Talk:New York Manumission Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gellman (2000) analysis of black voices in New York newspapers shows the multiple perspectives on abolitionism, black citizenship, and racial equality. Whites used imagined black voices in stereotyped caricatures to put forth pro and con arguments about these various issues. Free blacks, in turn, used newspapers to try to defend black dignity, though not very effectively because of the pervasive racial biases in the North at this time

Gellman (2001) shows that beyond the Society public discussion economic issues in late-18th-century New York helped strengthen the movement for gradual abolition of black slavery there. Three issues were particularly pertinent: concern over enslavement of captured white sailors as integral to Algeria's interference with American free commerce; the promotion of native maple sugar as a substitute for slave-produced West Indies sugar; and the cost, both in human rights to the individual and in expense to society, of imprisonment for debt. Allusions and comparisons to black enslavement, usually depicting the latter negatively, were naturally drawn into discussion of these issues, thus setting the stage for gradual abolition.

From Rjensen, for future use in this (or other) articles.NinaEliza 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; while interesting, these are somewhat off-topic, and we should not depend so heavily on a single author's papers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important, but is Gellman a top authority on the New York Manumission Society? That's what the article is about, so what does he have to say about that? I'm just trying to keep focus here. Look at the article on James McCune Smith. It almost reached GA status with half of it's information missing. The notice is on the talk page.

There could be a whole article about New York in the Antebellum era. That's what I'm saying - all anyone needs to do is start it, as I did with this article and the article on African Free School. African Free School is skimpy, but it's enough for right now. The important thing is to have these articles grow organically from the listed soures, grow well, and grow with consensus. NinaEliza 07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)-cut and pasted from rjensen's talk page.

Gellman is probably the top authority with 2 books and numerous articles. His ideas have been well received. His basic question is did the anti-slavery agitation make a difference in state and region, and exactly how and why. That is he explains why the Society was important, which readers will want to know. Rjensen 08:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

from publisher: In an innovative blend of cultural and political history, David N. Gellman has written the most complete study to date of the abolition of slavery in New York State. Focusing on public opinion, he shows New Yorkers engaged in vigorous debates and determined activism during the final decades of the eighteenth century as they grappled with the possibility of freeing the state's black population. In 1799, gradual emancipation in New York began—a profound event, Gellman argues. It helped move an entire region of the country toward a historically rare slaveless democracy, creating a wedge in the United States that would ultimately lead to the Civil War.Gellman presents a comprehensive examination of the reasons for and timing of New York's dismantling of slavery. It was the northern state with the greatest number of slaves, more than 20,000 in 1790. Newspapers, pamphlets, legislative journals, and organizational records reveal how whites and blacks, citizens and slaves, activists and politicians, responded to the changing ideologies and evolving political landscape of the early national period and concluded that slavery did not fit with their state's emerging identity. Support for the institution atrophied, and eventually the preponderance of New York's political leaders endorsed gradual abolition. The first book on its subject, Emancipating New York provides a fascinating narrative of a citizenry addressing longstanding injustices central to some of the greatest traumas of American history. The debate within the New York public sphere over abolition proved a pivotal contest in the unraveling of worldwide slavery, Gellman shows, and set the stage for intense political conflicts in the nineteenth century. AUTHOR BIO: David N. Gellman is a coeditor of Jim Crow New York: A Documentary History of Race and Citizenship, 1777-1877 and an associate professor of history at DePauw University. posted by Rjensen 08:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These are, as Cabell put it, the disinterested opinions of his publisher. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So I wikifyied and copy-edited one paragraph, and removed another. If you notice, David Gellman now is a redlink. So there are now more redlinks, not less. This is a good thing, but I'm not a fan of them because they mean more work. The second paragraph was simply too broad and too detailed at the same time. It threatened to "blow up" this article outside of it's scope. I'm begging you, create some articles out of these redlinks, or consider my previous suggestion about New York in the Antebellum era. The sources are quite rich. Thank you. NinaEliza 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you put your edit above mine, when it was made after I wrote this post. It's also a bit of a snarky statement. Please don't stir the pot. You said you wouldn't.NinaEliza 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That was merely to indicate what it was in response to; I should have indented once more. As for the snarkiness, I am genuinely underwhelmed by quoting a publisher's blurb of his author's greatness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

I have checked McDonald, and he does not support any activity by the NYMS in national questions. Since Hamilton actively opposed any anti-slavery activity in Congress, as dangerous to the Constitution, this should not be surprising. If Eliza has some other source, it should be cited separately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. NinaEliza 01:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This unsupported passage:

Other anti-slavery societies directed their attention to slavery as a national issue. The Quakers of New York petitioned the First Congress (under the Constitution) for the abolition of the slave trade. In addition, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petitioned for the abolition of slavery in the new nation.[ref]Forrest McDonald, Alexander Hamilton, a Biography(1982) p. 177[/ref] However, the New York Manumission Society did follow suit.{{cn}}

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors should not that pmanderson for many months has a special ridicule of abolitionists. He thinks NPOV means that just as muchg evil should be claimed for antislavery as for slavery. Rjensen 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My "ridicule" has consisted of citing the sources for what they actually say; Rjensen's complaints can be found, and have been answered, here. I remind him, again, that Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's in the sources (which it is in this case), then it should be documented. However, it shouldn't be given undue weight if the evidence is minute. In this case, I found that the New York Historical Society on-line exhibit on this topic features ambivalence to the Society rather prominiently.

Chernow consulted the contemporary newspapers, most other secondary sources appear to have consulted each other; so this is well-sourced. Rjensen's "battle" imagery is, as far as I can tell, original with him; such flamboyance seems to me less than neutral, but if a majority likes it, it can stay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note and a bit off-topic, I don't feel that showing "both sides" of anything detracts from an article. In fact, it lends to it's credibility, because it speaks towards readers natural skepticism. In this case, any or all mention of the Society's flaws in no way detracts from the greatness of the effort, in my opinion. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemen or freedmen?

The article currently says

Throughout its 71 year history to its end in 1849^[1], the society battled against the slave trade and for the eventual emancipation of all the slaves in the state; it founded a school for poor and orphaned children of slaves and freemen.

This isn't obviously an error; it's possible that this is what is really meant, so I won't just blunder in and change it. But isn't it more likely that freemen is supposed to be freedmen? --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)