Talk:Alexander Hamilton and slavery

Thomas DiLorenzo? Really?

Hey I don't normally edit wikipedia so I don't know the rules here but I don't think Neoconfederate kook Thomas DiLorenzo is a source worth citing about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.104.180 (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

DiLorenzo has some ridiculous stuff about the US Civil War, but he is still a professor and has some legitimate work. On Hamilton's slave ownership, he is in agreement with many other sources.

All this quoted material?...

Is there some guideline on how much of an article can consist of quoted material? Even though the quoted material is set off as such (so no apparent copyright violations), I think the sheer volume amount of quoted text (both in the article itself and in the footnotes) needs to be trimmed down. Shearonink (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM & WP:LONGQUOTE could possibly seem to apply in this case. Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

DuRoss vs. everyone else?

Duross' interpretation seems to largely be accepted only by himself, while the preponderance of historical interpretation contradicts much of it. I don't think that is enough to generate an entire article. Shoreranger (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

DuRoss is not the sole historian cited, nor is she alone among the historians cited in the article who reject the premise that Hamilton was not an abolitionist.  This section header ("DuRoss vs. everyone else?") incorrectly implies that she is.

In addition to various primary sources from Hamilton's own ledgers that indicate uncontroversially that Hamilton bought and sold slaves, this article also includes conclusions from other historians, primarily including Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Phillip W. Magness, and Allan McLane Hamilton, all of whom concur with DuRoss's conclusion that Hamilton was, although perhaps not fond of slavery, not an abolitionist.  Moreover, even biographer and Hamilton-admirer Ron Chernow is cited in order to corroborate the perspective that Hamilton was a beneficiary of slavery.

If someone with access to Chan's, Stewart's, Brawn's, and/or Marable's works wishes to add further citation of these writers' perspectives, she or he is naturally invited insofar as doing so will accentuate the page.  While they obviously disagree with DuRoss's/DiLorenzo's/Magness's/Hamilton's conclusion that Hamilton was not an abolitionist, I sincerely wonder if they disagree with any other perspective DuRoss/DiLorenzo/Magness/Hamilton present.  (If they do not, one obviously could not maintain the claim that "Du[R]oss'[s] interpretation[s] seem[] to largely be accepted only by h[er]self," but I digress.)  Those writers' perspective that Hamilton was an abolitionist is already cited; if they have any other perspectives that are currently contradicted by this article or the various historians cited herein, the page would certainly be improved by noting the alternative perspective(s), and I, for one, would certainly welcome it.  What I will not do is blindly accept the notion that this article deviates from "the preponderance of historical interpretation" without evidence (not to imply that you or anyone else think I should).  What I will do is suggest that if such evidence can be provided, the appropriate avenue for reform is to not get rid of this article, but instead to integrate the contradictory historical perspectives into the article in order to flesh out all of the nuance of historical truth.  That, I am confident, is something upon which all can agree.  : )

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

P. S.  Thank you for adding the necessary stuff to the top of the talk page.

Hamilton as slaveowner - fringe sources

I'll begrudgingly let the College Conservative slide in the Slaveowner section, but what's up with some of these? Someone's tumblr blog, which was moved and then deleted; a reddit comment; a sensationalist book about freemasons, offhand references in a couple academic papers, and some doctor's self-published book.

This is a bit of a reach. Is there a counterpoint to the fringe and Michelle DuRoss? Is there any paper in a credible journal that attempts to answer specifically the question of whether Hamilton was a slaveowner?

The musical has made this question of some interest, and some of Miranda's more caustic critics seem to emphasize the Schuylers being slaveowners. My suspicion is that the assertion that Hamilton was himself a slaveowner is so dubious that it doesn't warrant inclusion in academic criticism of the historicity of the musical (and, thus, might be too dubious for inclusion in this article). Bananabananabanana (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton being a slave owner is not a controversial fact. His own grandson stated that he had slaves. I agree some of these sources may be strange, but Hamilton being a slave owner himself is generally accepted in scholarship.

the issue is whether he worked to abolish the legal existence of slave trade & slavery. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)