Talk:Somerset v Stewart

GAN
The referencing in this article is simply not up to GA standards. None of the borader claims nor the decision itself is referenced. If it is truly as critical as claimed there sould be several books on the subject that could be mentioned in a references or further reading section. On a broader note more information or links pertaining to the history of abolistion in England would be good. Also the Dred Scott comparision could be broken off into a seperate section perhaps with mention of other precedents in Brazil or else where. Eluchil404 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All of these points are now addressed. 185.251.11.193 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The catalyst for the 1776 Declaration of Independence?.
The article says,

"Somersett's Case ... It is one of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world and is largely acknowledged to have been the catalyst for the 1776 Declaration of Independence."

To an American, this is an astonishing statement, since Americans think of the Intolerable acts and other actions of King George III and Parliament, and not of this case. I have added a fact template for this statement. Perhaps I will find other ways to question it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added to call attention to this article and its astonishing statement about the US Declaration of Independence.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The american history of the war tends to follow a hero myth rather than the actual facts of what occurred this is why it can be seen as astonishing statement to an american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from Virginia, loyalist sentiment was stronger in colonies where slavery remained the law of the land past the end of the 18th century (in fact the french canadians sent almost as many volunteers to the continental army as the Carolinas and Georgia put together). Comparatively the most patriotic colonies were north of the Mason Dixon line. The original draft of the DOI even included slavery and the slave trade as a grievance against the king, which was dropped due to fears of losing the southern three. 69.159.163.192 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This paper reviews discussions between Benjamin Rush and Thomas Jefferson citing the Somerset case as problematic to their perceived legitimacy of slavery and the necessity to get southern states led by Virginia to join the revolution Marathoncontinues (talk)

Another source cites that Thomas Jefferson had correspondence with future VA governor John Pages about the fall out from the Somerset Case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathoncontinues (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added a qualification to the intro that makes it clear that some historians believe that the case was a cause of the American Revolution. This is by no means a majority interpretation, and I think article needs to reflect that. --AgeofReason1777 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for quote of Lord Mansfield's ruling
I've just edited this article for internal consistency as to the source of the quoted version given in the "Judgment" section. On second thoughts, however, I wonder if we should be relying so heavily on a newspaper report based largely on memory. Might a restoration of material from the official record of the case be appropriate? David Trochos (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "official record", which is a large part of the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I've edited the ref. to make the main sources a bit easier to find. David Trochos (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Case in art
I suspect this painting is meant to depict the case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/granville-sharp-the-abolitionist-rescuing-a-slave-from-the31087

©Geni 21:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The case's title
It seems that the wikipedia title for this article is perpetuating an error. Some old documents contain James' name written incorrectly (Somersett), but the real spelling is with a single T. Take for example Steven Wise's recent book: _Though the Heavens May Fall: The Landmark Trial that Led to the End of Human Slavery_

I suggest we change the title. Any thoughts?Historian 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennishidalgo (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, absolutely right. The case report is Somerset v Stewart, so that is simply the correct name. The name usage can be compared favourably in scholar.google.com (many more than Somersett's case).  Wik idea  11:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, wrong. One of either of Somersett's case or Somerset's case is the WP:COMMONNAME for this poorly-reported case, which is of far more interest to historians than lawyers, and very well known by the traditional informal name. It should not have been moved without following procedure. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictions
Comparing the texts below:

"James Somersett, an enslaved American, was purchased by Charles Stewart or Steuart, a Customs officer when he was in Boston, Province of Massachusetts Bay, a British crown colony in North America. Stewart brought Somersett with him when he returned to England in 1769, but in 1771 the man escaped. After Somersett was recaptured in November, (...)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Somersett (this article)

"James Somersett was a slave owned by Charles Stewart, an American customs officer who sailed to Britain for business, landing on 10 November 1769. A few days later Somersett attempted to escape. He was recaptured in November and (...)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield

There are two contradictions: 1) Did James Somersett attempt to escape after two years or a few days later after 10 November 1769? 2) Was Charles Stewart English or American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.85.6.120 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quock Waker
The International section of the article lacks any reference to the Quock Walker case in Massachusetts. Hence, I have added info on it. Also, I have provided some added context for anti-slavery activity during the period. Alcazar77 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

'Odious'
The article currently states that "Lord Mansfield described the system of slavery as "odious", at a time [...]". But in the actual judgement, he is describing the [i]state of being enslaved[/i] as odious - I do not think that this translates to finding the [i]system of slavery[/i] to be odious. An analogy: in modern times, a judge might argue that the state of being imprisoned is 'odious' - and therefore requires a solid basis on law to imprison any particular person - without looking at the the system of imprisonment itself as odious.

I am considering removing the sentence from the article, since to me it seems to be an unsourced inference based on a misreading of the quote, and will do so unless anyone objects.

Toanoopie (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point; I agree. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe opinion
I've removed the paragraph in the lede about Somerset v. Stewart being a catalyst for the American Revolution, as this is a fringe position among historians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that. See https://aaregistry.org/story/somerset-v-stewart-ruled/ or https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ignoring-an-important-part-of-the-american-revolution/2018/07/08/34b4a430-814a-11e8-b3b5-b61896f90919_story.html or http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/m0149 or https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/james-somerset-the-boston-runaway-who-ended-slavery-in-england/ or https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED245272.pdf or https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/nothing-but-liberty-somersets-case-and-the-british-empire/134DADC1E5DBEF28D87B92DC47EACDF5 or https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/path/article/view/1485 or https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc804870/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf or https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dirty-little-secret-115579444/ or https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/92/4/1415/742761. I could go on. Seems quite a widespread idea, quite familiar and academically respectable since at least the 1960s and fairly strongly held among black Americans. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely not a fringe opinion, particularly outside the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.24.203 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a fringe position among historians of the United States. the theme was pushed by Alfred Blumrosen, a who had no reputation in colonial history. [see https://www.rutgers.edu/news/alfred-w-blumrosen-eminent-rutgers-expert-discrimination-law-dies-86 For a good review of the issue see Sean Wilentz, "The Paradox of the American Revolution" The New York Review of Books 1/13/2022; 69 (1): 26-28 online  Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC).

== American revisionism == It seem this article has been repeatedly edited by Americans to minimise any connection to the American Revolution, deleting sourced material etc. I assume this is the same sort of historical revisionism to avoid confronting the US uncomfortable history on race. In the same vein there have been a edits on other pages in a campaign against "Critical Race Theory". It might be sensible if US located editors were limited from editing this page? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.24.203 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not a standard Wikipedia procedure, and would be technically quite difficult in any case. However, you could complain at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  You might want to set up a Wikipedia account first, because I'm not sure that anonymous IP's will always be taken seriously. AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed 1 source from the lede final sentence.
I was trying to fulfill the "page needed" template for the source: "WHY THE FUSE BLEW: THE REASONS FOR COLONIAL AMERICA’S TRANSFORMATION FROM PROTO-NATIONALISTS TO REVOLUTIONARY PATRIOTS: 1772 – 1775" by Camille Marie Davis. I found that this source does not support the wording found in the lede of "... seen as major cause for the American Revolution particularly in southern colonies as it was feared the judgement would lead to abolition". Davis' statement is more conservative and goes as such: "'The American Revolution may have been inevitable. However, this paper intends to show that political events taking place between 1772 and 1774 represented a tripwire, which ignited what had been a smoldering movement of proto-nationalists into an accelerating, unstoppable explosion. One of the many events in this transformation may have been one that did not take place on American soil. This was the legal case fought in Britain during 1772, which won the freedom of a thirty- year old man named James Somerset, who escaped from slavery. This event could have possibly been one of the many contributing factors in the colonists decision to become more insular in their relations with one another and less trusting of British governance." Davis also asserts: "This paper does not claim that the Somerset decision was the cause of colonial separation from England. The only assertion that this paper makes is that the Somerset decision was reported by some of the colonial press and that it occurred at a very critical time within the story of the American Revolution: the Somerset decision was one of the occurrences that happened before the colonists decided to begin meeting with one another through groups entitled the intercolonial committees of correspondence. These committees were precursors to the Continental Congress. The evidence that supports the theory of the Somerset decision’s possible role within the story of the American Revolution is not explicit: there is no primary source that specifically states that the Somerset decision was a topic of discussion during the Virginia House of Burgesses’ meeting that resulted in a resolution to invite representatives of each colony to join in intercolonial committees of correspondence" Davis asserts that the decision probably had a role in the revolution beginnings through misinformation that all slaves had been freed by the decision, by inflammatory newspaper articles that manipulated opinions, and also by changing British tactics once the fighting started through a "Somersett effect"

What historians need to uncover are the complete correspondences of grievances started with the call from the Virginia House of Burgess as mentioned by Davis:

"The evidence that supports the theory of the Somerset decision’s possible role within the story of the American Revolution is not explicit: there is no primary source that specifically states that the Somerset decision was a topic of discussion during the Virginia House of Burgesses’ meeting that resulted in a resolution to invite representatives of each colony to join in intercolonial committees of correspondence. However, because the case occurred near the time that the Virginia House of Burgess met and resolved to begin meeting with other colonies to discuss offensive British policy, it is plausible that the decision may have been one of the matters discussed by the Virginia House of Burgesses. Another reason the decision may have been discussed was because Virginia’s laws regarding slavery were a major topic of discussion during the Somerset trial. Somerset and his owner, Charles Steuart, lived in Virginia during most of the time that they were acquainted as slave and master. The possible effect that the Somerset decision may have had on intercolonial relations and relations between the colonies and her mother country are analyzed within this work..."

Davis addendum hypothesizes difficulty finding primary sources: "Finally, the Somerset decision may have not been more extensively discussed within the colonies because of the colonists’ possible desire to deal with the Somerset decision strategically instead of emotionally. They may have not wanted to create too much emotion or conversation about the decision because doing so may have communicated weakness or vulnerability to the slaves. Fewer slaves would try to challenge their masters because of the Somerset decision, if their masters and the rest of colonial society showed minimal concern for the decision."

It's a good article and well worth the entire read as it covers the entire case in detail. I am only removing the source from the lede as it does not support the statement it is attached to. If the lede is changed to "possible cause" or just "cause" instead of "major cause" then this article could be a source for that sentence. 47.233.68.102 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the Davis paper is well done--but it does not qualify as a "reliable secondary source" by Wikipedia criteria It is an unpublished MA thesis paper--not a PhD thesis. see WP:SCHOLARSHIP Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was wondering about the point if thesis was reliable sourcing and didn't notice if it was masters or doctorate level. Since it's not gone through a publishing or peer review process; then I'd guess it wasn't.  I was not the editor that originally included this source.  47.233.68.102 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The case's implied conclusion: Somersett was a person, and nothing less than a person.
Charles Steuart’s did something unorthodox. He claimed ownership of the Somerset's body instead of claiming that he owned the services of Somerset. Is there discussion by historians about Steuart considering Somerset something less than human, that he could own? Did this court case, implicitly, assert African derived slaves were humans, with personhood rights, under the King's bench interpretation of English laws? 47.233.68.102 (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In short: Dubious, dubious, not really - we know nothing of Steuart's actual views, yes, nor was this very "implicit". Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not necessarily true. If he left behind a journal or letters to peers/family members and/or had a biographer, then we would have insight into his thinking about African's relationship to Europeans.


 * The idea that Africans or Native Americans were inferior was implicit to the thoughts of many people of the period (and still exists; see the emails circulated by Ferguson employees around the time of Ferguson unrest.) Tribalism includes the dehumanization of the other (tribes), is mediated by oxytocin and allows for one culture to justify destruction of another culture. The dehumanization of Africans, as support of slavery, is just a specific example of this tribal instinct.  Their dehumanization gave support for their enslavement as it was reasoned they needed to be enslaved for their own good as they were fundamentally 'lesser' than Europeans and needed guidance (As in Fitzhugh's "Defense of Slavery" - "In the last place, the negro race is inferior to the white race, and living in their midst, they would be far outstripped or outwitted in the chaos of free competition.") .  The White supremacy and Atlantic slave trade article both have sources attaching racist and supremacist thought to slavery (either in defense of Native/African enslavement or in reaction by lower class whites when freeing slaves.)


 * So, this article needs to address why Steuart could believe he had the right to own the body of, and not just the labor of, Somersett. Even if we can not find sources into Steuart's thoughts; there are likely other source on why a English colonial slave holder could think he had the right to own a slave's body, (their future children, spouses etc) as if the slave holder was a dog breeder.
 * Also, the article needs to address how Mansfield's decision affirmed Somersett's personhood, elevated above the status of a breeding livestock. 47.233.68.102 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't leave behind a journal, and we have no sources, and don't know. I rather doubt that whatever position he he held was actually "unorthodox" in terms of contemporary thinking, and the case turned on where Somerset was a slave, not what being a slave meant. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)