd think it was just an urban legend. I also stand corrected on Graham pg 157. Thank you. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't know better, I would think he was hiding from someone, and that could have a lot to do with actually not being a free man. For nobody (friends, family) to show up at at your funeral, not to mention what country you were from, not celebrate a birthday, or discuss family with anyone is a bit odd. It could be his reason for migrating to different parts of the world. I mean there are known slaves from that time who are better recorded. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think much was documented on the frontier at that time. My impression is that we know more about him than many others living in the area at the same time. His time in St Charles, where her died and was buried, seems to have not been particularly nice. His son pre-deceased him, possibly his wife and daughter too; I read somewhere that he also spent time in prison there.—Jeremy (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question in regards to US citizenship for New France and formal appliance considering the US won its Independence in 76'. and didn't purchase Louisiana until 1802 or control Missouri (1821) or Michigan (1837). Most likely he wasn't American. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be technical, the US got most those lands in the Treaty of Paris (1783) and got Missouri in the Louisiana purchase (1803), not those statehood dates.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After a (not very extensive) search last night I came to the conclusion that the Louisiana purchase granted automatic citizenship to only the white men of the Louisiana territories.—Jeremy (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/baumann/Baumann%202005%20-%20Du%20Sable.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

White Haitians
It's possible that he was white because before the 19th century, a substantial portion of Haitians (Saint-Dominguans) were white French settlers. The white settlers were all killed after the Haitian revolution in 1804 (see 1804 Haiti massacre). But since he was born before the revolution, he may have been white. 69.159.16.214 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubt exists over whether he had any connection to Haiti, not over the fact that he was black. Rmhermen (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fyi, not all whites were killed during the 1804 Haiti massacre (actually reading that article through-and-through this would be known). Also see: Constitution of Hayti (1805), where Poles and Germans were especially named as being awarded citizenship. To stay on topic though, "French Canadian" was a possible theory by Quaife, but it doesn't appear to have much traction. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * DuSable is known to have been black and to have spoken French. He could have been Canadian or Haitian, he was still black.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

When you want to contribute to an encyclopaedia, please do not engage in unsubstantiated random speculation like your phrase "It's possible that he was white because...". Just state your fact and quote your source. Tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123084531/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1614&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1614&ResourceType=Site
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302144836/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160205/downtown/downtown-dusable-bust-be-moved-for-apple-store-construction-alderman to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160205/downtown/downtown-dusable-bust-be-moved-for-apple-store-construction-alderman

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Review comments
I was asked to review the article. Here are some comments. I will give it another read through when I get the chance.


 * "and is now known as the "Founder of Chicago".[7]" I might cut "now", though I get that you want to imply that he wasn't. I might say "recognized" for "known".
 * "variously transferred" I might say "changed hands several times"
 * I might swap the last two sentences of the lede.
 * "though it is likely they were married earlier in the 1770s in the Native American tradition." I might cut the word "earlier"
 * " Great Britain was seeking to assert its control in the former dependencies of French Canada and the Illinois Country. [14]" I might not lump these together. French Canada was now British, whereas Illinois was possibly American, depending how you view Britain's commitments under the Treaty of Paris (1783)
 * I might divide the final paragraph of biography.
 * You might want to note that St. Charles is now in Missouri inline in the text, rather than simply through a link. I note that later, you say "moved to Missouri, at that time part of Spanish Louisiana." with link. I would delete the second link of Spanish Louisiana and move the explanation to the first.
 * " In addition, the Kaskaskia land commissioners identified many fraudulent land claims," In addition to what? Were the land commissioners going through all the land documents, good and bad? This should be tied together better.
 * You sometimes call him du Sable and sometimes Point du Sable.
 * "Nicholas Jarrot, the claimant, was involved in many fraudulent land claims,[50] and Swenson suggests that this claim was also fraudulent, made without the knowledge of Point du Sable.[4]" to avoid repetition, I would change "claim" to "one"
 * The "Founder of Chicago" seems a bit disjointed. One short paragraph is about du Sable, the rest is about other people who may have been the first settler. I'm not sure that info is well placed there.
 * The Treaty Greenville," "of" missing?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Much thanks, I responded to most of your suggestions, I will have to think on the land claims and founder section, further.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The dependencies of French Canada, being referred to in that sentence are the ones below the Great Lakes (but above the Illinois Country - basically today's, Michigan, Northern Indiana, Northeastern Illinois). I have added "southern" to dependencies and also added 'later the US' to address your concern, does that work? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I have now addressed all your points, including shortening Founder and revising some of the Peoria section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's close enough that you could nominate it at FAC. I need to give it one more read through, which I can do as easily there than here. Sorry for the delay, been busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)