Talk:George Washington/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Disputed section

• Factotem : As you should know, secondary sources, as a rule, refer to primary sources. Any reference we make to primary sources is done via a secondary source. Please stop this attack on primary sources and the sources, the types you specifically asked for, that use them. Even you resorted to primary sources to make your point about poor clothing. Then to further support the idea you cite Wiencek, whom you recently criticized for his statement regarding conflicting accounts. Also, the primary sources says Washington issued a "set of cloths". It is Wiencek who assumes that a slave only wore one pair of pants the year round. This is in contrast to accounts that have slaves at Mt.Vernon well clothed. This is getting a bit ridiculous. We have come to a point where, in light of the many varied accounts, we need to stop making statements as if they were irrefutable facts. Any statements about treatment and condition must be qualified in objective terms. Instead of saying, e.g."slaves were poorly clothed", instead we say, "by some accounts slaves were poorly clothed, while others indicated they were clothed well." Re: K. Morgan's statement about 'lacking empathy', yes, I said this term should be removed but I have not deleted it with the hope it can be balanced out, as I've already indicated to you in my last post. Here also we should qualify this (very) subjective claim with other accounts. Last, with your due-weight tag, you're telling everyone that Washington's views on slavery in the years preceding his death, as outlined by Humphreys via Wiencek, is a topic of undue weight -- in the 'slavery' section. This raises serious POV issues. Until this has been satisfied, we need to keep a factual accuracy and POV tag at the top of the section. It's gotten to that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY and try to understand that the latter draw conclusions from the former, we do not, and that we reflect in articles the conclusions of the latter, not the statements of the former. It does not matter whether we read Brissot's account from p. 173 of the original publication or whether we read it second hand via a quote in a secondary source; it's a primary source. There are cases where it is valid to use primary sources, but they should be used with care. It is not valid to use them to support a general statement, particularly when there are plenty of secondary sources available. Factotem (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If we extend your argument to its logical conclusion and reveal which accounts we're talking about, your example, as you have provided it above, would read "By the accounts of modern experts who have researched the subject, slaves were poorly clothed, while the accounts of two visitors who spent between them a total of 14 days at Mount Vernon indicated the slaves were well clothed." Not really in accordance with WP policy, is it? That the MVLA make the distinction between house and field slaves is just that, a distinction, not a contradiction. It's absolutely fair and valid to accommodate that distinction in the article's coverage of slaves' clothing. Factotem (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

with your due-weight tag, you're telling everyone that Washington's views on slavery in the years preceding his death, as outlined by Humphreys via Wiencek, is a topic of undue weight It's quite possible that I've let a POV creep into my edits, despite my best efforts to represent the sources fairly and accurately. But my undue weight tag has nothing at all to do with the topic of Washington's views on slavery, it is "telling everyone" that Wiencek's account is disputed by other modern experts and is being given too much emphasis. This has been pointed out in the explanation, and what I consider to be a more balanced statement proposed, so please do not misrepresent me like that. Factotem (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Cmguy777 : Re: your quote - "well researched scholarly view of Washington and slavery". Any well researched study uses primary sources. This is news for you? Tell us please, where else are historians going to find information? i.e.From other historians who also didn't use primary sources? Also, we have more than one account from visitors at Mount Vernon. While they were there to see Washington, they would have had to of been sorta brain–dead not to have noticed the affairs of slaves. One visitor wrote a detailed account of conditions. Another said Washington treated his slaves more humanely than other Virginians. Apparently it is your desire to disregard these accounts categorically, which is sort of consistent with you long established tendency to suppress context, as I've demonstrated/link to numerous times here in Talk. You obviously have a decidedly negative POV on Washington, which is okay, but when you suppress the sources as you've done here and here and elewhere, to entertain that POV, then we have POV issues. Here once again we have conflicting accounts about slave treatment, another idea you would like to suppress. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't a clue how to indent in this environment, so not even trying. I, for one, welcome that tag. Here we have evidence of 21st century concepts imposed without a source. The same edit conflates Patriarchy and Paternalism with with the modern concept of parenting. So yes, there's a lot of work to be done. House slaves were well dressed, field slaves hidden away on far-flung farms, not so well. The sources tell us this. Slaves were separated. The sources tell us this. They were not kept idle, in any season. The sources tell us this. Washington exchanged letters with Lafayette in 1783. The sources tell us this. Washington's biographer Humphreys wrote a passage in his notes during a visit to Mount Vernon in 1789. The sources tell us this. Washington wrote to Lear, marking the letter "private", in 1794. The sources tell us this. We can only go by what the sources tell us and not a scintilla more We can't interpret, synthesise, agree or disagree with sources, or cherry pick them. We shouldn't be edit warring. We shouldn't be wiki lawyering. NPOV, verifiability, civility, consensus. These are things that make this project work. So, yes, the tag is past due. Victoria (tk) 23:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Washington was overstocked with slaves and he was in debt. This is what the Morgan 2000 says. The two are not necessarily linked. He had to pay for the lodgeings of slaves he did not need. He had more domestic slaves than field labor slaves. I am not suppressing context. Rather than dispute facts you keep attacking me personally by saying I have removed context. Please stop. This article needs scholarly analysis, not just primary sources. The real issue is there is an apparent denial that Washington was rigorous and stern with his slaves. Should it be surprising that a general is tough on his slaves. There is plenty of room for added context in the George Washington and slavery article, but you choose to force all of this content in the main article narration. That is perplexing. Why not improve the dedicated article. Let's work together instead of fighting each other. The slavery section needs streamlining, precise context, not a book. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Victoria : Thanks much for your input. Efforts were made to introduce objectivity and neutrality and those efforts were often assailed, and sometimes removed by an editor who just claimed he didn't – just to give you an idea what we're dealing with here. Sources that concentrate on Washington and slavery were called for, and when they are used to cite various statements they were attacked also. I had added a statement, from a noted source, Wiencek, who indeed concentrates on Washington and slavery. Though I disagree on some points, like most of us do with the various sources, imo, his overall account is among the best. Wiencek advanced a most revealing idea, based on Washington's words, diaries, letters, accounts from friends, contemporaries, etc, that accounts on slave treatment vary and are conflicting. This statement was also challenged and said should be removed from the section. This is yet another reason why I posted the tags. I suggested that when we make statements covering slave treatment and conditions that we don't make them read as statements of irrefutable fact, and that we qualify them objectively with terms like, 'By some accounts...'  or  'However, an other account maintains..' .  This also has not been well received around here. Almost a wit's end, I posted the tags. Any suggestions from you in regards to achieving better objectivity and neutrality in the section would be most welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Factotem : In my opening statement in my previous post to you I said Secondary sources get their information from primary sources. No one has used a primary source to advance their own wild conclusion around here, yet you seem to think this has occurred. The Wiencek/Humphreys account is a major detail in Washington's changing view about slavery, and is consistent with his other ideas about land for emancipation, and deserves due weight. All we've done in that regard is cover it with one sentence. Yet you've apparently taken this rigid and unyielding stance against the statement, as if it was some unusual POV that we've committed an entire paragraph to. Imo, the statement is revealing, while the removal of the undue weight tag would be a giant step towards the effort in achieving factual inclusiveness and neutrality in the section. All I can ask at this point is that you reconsider the matter. Your thoughts about making objective statements about slave treatment and conditions, as outlined in my post to Victoria, are also needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Humphreys and Lear only seem to be giving their own accounts of Washington's words or thoughts. That is not directly from Washington. Projected intentions or quoted words from Washington could be considered unreliable from a secondary source. There is no way to verify that Washington said what was quoted by Humphreys. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Information on Humphreys and Lear is best suited for the George Washington and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777:

• Correct on Humphreys. It is a remark (singular and not a plan, as misrepresented in the article from the source) recorded in Humphreys' notebook, which Wiencek himself describes as a "vague" statement (p. 273) and which may or may not have been Washington's own words; historians are divided on this: We can safely assume Wiencek says yay, as does Hirschfeld (p. 213 n5), while the Morgans two say they are Humphreys' words in Washington's voice (Morgan 2005 p. 423 n31, Morgan 2000 p. 298).
• Incorrect on Lear. That information is derived from a letter Washington wrote to Lear on 6 May 1794.
• Projected intentions or quoted words from Washington could be considered unreliable from a secondary source. Not sure what you mean by this. Primary sources remain primary sources, even if they are quoted in secondary sources. But secondary source analysis and evaluation of the primary sources and the conclusions drawn is what we build articles on. If all we had was Wiencek's theory (or "projected intention"?), there would be no dispute here, and the article would say that Washington had decided to free his slaves as early as 1789. It's not for us to dismiss his conjecture as invalid, only other reliable sources can do so. In this case, we have three that do, and it is for us to reflect that somehow in the article, per WP:NPOV. Hence the undue weight tag. Factotem (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Insert:Factotem. I assumed Humphreys and Lear were secondary sources. I have no opposition to the Washington letter used as a primary source to Lear. I take then that Lear made no comments on the letter. Humphreys words or quotes of Washington can't be verified and should not be used in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• George Washington to Tobias Lear, May 6, 1794 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Besides these, I have another motive which makes me earnestly wish for the accomplishment of these things, it is indeed more powerful than all the rest. namely to liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feelings; but which imperious necessity compels; and until I can substitute some other expedient, by which expences not in my power to avoid (however well disposed I may be to do it) can be defrayed You are so well acquainted with the situation and quality of the lands which are here mentioned for Sale, that it is almost unnecessary to go more into detail respecting them, with you." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I think, given that you are still restating the same argument in your response to Victoria despite all I've written, it's obvious that nothing I say and no policy I point you to will persuade you. While I wait to see if Victoria responds with anything to suggest that one of us is barking up the wrong tree, I will consider whether WP:DR or WP:RFC is the right way to resolve this. Factotem (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem : Once again, you are attacking a primary source, and the secondary source that uses it with your own speculations. You've presented no 'policy' that definitively says we must remove the statement in question, since no on has used either the primary or secondary source to advance an unusual idea not covered by the sources. Can you quote 'the' policy/passage that says we can't use this statement based on the sources used? Using your yardstick, we could go after numerous secondary sources that refer to primary sources. This is nonsense. Both Wiencek and Hirschfeld, sources that concentrate on Washington and slavery, as you asked for, make several references to Humphreys and Lear. Secondary sources use primary sourcs as a general rule. Again, unless you can refute the source with opposing secondary and primary sources, you really should stop this prolonged attack on reliable sources and get on the road to compromise and neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I'm challenging:

• the relevance of a source's discussion of primary sources in the article's narrative of slave treatment, specifically clothing. The policy is WP:NOR.
• the weight given to one account in a reliable source that is disputed by three other reliable sources. The policy is WP:NPOV.

unless you can refute the source with opposing secondary and primary sources I have provided appropriate sources at every stage, considerably more than you. Please link to the policy that says I must also provide primary sources. Please also provide diffs of where I've engaged in speculation. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem : Wiencek's comment about a "vague statement", p.273, is in reference to Washington and Lafayette, and does not pertain to the statement and sources in question, involving Humphreys and Lear, as covered on p.275. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what Humphreys wrote:

The unfortunate condition of the persons, whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & as comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance & improvidence would admit; & to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born; afforded some satisfaction to my mind, & could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator.

This is what Wiencek writes on p. 273:

"As vague as the statement was, I thought I could detect in it some of Washington's specific intentions. He said he had made the 'Adults...easy & comfortable.'"

It is the beginning of a new paragraph. Quite clearly the statement Wiencek is referring to was Humphreys'. Factotem (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reminders :
Policy : "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
Policy : "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sentence

"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."

I have moved the disputed information to the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I restored it. No viable reason to remove this major detail about Washington's changing views on slavery has been offered. i.e.It's the only statement that tells us that Washington was giving serious thought to emancipation many years before his death, backed by Wiencek and primary sources, i.e.Humphreys and Lear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• You posted a letter from Washington, another primary source, which is consistent with the other statements about Washington's views on using land for emancipation, dated 1794, supporting the idea that Washington was entertaining ideas about land for emancipation a good number of years before his death. Are you offering the letter because you agree with that evaluation? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gwilhickers. Humphries is a contested source. Factotem mentioned this. Humphries should not be used in the article as a source. Lear is alright. I don't object to Lear. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Other views are needed

@Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Once again we seem to be not making much progress in this current debate. Since both of you are credentialed historians it is hoped that your input will help us settle a debate: We have a statement in the Slavery section, that is posted in bold directly above, that is being challenged based on the idea that the information comes from a primary source, which is published by a noted secondary source, Wiencek, .275. Also at issue is the claim that the statement is "undue weight". -- Any help resolving this prolonged discussion would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Other views are not needed. The primary vs. secondary is a distraction. We have to stick to what the sources tell us, as I mentioned a few days ago. The sources tell us Humphreys wrote a passage in his notes during a visit to Mt Vernon in 1789. Humphreys wrote it. Not Washington. That's what we know. Period. In 1794 Washington wrote a letter to Lear, marked private. That's what we know. We can't extrapolate beyond what we know and beyond what the sources tell us. I'm in favor of deleting the entire section, which is why I questioned the inclusion of those edits in the David Humphreys section above. Apologies for belated replies, btw, and short temper. I have been under the weather (as they say), and can't know when I can get back here. Victoria (tk) 22:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete the entire section? Hopefully you were referring to the sentence in question. Appreciate your opinion, but you can't demand that we not get other views here. Once again, we say what the sources say. Secondary sources refer to primary sources. The statement in question is cited by a secondary source. No radical idea has been advanced. No historian invents history. They refer to primary sources. History in its entirety is based on primary sources, esp when the various sources support one another. Humphreys is not the only one who has made reference to Washington's hope for using land for emancipation years before Washington's death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It is in no way being challenged "based on the idea that the information comes from a primary source." That is a gross misrepresentation and should be struck. It is being challenged for WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT, because other reliable sources dispute it. This is explained, with sources, at Talk:George_Washington#Undue_weight_tag_-_May_2019. Humphreys made absolutely no reference to "Washington's hope for using land for emancipation." Factotem (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

First @Factotem and Gwillhickers: Is this perspective attributed to George Washington, — an intention to sell personal holdings to finance emancipation, — found in a primary sources AND reported as credible by a historian in a reliable source? Or should the passage be restated to say only Washington had an intend to personally free his personal slaves and provide them land, apart from raising monies to buy some from Martha's estate?

Second, Although the sentiment may be “undue” relative to most of Washington’s contemporary landowning slaveholding peers in Virginia relative to the Virginia aristocracy as a class in general, — it is NOT “undue weight” relative to George Washington as an individual in later life — as he followed through and performed the manumissions in the way anticipated in the scholarly account within five years.

As this article treats the biography of George Washington over the changes of his life perspectives on current affairs of importance, it should be included — and, though a concern for freeing slaves held in Virginia is not characteristic of the Virginia aristocracy at 1800 as a class, that is not the subject of this article.

Third, What is the context? I hold that the subject of slavery, slaves, their continued enslavement, master self-directed manumission of individuals and families, and state variable actions by law —— even General Assembly subsidies to the American Colonization Society offered and withdrawn at various times —— all are substantial, important issues (a) in Virginia public life generally, and (b) in slaveholder personal affairs, both as a class and as individuals, over the last five years of Washington’s life.

(Aside, digression, or rabbit trail) Prior to his retirement from active participation at the forefront of public affairs from a slaveholding state, Washington probably felt constrained from acting in any way that might be interpreted by the public as “anti-slavery”). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem : You indeed attacked the account on the basis that it came from a primary source:

"Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY and try to understand that the latter draw conclusions from the former, we do not, and that we reflect in articles the conclusions of the latter, not the statements of the former. It does not matter whether we read Brissot's account from p. 173 of the original publication or whether we read it second hand via a quote in a secondary source; it's a primary source."

Not only did you make primary sources an issue you more than suggested we were drawing our own conclusions form it, rather than just referring to Wiencek's account. Also, no reference to Humphreys is made on p.273. The "vague" claim pertains to Washington in regards to Lafayette's remarks about leading the country by example, which directly follows. Last, this passage, taken from your post above, outlined in green background says, " & to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born;" – That foundation, preparing slaves for a different destiny involved placing them on land that was purchased. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation. That statement was part of this post, which has nothing to do with this question about undue weight being given to a disputed theory. Factotem (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• TVH : Thanks. As this is indeed a biography about Washington it is important that we outline his changing views about slavery, esp in his latter life. The statement in question is indeed made in the Slavery section, in regards to Washington's changing views 'on' slavery. It is consistent with other accounts about such efforts. The claim that this somehow is "undue weight" is indeed without any real basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a simple compromise. Keep Lear. Drop Humphries, a contested source. Washington's 1794 letter to Lear is not contested. Keeping Humphries would make the section unreliable. We need to compromise to remove the neutrality tag. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no basis to the claim that Humphreys' account, via Wienck, is unreliable. Humphreys was a close and trusted friend of Washington, his aide-de-camp, lived at Mt Vernon with Washington for 18 months, etc. Discounting his account would be like ignoring Alexander Hamilton's accounts. Ridiculous. The neutrality issues largely involves the unfounded claim that the statement about Washington entertaining emancipation ten years before his death has little (undue) weight. Also, what source involving Lear are you referring to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Our article claims the source says something it does not say. It's a simple issue of WP:V. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington's letter to Lear is uncontested. I gave the LOC link above. Humphries account of Washington is unreliable. It is Humphries "account" of what Washington "told" him. Victoria and Factotem are correct. It is undo weight to mention Washington was thinking of freeing his slaves ten years before and using Humphries. So this article is being kept from getting to FA nomination because of Humphries ? The simple solution is to drop Humphries. This edit warring must stop to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Victoria : This is all our article says: "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". Wiencek makes reference to what Washington had discussed with Humphreys and Lear. We are not referring to what Humphreys has said at this juncture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Cmguy777 : Wiencek makes no reference to "Humphreys' account of Washington". Please read Wiencek, p.275. It clearly says,  "But his remark about slavery to Humphreys, and the plan he outlined to Lear to sell land to finance emancipation, showed that he had already decided upon an emancipation as early as 1789."  Wiencek makes reference to both Humphreys and Lear to substantiate the idea that Washington had entertained emancipation as early as 1789. Wiencek makes no reference to what Humphreys said. How are we supposed to ignore Washington's words to Humphreys and embrace Lear when Wiencek refers to them both, and in the same sentence? Even if it was Humphreys who said this, that would not make the account unreliable. This is what Humphreys wrote: "...to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born". This is a reference to the plan to sell land for slaves i.e.to "lay a foundation" to prepare slaves for freedom. Also, you're confusing the assertion of undue weight with using Humphreys. The idea that Washington had ideas of emancipation in 1789, ten years before his death, has weight regardless of who mentions it. You are ready to accept the idea if we use the Lear source, so the idea in of itself has weight. Last, there would be no edit warring if you didn't delete the statement in question in the middle of the debate, which only serves to worsen relations around here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Flexner, 1972, Anguish and Farewell, p.124, top paragraph, also makes reference to Washington's words to Humphreys about "laying a foundation on which they (slaves) can be prepared." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Unless there is a letter from Washington to Humphreys as there was to Lear, Humphries record of what Washington supposedly said to him is speculation. Factotem above said why Humphreys is unreliable. There are differing opinions whether Washington said to Humphreys what Humphreys claimed Washington said. I have no idea why there is this big push for Humphreys. There just is no way to very Humphrey's account of Washington is true. Other historians disagree with Weincek. Regardless. Let's leave Humphreys out of the article to get Washington to FA. Washington deserves to be on the front page of Wikipedia. We keep arguing Humphreys over and over again. We need to move on. I made changes to the article. It is a compromise. I added Washington's words to Lear. Washington found slavery repugnant. Why not just settle on the compromise and move on ? Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on Humphreys

• Humphreys was a former aide to Washington and had begun an eighteen-month stay at Mount Vernon in 1787 to assist Washington with his correspondence and write his biography (Ellis 2004 p. 153);
• The words that appear in his notebook are dated to late 1788/early 1789 (Wiencek p. 272);
• The sources do not refer to the Humphreys' words as an account. They variously refer to Humphreys words as a statement (Wiencek pp. 272, 273; Philip Morgan p. 422, Hirschfeld p213 n5), remark (Wiencek p. 275, Kenneth Morgan p. 298) or passage (Philip Morgan p. 423)
• The sources are divided on how accurately the remark represents Washington's actual words:

• Wiencek describes the passage as Washington's statement (p. 272);
• Philip Morgan and Kenneth Morgan both point out that the passage was Humphreys' words in Washington's voice (PM p. 423 n31; KM p. 298);
• Hirschfeld writes that the passage was written by Humphreys during direct dictation or from memory of Washington's exact words, and believes it highly improbable that they were not Washington's own words (p=213 n5).

• This is what is written in Humphreys' notebook:

The unfortunate condition of the persons, whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & as comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance & improvidence would admit; & to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born; afforded some satisfaction to my mind, & could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator.

• As a primary source it is not for us to interpret it in any way;
• It is perfectly legitimate for Wiencek, Morgan et al to interpret it in any way they see fit, they're supposed to, they're historians, that's their job;
• Our job is to represent what those historians say, in accordance with WP policy, which includes WP:NOR, WP:V and most contentiously in this case, WP:NPOV.

HTH Factotem (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recital is inappropriate. No one has interpreted Humphreys' accounts, so in all fairness you shouldn't be repeating this falsehood and speak for yourself. We say only what the secondary sources have said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My "recital" clearly is appropriate, because you straight away refer to the Humphreys remark as "accounts". Re: your statement: Your inference that Humphreys has put some wild spin on Washington's words to him is without any historical or academic basis, made in this post below. Nowhere have I made any such "inference", or indeed any inference at all about Humphreys. I've simply stated the facts, with sources. Factotem (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources on slave conditions

Btw, Twohig has this to say about slave conditions: "Food, clothing, and housing seem to have been at least adequate;"  At least.  IOW, she doesn't exclude the possibility that housing and clothing were more than adequate. Our current statement says " poorly clothed", as if it was irrefutable fact. This idea needs to be presented in a balanced fashion, per Twohig. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiencek's account of the first indications of plans to free slaves

The discussion about Wiencek's account has been derailed by the conflation of arguments presented about the entirely separate issue of the use of primary sources in the narrative on slave clothing. I'm therefore rebooting it here, and start with this bold compromise edit in the article, which represents contradictory sources in a balanced way, with attribution, per WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: I understand your desire for summary style and the need to keep things concise, but this is a key issue and a key moment in Washington's thinking on emancipation, and needs to be covered accurately and, necessarily therefore, with more words than you might have preferred. I hope you find it acceptable. Factotem (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Factotem presented the issue well in the article. I think it would help to mention historians debate the accuracy of Humphrey's words attributed to Washington. My concern is Humphreys as a source. When did he author it in his notes ? When did Washington say this to Humphries ? Did Humphreys have an alterior motive to make Washington look anti-slavery ? This was Humphrey's recollection of Washington's words. I don't mind conciseness. Maybe Factotem's edits will create article stability. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777: Pleased you agree with it - perhaps we can build some consensus on this version. See footnote (t) added to the quotebox of the statement in Humphreys notebook that I also added to the article - that explains more about Humphreys and the provenance of the statement. Humphreys is not a source for our article, he is a source for Wiencek; Humphreys' motives or reasons are no concern of ours. Hope that clarifies things. Factotem (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiencek is not the only source. The two Morgan's question Humphreys as a source. Shouldn't that be mentioned ? The readers will think Weincek is the only source on Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We mention Morgan in the article too with this edit. The difference in views about Humphreys' words/Washington's words is of no concern to us at all - it's only in the footnote as an interesting explanatory detail. Please, let's just concern ourselves with the secondary sources on this issue, and not allow ourselves to be dragged down a pointless debate about primary sources that has no relevance to this specific issue at all. Please. Factotem (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The footnote is appropriate. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Factotem : P. Morgan does not "disagree" with Wiencek, but actually supports his account -- P.Morgan, p.422 clearly says, "In the late 1780s Washington expressed resignation at his failure to free his slaves." IOW, Washington was indeed entertaining emancipation ten years before his death, as Wiencek asserts, regardless if his plan never materialized. Morgan only refers to words, written by Humphreys, as a "private expression of remorse". He does not, however, "disagree". This is your assumption and the edit to this effect is wrong. Flexner, 1974, p.122 also refers to Washington's words to Humphreys and quotes them. i.e."laying a foundation on which they (slaves) can be prepared." This is yet another secondary account from a leading Washington biographer we can not ignore.

Your inference that Humphreys has put some wild spin on Washington's words to him is without any historical or academic basis. Humphreys, Washington's close friend, house-mate, former aide-de-camp, speech writer, biographer, is among the most reliable primary sources where Washington is concerned, and you've presented nothing that says he's not.  Once again, you seem to be blindly attacking primary sources when they don't suit your argument, all the while you embrace a primary source when it suits your argument that the "set of cloths" Washington handed out somehow translates into the assumption that slaves walked around in one pair of pants for the entire year.

Washington's letters are primary sources and are often cited by historians. Humphrey's letters, or notes, are in the same league and are also cited by historians. You can not dismiss one and embrace the other as you've done.

Re this edit: "The first clear indication that Washington was considering emancipation appears in a letter written to his secretary, Tobias Lear in 1794."<Ellis, 2004,p257>

This is wrong, once again, P. Morgan, p.422, mentions that Washington was entertaining emancipation in the late 1780's, and again, mentions that Washington "expressed resignation at his failure". This is indeed a clear indication that Washington was entertaining ideas of emancipation in the late 1780s. Both P.Morgan and Wiencek refute Ellis' claim that Washington didn't seriously entertain ideas of emancipation until 1794.

Some of your edits were okay, but the errors need to be corrected. To avoid a potential edit war I'll leave the matter in your hands, for now.

P. Morgan does not disagree with Wiencek, he points out, as does Wiencek, that Washington was entertaining ideas of emancipation ten years and more years before his death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: "The first clear indication that Washington was considering emancipation appears in a letter written to his secretary, Tobias Lear in 1794."<Ellis, 2004,p257> This is wrong... Nope. To quote Ellis, "Here is the first clear statement of his intention to free, not sell, his slaves; in effect, to liberate his bondsmen as well as his own conscience." We could add "The first clear indication in the historical record..." as further clarification if you like. Factotem (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777 : Secondary sources refer to primary sources, and they are not "pointless". This is why WP allows their use. Also, you should try to read the sources a bit more attentively. This is what K.Morgan actually says on p.291:

"The year 1783 seems to have been a major turning point in Washington's attitude towards the future of slavery in North America. ..he did not see abolition as an extreme or forelorn hope. He signed a copy of one of the leading abolitionist tracts published that year. In 1783 Lafayette began to persuade Washington of the need for action over the plight of slaves. ... Evidence of Washington's increasing, if cautious, sympathy for abolitionism can be glimpsed in his private correspondence and meetings -- for instance, in a response to Thomas Coke and Francis Ashbury visit to Mt.Vernon in 1785. The two prominent Methodists showed him their petition for slave emancipation. Though he did not sign it, Washington privately agreed with their sentiments and noted that he had conveyed his views on other leading Virginians."<K. Morgan, p.292>
Washington also sent a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, that he wanted to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery. <K. Morgan, p.292> Clearly, Washington was entertaining abolition long before 1794, as our article now wrongly asserts.

P.Morgan, K. Morgan and Wiencek all have Washington giving serious thought to emancipation efforts ten and more years before his death. Our article needs to make this clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I read your snippet. Humphreys is not mentioned. Only Washington's letters can be confirmed. When did Washington say what Humphreys recorded ? When did Humphreys record what Washington said ? Date ? Washington's letter to Lear is dated. A second hand account of what someone else said is not as reliable as a letter. Can we go onto other things and get this article to FA ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The nuance that is being overlooked is the difference between Washington's desires and the actions he considered to realise those desires. I've addressed that with this edit and modified slightly by this one, which articulates the former, and this tweak to the narrative on Wiencek's theory, which more accurately represents the sources relating to the latter. @Cmguy777: I realise this tends to expand the narrative more than you would like, but please bear with it while we sort this issue out. We can always trim out the fluff once we've found consensus on the major points. Any discussion of primary sources here is irrelevant; they are not the issue on this specific point. Factotem (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I am all for article stability. Your edits Factotem seem to have stabilized this section, so that is a good thing. My own view is that expansion should be done in the dedicated article George Washington and slavery. The article needs to focus on Washington. My concern for expansion is that an FA reviewer might say the section is too long. However. I am all for compromise. Maybe the POV-section and Disputed tags can be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made a slight tweak and moved a sentence in this edit, to set up that section, if that works for everyone? Yes, agree with recent edits, thanks to Factotem. I also agree that the length is needed to tease out the nuances; it's not a simple situation, so can be defended at FAC. It's certainly been discussed! Victoria (tk) 21:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked again with this edit to accommodate Gwillhickers' concerns and begin teasing out another nuance. Factotem (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Final touches

Factotem : It seems you've done a fair job, though I can see a couple of things that need to be made a bit more clear. It's good to see you make mention of primary sources, as delineated by secondary sources. They are indeed the backbone of history. Without letters, diaries, first hand biographies, documents, etc, we would only have an oral history, and over the centuries it no doubt would have been distorted by the various interests out there, to no end. Letters, diaries, etc, remain the same, and any account referring to them in secondary sources can be checked against the primary sources themselves. Clearly, Washington began to take noticeable turns in his views on slavery in the 1780s, starting as far back as with his first associations with Lafayette. When accounts by Humphreys, Coke, friends and visitors are considered the overall historical consensus becomes rather obvious.
When it came to freeing his 'own' slaves, the first clear indication of Washington entertaining the prospect is in his words with Lear, per your edit. The only remaining issue now, as Cmguy777 points out, is that the section is quite long, and no doubt stands as a potential FAC issue. Not every mention of slaves necessarily belongs in the slavery section. e.g.Blacks serving in the army had more to do with Congress than it did Washington and perhaps should be mentioned in a more appropriate section. Currently the Slavery section is the biggest single section in the entire article, (by far!) so some statements need to be moved, trimmed down, etc, making certain important context is not lost in the wash. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a dedicated article. I suggest moving information to the dedicated article George Washington and slavery. I am not sure whether the Humphreys quote belongs in the article. It should be put in the dedicated article. Since it is in a text box I am not sure that adds to the readable narration size. My other suggestion is to remove the argumentative nature of the narration. In my opinion the narration reads like something attune to a court case to be proved: Washington was this type of slave owner: this is the evidence: and the readers are the jury. Let's not put Washington on trial. Again. That is just my opinion. Hagiography is also an issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dedicated articles are for in depth coverage. The section here is only slightly larger than a page, depending on your browser setting. Slavery is a controversial and often subjective issue. Obviously the sources vary and are sometimes conflicting. We should not try to present any given controversial topic as if it were set in stone. That would amount to one POV. Seems we've been through this in recent discussions. Factotem, with input from the lot of us, has done a decent job presenting more than one view, as I've attempted to do. I suggested we move a few things to other sections, and this was done with no issues, for a change. However, suppressing important context can amount to reverse-hagiography, as we've seen attempted too many times before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that having the slavery section too long would be a FAC issue (though you never know) so long as the space is well-used. Washington and slavery is a matter of interest to the present-day reader, IMO.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A couple of topics were moved to other sections. The present day reader overall is naive, unfortunately, largely because of over exposure to the media and the stereotypes that have been spoon fed to them while they're sitting there in a passive state staring at the bright light in the TV screen. The best way to over come modern day distortions and deep seated emotional stigmas is to include as much context as is possible and practical for the section. This is the best way to make use of the space, bearing in mind there is a limit to everything. All the section really needs at this point is better coverage about Washington's abolitionist leanings. Currently all that is said in that regard is that Washington approved of Lafayette's emancipation plan, written with a B-class and rather obtuse statement lacking any comprehensiveness. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Never condemned slavery publicly

I have again reverted this edit, which changed "Washington never condemned slavery publicly..." to "Washington rarely condemned slavery publicly". Of the two sources given:

• Twohig writes, "On no occasion did he reveal publicly his own antipathy toward the institution..."
• Kenneth Morgan says nothing to contradict Twohig's clear statement of "never", and in fact says nothing relevant at all on this issue on pp. 291-292.

From the edit summary given both times this change has been made, the rationale is a statement by Morgan on p. 291 that has been misinterpreted as a public endorsement of an abolitionist tract published in 1783 by David Cooper. The source does not support this. Here is what the source says:

He signed a copy of one of the leading abolitionist tracts published in [1783], the Quaker David Cooper's A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery..., printed at Trenton, New Jersey.

The sentence says that Washington signed a copy; nothing in it directly supports the idea that the signing was a public endorsement of its contents. More information on the significance of Washington's signing of the tract can be found on pp. 251-253 & 263-264 of Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks, by François Furstenberg, as previously pointed out in this post. If more support is needed for the statement that Washington never publicly condemned slavery, we can add Furstenberg's 2006 book In the Name of the Father: Washington's Legacy, Slavery, and the Making of a Nation (ISBN: 978-1-59420-092-2), in which he writes, "...Washington never spoke out publicly against the institution" (p. 83). Factotem (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Here again we seem to have conflicting accounts. The idea of 'abolition' is a denouncement, disapproval, condemnation, and a call to an end for slavery. If When the abolitionist tract went public and published with Washington's signature it would be was indeed a public condemnation by Washington, regardless if was not authored by him. i.e.When you sign a document, you agree with its terms, etc.   [Add : Will look into this further.]

Re: this previous passage from you :

"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;"

Signing a singular book, after it's been published, is not even an analogy. Furstenberg, and apparently yourself, are assuming that Washington did not know what he was signing before the tract went public. This is wholly a reaching speculation. Furstenburg offers no facts to substantiate the opinion that Washington didn't know what he was signing. Meanwhile, we say what the sources say in a balanced fashion, and if they vary, we say so in Wikipedia's, as you've done recently.Washington's endorsement of the the tract was not a private condemnation.

I retracted my previous edit. Need to be certain if Washington signed the copy before or after it was published. Apparently it was after. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have also deleted the sentence "in 1783, Washington signed his name to a leading abolitionist tract condemning slavery", sourced to Morgan as quoted above. First, the source does not say that Washington signed the copy in 1783, only that the tract was published in 1783. Second, the language is misleading and fails to accurately convey the source's "signed a copy" language. The point that Morgan is making, that Washington was increasingly receptive to abolition after the Revolution, is adequately conveyed by the moral support he gave to Lafayette's proposal in 1783. Factotem (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington had serious associations with the abolitionist movement, esp with David Cooper, a leader among Quakers, who (Quakers) also needs to be mentioned. We can make the statement in question read that Washington simply signed a tract that was published in 1783, making it clear that it was a copy he signed. However, I see nothing "misleading" otherwise. The statement shows that Washington did more than simply give moral support to Lafayette but was on the same page as David Cooper and Anthony Benezet and other leading Quakers, leaders in the abolitionist movement, involved politically and socially.
The title of the tract he endorsed was A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery.<Hayes, 2017, p.235> As the title indicates, this wasn't some simple editorial about slavery, it was addressed to leaders in the American government. 'This' is what Washington endorsed, and demonstrates the depth of his opposition more than giving Lafayette moral support. Washington owned a collection of similar anti-slavery pamphlets, further demonstrating Washington's association and support with the abolitionist movement.<Jonathan D. Sassi, The William and Mary Quarterly> Not only should the statement be returned, but this revealing topic needs to be more comprehensively covered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be an underlying push to make Washington look like a kind hearted, generous, abolitionist slave holder. This section has been extremely over edited, and could sink any FA nomination. Signing an abolitionist document does not make you an abolitionist. Washington's slaves were freed by his wife, except his valet, after Washington's death. Washington awarded work clothes once a year. Their clothes would have been in shatters by the end of the extensive year round work cycle. That is why poorly clothed. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there has been numerous attempts by you to suppress or discourage the addition of important context. We say what the sources say. No one said that signing a document made anyone an abolitionist, so once again you seem to be filling up the talk page with your usual recitals and non responsive comments to the issue at hand. Washington had several noted associations with Quakers who were politically in the forefront of the abolitionist movement. He endorsed a publication, addressed specifically to the US gov, about abolition. He had a collection of such abolitionist pamphlets and was very sympathetic to the movement. This is a major detail and shouldn't be suppressed. It also helps to dispel the sort of stereotypes that you seem to embrace.

As for over editing, you and another editor have made many edits recently as I have, so these underhanded attempts by you to pawn off issues on someone else is really becoming typical and a bit rife. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Clothing: As was already discussed - We have one source that says Washington issued "a set of cloths". On top of that Washington gave out extra blankets and cloths to various slaves. We have two primary sources, as outlined by secondary sources, that says slaves at Mt. Vernon were well fed and clothed. Twohig, as was also discussed, said conditions were at least adequate, thus acknowledging the idea that conditions very well could have been better than adequate, given Washington's character. We acknowledge what the sources say, for better or worse. You however seem typically eager to translate these matters into the worse possible picture, and seem disappointed that we can't portray Washington as the stereotypical, cruel-hearted slave driver who had no inclination and moral leanings towards abolition, bearing in mind that you wanted the statement about varying and conflicting accounts removed, just for the record. If you're sincerely concerned about getting the article to FA it would help if you accepted what the sources say, acknowledge that accounts do indeed vary, and help in the effort to cover these things in an objective and neutral fashion like the rest of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not for context pushing. I am all for context. There is a difference. Additional context should go into the dedicated article, not this biography article. That is not suppressing context. It is mentioned Washington signed an abolitionist document, but he kept his slaves. Did Washington's signature make the lives the slaves any easier ? Every law Washington signed into existance helped Southern slave owners. The Constitution helped Southern slave owners too and Washington was directly involved in its creation. I have added Morgan 2000 and Morgan 2005. I have said what those sources said. The narration is argumenative like a court case. Washington is not on trial. This talk page is argumentative when editors are suppose to be working together, collegiately, in a friendly tone. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No one would have to 'push context' if there was not this push to suppress it and numerous attempts to remove it. Once again, we say what the sources say, and they vary, so we must acknowledge this, and objectively. This is not "arguing". Washington had to appease the south and sign laws, written by the Legislature and authorized by Congress, to preserve national unity, and we mention this. He said he would support the Legislature if they began working in the direction of abolition. This is not mentioned, btw. Working together is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no push to suppress context. Morgan 2000 does not establish a direct link between Washington's debts and his overstock of slaves. All I did was go by Morgan 2000 and remove that direct link in the narration. Again, additional context belongs in the dedicated article. The narration in biography article should be a summary. Readers can refer to the dedicated article. The content push, in my opinion, is to make Washington look like kind hearted abolitionist slave owner. There is no content push to make Washington a cruel taskmaster. Morgan 2000 says Washington was rigorous with his slaves, not cruel. Working together should have a goal, getting Washington to FA. Pushing context causes contention in the article narration and the talk pages. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Can I ask for some patience here? I share your concerns, and made this edit today to add some balance which illustrates that for all his expressions of support for abolition in the 1780s, well documented in the sources, Washington didn't act on them and continued to negotiate the purchase of slaves. We seem to be inching towards consensus on this overall issue, so let's go with the momentum and address the other issues later. This section is focused broadly on the significance of Cooper's abolitionist tract? If you really want to discuss anything else, can you start another section and not allow this one to get distracted, please? Factotem (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem : Stating that Washington signed a copy of Cooper's abolitionist tract, specifically addressed to the US Government, serves to help demonstrate Washington's abolitionist sympathies at that time. Currently, the only thing that mentions this is the generic statement,  "Based on his letters, diary, documents, accounts from colleagues, employees, friends and visitors, Washington slowly developed a cautious sympathy toward abolitionism."  There is not one statement, however, that mentions Washington's actual involvement. Washington had a number of associations with prominent Quakers, as mentioned and sourced above, and sympathized with their movement more than in just a passing capacity, often meeting with them. Mention of Quakers is also in order here, not just because Washington endorsed a tract addressed to the government, but because the Quakers were among the major leaders in the abolitionist movement and often pursued Washington's support in this effort, and that Washington read and had a collection of their abolitionist pamphlets. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• After Washington signed the tract it seems that it would not have been swept under the rug by Cooper and the Quakers, and that they would have made certain that the government and others were made aware of such a significant endorsement. I'm looking further into that matter to see if anything else became of Washington's endorsement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington signed the abolitionist tract in 1783. Washington was silent on slavery at the Consitutional Convention. Washington passed laws that protected slavery while he was President. The Washington of 1783 was more liberal than the Washington of 1787-1797. There is too much emphasis undo weight on Washington the abolitionist. A compromise must be reached to get Washington to FA. How much more needs to be added ? I don't want to jump back in this conversation, but felt I need to make a statement. Maybe Factotem and Gwillhickers can figure things out. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Undue weight"? There is only one sentence devoted to the abolitionist tract. Also, it seems you have something of a habit of accusing one edit of being responsible for not getting the article to FA, and in every instance, it involves something you don't approve of, and one of my edits. Chances are there may be much more we can add to the statement/topic. e.g.Cooper in particular submitted three anti-slavery petitions to Congress and lobbied Washington while he was president. For now I am satisfied with just mentioning that Washington had associations and sympathies with the Quaker abolitionist movement, as stated. I realize that it's difficult for certain individuals to understand how a slave owner could have sympathies and lend moral support for abolition, but we are writing for young adults and adults in general here, and so we write the narrative in adult terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Significance of abolitionist literature

Re: the statement in the article, Washington signed his name to a copy of leading Quaker abolitionist tract condemning slavery, addressed to the U.S. government, entitled, "A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery". All we know about this tract from the sources so far uncovered is that Washington signed a copy of the pamphlet that was in his personal collection. We do not know when he received the pamphlet, who he received it from, when he signed it or the significance of his signing of it. I agree to a certain extent with Cmguy777, in that undue weight is being given to this specific pamphlet about which we know so little. There is something to be said on the wider issue of Washington's consumption of abolitionist theory. To that end, I have replaced the above statement with this edit, which highlights further down in the narrative the fact that Washington's abolitionist views correlated with abolitionist literature he possessed. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe the fundamental issue that needs to be covered is the dichotomy between Washington's words and deeds: on the one hand, he expressed support in private for abolition by a gradual legislative process – this is well documented in the sources; on the other hand, he remained personally dependent on slave labour his whole life and never gave any public support to abolition by word or deed. There's still some tweaking to be done, but I believe the article is beginning to convey this reasonably well. Factotem (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington's presidency and his delegation at the Constitutional Convention should get the most weight. Washington sided with Southerners at the Constitutional Convention and while he was President for two terms in office. Washington was in charge of laws and signing bills into laws. He was not a bystander to all of this. He also demanded freed slaves by the British be returned to their masters when the Revolutionary War ended. Washington was against the abolitionist tracts submitted to Conress. The Fugitive Slave act gave Southerners the power to invade a Northern state to get their slaves or anyone claimed to be their slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem : Yes, we cover the apparent paradox between Washington's words, moral support, and the fact that he didn't free slaves until after his death, via his will. We also explain Washington's idea of not using Federal legislature/intervention in the states knowing this would likely divide the young and unstable nation. Some individuals refuse to get that apparently. Freeing slaves was a noble idea in theory, but unless the freed slaves were given more than a pat on the back and best wishes, and a place they could make a life on their on, emancipating slaves, esp families with children, would have been an idealistic and reckless prospect that would only appease the naive and ignorant. However, I am not opposed to any further clarity you can add to the dichotomy to which you refer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• I also restored the statement covering the tract Washington signed. This is a revealing address to the U.S. gov, and gives much more clarity of Washington's commitment sympathies towards the abolitionist movement. Simply saying he possessed some abolitionist literature doesn't nail that idea near as much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• More information can be found here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

At that time period, 1783, one could say Washington was sympathetic to abolitionism. Committed is a stretch. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. However, the section currently only says "a cautious sympathy toward abolitionism", which seems accurate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked the narrative on the dichotomy between words and deed with this edit. In doing so I have:

• Consolidated statements that appeared earlier in the narrative so that the whole flows more logically, specifically relating to statements about:

• Criticism levelled at Washington's slaveowning during the Constitutional Convention;
• The prioritisation of national unity over abolition;
• Lafayette's 1783 plan.

• Removed the footnote about David Cooper lobbying Washington, attributed to Kristin DeBusk that was added with this edit. DeBusk's thesis appears to be not part of a doctorate or masters program but rather a bachelor study, and does not therefore qualify as a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Further, I see no support on p. 33 to support the assertion that Cooper lobbied Washington.

Hopefully this addresses @Cmguy777:'s concerns about mentioning Washington's lack of action during the 1780s and his time as presidency. Obviously this adds to the length somewhat, though much of the additional text is in a new footnote. I maintain that we can afford to be relaxed about length while we inch towards a consensus about the main issues, and can revisit later to see what room there is to trim back. To answer a specific question raised a few days ago, quotebox text is not included in the readable prose word count, nor is footnote text. Factotem (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Spot check: Lafayette's 1783 plan included land sale?

This edit added the statement that Lafayette's 1783 proposal involved selling land, sourced to Flexner pp. 389-390 and Twohig. Twohig does not say anything about the sale of land, only the purchase of it. I don't have access to Flexner; does he specifically say that Lafayette proposed selling land? Could someone quote the passage in Flexner that supports this statement, please? Factotem (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the information in question is covered by K.Morgan, p.292, starting at the top of the page. "...Lafayette began to persuade Washington... Washington praised the experiment..." Also, I have Flexner, 1974, in hand, and pp.389-390 covers Washington mulling over the idea of freeing his own slaves and renting them out to farmers who were renting his land. He doesn't mention Lafayette here. Don't know how this happened, but it seems after all the editing that has occured in the last week or so, some of the citations were not looked after in the process. In any case, I'll tend to the citation in question. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The concern was about the assertion that Lafayette's proposal involved selling land, which is not supported in any of the sources. Lafayette's proposal has now been incorporated into the narrative on the dichotomy between word and deed, as explained in the next section, and the discrepancy between article and source addressed. Factotem (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Kidnappings

Re this statement in the article: The law permitted kidnappings of blacks and allowed profiteering of hunting slaves.<Taylor, 2016, pp.399-400>
An important term was left out of that statement. Taylor says, "Tacitly" (i.e.presumably) allowed kidnappings. The statement in the article read as if the law actually allowed kidnappings and that this is what Washington had signed. Kidnappings of free Blacks may have occurred with the law looking the other way, but the statement more than suggested that Washington endorsed this sort of activity. Such incidents had nothing to do with Washington. We say what the sources say, when appropriate – we don't assume what the sources say. This seems like another 'guilty by association' attempt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Initially this was called opinion. Do we only say what the sources say when we like what the sources say? And yes, there is an element of corruption postulated by Taylor, profiteering and kidnapping. Washington was a politician. The law had everything to do with Washington because he signed it into law and he was the chief enforcer. Why is it whenever there is an ounce of criticism of Washington he needs to be protected ? Tacitly means implied. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Laws don't imply, they spell items out in clear language. It was Congress who drafted the law, in its entirety. If Washington had vetoed the entire law, with all its provisions, it would have caused major issues among the divided states. There was no line-item veto in those days. Criticism of Washington is welcomed, so long as it's not taken out of context, or distorted. Again, the statement reads that Washington condoned kidnappings and profiteering. Could you at least edit the statement with the idea that Taylor included in his statement? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing says Washington condoned kidnapping and profiteering. But according to Taylor kidnapping and profiteering were implied by the law.

• Fugitive Slave Acts History.com Editors September 12, 2018 Viewed on June 8, 2019 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page you linked to places emphasis on Congress and doesn't even mention Washington. "Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escaped slaves to their owners " Also, it says most northern states didn't comply with the law, and the federal government, Washington, did nothing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I toned down the wording. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent wording. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I believe tidbits of criticism in the article, such as this, or Washington's public silence on slavery at the Constitutional Convention, will get Washington to FA. It's not in anyway to degrade Washington's personal reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The link explains the Fugitive Slave Acts. First you said Washington is not mentioned, then Washington did nothing. Since Washington is not mentioned in the article we can't assume Washington did nothing. Taylor 2016 says the president rather than Washington signed The Fugitive Slave Act. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to Taylor, p.400, Taylor only refers to the Fugitive Slave Act being passed by Congress. It's understood that when a bill is passed by Congress it must be signed by the President to become law. Taylor is obviously placing emphasis on Congress, who represents and responds to the wishes of the various states. Also, Washington 'was' the president. I'm not seeing anything in the Domestic issues section that suggests that Washington "did nothing" here. The section says, "Washington and Congress responded with a series of pro-slavery measures", even though Taylor doesn't mention Washington in this instance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Taylor (2016) page 400 says "Congress and the president also bulstered slavery with positive measures." Congress can pass a law without the President's signature. It is assumed Washington signed or supported the law but not directly stated. It might be good to have a source Washington directly signed the law, assuming that he did. Bills within 10 days while Congress is in session will become law. A signature on a law means the President supports the law. Glossary Term | Presidential Signature United States Senate Cmguy777 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This website verifies Washington signed the Fugitive Slave Law on February 12, 1793. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Insert :  This is common knowledge among those who are even half familiar with Washington and the existing sources. The statement covering Washington signing the Fugitive Slave Act is already cited with Chernow and Taylor. What was your point? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Washington signed just two pieces of slavery related legislation: the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law, which guaranteed the right of slaveholders to recover escaped slaves across state lines, and the 1794 Slave Trade Act, which restricted U.S. participation in the trafficking of human cargo." Slavery and Washington’s Presidency Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association (2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent, or attorney, in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney, when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars. Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in any Court proper to try the same, saving moreover to the person claiming such labor or service his right of action for or on account of the said injuries, or either of them." Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There was really no call for these recitals. The Act ' itself is not at issue. Please keep the Talk page for discussions that concern actual article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ona Judge, again

Cmguy777 :  Coverage of Ona Judge was once in a foot note. Now the coverage is something of a stand alone statement in the text. We are covering Washington's attempt to retrieve a runaway slave. Ona was Martha's slave. If we are going to give an example of a runaway slave it really should involve Hercules, Washington's personal chef, covered in Chernow, pp. 762-764. Coverage of Ona would be better placed in the Martha Washington article. You and I debated Ona judge at length not too long ago. Yet here we are with the issue once again introduced by your recent and rather divisive edits, provoking a debate – this by someone who was recently expressing concerning about "unending argumentation". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This article should get to FA. Not allowing tidbit critical information on Washington is hagiography. Chernow (2010) said Washington was abusing his power as President. This constant resistance to a critical evalutation of Washington is what is not getting Washington to FA. Why is there such resistance to getting Washington on the front page of Wikipedia I can't figure out. We are talking two sentences. Because it is critical of Washington you want it removed apparently from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, please read what is written above instead of reading your own notions into matters. All I suggested was that we cover Hercules, rather than Ona Judge, as he was Washington's personal chef. It was Martha who prodded Washington into retrieving Ona, who was greatly admired by Martha and was widely considered her "pet". If we're going to provide an example of a runaway slave, why not Washington's personal slave? Hercules was admired by Washington, was paid well, was dressed far better than the average white man, and was allowed to go into town, along with Ona, to attend plays and other events. In both instances Washington made efforts to retrieve them, only in Hercules' case, however, Washington made efforts to retrieve without any prodding from anyone else. Seems like coverage of Hercules would be more suitable for adding the "critical assessment" you seem to think is lacking in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Chernow used much more harsher wording in his book. Yes. Ona was not Washington's slave. Ona was Martha's slave. Washington used the federal government to a tandamount kidnapping attempt of Ona, who was not his slave. Is the job of a customs collector to capture escaped slaves ? It was to be done in secret. Why should this be in the article ? Because Washington used his power as President to capture Ona. From what I have read Washington did not want Whipple to talk to her. He wanted her to be ubducted when Whipple saw her and returned to Mount Vernon. Chernow said this was an abuse of power by Washington. Hercules can be mention too. Remember none of this sank Washington's presidential ranking ship. Adding Ona adds critical assessment of Washington and will get Washington to FA. Let's not take this personally. Is the main goal to get Washington to FA ? It is for me. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you are resting the prospect of getting to FA on one minor topic. Getting to FA will never occur when there is "endless argumentation" and the resultant instability. It's been one issue after another, often provoked by divisive language taken out of context in the article, forcing a debate, or by rehashing past debates. Whipple is a virtual nobody. There's no reason to mention him by name. I went along with mentioning him because I was mistaken, that he was indeed somebody, with an article and a link to it, which I subsequently added. All that needs to be said here, providing an example involving the Fugitive Slave Act, is that Washington made arrangements to retrieve Ona while not wanting to bring attention to the affair. Hence his instructions to give up the effort if it was going to result in some sort of public calamity. There is no reason to elaborate any further in our summary section. As for "abuse of power" -- 'what' abuse of power? Didn't Washington have the law on his side via the Fugitive Slave Act? On what page does Chernow point out a specific abuse, i.e.an actual violation of law?
Hercules should be mentioned over Ona, as he was Washington's slave and he didn't have to be prodded to go after him, as was the case with Martha's slave. Washington pursued Hercules on his own initiative. Why are we not using the best example? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Chernow said it was an abuse of power. I don't speak for Chernow. We say or go by what the sources say. I think it is clear that any criticism of Washington is being swept under rug. Washington did not hire a private agent. Whipple was a government employee. Nothing in the Fugitive law said that customs workers had the right to abduct slaves. Also the law was for slave owners. Washington did not own Ona, so the Fugitive law did not apply for Washington. The Fugitive law did apply for Hercules, since Hercules was Washington's slaves. This was corruption of law. Criticism needs to be allowed in the article to get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"since Hercules was Washington's slaves" There was more than one Hercules? Dimadick (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cmguy777, Once again, we've have only been talking about which slave to include, giving some context to the Fugitive Slave Act, per Washington's efforts. If "any criticism of Washington is being swept under the rug" we wouldn't have have an entire section on slavery, mention of admitting slave states, the Fugitive Slave Act, and a discussion about which slave to cover. Please make an effort to keep the notions under control. Once again, Hercules is the better slave to cover in terms of the F.S.A. In fact, coverage of this slave is more "critical" than for Ona, who was Martha's slave, because, once again, Washington made efforts to retrieve Hercules at his own initiative. Regardless, Hercules was Washington's personal slave and carries more weight in the Washington biography than Ona, Martha's personal slave, on that note alone. Covering both Ona and Hercules would be redundant as examples go. We only need to cover one example and since Hercules was Washington's personal slave he is the better choice for the Washington biography. Neither story is less critical than the other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Where in the F.S.A. does it say that only private agents could be hired to retrieve slaves? Such a minor detail would hardly seem something that amounts to "abusing" power. Yes, we say what the sources say, but when something is challenged, as you've done before, we need to clarify matters with a corroborating source. Also, there are neutrality issues to consider here. Again, we go by what the sources say, but if something highly questionable comes up, as responsible editors we look to other sources for corroboration and clarity. Until that occurs, we shouldn't entertain the opinion of "abusing" presidential power. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I said what Chernow said. I will not be drawn into original research in this talk page. You have been talking about which slave to include Gwillhickers. Ona Judge should be included in the narration. Both Hercules and Ona could be mentioned in the article. You are trying for any excuse not to put Ona in the narration because that would make Washington look like a kidnapper. "Highly questionable" apparently only means something you disagree with. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Compromise. I reduced detail. Mentioned both Ona Judge and Hercules escaped but never captured. Maybe we can go on to other things and get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources can be challenged if they present a highly questionable statement not found in other sources. At this point I'm not really interested in any notions you have on the matter – and you didn't say that Washington abused his power anyway. Your last edits seem okay, however, I re-added a couple of points you had included, then deleted, as the statement, per your last edit, wasn't very contextual and needed to be brought up to FA standards by also mentioning that both Ona and Hercules were the personal slaves of Martha and George.  On retrospect, mentioning Ona and Hercules, both favorites, was the best way to go after all. Thanx.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not add Chernow's opinion on the abuse. But Washington did use the Treasury to track down a slave. I don't recall that being in the Fugitive Slave Act that the President can use the Treasury to track down a slave. There is enough room for the reader to establish an opinion. Chernow mentions both Ona Judge and Hercules.Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's no mention in the F.S.A. about who, or who shouldn't, be commissioned to retrieve slaves. It's only an assumption that calling on a federal agent, by the president, amounts to some sort of "abuse" of authority.  2+2 does not add up to 100. There's much missing in Chernow's equation on that point. No matter. We cover Washington's efforts to retrieve two slaves – that should be the main concern here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Citations

@Shearonink: Thanks for catching my mistake. Going through the bibliography checking for unused sources I noted the author name Lurie, then checked the citation listing and didn't see that name cited and listed, so I wrongfully assumed the source wasn't being used. I changed the sfnRef to sfnRef=Lauri, Shira, 2019, so that the citations in the text visibly match up with the last name in the source listing in the bibliography. i.e. citations in the text and citation listing generally list author's name and year, as is done for Chernow, Ferling, etc. Reminder to all: During the last FA review, mention was made about the numerous website sources, that often they are not as scholarly as most established sources, so when possible, we should replace these with published sources. Currently we have 24 website sources in the Bibliography, and it's only a matter of time before some of the url address go 404, or the article just disappears. This is not to say they can't be used at all, only that we should make efforts to use the published and established sources first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Cmguy777 : The statement claiming that Hamilton urged Washington to run for a second term because he was the only viable candidate, sourced by Cooke, 2002, p.10, has been in the article since May 2018. You deleted the statement with only the claim of "narration improvement; context; neutrality", with no mention of a citation needed. When I restored the statement you immediately tagged it. Since Cooke is not viewable on line, how are you certain that the statement is unsourced? Do you own the book? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I have the book. You Gwillhickers added the information that Hamilton urged Washington to run. According to Cooke, page 10, Jefferson and Hamilton's pleas for Washington to run had no effect. What made Washington run was that he knew he was assured victorious in the electoral college. No one ran against him. All he had to do was be quiet. Your statement made it look as if Hamilton convinced Washington to run. That is too much credit to Hamilton that Cooke does not give to Hamilton or Jefferson. This is Washington's biography, not Hamilton's or Jefferson's. I am trying to keep the focus on Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson all made efforts to persuade Washington to run again.<Ferling, 1988, pp. 421-423> Whether this had "no effect" is besides the point and is quite debatable. However, all we do is cover the facts. These things should be mentioned to help readers know the overall situation involving Washington's cabinet members at this critical point in time. Washington was tired of all the infighting and tired of politics altogether. During this transition he was also dealing with yet another death in the family (Augustine) who was managing Mt. Vernon while Washington was away and had to be replaced. Washington longed to retire, as Martha wanted also. No one can say for sure that Washington 'had' to be persuaded, but given the overall situation, it's likely he may have. Again, we don't speculate there. All we do is cover the established facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Currently we only have one sentence that covers Washiongton's temporary indecision to run for a second term and all the issues he was facing at this juncture. The public feuding between Jefferson and Hamilton all but made Washington throw in the towel and head for Mt. Vernon. Madison exclaimed to Washington that if he retired the overall political division would only worsen. Hamilton maintained that if Washington retired it would result in the "greatest evil". Jefferson was very worried about Hamilton's banking designs and his inclination to establish a federal monarchy subject to the whim of foreign banks and asserted that Washington was the only man to keep this sort of thing in check. To add to his woes, Washington's nephew, George Augustine Washington, manager of Mt. Vernon during Washington's first term, was in terrible health and near death, forcing Washington to hire Anthony Whiting, a former overseer on one of Washington's plantations, as a replacement manager -- a prospect Washington was not entirely comfortable with, adding to his desire to get back to Mt. Vernon. Again, there's barely a word about Washington's feelings and emotional state at this juncture. As this is a biography these things should be at the top of the list of priorities for this section. As it is, the Second term section almost reads like an outline i.e.B-class coverage. Most of the section needs to be brought up to FA standards. This all can be covered with a few sentences, which I'm currently working on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Readers have books for more details. We need to keep focus on Washington. Jefferson and Hamilton did urge Washington to run again. Since it had no effect, why put it in the article. Washington ran because he knew he would win. He did not run a third term because he knew he would not win. A few sentences here and there about other people add nothing to the article other than words. I was making improvements to the Second Term. Thanks for noticing. Let's keep focused on policies, and not make a soap opera out of Mount Vernon. Please stop treating Washington like a child. "add to his woes" Washington was a grown man for goodness sake. He was a general. He was a tough guy. He was prideful. He had a temper. He owned a slave plantation. The section needs improvement, but not endless details. Any help in improving the section is appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• My intention 'is' to focus more on Washington, and I'm not willing to tell the readers to go read a book for the basic details surrounding Washington during this critical transition. Your statement that Washington was a grown man comes off a little flippant, and ignores the idea that many people would have the same concerns about the (very great) responsibilities that Washington was shouldering, not to mention those involving his family and home. Currently we only have one sentence that covers Washington's temporary indecision to run for a second term and all the issues he was facing at this juncture. This is fine by your standards? — The public feuding between Jefferson and Hamilton all but made Washington throw in the towel and head for Mt. Vernon. Madison exclaimed to Washington that if he retired the overall political division would only worsen. Hamilton maintained that if Washington retired it would result in the "greatest evil". Jefferson was very worried about Hamilton's banking designs and his inclination to establish a federal monarchy subject to the whim of foreign banks and asserted to Washington that he was the only man to keep this sort of thing in check. To add to his woes, Washington's nephew, George Augustine Washington, manager of Mt. Vernon during Washington's first term, was in terrible health and near death, forcing Washington to hire Anthony Whiting, a former overseer on one of Washington's plantations, as a replacement manager -- a prospect Washington was not entirely comfortable with, adding to his desire to get back to Mt. Vernon. "Nothing but words"? Again, there's barely a word about Washington's feelings and emotional state at this juncture. As this is a biography these things should be at the top of the list of priorities for this section. As it is, the Second term section almost reads like an outline i.e.B-class coverage. Most of the section needs to be brought up to FA standards. This all can be covered with a few sentences, which I'm currently working on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Cooke 2002 focuses on policies in a summary fashion. The Jefferson-Hamilton feud was between those men. Washington was not involved directly. From what I just read it reads like a script from TV show. Readers don't have to be told what a burden the Presidency is. "feelings and emotional state" We have no idea what Washington felt. We can't apply modern psychology to an 18th figure. He was a private man. I don't want this article to get "touchy feely" for the sake of FA. My statements are not meant to be flippant. The section just needs to read like a summary in a neutral manner, not a novel. These are only my opinions. It is best to just start editing rather than argue in a talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"Touchy feely"? We can do without the usual sappy notions over information that the scholars thought worthy of mentioning. Much more than 'feelings' are involved. We're covering circumstances. In fact we don't even say Washington was worried, or some such, only that he was temporarily indecisive given the pressing circumstances he was surrounded with. The readers, at least the intelligent ones, will put the rest of the picture together for themselves. We should tell the readers what Washington went through, in summary form, not only for reasons of historical context, but also because this a biography about the person. We're not writing an outline and should present topics in a comprehensive fashion, and abide by FA standards, and with the assumption that more than just grade-schoolers are reading the article, and also with the assumption that most readers are interested in the topic and welcome good coverage in summary form. Once again, if all you can offer are notions you should drop the stick as you've offered no reason why we shouldn't be comprehensive covering this critical juncture in Washington's life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Citizen Edmond Genet

@Cmguy777: :  Jefferson was in favor of the French revolution, as opposed to Hamilton. I'm wondering why Washington felt it necessary to 'direct' Jefferson to recognize the new French government. Also, was Washington's call for Genet 's resignation an action that stands out enough to be mentioned in the Second term section? Just wondering. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I cited Cooke 2002 pages 12-13. I was just going by what Cooke said. Cooke thought is was important enough to mention Genet. Washington really had no choice but to recognize Revolutionary France. Maybe he was appeasing Jefferson. Louis XVI was excuted. The France that existed during the American Revolution no longer existed. Genet was clearly a trouble maker that Washington was icey cold too. Genet was trying to get a military response to aid France against England and went beyond his diplomatic authority. Do I have to defend everyone of my edits ? I could mention that the addition of the first paragraph was not needed. Does the reader really have to know what is going at Mount Vernon ? We don't need to add hagiography to the article. I am only bringing this up because it seems everyone of my edits have to be approved by you Gwillhickers. You tell me to drop the stick and then you ping me. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You were pinged because of the 'new' topic you introduced, which, btw, I am not opposed to outright. You should "defend" edits when legitimate questions are submitted, just like any other of us editors. It was merely asked if this was an event that was prominent enough to mention in the Second term section. Who was Genet inasmuch as he was a major figure during the French revolution? There is no WP article for him, that I can see. Once again, you seem to confuse established facts with 'hagiography". No one is insisting that we remove the brief mention of Jefferson, per Genet, who, btw, was the French minister to the U.S., stirring up issues and insisting that the U.S. not intervene in French affairs at that critical juncture during the French revolution and its aftermath.<Ferling, 2009, p.314> Interesting stuff. It was simply asked, given Jefferson's support of the French revolution, why he had to be 'directed' by Washington to recognize the new French government. Any ideas? In fact, it almost seems worth mentioning -- on its surface. In light of other events during Washington's second term, however, we have to wonder if this particular statement is such that it warrants inclusion in the section. That's all. I'm not pressing it, too much. You have Cooke's book. What else does have to offer here? I'm inclined to keep the statement in question in the article, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington was President. Only Washington could recognize France. Jefferson needed Washington's permission to recognize Revolutionary France. I don't think Jefferson would have recognized France without Washington's direction. It deserves inclusion because that is what Cooke said. You added information on Mount Vernon, that did not directly affect Washington's Presidency. I added more information on Genet. Again. I don't like having to defend my edits in a talk page. Genet is mentioned under Second Term by Cooke. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is a Biography about George Washington and the things that weighed on his person, and as such, mention of affairs at Mount Vernon are among the topics that get top priority. The state of affairs at Mount Vernon was one of the things that very well could have tipped the balance and made Washington decline a second term. The scholars cover this prospect in great length. Also, I only asked for clarification about Washington directing someone who already recognized and supported the new France in the first place. You shouldn't have to worry about defending your edits if your arguments are sound. Your edits can be questioned, just like the rest of us.
• Currently the statement as it stands begs the tag. Your original edit was more comprehensive. Perhaps you should mention the Citizen Genêt Affair in brief. Genet tried to circumvent Washington's authority by going to South Carolina to recruit and arm American privateers who would join French forces in combating the Spanish, who were allies of the British operating in Florida. Genet succeeded in procuring 4 American ships for that purpose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Done I added a brief mention to that effect. Ferling, 2009, pp.314-315 covers this in detail. I didn't add Ferling to the citation with the assumption that the existing Cooke citation covers it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I added enough context. I used Cooke as a source. You have every right to put in Ferling 2009 source. I could put why tag in your edits on Mount Vernon. I can't answer why Cooke thought Genet was important enough to be put in his article. I don't speak for Cooke. I should not be expected to speak for Cooke in this talk page. We say what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Your original edit had (some) context, but for whatever reason, you removed it. FA criteria maintains that topics are to be presented in context. Also, it's not a question of anyone having a 'right' to add Ferling. If you use Cooke for a source, you are speaking for Cooke. When you leave out the important context that Cooke includes, you're doing a poor job of speaking for Cooke. Editors have a right to ask questions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not speaking for Cooke. I put in the content of Cooke's article into the narration. That is all editors are suppose to do. Only Cooke can speak for Cooke. Please stop saying I speak for Cooke or any other source. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

When covering history, you are speaking for a given historian when you use their words, phrases and ideas. You were using Cooke's words, not verbatim necessarily, but still. When you use Ferling, you are likewise using Ferling's words/ideas and are speaking for Ferling, not Cooke, or Cmguy777. You can't speak for yourself in the article. That would be original research. When trying to bring an article to FA, context is required. You removed it, once again. When asked for clarification and reminded about FA criteria, per context, you ignored that and typically digressed into one of your indignant routines, and it seems you're still at it. Editors have a right to ask questions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not speaking for any historian nor do I have to explain or apologize for any historian in the talk pages. Please stop this. I am not speaking for myself in the article. No original research. Please stop generating this conversation towards me rather than any source. I am to say what the sources say, but in different words. I in no way represent the sources, nor condone or condemn, the sources. There is a huge difference. You said you did not understand why Jefferson was directed by Washington to recognize revolutionary France. I just said what Cooke said. I don't have to explain to you what Cooke meant by this. I don't represent Cooke. I said what Cooke said. I suggest we drop the stick on this and proceed to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You are belaboring a simple figure of speech, are distorting and hyping the affair here and coming off as someone who is somehow being victimized. Editors have the right to ask reasonable questions, and as a contributing editor it is incumbent on you to explain reasonable issues on the Talk page if you are aware of the answer. Having Cooke's book you could have offered us a simple explanation, which would have been accepted, and we could have moved on. Instead we are getting your defiant and indignant attitude over simple figures of speech and for simply being asked for clarity on a couple points. No one has asked anything of you that was unreasonable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Only Cooke can give clarity or another reliable source. I have said before that Cooke put Genet in is article on George Washington's presidency. The article section was titled Second Term. Since it is important enough for Cooke it is important enough for this article. Any speculation on what Cooke meant would be original research. Washington was icy cold to Genet. Asking for his recall is signifigant since France was America's former ally. Louis XVI was executed and the old French government no longer existed, and then here comes Genet to stir up trouble in America. From what I have read Genet was trying to extend the French Revolution to America. Washington said no. A few sentences on Genet is entirely appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. As I said earlier, I was inclined to cover Genet in brief, after looking into matters more thoroughly, but originally you were a bit less than clear about affairs here. As I said, Genet circumvented Washington's presidency/authority, and instead of greeting Washington in Philadelphia, landed in South Carolina and procured four American ships to deal with the Spanish, British allies, in Florida, complicating matters. Hence, Washington's call for Genet's removal. If you'd like to add another statement, or two, covering this affair, it would be appropriate. This is not exactly a passing affair during Washington's second term. We could have wrapped up this issue long before now if you didn't read your notions into my discussion and squared off with a couple of simple issues that were presented to you. Let's do this and move on. Ferling, 2009, pp.314-315 has some good coverage also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

French citizenship

Hi,

The article describes that Georges Washington was granted "honorary" french citizenship. As described in the french version (fr.wikipedia.org) of this article (GW), this is NOT honorary. GW was granted TRUE french citizenship. So, at the end of his life, he was both american citizen, and french citizen. Don't minor that fact, remembering the cost of the american independance war for France, leading my country (France) to bankroute, and later, the head of a king.

The complete text is as follow, written in french, and does not mention any "honorary" or thing like that : only real, true, french citizenship.

Décret du 26 août 1792, Assemblée nationale législative : << Considérant enfin, qu’au moment où une Convention nationale va fixer les destinées de la France, et préparer peut-être celles du genre humain, il appartient à un peuple généreux et libre d’appeler toutes les lumières et de déférer le droit de concourir à ce grand acte de raison, à des hommes qui, par leurs sentiments, leurs écrits et leur courage, s’en sont montrés si éminemment dignes ;

Déclare déférer le titre de citoyen français au docteur Joseph Priestley, à Thomas Paine, à Jeremy Bentham, à William Wilberforce, à Thomas Clarkson, à James Mackintosh, à David Williams, à Giuseppe Gorani, à Anacharsis Cloots, à Corneille de Pauw, à Joachim Heinrich Campe, à Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, à Georges Washington, à Jean Hamilton, à James Madison, à Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock et à Thadée Kosciuszko. >>

I wonder why there is no "Nationality" place in the box of the article. This should be : "Nationality : American / French 1792" or something like that.

But it doesn't matter how you will write it : but please, according to the history and the french old piece of law, remove the "honorary" term.

If you need it, have a look here : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/D%C3%A9cret_du_26_ao%C3%BBt_1792

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:450:500:2D91:787E:9E1A:8822 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know of an established Washington biographer that maintains that Washington had honorary French citizenship, let alone actual citizenship? You gave us a link to check, but its written in French. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a decree of the National Assembly conferring citizenship on a number of people whom we would term freedom fighters, plus at least one scientist and some names I don't recognize offhand. There's no indication that Washington either requested it or accepted. You just can't confer citizenship on people without permission, certainly not a foreign head of state; citizenship has obligations.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

From the translation below it appears that Washington was actually given full French citizenship. There is no mention of honorary citizenship. The title of citizenship bypassed the 5 year residency. Since Washington, as far as we know, never ventured to France or its colonial territories after his declared French citizenship August 26, 1792, it was an empty citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Honorary French Citizenship Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington would have had to live in France. He never did. So his French citizenship was never fulfilled. So by French law Washington was never legally a French Citizen. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation

I used Google translator for the following translation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Translatation from French detected language to English:

"The National Assembly, considering that the men who, by their writings and by their courage, have served the cause of liberty and prepared the liberation of peoples, can not be regarded as foreign by a nation except its enlightenment and courage. have made free;

"Considering that if five years of residence in France are enough to obtain the title of French citizen to a stranger, this title is more precisely due to those who, whatever the soil they inhabit, have dedicated their arms and their watches to defend the cause of nations against the despotism of kings, to banish prejudices from the land, and to set back the limits of human knowledge;

"Considering that, if it is not allowed to hope that men will one day form before the law, as before nature, only one family, one association, the friends of liberty, of fraternity universal must not be less dear to a nation which has proclaimed its renunciation of all conquest and its desire to fraternize with all peoples;

"Considering, finally, that at the moment when a National Convention is going to fix the destinies of France, and perhaps to prepare those of the human race, it belongs to a people generous and free to call all the lights and to defer the right of to contribute to this great act of reason, to men who, by their feelings, their writings, and their courage, have shown themselves so eminently worthy;

"Declare to defer the title of French citizen to Dr. Joseph Priestley, Thomas Payne, Jeremie Bentham, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Jacques Mackintosh, David Williams, N. Gorani, Anacharsis Cloots, Corneille Pauw, to Joachim-Henry Campe, N. Pestalozzi, Georges Washington, Jean Hamilton, N. Madison, H. Klopstock and Thadée Kosciuszko. " Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Cooper's abolitionist tract

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per consensus, the abolitionist tract should not be mentioned in the main narrative. (non-admin closure) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the article mention Cooper's A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery abolitionist tract in the main narrative? Factotem (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No per WP:PROPORTION. The tract is a minor aspect in the few sources that mention it. Those sources provide no clear indication of the tract's significance to Washington. The broader issue relating to the correlation between abolitionist literature in general and Washington's views on abolition is adequately covered in the article with this edit and supported by a detailed footnote detailing the significance of abolitionist tracts Washington possessed as added in this edit. Factotem (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• No per the reasons Factotem lays out, and per WP:PROPORTION. Also, the evidence is skimpy, bordering on synth. According to Dorothy Twohig, In general he did not give a warm reception to gadflys–especially Quaker gadflys–and the tone of many of the antislavery appeals with which he was deluged in the l780s and l790s, combining imperious demands with evangelical piety, were not likely to incline him in their favor., which indicates the opposite of what's being argued below. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• No (via FRS) per WP:PROPORTION and the reasons laid out above. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The article currently states:

Washington signed his name to a copy of a leading Quaker abolitionist tract condemning slavery, addressed to the U.S. government, entitled, "A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery"

The two sources provided for this statement themselves state:

He signed a copy of one of the leading abolitionist tracts published in [1783], the Quaker David Cooper's A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery..., printed at Trenton, New Jersey.

(Kenneth Morgan, George Washington and the Problem of Slavery, p. 291)

Washington's connections with the Quaker community acquainted him with other antislavery literature. In A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery, David Cooper, a leading New Jersey Quaker, addressed the contradiction between the freedom the American Revolution represented and the ongoing practice of slavery. Cooper published his pamphlet anonymously, signing himself simply "A Farmer."

(Kevin Hayes, George Washington: A Life in Books, p. 235)

Neither of these sources provide any meaningful insight to the significance of the tract to Washington. From François Furstenberg's Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks, we learn:

• The pamphlet was one of six anti-slavery tracts that Washington possessed in his library which he had bound into a volume called Tracts on Slavery (p. 251);
• The volume was part of a set of thirty-six volumes of pamphlets on various subjects that Washington had bound (p. 251);
• Washington signed the cover page of the first pamphlet in each and every volume (p. 252);
• A Serious Address... was the first pamphlet in the Tracts on Slavery (p. 263);
• We do not know when or how Washington acquired this pamphlet (pp. 263-264)

From Professor Jonathan D. Sassi's comment on Furstenberg's article, we learn:

• The pamphlet may have been sent to Washington in 1785 (pp. 198-199).

The above represents the sum total of our knowledge about this pamphlet as it relates to Washington, at least from the sources I have so far uncovered. We do not know for sure when Washington received the pamphlet, who he received it from, when he wrote his signature on the cover page or the significance of his signing the cover page. Given the paucity of our knowledge about the significance of this specific pamphlet to Washington, I believe that:

• It does not warrant coverage in the article, especially in this summary biography;
• There is a danger that the reader might be misled, as I was initially and as the editor who added the statement still seems to be, into thinking that Washington's signing of the pamphlet was a public endorsement, when all sources state that Washington never spoke publicly about slavery.

The broader issue of Washington's exposure to abolitionist literature in general and the correlation between his views and the contents of that literature is adequately discussed in the article with the statement:

In personal correspondence the next year, he made clear his desire to see the institution of slavery ended by a gradual legislative process, a view that correlated with the mainstream antislavery literature published in the 1780s that Washington possessed.

and supported by the footnote:

At his death, Washington's extensive library included seventeen publications on slavery, six of which he appeared to value enough to collect into an expensively bound volume titled Tracts on Slavery. The volume was part of a thirty-six-volume set Washington had bound probably sometime after 1795. The collection covered subjects that generally were of importance to him, such as agriculture, the Revolution, the Society of the Cincinnati and politics. The first pamphlet in Tracts on Slavery – which, as with the first pamphlet in every volume, Washington signed on the cover – was David Cooper's A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery, published in 1783. The other five pamphlets were published after 1788, the last of them in 1793. Of the eleven that were, presumably, not considered by Washington to be worth binding, eight were published before 1788. One of them, published in 1785, was never read. The implication is that Washington became more interested in the subject in the early 1790s. All six of the bound pamphlets advocated the abolition of slavery by a gradual legislative process, an idea that began to appear in Washington's correspondence during the Confederation period.

Factotem (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Washington's signature on the Cooper anti-slavery tract was not public. Also, Washington may have been interested in abolitionism in the 1790's, but during his presidency that started in 1789, Washington, a Virginian slave owner, publically sided with the South. He banned blacks from being citizens and allowed the slave owners, including himself, to forcefully retrieve lost slaves. All of this would undermine abolitionism. The article should not put undo-weight on Washington the abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles, once again, so I'm a little reluctant trying to explain things for anyone who still refuses to get it and responds with the same old chants and hyper-speak. e.g."Invade the north" to retrieve slaves. Washington did not intervene in state affairs. He didn't stir the pot of abolitionism for reasons that have been repeated on this Talk page more times than I can remember. i.e.Keeping the nation stable. As a slave owner, Washington went through a slow transition and became sympathetic with the ideals of emancipation and abolition, thanks to contemporaries and friends like Lafayette, Hamilton along with influence from the Quakers. This all culminated in his will, one which freed all his slaves and provided the old and young slaves be taken care of indefinitely, while younger ones were taught to read and write and given suitable occupations. In his later years he spent much time entertaining and reading about abolition, and went so far as to sign an abolitionist tract addressed to the government itself. Though we haven't found a source that says the government and others became aware of Washington's endorsement, it would be (incredibly) naive to assume that Cooper, the Quakers and others didn't bother to spread this news, as they earnestly sought Washington's support and even lobbied him at times. Washington's struggle between ownership and keeping the national stable, and the idea of abolition, should not be understated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington did intervene in state affairs. The Fugitive Slave Act that Washington and Congress created overuled state law. No state could harbor freed slaves. The slaves could be forcefully recaptured. Washington overuled state law by barring blacks who immigrated to the United States from being citizens. Barring the importation of slaves would increase the worth of domestic slaves. That would benefit Washington. You have to balance Washington's pro Southern slave policy with his sympathy toward abolitionism. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Washington did not intervene in state law in as much as he did not allow the states to practice slavery. Banning imported slaves is a national affair, and virtually no one objected to this inhuman practice. Barring US membership is also a national affair, which, btw, did not threaten the legality of practicing slavery in any given state. As for increasing the value of domestic slaves, this is a modern day speculation. Is such an increased in slave value documented by primary sources? Also consider that slaves were actively producing their own children and their population was increasing at the same rate as whites. Washington was supporting more slaves than he could use long after the Slave Trade Act, which he signed, was passed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• The "significance" of the abolitionist tract is rather self explanatory. It was publicly addressed to the U.S. Government. The title of the tract, was."A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery". That and the fact that Washington chose to endorse this particular tract, provides us with more than enough significance all by itself. It was one of Washington's ways of prompting the government into considering abolition legislation, which he said he would approve if they initiated such efforts. Signing the tract puts Washington squarely on the historical page of abolition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington signed his name on the cover of his own copy of the tract, a copy that he kept in his library. That's all we know from the sources. If you have anything to suggest that it was anything more than this, please provide the sources. In particular, please provide a source to support the assertion that It was one of Washington's ways of prompting the government into considering abolition legislation... Factotem (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Washington's signature on an anonymous abolition tract affected no one. Washington's signature on the Fugitive Slave Act and the law banning immigrant blacks citizenship affected all states and overuled state personal liberty laws. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion cont

Factotem : Since Washington was presented with the copy, and since he signed it, that all by itself says much. We are not trying to say, in the article, if this had any or no effect. We also don't know if Washington signed it and just tucked it away in his library right off, with no one knowing about it. Since he was presented with, and asked to sign, a copy, we can't assume it was for no reason. In any case, we are only saying what the sources have given us. No more, no less. Copies were also distributed to members of Congress and the N.J. Legislature. Are we to assume Cooper didn't bother to tell anyone that the President had endorsed it? You've added a fair amount of content on abolitionist literature. All that was done beyond that was to provided a specific example, given the title, mentioning Washington had signed it. We don't say anything else beyond that in terms of significance. We give the readers a chance to do that for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777 : Any federal law effects the states. That's why there is a federal government. This is something so basic it shouldn't have to be recited for you. Besides, slaves were not citizens to begin with. You're attempting to take this out of context. Washington chose not to intervene with the states inasmuch as outlawing slavery was concerned. As for the tract, it was a message, even if written by the man in the moon, addressed to the government concerning slavery. Washington endorsed this particular tract. You can attempt to brush it off as inconsequential, but the fact remains that Washington endorsed this message, which was significant in the eyes of many – just as his presence at the Constitutional Convention was significant and compelled the states into sending delegates to the Convention and into accepting a national Constitution, unifying the states. Likewise, because it was Washington's signature on the tract it made it much more of a compelling statement. Once again, Washington's endorsement involves him in the overall effort to advance and give momentum to the abolitionist cause. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Washington signing the tract was signifigant. However, the truth is, the United States became more conservative under Washington with the Fugitive Slave Law and the Naturalization Act. Blacks could not become citizens. States could not harbor fugitive slaves. Other states could invade other states to retrieve slaves. There is a vast difference between federal law and a signature on a anonymous abolition track. Except for Washington's will, there was no statement on slavery. This may help. Washington not making a public statement on slavery might be ove. rstated, since his will was a public document. Will editing or debate on this section ever stop ? To get to FA this article needs to stabalize. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't initiate the debate, and I'm not the one trying to divert the issue with other side topics. Btw, Cooper signed his name in an anonymous fashion at first, but after he personally handed out copies to Washington, Congress, etc, it must of been quite clear the message it contained was his, or that of the Quakers in general. Either way, Washington's endorsement of the tract is indeed an endorsement against slavery. So are many of his letters and diary entries. It's not as if we're trying to advance some unheard of or bizarre idea. i.e.There are many things about Washington that fall right into place with his endorsement. Placating the south with various laws doesn't cancel out his views and sympathies here. –-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Information on abolitionism has been moved to the dedicated article. A section is devoted to Washington's sympathies to abolition in the George Washington and slavery article. The biography section needed to be reduced to get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Restored section, and removed Humphreys' quote. - Agree the section should only be quoting Washington in quote boxes. Also condensed information on abolitionist pamphlets, etc. Very nice coverage but it gets a bit too involved for purposes of our summary section. — Abolition info, however, needs to stay. This topic covers a major change in Washington's views. Removing it is tantamount to removing Washington's treatment and concern for slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The dedicated article covers the same material. There is no need to post the same information in the biography article. Besides, this section is on slavery. I suggest seperating the two subjects. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I seperated information on slavery, abolition, and slave emancipation into two sections. This allows the slavery section to be reduced in size. Also the reader can seperate these issues in the biography article and reduces confusion of the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry about the sources

Before I lodge an !vote, I'd like some clarity: do I perceive the situation accurately that Washington owned the pamphlet in question, and had signed his name upon the cover page, but that there is no indication of when or where he may have signed it or whether this "endorsement" was made in a public forum or even if it was publicly known in his lifetime that he owned, let alone signed, a copy? If I am understanding those facts more or less correctly, there is, at a minimum a need to correct the wording of the sentence in question, since it most definitely does imply a public endorsement contemporaneous with the publishing of the pamphlet.

As to the broader question of whether to mention the signed pamphlet at all, I'll reserve judgment until the inquiries above are addressed. I will say that I am somewhat of two minds on the question: on the one hand, Washington having embraced such a work, even privately, would be (even as historical matter after the fact) not insignificant. On the other hand, not every signature amounts to an endorsement, and if we don't have sources making a pretty clear, explicitly stated case for Washington having signed expressly for the purpose of marking his approval of the pamphlet's contents, there's a strong argument for not synthing that conclusion in ourselves. However, the "Washington also did these things which clearly conflict with such an outlook" are just as equally synth and original research generally: Washington would hardly be alone as a hypocrite regarding slavery among America's founding fathers and it's not our place as editors to decide what historical facts regarding the man are credible or relevant, based upon how they fit with the other facts known to us: for our purposes on this project, such determinations are the provenance of WP:reliable sources only. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Substantially, yes, your perception is correct. The most comprehensive source on this matter so far uncovered is François Furstenberg's Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks I've summarised five key points from that source above, and offer the following quotes from the source to support the most relevant to this issue:

• On the significance of Washington's signature on pamphlets he collected into the thirty-six volumes, of which Tracts on Slavery was one:

"Each of the volumes, without exception, bears Washington’s signature on the cover page of the first pamphlet..." (p. 252);

"The first pamphlet in Washington’s volume, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America..." (p. 263. The volume referred to here is Tracts on Slavery);

"Unlike the Granville Sharp texts Washington received in 1785, however, this one he did not set aside unopened. He signed it on the cover page and placed it first in the volume." (p. 264).

• On the provenance of the pamphlet:

"No evidence has come to light to confirm when or how Washington acquired this pamphlet, but it seems likely that the author sent it to him." (pp. 263–264)

But according to Sassi, whose comment on Furstenberg's article was subsequently printed in the same journal:

"On at least one occasion, there is firm evidence that Pleasants supplied Washington with antislavery literature, and the letter that Pleasants wrote on December 11, 1785, may well indicate how Washington obtained his copy of Cooper’s Serious Address," (p. 198)

and

"Thus, Robert Pleasants is a more likely suspect for the person who furnished George Washington with his copy of Cooper’s pamphlet, rather than Cooper himself as Furstenberg speculates." (p. 199)

These statements by Sassi bookend two paragraphs in which he makes his case that Serious Address could have been sent to Washington by Pleasants with that 1785 letter.

It's worth adding that the journal printed Furstenberg's response to Sassi at the end of the article: "I am enormously grateful to Jonathan D. Sassi for turning my article into a conversation, so to speak, with his learned and valuable account of Robert Pleasants’s role in disseminating antislavery opinion in Virginia..." (p. 201) Factotem (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington having embraced such a work, even privately, would be (even as historical matter after the fact) not insignificant. Indeed, the abolition literature that Washington possessed, of which Serious Address was just one, is significant, and was at one time accommodated in the article with the statement "In personal correspondence the next year, he made clear his desire to see the institution of slavery ended by a gradual legislative process, a view that correlated with the mainstream abolitionist theory found in antislavery literature published in the 1780s that Washington possessed." (My emphasis. That statement has since been edited to "...views that were expressed in his collection of abolitionist literature"). That statement was supported by a now deleted footnote (added with this edit - last tract of blue highlighted text) that went into the general significance of that literature, per Furstenberg's account. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

However, the "Washington also did these things which clearly conflict with such an outlook" are just as equally synth and original research generally... Not quite sure what you mean here, but the dichotomy between Washington's words and (in)actions are a theme in the sources, for example:

• "If, as is the case, Washington claimed to recognize that slavery was a violation of the principles on which the Revolution was based, and claimed as early as 1778 (for different reasons) to want to 'get clear of' or 'to get quit of Negroes,' why did he act on neither in his lifetime?" Philip Morgan, 2005, p. 406
• "As the war came to an end, the disconnection between what Washington knew in his heart to be true (that the American Revolution required the abolition of slavery) and his own behaviour (which was supportive of slavery) became starkly polarized." (P. Morgan 2005 p. 417)
• "But whatever his changing views, Washington, like many of his antislavery contemporaries, still let his own economic interests rule when they interfered with his principles." (In the context of his increasingly abolitionist sentiment contradicted by his continued dependency on slaves in the 1780s) Twohig
• "In 1786 Washington stated that it was 'a great repugnance" for him to buy more slaves, but then purchased six more." (Kenneth Morgan 2000 p. 289)
• "A major factor in Washington’s failure to put his growing opposition to slavery into practice in the 1790s..." (Twohig)
• "Indisputably, then, even on the eve of his death, Washington was far from giving up on slavery." (Morgan 2005 p. 424)
• "Similarly, during his presidency he had opposed federal action on a gradual emancipation scheme, despite a personal acknowledgement of its moral rightness, because the issue threatened to split the nation at the moment of its birth." (Ellis, 2004, p. 259)
• "To his credit Washington...gave at least private support to the idea of emancipation. But...it is far from likely that he was ever sorely tempted to open as a national issue the Pandora’s box that the Constitutional Convention appeared to contemporaries to have closed for the next twenty years." (Twohig)

A "hypocrite" characterisation is an oversimplification, if not an invalid modern-day projection. There were a number of practical reasons why Washington did not embrace either abolition or the emancipation of his own slaves during his lifetime, despite his expressions of support for the former and desire for the latter, and this issue is a significant theme in the sources.

Does that clarify things for you? Factotem (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the additional details regarding the background of the pamphlet in question and its role in Washington's collection--those confirmations rather cement my position a little. As to what I meant regarding the duality of Washinton's purported ideological support for slavery and his inaction, I meant only that it would not be permissible to use any conflicting positions we perceived, standing alone, as a adequate reason to avoid discussing the pamphlet. However, to the extent that the conflict of interests/cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy/however one chooses to frame it is itself a topic of discussion in the sources, obviously it is reasonable (and indeed expected) that we will cover it, with due WP:WEIGHT.

Getting to the crux of the matter now, my initial feelings are that making brief mention of the anti-slavery literature in Washington's collection, with an explanatory footnote discussing in finer detail what is known about the provenance of particular items, strikes me as perhaps the best middle ground between the various options available here. At what point and under what arguments was that approach abandoned previously? Is there currently a strong consensus against returning to that approach? I honestly, I could even see the argument for using the original full statement regarding Washington's correspondence, within the main prose: it seems like relevant information, though obviously it would need to be framed properly. But I'd rather first explore the territory more in the middle of the two extremes, which would be a footnote essentially relating the facts that you just detailed for me regarding the pamphlet in question, though obviously with some condensing required. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Footnote was removed in this edit. The same edit also changed

"...a view that correlated with the mainstream abolitionist theory found in antislavery literature published in the 1780s that Washington possessed."

to

"...views that were expressed in his collection of abolitionist literature."

though I do not see the problem with (my) original version.

The rationale for those changes was provided in this TP post. Factotem (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there currently a strong consensus against returning to that approach? See Talk:George_Washington#Significance_of_abolitionist_literature above. There appears to be a strong feeling that the statement being queried in this RfC should be in the article. I removed it once, but despite my explanation (pretty much the rationale I've outlined in this RfC), it was restored, hence this RfC. If the statement in the main narrative is handled correctly – and by that I mean, quite obviously, if my original perfectly constructed, almost poetic "a view that correlated" statement is used :) – then the footnote would, imo, be a useful explanatory detail but I could live without it. If there is any ambiguity in the main narrative to even vaguely imply that Washington's signing of the pamphlet was an endorsement of any kind, then I would expect the footnote to be restored. I don't think there's a need to move that footnote into the main narrative, either in full or in part, in this summary article, but that would depend on just how ambiguous the main statement is. Factotem (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits have been restored. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem : One editor made major deletions in the section, which included the footnote in question. I restored the section to its prior state, and then made some similar deletions, including the footnote. The coverage therein, as I said, is very good, but I too felt that it was a bit lengthy for our section. However, if there is a reasoned consensus to keep it I can live with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Snow : Agree, we can mention what is known about the literature, with mention of the tract specifically addressed to the government, which Washington signed and placed at the top of his collection, with the various points of coverage in the footnote. Since we don't know exactly when the tract in question was signed, who actually gave it to Washington, and when his signature was discovered (if not already known) all we can do is make simple mention of what is known and covered by the sources, and as I said before, let the readers make decisions about its significance for themselves. That Washington had a collection of abolitionist literature, and signed the tract in question seems significant enough to at least mention it with a sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with mentioning the tract was "specifically addressed to the government" or anything similar relating to whom the tract was addressed/distributed, even in the footnote. It's not relevant to this story, and could introduce ambiguity about the significance of the tract's presence in Washington's private collection. Factotem (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Indeed, that seems like a balanced approach to me as well. I actually think introducing a certain amount of explicit mention about what is not known into the footnote (in addition to the more affirmative prose about what is known that is more appropriate to above the line content) might actually be very useful. One has to be careful of introducing original research by over-emphasizing a negative, but with care, sometimes using footnotes which explain the sourcing almost as expressly as we would here on the talk page can be useful to the reader.

Factotem: That also seems like a reasonable distinction: I agree that that, especially as concerns the above the line content, there is potential for confusion if we state that the pamphlet was specifically addressed to the government. Again here, I think the footnote may be of use, as there may be a way to note the context of what the pamphlet was, including its intended audience and purpose, while also expressly noting that historical review of the document and of Washington's copy in particular has evidence no clear explanation for when and how it came into Washington's possession. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: That Washington had a collection of abolitionist literature, and signed the tract in question seems significant enough to at least mention it with a sentence. Would I be right in understanding this means you still believe Cooper's tract and Washington's signing of it are significant enough to mention in the main narrative (i.e. not just in the footnote, but "above the fold")? Factotem (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cmguy777 : Making a separate section for abolition seems like a good idea, as information concerning the subject has indeed come out of the woodwork from a number of sources. I tweaked the section title and level as explained in edit history. i.e.The topic of 'Abolition' is really a sub topic to the general subject of 'Slavery' and should be covered in a subsection under it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Yes. The whole idea was to make the slavery section smaller for FA review, at the same time, devoting space or subsection for abolition information. That is fine about the subsection.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry about the sources, cont

Factotem : The title of the tract reads, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery. Though it says "Rulers", and not "government", it would be a little off to say it wasn't addressed to the government. Moreover, copies were handed out to Washington and Congress. That it was addressed to the 'Rulers' and that Washington chose to sign it, gives us more than enough reason to cover it with a sentence. The speculation that it "could introduce ambiguity about the significance of the tract's presence in Washington's private collection.", is hardly a reason to suppress the title from the readers. Moreover, not mentioning the title could leave the reader wondering about the significance of the tract in question. Simply saying Washington 'possessed antislavery literature' not only lacks comprehensiveness and context, it likely would introduce ambiguity about the scope and public reach of the collection. In any case, I removed the phrase "addressed to the U.S. government" so the sentence in question simply relates the title, which is self explanatory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington was head of the government for two terms from 1789 to 1797. Did Washington do anything for abolitionism while he was President ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Snow : Thanks for the concern. All references to the abolitionist tract are covered in secondary and established sources. No synthesis has been introduced into the text. We don't say Washington's signature helped pave the way for abolitionist laws, and otoh, we don't say that Washington did nothing for abolition by appeasing the south with various laws to preserve national unity. That indeed would be original research. We can and do say that Washington, via his correspondence, indicated that he would of supported any abolitionist legislature that was advanced. None was ever forthcoming unfortunately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Taylor 2016 says Washington appeased the South to prevent a Civil War or preserve national unity. Washington did not support the anti-slavery tracts. We can't deny this information. Washington was a conservative President concerning slavery. The signature was never published during his lifetime but remained at Mount Vernon. We can't paint Washington into an abolitionist President. He shuffled his own slaves around to keep them enslaved in Philadelphia bypassing Philadelphia law. All of the unending arguementation is keeping Washington from FA. Historians, regardless of slavery, rank Washington in the top four Presidents. We should not have any synthesis such as Washington aided abolitionists especially when the signature was kept private. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There are no statements that amount to Synthesis or Original Research in the article. Wasn't it you who added a dedicated section for Abolition and emancipation?  Re: your above quote – "Washington did not support the anti-slavery tracts". Unless you can show a RS that nails this idea, in no uncertain terms, this only amounts to speculation and more Original Research. Washington signed, among others, the most important one, (i.e.A Serious Address to the Rulers...) and thought enough about them that he had them bound together with elaborate binding and kept them in his private library. He also lent his praise and sympathy to the Quaker authors, but remained quiet in the public eye, for reasons we've discussed numerous times here in Talk. Also, there are no sources that say Washington's signature was kept private. This seems like yet more of your Original Research. We can't add anything that amounts to Synthesis or Original Research to the article. You tell us you want to get to FA, yet you hand us this, typically underestimating the intelligence of fellow editors. Same old hat. i.e."unending argumentation". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is just denial. Washington was President. Why did he not publically show he signed the tract. He appeased the South according to Taylor 2016, not the abolitionists. At some point you have to go public. Washington did in his 1799 will that was a public document. He deserves credit for that. His slaves were freed by his will and by his wife Martha. The reader might view Washington a divided man over slavery. But the reality is that while he was President he was a conservative. Washington did not publically support the anti-slavery tracts. Many of the founders claimed to support liberty and yet hold slaves. That is a paradox. Morgan 2000 says Washington signed the tract. That is all that needs to be said in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Washington was "divided" between slavery and going public and threatening the unity of the nation. This was his situation during the Constitutional Convention, where he remained siltet on the issue. He was dealing with the same explosive issue during his presidency. How many times must this be explained for you? Washington was one man in the center of a hurricane. He was not a dictator who could snap his fingers and disolve slavery amongst the various states. In any case, we're wandering off into other areas. Washington had more than a passing leaning towards abolition, as is evidenced with his associations with Lafayette, Hamilton, Cooper, Benezet and others. Re your above quote: "He appeased the South according to Taylor 2016, not the abolitionists." The abolitionists were a group of people, Quakers largely. 'The south' were a group of entire states. Apples and oranges. Once again, there are no statements that amount to Synthesis or Original Research in the article. Enough endless talk. Is there something, specific, per sources, that you wish to add to, or remove, from our article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Washington had leanings toward abolitionism for his own slaves. He did free his slave by his will. Put publically he had many opportunities to tell people he supported abolitionism. There is no record that he did. Washington had power as President to help their cause such as support the anti-slavery tracts. I have not found any sources that say he supported the abolitionist tracts while he was President. Taylor 2016 says Washington supported Southern slavery interests while President. The Slavery section could use more clarification. As far as "apples and oranges" both are fruits. An apple (Rosaceae) is a pome fruit. An orange (Rutaceae) is a hesperidium fruit, a modified berry. Maybe a better expression would be "apples and carrots". An apple is a fruit and a carrot is a vegetable. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Rubbish. Washington entertained the idea and had more than passing sympathies for abolition overall, not for just his own slaves. This is well established in secondary and primary sources. How would Congress go about passing laws for abolition for 'some' slaves and not those of others? Once again, Washington did not go public for national unity concerns. You should learn someday that this also is covered in numerous secondary sources. You were asked if there was something that needed to be added or removed, per sources. We've only said what the sources say. There are no statements that amount to Synthesis or Original Research in the article. Along with your belaboring of a simple figure of speech, your responses have become redundant, evasive and a bit scattered for someone who expects us to believe you have genuine concerns about "unending argumentation". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My friends, if I am to put it plainly, you're both coming at this from rather a charged perspective and focusing on arguments that are tangential at best to the live editorial issue here. We're not here to debate what Washington should have done and what his success or failure in doing so says about the sincerity and/or depth of his commitment to this or that principle. I think, as suggested, we should stick rather to reviewing the state of particular content. For my part, I think that the current approach of discussing the origin of the bound volume and its potential meaning in the footnote works as a general matter. I will say that said footnote does read as being...--how do I put it?--enthusiastic about the idea that the volume was of some significant meaning to Washington. Now, hopefully that is simply an accurate reflection of the Furstenberg source cited therein; I have only now seen the first page and synopsis, so I cannot really attest as to that. However, I wouldn't object to shortening/tightening that description some, regardless. It's not over the line into OR, particularly if Furstenberg is particularly explicit in having a similar interpretation, but I do think it's tone could be a little more encyclopedic.

Afterall, there is an argument to be made here under WP:ONUS that even if the statement is sources, maybe, as a summary of historical fact regarding Washingon, we should question whether we should be reserving space to forward open speculation: even if that speculation is not our own (and thus not WP:OR), we still don't have to include it. In other words, there is still the WP:WEIGHT factor to consider. Personally, I don't mind mentioning the volume, and I don't mind discussing its origins, but I do see the argument for being reserved in trying to speak for long-dead historical figures. Perhaps some collaboration in this regard might ease Cmguy's concerns and bring us to a meeting of the minds? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not have a problem removing the footnote entirely, if specific mention of the Cooper tract is also removed from the main narrative (the question being posed by this RfC). The key takeaway from Furstenberg is that the views Washington expressed about abolition correlated with those espoused by the abolitionist literature he chose to include in the Tracts on Slavery volume. That part of Furstenberg's paper is not speculation. The relevant quotes from Furstenberg are:

In their exclusion of radical opinion, either immediatist or proslavery, they [the six pamphlets Washington chose to include in the volume] correlate closely with Washington’s thinking.

(p. 273)

Washington’s views correlated closely to many of the main currents of transatlantic antislavery thought and action.

(p. 284)

Also relevant is the fact that Furstenberg is less certain about the significance of the literature in shaping Washington's views:

Correlation is not causation, and it is impossible to say whether the readings in this volume might have influenced Washington’s decisions. Nevertheless the overlap between what these pamphlets collectively argued and Washington’s actions regarding slavery and emancipation is certainly striking.

(p. 274)

I believe these themes can, as I have proposed, be usefully accommodated in the article by the statement:

In personal correspondence the next year, he made clear his desire to see the institution of slavery ended by a gradual legislative process, a view that correlated with the mainstream antislavery literature published in the 1780s that Washington possessed.

Factotem (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Talking of speculation, a number of arguments have been made by Gwillhickers that Cooper's tract and Washington's signing of it are significant enough to warrant a mention in the main narrative, but I have yet to see them supported by any sources. Statements such as It was one of Washington's ways of prompting the government into considering abolition legislation..., the claim that Washington was asked to sign a copy and that Signing the tract puts Washington squarely on the historical page of abolition have no basis in any source I have seen (and it is Washington's own statements, expressed from 1785, that actually meant "Washington was now on record endorsing the abolition of slavery," according to Philip Morgan, p. 419). In the case of Washington's ...praise and sympathy to the Quaker authors..., that is specifically contradicted by Twohig's statement, "In general he did not give a warm reception to gadflys–especially Quaker gadflys–and the tone of many of the antislavery appeals with which he was deluged in the l780s and l790s, combining imperious demands with evangelical piety, were not likely to incline him in their favor." This also casts doubt on claims of Washington's ...associations with...Cooper, Benezet... (both Quakers), claims that are also not supported by any sources I have seen. Factotem (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

All Morgan 2000 says on page 291 that Washington in 1783 did not find abolition "an extreme or forlorn hope." That is the only signifigance of signing the Cooper tract. Morgan does not mention the date Washington signed the tract. What is getting lost is that Washington while President was conservative concerning slavery. He sided with Southern interests. He signed the Fugitive Slave law He bipassed Philadelphia abolition law (1780) to keep his own slaves while President, Morgan pages 296-297. Washington had an antipathy to runaway slaves, Morgan page 297. There is no evidence that Washington supported abolition while President in any public matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Our article already says, In personal correspondence the next year, he made clear his desire to see the institution of slavery ended by a gradual legislative process, a view that correlated with the mainstream antislavery literature published in the 1780s that Washington possessed. According to Furstenberg, Cooper didn't call for slaves to be freed immediately, that it had to be a process and be a legislative process, as we already say. Furthermore, Furstenburg relies on heavy qualifications throughout, he admits no evidence exists as to how Washington interpreted the tracts (p. 252), he admits that of the almost 4000 titles about George Washington in the Library of Congress only a single one mentions the bound tracts and that source focuses on another in the collection (p. 248, note 1). I believe mentioning the specific tract by name is undue, and frankly is comes across as a factoid that leaves the reader scratching their head and wondering what it's doing there. So a lengthy note is needed to explain. And then we are told, repeatedly that because Washington signed the tract he endorsed it, although zero evidence exists to corroborate that. That might be right; it might not. Regardless, it's moot because we have a responsibility to satisfy WP:V, a responsibility not to jump to conclusions, not to lead the readers, etc. Victoria (tk) 20:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

After all the work that was done covering abolitionist literature, in footnotes, etc, the suggestion that it now might be removed seems confused. It was already removed once, by myself, and then restored by another editor. Are we going to delete it yet again. We're now playing musical chairs with this. Further, as was said before, the Serious Address.to the "rulers" of America..., regarding their slave holding practice, with copies handed out to Washington and Congress, is telling in of itself, and is an established fact. It clearly reflects the growing controversy over slavery at that point in time. That Washington signed it, is even more telling and is another established fact. However, no one, including myself, has added any "speculation", conjecture or original research along that line. Otoh, nothing but speculation, not facts, has been offered, once again, that this information might be removed. This debate is repeating itself, yet again. This topic, Washington's abolitionist literature, his signing, has been pecked at for too long. The entire Talk page, and the some of the archives preceding it, are a mile long and devoted to Slavery, most of it currently about abolition. At this late date, unless there are factual errors to tend to, this perpetual, long winded, redundant and "unending argumentation" needs to come to a close soon. If the arguing and instability continues at this prolonged rate we could very well see the GA status go down the drain in the process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not confused, nor is my reasoning. Victoria (tk) 21:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nor is mine. The arguments for removing the facts in question are speculative and are repeating themselves. This is not even a pressing issue inasmuch as we're perpetuating a falsehood. All we've done is include a few facts, with no Synthesis or OR involved. Once again, at this late date, unless there are factual errors that need fixing, this perpetual, highly opinionated and "unending argumentation" should cease, if for anything, for article stability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Victoriaearle. The article suggests there might be significance and recommends further study (which we will probably see from the author in due course). Mentioning it ascribes significance it may not have. We should await further study.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

editbreak

We should not remove sourced facts on the notion that it 'may not have significance'. The significance is rather self evident, given the title, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery, and the fact that copies were handed out to Washington, Congress and the New Jersey legislature. It's also common knowledge that when you endorse something you approve of it. The Serious Address contained numerous references and parallels to the revolutionary ideals expressed in:
  • Declaration of Independence of 1776
  • Congressional Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms, 1775
  • Congressional Declaration of Rights and Grievances, 1774
  • Declaration of the Rights of Pennsylvania, 1776
  • Declaration of the Rights of Massachusetts, 1779.
Cooper placed quotations from these side by side with his arguments. This was addressed to the US Government (or "rulers" if you prefer}. It was based on and appealed to the precepts the rulers were expected to embrace – the Serious Address wasn't some simple soap-box plea to end slavery. Given its scope, much significance is attached to this document. However, we don't say anything in terms of the significance of Washington's signature, all we do is present the simple facts. We should have more than speculations about significance before thinking about removing the statement, permitting the readers to draw any conclusions on their own. This is more than a fair compromise. i.e.No speculations, just the general facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• DeBusk, Krristin (2004). An Ordinary Man in Extraordinary Times: David Cooper's Fight against Slavery (PDF). University of Texas.
• Davis, David Brion (1999). The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1980-2949-6.

• Entire text of : A Serious Address to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery

The signifigance of the signature according to Morgan (2000) page 291 is that Washington did not view abolitionism as "an extreme or forlorn hope." Also, what good is Washington's signature when his signature on the document remained in Washington's private library ? Did anyone even know Washington signed the document ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington signed the first pamphlet in each of the fifty-odd volumes of bound pamphlets found in his library. The reasons he picked those pamphlets to be first is not known. I'm not sure why we would mention the signed pamphlet, while neglecting the remaining tracts in the volume and the ones that were left unbound, if not for the inference that Washington agreed or at least strongly sympathized with it, which we do not know.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• The reason Washington placed the Serious Address ' pamphlet at the top, given its contents with its title and message specifically addressed to the Rulers of America, is sort of self apparent. He certainly didn't sign it and place it at the top for no reason. (i.e.Ho-Hum?) Once again, we can not include any speculating in the article about why he did it, only that he did. That and the contents of the Serious Address....', which quotes the Declaration of Independence, and other revolutionary documents and precepts, will give the readers enough to make up their own minds. All we need to know is that Washington signed it, placed it at the top and had all the pamphlets bound together in elaborate binding. It doesn't matter that no one may not have known about it at the time he signed it, the fact remains, he did these things, per Frustenburg, 2011, p.250-251. As for the significance of the Serious Address ' , considering its quotes and overall message, with copies handed out to Washington and Congress, that too is rather self evident. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• We have a least six sources that cover to one degree or another Washington and Cooper's Abolitionist tract. They evidently thought the topic was significant enough to cover:   Morgan, 2000, p.291-292;   Hayes, 2017, p.235;   DeBusk, 2004, p.24;   Davis, 1999, p.281;   Frustenburg, 2011, p. 250-251;  Jackson & Kozel, 2016, p.145. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Hagiography"

Cmguy777, re: your last edits: Your attempts to remove context under the guise of not employing "hagiography" has proven to be something of a constant disruption. Once again, covering facts in the same manner the sources do, with simple non-embellished or non-exaggerated statements, is not "hagiography". Please consult any dictionary and familiarize yourself with the term. We are not writing about a saint, but a human being, for better or worse. Nor are we trying to transform Washington into a saint by simply saying what the sources say. At this point it's been more than obvious that you have, all along, made attempts to remove context under the claim of "neutrality" and "hagiography", just as you attempted to do here in this rather definitive and revealing example. I'm sorry, but at this point such constant usage of these terms really mean nothing to me. No pressing reason for the removal of important context was offered. Meanwhile we say what multiple sources say and include important and historical context. FA criteria maintains we present the topic in context. Please come to terms with telling the whole truth. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. You mentioned my name. I have removed hagiography or what you call context. I am not crying wolf. A whole subsection full of information has been added to make Washington look like he was an abolitionist, when in fact he was only an abolitionist in 1799, when he made his last will. And yes. He tore up his old will on his death bed. By his will he freed over 160 slaves. That is not in dispute, but to make most of his adult life look like he was a kind hearted abolistionist-slave owner is not historically accurate. Washington reinforced slavery with the Fugitive Slave Act while President. He sided against the aboltionist. He used the government to track down Oney Judge. He bipassed Philadelphia's emancipation law. Aside from this Wikipedia is a summary article. The slavery section is bloated. You won't even allow trimming in this article. We can't live in denial that Washington worked and owned slaves. He was a strict taskmaster. You add hagiographic information to make Washington look like an abolitionsist. When he was an abolitionist only in 1799. That is hagiography. I am not a denialist or try to present Washington for someone he was not in the article. You want me to tell your truth in the aritcle. I say what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, do you understand what Cmguy777 has been accusing you of in this article? See main article hagiography: "However, when referring to modern, non-ecclesiastical works, the term hagiography is often used as a pejorative reference to biographies and histories whose authors are perceived to be uncritical of or reverential to their subject." Basically, he/she considers you overly biased and claims that you present a reverential image of Washington. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have found it useful, when writing about slaveholders in articles intended for FAC, to begin with a bald statement that they held human slaves because that is the bottom line. Other articles can differ of course, but that is what I have found to be useful. See James K. Polk#Polk and slavery and George Mason#Views on slavery.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure Gwillhickers is on board for FAC. I said Washington owned and worked slaves to start the section. That was deleted. Gwillhickers says: " He came to own African slaves and made use of slave labor throughout his adult life." That is much nicer wording. Why not just say Washington owned and worked slaves. Gwillhickers also makes a general statement of how "many patriots recognized the gap between the ideals of liberty and slavery, as expressed by his close friends Lafayette and Hamilton, leading to his apparent and gradual disapproval of the institution." Why bring in Hamilton and Lafayette in the first paragraph ? This is the first sentence: "Washington was born into a world largely accustomed to slave labor and accepted the practice without question." It takes the edge off slavery. You see it is not Washington's fault he owned slaves. It is Virginias. This is what I call hagiography. The fact also is I feel whatever edits I make will be overturned by Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Cmguy777, the reason we don't use blunt statements like " Washington owned and worked slaves", period, is because it presents the topic out of context, and feeds on many of the modern days stigmas and distortions that have emerged, esp via the media. If you feel that clarifying the idea with context amounts to "nicer wording" you are only exemplifying that you have issues with context and relating the whole truth. All you've done here is exemplify what I've pointed out before regarding your approach to editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I just feel that if you start off with the frank admission, you establish more trust with the reader than if you dance around the point. The reader, in my view anyway, is then more likely to accept, rather than dismiss, the context. This is late in the article and the reader is probably coming here because of specific interest in the topic, rather than reading through. I'd give them what they came here for, straight out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The slavery section does start off with a "frank" statement, i.e. that Washington was born into a world largely accustomed to slavery, that he accepted the practice without question, and that he used slaves his entire adult life. As for "hagiography", at this late date no one has pointed to any statement where an untruth has been advanced to this effect, nor have they pointed to an actual factual statement that has been embellished or exaggerated in such manner. All along only the context that the sources have covered has been included. e.g. Washington, while keeping slaves, still came to regard the practice as immoral, at the same time he looked after and supported many slaves he had no use for, esp the elderly and children. This is the sort of context some individuals would like to see removed from the article and refer to it as "hagiography". I'm really no longer interested in the opinions, or any accusations, regarding "hagiography", as this term has been (ab)used so much it now comes off like graffiti, with nothing factual to back it up. I've only tried to say what the sources say, without any exaggerations or twists, unlike one editor who has routinely and consistently tried to suppress these things. Then he turns around and accuses me of working against FA, while he routinely attempts to delete and suppress context, reopens past issues, and brings instability to the article, once again. i.e.Yes, we have no bananas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The term hagiography has not been abused. Two editors Wehwalt and Cmguy777 believe the direct approach is best. It is certain nothing can be said to convince Gwillhickers otherwise. Washington took care of the elderly and children slaves. That makes slavery look like a day care center. Why did not Washington give his slaves freedom while he was alive? Wehwalt is right. We can't dance around slavery. The article can't even open that Washington owned slaves. There has to be some "context" that makes Washington a victim of society that allowed slavery. Washington was not an abolitionist fully until he ordered his old will destroyed and kept his 1799 emancipation will. The article makes it look like Washington was a secret abolitionist all along. Washington said he found slavery repugnant, but he did not free one of them while he was alive. The real issue here is not slavery. It is the ability to freely edit to get Washington to FA. That includes the slavery section. Attacking me personally in the talk page does not help matters. This really is all about who controls the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to interpret context as something that is untrue. If taking care of the children and the elderly makes Washington's efforts look like a "day care center" this is a notion you will have to deal with. We mention that Washington accepted the practice without question, the whippings, attempts at retrieving slaves, etc. We also don't refer to Washington as an actual abolitionist, only that he had strong leanings to the prospect, which is covered by multiple sources. Again, please don't read your notions into matters. You have indeed abused the term "hagiography", facts covered by the sources, repeatedly, as you have yet to provide any actual example of "hagiography" - just rhetorical accusations, still. Show us where my assertion here is wrong. Obviously you are trying to include only the negative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to "deal" with anything. What you call "context", could be your POV or hagiography. A lot of weight has been put on Washington and abolitionism in this article. The reader would most certainly think Washington was an abolitionist prior to him freeing his slaves in 1799. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

More opinion. We say what multiple sources say, and I've only included what the sources say. That is not "hagiography", esp since no exaggerations or embellishments were made. Again, there is plenty of coverage about whippings, retrieval of slaves, poor housing, Washington never speaking out against slavery, etc, etc. This has been explained for you numerous times, so it goes you are only behaving in a disgruntled and rather defiant capacity. Easy to see. Otoh, you've made repeated attempts to delete what the sources say, and typically in cases that involve my edits that include context. That is clearly reverse hagiography, which more than explains your overall assessment of context in general. I've asked you to cite specific examples of "hagiography", and all you are handing us, still, is opinionated conjecture, with no actual examples to back it up. The only POV I have is that of the sources. Your opinion of this event has been a little revealing, as is your approach to editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed the hagiography: 1. "many patriots recognized the gap between the ideals of liberty and slavery, as expressed by his close friends Lafayette and Hamilton, leading to his apparent and gradual disapproval of the institution." Hamilton and Lafayette are thrown into the mix to make Washington look like an abolitionist. 2. "Washington was born into a world largely accustomed to slave labor and accepted the practice without question." It takes away the responsibility of Washington owning slaves. 3. "He came to own African slaves and made use of slave labor throughout his adult life." Just say Washington owned and worked slaves. Your phrasing eases off the slavery part, "made use of" and "came to own African slaves", make Washington look like a third party rather than a slave owner. These have already been mentioned above. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is yet another one of your notions. There is nothing in the statement that even suggests Washington was a "third party". You need to start speaking in terms of facts, and assert more than fuzzy opinion if you expect your Talk to really amount to anything. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://jgmalcolm.com/washington-a-life. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation tag necessary?

@StudiesWorld: Since you duly reverted the copyright violation in question, was it really necessary to put a "Blatant copyright violations" tag at the top of the entire article? The edit in question has been removed. What else was to be accomplished by taging the article? The user in question is obviously a new-be. Seems your exclamatory warning here would be more suitable on the Talk page of the user that added the text in question, which is how things like this are usually handled. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the purpose of the tag is simply to request revision deletion from an administrator under WP:RD1. When an administrator reviews and processes the request, they will remove the tag. Until that time, it should remain. Unfortunately, there is no better process. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You removed the edit in question, so this doesn't make much sense. What is any Administrator going to do now? Appreciate you looking out, but it seems the billboard like tag is a bit overkill and unnecessary at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. This isn't something I do every day so if anything needs to be altered, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thanks for getting to it. You will also need to revdel 904944427 since it was an intermediary edit. Other than that, it looks fine to me. Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That's done too. No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, an administrator can delete the revision, so that it won't even show up in the page history. This is generally preferred when removing copyright violations. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)