# Talk:Battle of Great Bridge

Who is Woodard and Fordyce?? --AW 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the summary table say 409 for the British when according to the text only 180 were engaged in the battle?
Winterbadger (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an error on Lord Dunmore's Proclamation in the following statement:
"The proclamation alarmed Tories and Whigs alike, since "both groups stood to lose slaves in their possession." The citation lists The Southern Strategy" by David Wilson pg 7 in footnote number 8. The part I highlighted is an error because the Proclamation only affected the slaves who belonged to those who were rebels. I quote
"And I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, "Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,)" free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY'S Troops as soon as may be, foe the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity." Note: my emphasis.
Note how he says "appertaining to rebels", not to loyalists. There is also no mention in this document of "Tories" or "Whigs", and perhaps that has led to the confusion - as I understand it. So yes, potentially any slave owner could lose slaves to Dunmore's army, but the Proclamation was directed at  - and only at - those slave owners in rebellion. Note: my emphasis. Here is a copy of it http://www.blackloyalist.com/canadiandigitalcollection/documents/official/dunmore.htm Contemporary sources indicate it was only directed at rebels/patriots as well. 
I recommend a change that doesn't use Tories or whig, but rather uses rebel/patriot and loyalist to avoid confusion.Ebanony (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are technically correct that the proclamation refers only to slaves of rebels.  There is however a nuance that Wilson refers to: the Tory slaveowners were also concerned by the proclamation, since it raised the spectre of armed Negroes.  He says (and Russell concurs) that they also saw this as an affront on their property rights.   I will make some adjustments to clarify this.
On the subject of Tory/Whig vs. Loyalist/Patriot, I find that sources, especially those covering the southern part of the war, have a tendency to use Tory/Whig; hence their preferential use here.  (The two principal sources I used here, Wilson and Russell, split on the matter.) Whigs are clearly identified as the rebelling party early in the article. Magic♪piano 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree both were alarmed by the proclamation, and John Murray was really hated for it; any single male slave hearing the words British & freedom would likely runaway.  So yes, it affected loyalist slave owners too, but that was an unintended consequence; that was never Murray's intention, since he was no abolitionist. The only thing I'd suggest is to just put a clearer definition of these groups because some people may not be aware of the meanings of Tories and whigs. I'm not saying remove Tories or whig, just clarify them. Maybe something in parenthesis ex. "Whigs (rebels)". I'll leave it for you to decide. So it's not that it's in error, it's just that some might not know. Let me just add, Hochschild has an interesting discussion on pgs 98-99 in Bury the Chains and he uses rebels as his terminology.
Someone also wrote about Washington's comment, but he was not a casual observer; he himself lost slaves who ran away to join Murray's army, and he was real upset. I'd recommend saying why Washington made that comment in 1 sentence. Ex. after it says "nothing less than depriving him of life or liberty will secure peace to Virginia." maybe add, "Washington was directly affected, as several of Washington's slaves had runaway to join Dunmore's army; other prominent men like Patrick Henry and James Madison had slaves who also fought for the British against them with Dunmore's army." (also pg 99 of Hochschild says this). How do you feel about a change like this? 
http://books.google.com/books?id=9wQ9fRdRJUcC&dq=bury+the+chains&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=0SmETOmeJ4XEvQPNnqm9BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=dunmore&f=false Ebanony (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is not directly about Washington, I don't think this sort of commentary is suitable here.  A better place would be either Ethiopian Regiment or Dunmore's Proclamation, which are probably more suitable places to elaborate on the effects of the proclamation on people like Washington.
I'm not sure who responded since it's not signed, but if you feel that way, then why include any of Washignton's comments at all? I'm simply asking to put in context. Someone else already decided to include Washington's commentary before I said anything.Ebanony (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me above. Washington's comment is germane because it is about his perception of Dunmore.  The comment has nothing to do with slavery or the proclamation that I am aware of.  The proclamation is only important here because it resulted in ex-slave troops being at the bridge; the fact that it had other consequences (for Washington or anyone else) is a matter for other articles.  If you can provide evidence that some of Washington's slaves were present at this action, more commentary on or by Washington might be appropriate. Magic♪piano 01:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, and I understand you want to digress into areas that should be covered by other articles (I hear you on that); but I'm trying to tell you that Harry was one of his runaways who ran away and joined Dunmore's regiment. There's an article on it in the New Yorker I'll post the link; we have evidence that this occurred also in the Book of Negroes, I can link you that if you want as well. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/08/060508crat_atlarge Ebanony (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources that indicate one of Washington's slaves was in this action (or the earlier action at Kemp's Landing), that would definitely be interesting.  The article you link says Harry was in Dunmore's army; that does not mean he was in this action.  I think it unlikely that all of the Ethiopian Regiment was in this action, for a variety of reasons.  My sources suggest that the reinforcements were most likely regulars (i.e. men from the 14th plus sailors for gunnery); only one or two companies of the Ethiopian are unambiguously described as present. Magic♪piano 03:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
He was Washington's slave who ran in response to Dunmore's Proc. But, ok I'll see if I can find something more specific.Ebanony (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that he was in one of the "poineer units", but I don't have access to all the information at the moment. Are you familiar with the battles the Pioneers were with?Ebanony (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the detailed history of Dunmore's units;  only sketches outlined in more campaign-oriented sources. Magic♪piano 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well being that said, I can't find any additional information on Henry "Harry" in late 1775 battles or early 1776, just some stuff later on. Maybe he was in these battle, but maybe not; I can't say. There might be some work on it, but maybe another person with more knowledge can help. Thats the best I can do since I don't have access to a research library at the moment, and the few - very few - texts on these topics I can't get right now. So if you don't want to make the change, I understand. But thanks anyway, because the research led me to uncover stuff in my own studies on a related topic I hadn't known about.Ebanony (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The Great Bridge Battlefield & Waterways Historic Park is partly complete.  The reconstructed ccauseway section and interpretive historic pathway are in place, and the landscaping in the western side was completed in time for the dedication of a monument to Thomas and John Marshall on 3 December 2011, erected by the Sons of the American Revolution.  The ceremony was attended by representatives of the DAR and SAR from Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia; and hosted by the Mayor of Chesapeake.  Construction of the Visitor Center had not begun at the time of this posting.  A descriptive map of the site can be found at http://gbbattlefield.org/downloads/parkrenderinglabels.pdf 
~Jeb Raitt~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.178.196 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Great Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
The bit with the contrasting quotes from Dunmore and Washington doesn't flow well. The Dunmore quote, in particular, seems to come from out of nowhere. Perhaps they should be put together in their own paragraph with some additional material to provide context.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Some references need place of publication
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Thanks for taking the time to review this.  I believe I've addressed your concerns; let me know if not. Magic♪piano 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I saw the review & saw your efforts to improve the article; you've a pretty good way of making the paragraphs go smoothly, and your responsive to the advice he gave you (moving the quote). Good job, for whatever my opinion is worth. Ebanony (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the good word! Magic♪piano 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The summary on the right hand side does not actually display the British & Loyalist casualty figures, even though they show up when editing. I am not sure what is causing this glitch. DavisGL (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)