Talk:Thomas Clarkson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] John Clarkson

Yes – a good call.

John Clarkson probably merits a page to himself. Thanks for your edit – and welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers – Agendum 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... There may be an exaggeration here. "In the next year he rode some 35,000 miles in search of evidence..." Isn't the usual distance traveled by horseback only 20 to 25 miles per day? You can do more, with special arrangements like the Pony Express and changing horses every hour. But that isn't likely to be the case here. The 35,000 miles seems unreasonable. RapidRoy51 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should probably read "In the next years (plural)...." The figure is substantiated in some of the sources, including Hochschild's Bury the Chains. – Agendum 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republican?

In the 2007 Michael Apted film, Amazing Grace his character advocates revolution in a private conversation with William Wilberforce. He cites the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Was Clarkson a republican? Given that Britain was a constitutional monarchy since 1688, one would assume that Clarkson found even constitutional monarchy unacceptable. Dogru144 14:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not having seen the film yet (it will not be released here until 23 March) I can't comment on the portayal of Clarkson. But it is true that some of the group of abolitionists were initially enthusiastic about what they saw happening on the other side of the English Channel – Wilberforce and Eliot travelled there in 1783 to see things first-hand, along with future prime minister William Pitt. It would be wrong to characterise them as Republicans, though, as it seems that their feelings changed as they saw the excesses of the French Revolution. – Agendum 16:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert, but understand that the French Revolution was initially perceived as democratic, and was supported by many liberal British people. However this turned to revulsion with the execution of the king and aristocracy in the terror. Republics (at least in the modern sense) were a new idea, and (at risk of being controversial) the American one hardly began to function well until the constitution was adopted and implemented. This can only just have happened by the date in question. Peterkingiron 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that he travelled 35,000 miles in one year seems extraordinary. That would amount to almost 100 miles a day, every single day of the year - and whether by coach or or horseback, that would have been an extrordinary feat for the times, given the state of the roads 200 years ago.

[edit] Removal from category "English Anglicans"

It was impossible for anybody who was not an Anglican (such as nonconformists) to read for a degree (or win an essay prize [1]) until the repeal of the Test Acts. So he must have been an Anglican at that time. William Avery (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the directions yes I agree that you needed to be an anglian from the limited part I have read. The category Anglican I have always read (as with any other similar category) as a person who was closely allied to and even an influence upon, in this case, Anglicanism; not 'just' a member. Please see below as well. I am thought open to guidance. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand your reasoning now. I don't have any strong opinions on the meaning of the category, though I might mischievously enquire where Category:Fictional Anglicans, which it subsumes, fits in, including as it does Mr Bean. (But you needn't answer that one.) William Avery (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am glad I managed to get my reasoning across, that part of my communication skills is sometimes a bit lacking. Now the idea of category Fictional whatever(s) - what a concept. If there was a barnstar for this type of thought then please accept that you now have one. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican or Quaker?

I note that Clarkson has been removed from the category English Anglicans, which is probably wise. The editor's query about whether he was a Quaker is a relevant question. Clarkson was originally trained as an Anglican but never took holy orders, and was drawn to the Quakers through his close association with them. It is not clear whether he actually ever became a Quaker himself, as far as I know. – Agendum (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the reasons stated above that led me to remove the category Anglican until such times that it can be shown that it needs to be included. In no way does it diminish the man or the works he was a major part in; rather I felt (see above reply) it was portraying an important though not necessarily central part of his life. As I have said I am happy for it to be added again if reference is found. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

At Peckover House in Wisbech it states that Clarkson admired Quakers, and was well aquainted with them through his work, but it's made quite clear that he was an Anglican - I think he said something like he was "a Quaker in spirit", and he did write an "outsider's view"-type book about the Religious Society of Friends, suggesting that he still remained an Anglican. Rob (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford DNB says that Clarkson was "strongly religious, and ....(after graduating with a degree in mathematics) remained at Cambridge to prepare himself to be a clergyman"
Later, he "underwent a moment of conversion" became involved with the abolitionists and, "After twelve months of understandable hesitation, he accepted the call and gave up all idea of a church career, though he had already taken deacon's orders."
After which "Clarkson's partnership with the Quakers strongly affected his religion. By 1795 he had renounced his Anglican orders, though he never submitted to the discipline of the Society of Friends. In 1815 he told Tsar Alexander I that he was ‘nine parts in ten of their way of thinking’ "
So, make of that what you will! I'm not sure that he can be neatly categorised as either. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mileage

as in Hochschild's Bury the Chains. and other reputable sources it has long been recognised that Thomas road 35,000 miles in the time of his research about the slave industry so I have changed the article to match. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn that's what it said before... or, if my memory's at fault, thanks for the correction! What I think we do need to mention is that fact that, when he got on his horse again for the second phase of the campaign, he very nearly duplicated the distance he had ridden the first time - although not quite. Not bad for a man in middle age! Cheers – Agendum (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually when I returned to the article it did say the correct mileage, what I was looking at ? I did not appriciate that he nearly rode another 30K in the second phase, at the moment it says 10K. a reference will be needed. I also have a image of the Bury st Edmunds petition of thanks to Thomas of 1838, which already expresses concern about how history was already being re-written. I will try to upload to a sandbox so that people can decide if it should be added to article.Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retired to Playford Suffolk

It says in the Autoboigraphy Of Sir George Biddell, available online at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10655 , that he retired to Playford and lived in Playford Hall as a gentleman farmer, leasing a farm.

In addition to the monument in Wisbech, there is also a Clarkson Avenue. This is one of the poshest roads in Wisbech, with some of the most expensive houses. 80.0.121.73 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] title of image

title cannot be changed at the moment so we are stuck with galery. The original uploader in commons [2]or someone who can access the same can give it the right name then ask for deletion of the original. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? It's only an image filename. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)