Talk:Port Royal Experiment

A model of what Reconstruction could have been.
The article states:

The result was a model of what Reconstruction could have been.

I think the statement needs rewriting, or at least a citation.

It feels like a wish-fulfillment argument ("could have been").

It would be more accurate to say that Reconstruction was quite different from Port Royal, therefore the Port Royal Experiment was not a model of what it could have been, only a model of what was hoped for.

I am not a scholar of the period so I will leave this for others.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Former slaveholders as teachers?
Earlier versions of the article stated that "many" former slave masters assisted in setting up schools and even became teachers to the freed slaves. Surprising as that claim is, it is in fact supported by the cited source. Later versions of the article revised "many" to "some" and then to "few" while keeping the citation. This makes no sense, as it contradicts what the cited source says. I've revised to change "few" back to "many," but I also added "reportedly," since we can't necessarily take one book from 1919 as gospel truth regarding events that took place two generations earlier. 72.224.241.46 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)