From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1699 law deporting free blacks?

In the page about John_Casor, this unattributed sentence appears: "In 1699 Virginia passed a law deporting all free blacks."

I was hoping to find out more detail (or at least confirmation) of this, but am dissappointed. If anyone has more information about this, then this page would seem to be an appropriate place to put it.

It would seem that 'slavery' (or indentured servitude)was, and indeed social relations generally were, relatively color-blind in the early days, but that changed over the course of the first century.

There are interesting comparisons and contrasts to be made in relation to race relations, in this early English colony in North America, and other, later European colonies, such as Australia and New Caledonia.

(not for this article of course, but it was investigating this subject that brought me to this page) 101.117.107.173 ( talk) 06:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced that laws deporting free black has much to do with slavery in Virginia. However, if you or someone else can provide a reliable source that verifies that information, then I'm sure we can use it to find a context in which such a statement would be appropriate in this particular article. Be sure to post on the John Casor talk page too, since that's where the information was found. Maybe someone there might have a source to provide. If no source can be found to verify that statement, then it should probably be removed from that page and wouldn't merit consideration for this page. Scoobydunk ( talk) 09:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Indian slaves

The colonists tried to enslave Native Americans and did for a period. This should be acknowledged in this article. One reason the people in Virginia imported Africans as slaves was because of not being successful with Native Americans. Parkwells ( talk) 17:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I encourage you to make a section that explores this aspect of Native American servitude using proper sources. Scoobydunk ( talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I know that you wrote this a long time ago, Parkwells, but if you can take a look at the Native American section of the article it would be helpful if you have some specific comments or suggestions.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi, CaroleHenson -I will try to look at it soon. Parkwells ( talk) 18:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Virginia economy and sale of slaves

The 18th and 19th-century portion of this article needs to acknowledge VA's changing economy, as it shifted to mixed agriculture due to tobacco having exhausted the soil. Many planters sold surplus slaves in the domestic slave trade, as part of the forced migration of one million African-American slaves to the Deep South in the antebellum years. The article seems to end abruptly in the late 17th century, without providing data on numbers of whites, slaves and free people of color in future centuries. There is more info in the main article on VA. Parkwells ( talk) 16:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Parkwells. Great points. Lots of work in that direction. It would be good to get your take following a major expansion.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Farrar account

" Nicholas Ferrar wrote a contemporaneous text Sir Thomas Smith's Misgovernment of the Virginia Company (first published by the Roxburghe Club in 1990)." This is generally not held to be a basic text on slavery in VA. In one place the editor says it was published in 1990, but the citation said that it was unpublished. Are there other sources that support questions about extension of indentures for whites? Its significance for the history of slavery in VA needs to be more fully explained. Parkwells ( talk) 17:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I put it into a note. It is sounding like the note should be removed entirely - for several reasons. Is that right?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
 Done, I removed it.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Indentured Servant to Slave

The first paragraph from this section is paraphrased directly from Foner's work and is appropriately attributed. I removed information that wasn't explicitly written or asserted by Foner, and showed to have no relevance to the transition of the Negro from indentured servant into slave. Foner does write about courts releasing slaves from bondage if they were baptized and became Christian and Foner discusses how this exception from slavery was abolished. However, this was after the concept of a lifetime slave was already established and should be its own section possibly titled, "Christian Exception" or something of the sort. I don't see where Foner discussed the slaves brought over in 1619 were Baptize by the Spanish, nor did he write anything about the "British Isles", so I removed that information from the section. Scoobydunk ( talk) 19:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Scoobydunk, Interesting points. I think it would be helpful to be clearer about the "Christian exception". Would you be interested in working on that?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of slavery in Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of slavery in Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Recent edits

I copied over some content that I had in an article about Slavery at Tuckahoe plantation (possibly getting merged into Tuckahoe (plantation) or another article), that is more appropriate to be in this article, as it concentrates on slavery in Virginia. So, you'll see a lot of content you had not need before that helps provide context about the nature of slavery.

As I started working the changes in, I realized that there is too much focus on indentured servants. It almost makes it seem as if indentured servitude was common for African Americans. There's a fair amount of confusion about content for enslaved people vs. free people. I made an entire section for Freedom - what ways a person may be freed, and life once free.

I am making some copy edits and summarizing content so that more content can be added into the article that really gets into what an enslaved person's life was like, the slave trade, and round out freedom/emancipation/manumission a bit.

This will take some more work, but I think that there's a lot of great content, it just needs a bit of massaging and focus. I am adding cited content + adding citations for existing, non-cited content. Any questions or suggestions, please comment here - it would be so good to touch based on this article. And there's so many great sources to add to round out the article.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply

There were also some unusual sources. I cam also working to improve the sources.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 08:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey, Deisenbe! Thanks so much for your edits about Alexandria and Emancipation. Do you have sources for that information? If not, that's okay, once I get further along I'll find sources for any remaining uncited content. But if you referred to something specifically, it would save me some time.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't have anything in mind. deisenbe ( talk) 18:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Okay, I will get to it if I don't stumble onto it be running through sources. I hope you're doing well.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The section on Food is way too positive. Given pork? Most slaves got no meat unless they stole it. There were a lot of people very marginally fed, and clothed. deisenbe ( talk) 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, it all depends what part of the pork that they get. I am thinking that they did not get pork loins, but parts that I would not eat. I am still working my way through the article, but I'll add that to my to-do list. Thanks for checking in on that, I really appreciate the reality check. Do you have a good source for food?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 23:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I just remembered, I thought I read somewhere that people only got meat (or something with a bit of meat on it) two times a week.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't have the reference, but I've read slave statements saying that they (some slaves) got none at all, unless they stole it. See Chitlins#United States and Soul food. deisenbe ( talk) 11:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I still have some more to add, but I found a good source here about Booker T. Washington's take on the diet and with this and another source that I added, they said that corn and pork were prevalent in the diet. I think the point is, though, that they didn't get enough of it. Washington, if he didn't have enough food for breakfast, would get some of the boiled corn made up for the pigs and cows before the animals were fed. I did see in one source that they ate chitterlings, but I just considered that one of many parts of a pig. I could call it out, though. I will take a look at both links and pull across anything helpful with sources.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC) reply
See what you think now, Deisenbe. I think the section is much better now! Thanks much for the input.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Edits made May 13

Deisenbe,

1. I don't know what you mean by this "Slavery in Virginia was unknown before the arrival of Europeans in the seventeenth century. Correct?" But no, slavery was not unknown before the arrival of the Europeans in the 17th century:

  • Native Americans took members of opposing tribes as slaves before the arrival of any Europeans.
  • In southwestern US - particularly the present-day site of New Mexico - there were some people who were taken as slaves, particularly if they were the mixed-race of Spanish and Native Americans.

2. Thanks for the copy edits! I am going through the rest of the article to ensure that the edits fit what came from the cited sources.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

As an FYI, I only type in info that I am getting from cited sources, not what I know from personal knowledge, like that indentured servants paid off their passage. I think what I'll do is start a list of things not taken from the cited sources. You make good points, but it would help a lot that if you're adding a lot that changes the meaning, you could find a source for that info.

3. I get that you like to capitalize "black" and since we talked about it awhile ago, I see that some people capitalize it too. For consistency, I capitalized "white" as well.

4. I am removing duplicate points. Perhaps we can take a look where I am doing that to see where the best place for the points should be.

5. Transatlantic trade

Re: the explain tag, I put in a direct quote which is so much better than my wonky attempt to paraphrase it. Removed the tag.
I am not quite getting the info that you wove into cited content, so I am adding it here. Do you have a source and some editing for: "The only restriction on the slave trade that the framers of the United States Constitution could agree on was a prohibition on slave imports, but even this would not take effect for 20 years. Virginia prohibited the transatlantic slave trade in ____; 20 years later the only state which still imported slaves from Africa was South Catolina. This was prohibited on the earliest day the Constitution permitted, Jaruary 1, 1808. Virginia benefited greatly from the internal slave trade which grew up to replace it."
Virginia's effects and benefits are named in other places in the article. I do think though, that this would be great addition if 1) there is a source and 2) the content is complete (blank line, I think for the year).

I would like to say that I am absolutely appreciating your copy edits!!!! Lots of good wordsmithing. Saves me a lot of work when I do a read-though at the end of all my edits. (I dread the read-through after I have finished working on an article and am gobsmacked at times by how I worded something. I have two conditions that make me fuzzy, skip words, etc.) –– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

If you could find sources for the content that you added, that would help a lot.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Minor copy edits. No change to meaning.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Deisenbe, Oh my goodness, more changes made without sources. Please don't do that. It's disruptive editing. I reverted your edits here. If you want to summarize what you're trying to do, I will find sources, but it is greatly unfair to expect me to continue to sort out where you kept the original cited content and where new verbiage is woven in.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I returned some of your edits - copy edits. Removed the part about forced and coerced sex - it just confused the matter and reads a lot better without it. The biggest issue seems to be the Offenses section. I'll take a look at that as I bear in mind your other thoughts / suggestions.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Navigation template

Deisenbe, Did you see the {{ Slavery in Virginia}}? Do you have any additions / changes that would be helpful?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Deisenbe,
Excellent additions and edits. Thanks so much!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I took off the under construction tag on this article (n/a to the template), because I think it's somewhere between 80 to 92% done. There are still a couple of places where citations are needed and some of the sections need a bit of expansion to round it out - but it's getting there. I've got a few articles that I am looking to add that will link here - the smaller articles created from scratch are fun for me.
It would be great to get your feedback on what you think needs to be done. You're a great cross-check for me, if you don't mind.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Input re: the article

Since you asked:

  • There needs to be more on enslavement and sale (export) of Native Americans. The article shouldn't start with Black slavery.
Comments below. Great point!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I am confused by this. What are you trying to say? That sentence should be in the article? please clarify– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • "It was not uncommon to have girls of 13 years of age to begin being bred, and she continued to be bred until she delivered 15 children." The way it's put overlooks the horror of it. There's a lot like that.
What? That doesn't make you cringe? How would you reword it?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There's a lot that is not about slavery in Virginia, it's about American slavery in general. I removed Harriet Jacobs as she has no link to Virginia.
You were sooo right! I got confused.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Could say more about West Virginia, which was part of Virginia until 1862-63 (depending on county).
I haven't meaned to exclude it. A citation is needed somewhere in article about people moving west. I will look for it then. (i.e., a to do) (bolded for me)
 Done - See the Plantation economy section.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Doesn't say much on the shortcomings of slave life - no school, no reading or writing, no mail, no books, not even the Bible, no organizations, no leaders. No meetings or groups without white supervision. You were a prisoner and could not leave without written permission. Routine forced separations for life from family members that you never heard from or about. Family members were raped by white men, but nothing could be done. Black churches had a very tenuous existence. Many had to have a white preacher. deisenbe ( talk) 01:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Much of this is in the article. I summarized, though, some of the hardships into the introduction (i.e., pulling the info from a number of sections into a sentence about how bad slavery was.) And, I will see what is remaining that could be summarized in the intro and/or expanded upon. (i.e., a to do) (bolded for me)– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
 Done Check out the fifth paragraph of the introduction, which summarizes a number of points from the body of the article. I think I hit all the things you called out.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for putting this together. I will look it over. It seems like there are two types of input: 1) add content and 2) change tone. The add content part is easy.
I will take a look at where there are tone issues. I not sure that we think the same way about some things. I have a hard time understanding that "It was not uncommon to have girls of 13 years of age to begin being bred, and she continued to be bred until she delivered 15 children." is not incredibly dastardly horrible. It made my skin crawl and I cried over that sentence.
Commment: I keep thinking about this sentence—Each woman then knew that she was identified for procreation, she was raped a lot, she was pregnant for each child 9 months (so about 12 years in total if she had 15 births, more if she had to have 15 live births), and knew that when she gave birth to the child she would never see it again. It is so completely horrible. All of her breeding years from 13 or so into her fourties or so would involve attempts to get impregnated... and then after childbearing age, she would be even more devalued. It has been so deeply horrible to me.
And, it's my contention that when we don't tell or nudge people to feel a certain way, which would be WP:OR or not WP:Tone, they are more prone to have their own thoughts and emotions well up.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I was thinking that you and I may have different approaches. I present the facts without interpretation and hyperbole so that readers take in the information and give their own conclusion. I think that you like to have the emotions out in the open. I would agree with that approach for a magazine article or book. See WP:OR.
But I will take your comments to heart and reply back.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
You were right about Harriet Jacobs. I made a mistake.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
 Done– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Also, great point about starting with Native Americans. When I added that section to the article, I didn't catch that. Great catch.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Work in progress. I have swapped some sections. You are absolutely right. More to come.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
 Done. I added more to the Native American section - as well and some info in the Overview and the introduction. I think that is a huge improvement. Thanks for calling it out! If you have any comments, clarifications, etc. about what was added, please let me know.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Please take a look at the article with your comments from your last bullet in mind. Some of the things you mention have been picked up on - but you have some good points to pick up and I will take care of them.
You are picking up my basic concern about the previous versions of this article. It didn't explain what slavery is like - and seemed to downplay slavery by saying that many people were treated like indentured servants in the version before I started. In other words, this is a work in progress and you've added some great points.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Deisenbe I think that I am all done with this section, unless I missed something. Do you agree?

The article is much better as a result of your input. Much appreciated!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Capitalization or not: Black vs. white

I capitalized white after Black was capitalized. My thinking is that is the same reasoning - the color isn't being conveyed, it's the heritage.

But, I found this article here - and the points make sense. I am cool with "Black" and "white" mentioned in the article from the approach by The Seattle Times.

I am just putting this here to get everyone on the same page... and to get input from others who may disagree.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

There is a societal cognitive dissonance about discussions of "race", at least in the US, because on the one hand, it is generally accepted by educated people that "race" is a social construct, and not a biological feature based on genetic inheritance, yet on the other hand, we discuss "race" as a fact in sociological terms, even though the tension between the two appellations is never reconciled in real life.
I read the Atlantic article by Kwame Anthony Appiah in which he says, "Reasoned arguments about linguistic usages must always reckon with the fact that language is a set of conventions, to be determined by the consensus of language users... There's no objectively correct answer to the question of whether to capitalize black and white in advance of such a consensus." I agree with this observation, and consequently, I favor standardizing usage in the article with lowercase for both white and black to keep white supremacist editors at bay with such an arguably "neutral" approach. Carlstak ( talk) 18:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Great points! One of the things I wrestle with is that black and white do not really mean the color of one's skin and capitalizing Black is used to mean one's heritage. Deep down, I feel if black should be capitalized, white should be, too - because white is about one's heritage on the color of their skin. I don't have a lot of skin in the outcome (just meant to be a pun), I just think that there should be an approach we agree on. Perhaps some others will weigh-in.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't know if we need to give it a couple of days or not, since the article is viewed a lot per day, but if you want to switch to lower case for "blacks", to be in synch with lower case for "whites", that works for me Carlstak.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply
 Done– CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Jain?

Slave jain? A typo? For what? Neils51 ( talk) 00:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Jail. Fixed. deisenbe ( talk) 01:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I appreciate that and the better wording, thanks! I removed the uncited sentence, though. I have been working on finding sources for all the uncited content, and am almost done but am sooooo tired of doing that.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

White mothers and servitude

There is a bit of information that is new to me in the White mothers and servitude section. I haven't run into this in any of the research that I have done, and was really surprised to read it when I looked at the Life after attaining freedom section.

I am guessing that this mostly happened during the early and mid 1600s between African men and white indentured servants. I was surprised to read that "80% could be traced to free families originating as unions between white women (indentured or free) and African men (indentured, free, or slave) in colonial Virginia".

Does this seem right? If so, that might be an interesting article in its own right.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

It's so weird. I have been looking for books that mention this - and I just found one or two that are not his own book. There are six journal articles [1].
In what looks to be the best article to cover him Sndyer's Marriage on the Margins: Free Wives, Enslaved Husbands, and the Law in Early Virginia, I am just finding he's mentioned as a reference to a specific couple (which has a number of citations to confirm they were a couple) - nothing about Heinegg's findings. I am wondering if this is true / accurate. Because if it was true, I think it would have made it into other books and articles from 2005 til now.
I am wondering whether this section should be removed - or perhaps augmented with other information about the heritage of freed slaves.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 13:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Underlined edit. I think this section should be removed, but I'm saving the link to the change here.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 13:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC) The change was made per WP:WEIGHT.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Punctuations in captions

I see that there was a great cleanup of the captions here! Thank you, Carlstak for that and a number of copy edits that you have made. They've been very helpful!

One thing, though, if the captions have full sentences, then periods are needed:

Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Formatting and punctuation

There are just a couple of places where some tweaks are needed.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know that. Was in a hurry this morning and forgot to mention that of course full sentences need full stops, and may have missed something. Thanks for the heads up. The universe is giving me positive feedback right now—a character on the show I'm watching said "of course" as soon as I wrote it in the edit summary so I added this.:-) Carlstak ( talk) 01:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply
It is so cool to be in synch and supported by the universe! So fun. Yay, positive feedback.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Images

I took a stab at adding more images to the article. Adjustments (add, remove, change placement, etc.) are appreciated.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Subpar sources

This article relies far too heavily on subpar sources for historical information; for example, it cites a Time Magazine article by a journalist, Olivia Waxman, who has no credentials as an historian, 13 times, and it cites the PBS Resource Bank, a teacher's guide, 12 times. These are not good sources for an historical encyclopedia article. Finding sources is something I enjoy most about editing WP, so perhaps one day when I have time I'll find more academic sources, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

PS: I would suggest that anyone looking for academic sources use Google Scholar or at least the "Books" parameter of Google Search rather than the "All" button. Carlstak ( talk) 03:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Good points. I have some cognitive issues that now make it so hard for me to distill lots of information. I can go in circles reading and rereading jstor journals (especially since there's no great 'find' feature) and books. I forget about google scholar for articles about history.
I can look for replacements for the two you have mentioned. I just may need a day or two break. I am so tired of looking for sources. (I just have one paragraph that I have to find sources for now and I'm stuck, really stuck on that one.)– CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply, Carole. Wish I were able to get to this now, but will give it a go when I get a chance. Not sure what you mean about there being no great 'find' feature in Jstor articles. One can use Google search to find Jstor articles on a given subject, and if he or she has Jstor access, as I do, one can download a given pdf, then use ctrl + f or command + f to find a particular word or set of words. Carlstak ( talk) 11:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the tip for how to download and search jstor articles!
I don't mind working on it, too. I am just a bit on overload about this article at the moment and got overwhelmed looking for sources. I was thinking about checking out the Wikipedia Library, google scholar, archive.org and google books after a day or two break. Between the two of us, I think we can pick at it and make good progress finding better sources. (The issue isn't that I don't know how to find good sources. I just ran across some sources that presented the info in a way that hit a number of good points and made it easy for me and I relied too much on them.)– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply
No worries, Carole, I'm sure we can get the refs in shape. I know you've been working hard on the article. Carlstak ( talk) 02:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Carlstak, I hope I didn't step on your toes. I started working from the bottom of the article. But I just realized that some of my edits were to the entire article vs. the section. I can take a break for a bit - or ensure that I just edit the section.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
No, you didn't step on my toes, Carole. As usual, I'm doing four or five things at once, and stopped to read a non-related book, a magazine, email, Twitter, and an online source, then to eat, drink and get merry. I've been diagnosed as bi-polar, but I'm really just manic.;-) If you start an editing session, you can temporarily add the {{ In use}} template, or if you want to edit only one section of the page, you may place an "In use|section" template at the top of that section, as shown in the doc for the template markup and parameters. Carlstak ( talk) 17:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I totally get it. I am going back to things I was working on yesterday and it would be great to see what sources you use... and if you have any problems with my replacement sources / editing. I'm happy to pick up when you're ready to take a break.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Carlstak, Do you think the sources look good now? I see edits that need to be done to the citations themselves, but I didn't want to start that if you were still working on sources. And, I am happy to help if there are additional sources to work on.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

We need to find alternative sources for article text that cites the PBS Resource Bank Teacher's Guide. I'm working on it now, but probably won't edit much until tomorrow. Carlstak ( talk) 02:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Ah... I searched in edit mode and couldn't find "Resource Bank" so I thought you had already fixed that. I am guessing, then, that you want to change every PBS instance. That content should be standard fare. It really gets down to who you feel most comfortable using.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
What do you think of Virginia’s First Africans, Prepared by Beth Austin, Registrar & Historian, Hampton History Museum, December 2018, Revised December 2019. If it works for you, I think I can use it in several places, including the indentured servant discussion.– CaroleHenson ( talk)
I've only skimmed it, but it looks okay—very informative and excellent references. I think citations of it should be supplemented with cites of more scholarly works published by academic institutions; I could work on those tomorrow after you add your cites. Carlstak ( talk) 03:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Great! I will work on it in the morning if I don't finish tonight.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I am assuming that there's no problem with the PBS citation where Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the author. I just have a couple more to work on.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I left it, but we definitely need a better source than a PBS blog, even if it is Henry Louis Gates, Jr. I'll work on the article later this evening and put up an "in use" template. Carlstak ( talk) 20:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The term blog has come to mean a lot of things. If the person writing an entry is a noted historian, for a respected news source, I don't see what the problem is. I'll see if I can find the guideline about that.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
See WP:NEWSBLOG.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Carole, I know what the WP policies on blogs are. As far as my understanding goes of what blogs are, I would say that I wrote a fairly well received Wordpress blog published from New York City for a few years, so I have some idea. I'm not saying we shouldn't use any cites of the blogs of historians from PBS; I'm saying that they are generally inferior, say, to a published work such as a book or essay, rather than an informal interview of, or blog post by, such a respected source as Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
A blog post necessarily isn't going to have the depth, developed context, or given references that an academic work published by a university is going to have, so I believe that we can keep cites of such suitable writing, but we should add more comprehensive sources to give the referencing in the article a better, more respectable foundation than such a casual, personal post as one headlined "100 Amazing Facts About the Negro". That speaks for itself. Carlstak ( talk) 00:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I am a huge Henry Louis Gates Jr. fan. I think that he had done an amazing job of bringing lives of enslaved people and their descendants to life.

One thing that I will say: You are absolutely the right kind of person to have provided input and effort to polish the article up. Thanks for that!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the moral support, Carole. I think you misunderstand me about blogs, though. I'm saying that an academic work by Gates is far superior to a very casual, informal blog post for supporting information in an encyclopedia article. I've seen long, detailed blog posts by experts with academic credentials that were superb sources for an article, but this is not one of them. I'm back on my personal project this week, but I'll see if I have the time to work some more on copyediting this evening. I think the article is really shaping up thanks to your efforts. Regards, Carlstak ( talk) 12:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
You're welcome. Okay. Your copy editing is much appreciated!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Block of uncited text

Parkwells Thanks for your copy edits! I just found a couple of things that I returned or tweaked for clarity. This is my edit here.

I temporarily put back cited content - that was replaced with this uncited content:

In Virginia and the Upper South, many slaveholders had smaller farms than were typical of the later cotton plantations. Planters were considered those who held 20 or more slaves, and many slaveholders held fewer. In the Deep South, by contrast, during the antebellum 19th century, cotton planters might hold hundreds. As a result of the smaller holdings in Virginia, enslaved Africans and African Americans sometimes worked alongside farmers and their families, and/or with other white workers. The unions among whites and blacks resulted in generations of mixed-race children. Those born to enslaved women were slaves; those born to white women were born free, although they were restricted in rights, often having to serve an indenture into young adulthood, to ensure the community did not have to support such illegitimate children.

And, I haven't touched it, but this content is not cited either:

Enslaved women were at sexual risk from planters and their sons (usually before marriage) (note Edward Ball's book - needs expansion and cite), overseers, and other white men with power and access. But they were sometimes engaged in longer term relationships with white men, which may have given them status and advantages on plantations. Planters and other white men who were wealthy enough, and often widowed, sometimes made concubines from enslaved women. They treated their mixed-race children in a variety of ways, often using them as domestic servants rather than field hands. While officially discouraging such liaisons, society understood them and expected such men to be discreet. Thomas Jefferson's father-in-law, John Wayles, took the mixed-race slave Betty Hemings (who had a white father) as a concubine after his third wife had died. He fathered six children with her, including Sally Hemings, a much younger half sister to Jefferson's first wife, Martha Wayles; the Wayles/Hemings children were three-quarters white in lineage.
After Jefferson was widowed in his 40s, and had promised his late wife not to marry again, he took Sally Hemings as a concubine for the rest of his life. He is believed to have fathered six children with her; four survived to adulthood. They were 7/8 white in ancestry, and three later passed into white society, as did most of their descendants who are known. Jefferson arranged to free his Hemings children when they came of age, two informally and two by act of legislature after his death.

Do you have a sources for this content?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and deleted the last two paragraphs after taking a closer look here because 1) not cited, 2) duplicative of content in the article, 3) lots of great info in main articles, like Thomas Jefferson and slavery, and 4) Jefferson and Wayles were just 2 of many slaveholders (i.e., undue weight).
Of course, if there is some info that can be used in the article that is not duplicate it can be added back with applicable sources.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Some good points

It looks like these would be good points to add:

  • For the Plantations and farms section: "In Virginia and the Upper South, many slaveholders had smaller farms than were typical of the later cotton plantations. Planters were considered those who held 20 or more slaves, and many slaveholders held fewer. In the Deep South, by contrast, during the antebellum 19th century, cotton planters might hold hundreds. As a result of the smaller holdings in Virginia, enslaved Africans and African Americans sometimes worked alongside farmers and their families, and/or with other white workers."
  • For the Formalized slavery section, potentially breaking out to a separate section: There are some points of clarification re: who the white men were that fathered children from the 2nd paragraph.

The second half of the 1st paragraph is essentially covered in the article, with citations.

The paragraph about Thomas Jefferson contains parts in the article already - and the extra details are covered in Thomas Jefferson and slavery. (i.e., avoid content fork, and undue weight to have a lot about him when there were lots of slaveholders in Virginia).

– CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I am done with the second bullet, and I went ahead and made a new section "Progeny".
I have been looking for a source(s) for the 1st bullet.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 07:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
It's funny Plantation complexes in the Southern United States‎ keeps showing up on my google searches. So, there's two ways to go, if anyone is watching:
  • Assume that people want to dive deeper with follow the link at the top of the Plantations and farms section.
  • I think that there are enough sources in the article that can take care of that paragraph.
The article is pretty long at this point, it seems to me to be best to not add the content at this time. If someone would like to, there seem to be plenty of sources to use as references (it seems that 3 sources cover the content well.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 08:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Medium

Carlstak, I don't know how I missed that Medium is a self-publishing site. I am usually really careful to check to see if there are editorial departments, etc. Anyway, I appreciate your point in this edit.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 05:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

No problem, Carole. It was probably because of the display of The AAMBC Journal name, which *sounds* like a reliable source, but when I took a look, I saw that it obviously isn't. Glad to be of service. Perhaps when we're done, someone will care to nominate the article for "Good Article" status. I'm working as I have time. Best regards, Carlstak ( talk) 18:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominating for a GA sounds like a plan. In the meantime, you're doing a wonderful job!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Carole. We're all in this together, aren't we? ;-)
Absolutely! I have been staying out of your way. Are you needing help with something?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 02:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Oh, no, but thanks for asking. It was just a lighthearted reflection on what we're all doing here on WP. Carlstak ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nice! I find it kind of amazing most of the times how things come together from a wide range of volunteers / contributors and intentions.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

1772 petition

I copied in an entry from the main Slavery in the United States article that is relevant to Virginia. Here is the text of that petition [2] from the Library of Congress: [3]

To the King's most excellent Majesty, The humble Address of the House of Burgesses of Virginia.

Most Gracious Sovereign, We your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal Subjects the Burgesses of Virginia, now met in General Assembly, beg Leave with all Humility to approach your Royal Presence.

The many Instances of your Majesty’s benevolent Intentions and most gracious Disposition to promote the Prosperity and Happiness of your Subjects in the Colonies, encourage us to look up to the Throne, and implore your Majesty’s paternal Assistance in averting a Calamity of a most alarming Nature.

The Importation of Slaves into the Colonies from the Coast of Africa hath long been considered as a Trade of great Inhumanity, and, under its present Encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very Existence of your Majesty’s American Dominions.

We are sensible that some of your Majesty’s Subjects in Great Britain may reap Emoluments from this Sort of Traffick, but when we consider that it greatly retards the Settlement of the Colonies with more useful Inhabitants, and may in Time, have the most destructive Influence, we presume to hope that the Interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in Competition with the Security and Happiness of such Numbers of your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal Subjects.

Deeply impressed with these Sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those Restraints on your Majesty’s Governors of this Colony which inhibit their assenting to such Laws, as might check so very pernicious a Commerce.

Your Majesty’s ancient Colony and Dominion of Virginia hath at all Times and upon every Occasion been entirely devoted to your Majesty’s sacred Person and Government, and we cannot forego this Opportunity of renewing those Assurances of the truest Loyalty and warmest Affection, which we have so often, with the greatest Sincerity, given to the Best of Kings, whose Wisdom and Goodness we esteem the surest Pledges of the Happiness of all his people.

In the Earl of Dunmores

of the 1st May 1772.

In 1860, the free blacks were not 100% of the population of blacks in the north.

What was written in the article is copied here below. Please consider that slavery was not officially ended in New Jersey until January 23, 1866. It was the last state to abolish slavery, and in 1860 there were still slaves living in New Jersey. https://nj.gov/state/historical/his-2021-juneteenth.shtml#:~:text=Imagine%2C%20New%20Jersey's%20death%20grip,technically%20enslaved%20in%20New%20Jersey.

Life after attaining freedom[ edit source

Settlement[ edit source

Most free people of color lived in the American South, but there were freed people who lived throughout the United States. According to the US census of 1860, 250,787 of them lived in the South and 225,961 lived in other parts of the country. In 1860, the free blacks were one hundred percent of the population of blacks in the north. Large populations of free blacks lived in Philadelphia, Virginia, and Maryland. 2nd ABG ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:History_of_slavery_in_Virginia&oldid=1200135064"