From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1619 project has nothing to do Jamestown

Adding that paragraph is a blatant attempt to distract from the actual fact that both Jamestown and Roanoke predate 1619 and therefore discredit the entire premise that slavery is the foundation of America. It’s politics and opinion—not history. 2601:196:8702:FBF0:39B8:1A87:9320:77AC ( talk) 07:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Adding what paragraph? Also, there are no mentions of The 1619 Project in this article. Largoplazo ( talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Ok, it's not the "1619 Project" per se but the idea that slavery existed at the very beginning of the first American colonies is spurious at best.
The Mayflower landed on November 11, 1620, and the Pilgrims would have had nothing to do with slavery or indentured servants. The Pilgrims (and most early Christians who migrated here) would not have anyone else do their work here.
The other, earlier colonists (Jamestown, Roanoke) were dirt poor; they had no possessions or money to trade to pay for slaves. Many colonists were fleeing something from the Old World to start a new life here in North America or the "West Indies".
Now, if you also look at the history of Jamestown, about 80% of the colonists died from starvation in 1610 and temporarily abandoned the colony. They needed another ship to resupply with food and more people. Slaves were not imported until much later when they had more money/trade goods and more interest from Europe were placed in colonizing the area.
The "1619 Project" is a specific left-leaning documentary project that states that the ONLY reason that the United States existed was because of and for the further promulgation of black African slaves. This does not consider that the first "indentured servants" were actually from Ireland. Great Britain conquered Ireland; debtors, criminals, and such folk were given the choice of prison or migrating to North America as 'indentured servants'. These men and women were slaves since they didn't have much choice.... either prison or servitude. 73.35.211.62 ( talk) 03:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
My apologies; I should have reinforced the earlier facts. This article states that a British privateer ship captured a Portuguese slave ship ("Sao Joao Bautista"), including their cargo of 20 African slaves. As per this article, the 20 Africans were used as part of an "indentured servant" program to help with farming. The slaves were not purchased by the British government or the colonists per se but captured by a privateer and given to work the colony.
According to claims from the "1620 Project", the colonies main purpose and function were to utilize African slaves to help build America. In the documentary author's eyes, slavery was and is the main reason that America existed.
20 Africans brought by chance encounter does not make a paradigm change. Yes, there was the institute of slavery in the 13 colonies later, but their whole lives (the colonists) and raisson d'etre were not to further African slavery.
That statement and idea is part of a movement by left leaning people to change our nation's history. 73.35.211.62 ( talk) 03:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The second paragraph of the article spells everything out regarding the advent of slavery to Jamestown. Slaves were brought there in 1619. The 1619 Project chose its name based on that. As far as I can tell, your grievance appears to be over the 1619 Project and its name, and you're using this article only as a context for your criticism. If so, this isn't the place for it. Talk pages are only for discussing the state of and improvements to the associated articles. See WP:TALKNO. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

What's John Marshall?

What's John Marshall?

As of 2021-12-17 three different notes cite different pages in "John Marshall". To what does that refer? I want to cite it but cannot find a complete citation.

Obviously, those citations should be fixed somehow. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 2010 Early U.S. History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Candicephillips ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Candicephillips ( talk) 01:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Quebec City in See Also

User:Aboudaqn, in response to your edit summary, no, I don't believe that being established within a year of each other is enough for it to be obvious to anyone why Quebec City is a obvious entry, let alone an obvious sole entry, in a See Also list for Jamestown, Virginia. There are many ways in which, while reading about one topic, one might find other topics to be related and of interest for similar reasons, but I don't imagine anybody reads an article on a city and thinks "It would be interesting to read about another city whose date of establishment happens to be within a year of the date of establishment of this city even if they have no connection to each other." And anyone who follows the link and reads Quebec City is likely to be surprised at the lack of any indication of its relevance. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply

That's an interesting opinion. As for mine, when I happened across this fact of almost same founding dates, I found that very interesting – so, to satisfy both parties, I added the detail next to the wiki-link. Pax? Aboudaqn ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
No, I still disagree. Settlements were founded in North America routinely throughout the 16th and 17th centuries and beyond. Two of them coinciding in the same year is nothing remarkable, and in this case it isn't the same year. It doesn't connect them, it's just happenstance. It's like putting Quebec under the "see also" for Pennsylvania because it starts with the next letter. Largoplazo ( talk) 19:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply