Talk:Somerset v Stewart

message: The referencing in this article is simply not up to GA standards.  None of the borader claims nor the decision itself is referenced.  If it is truly as critical as claimed there sould be several books on the subject that could be mentioned in a references or further reading section.  On a broader note more information or links pertaining to the history of abolistion in England would be good.  Also the Dred Scott comparision could be broken off into a seperate section perhaps with mention of other precedents in Brazil or else where. Eluchil404 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these points are now addressed. 185.251.11.193 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: GAN

message: The article says,
"Somersett's Case ... It is one of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world and is largely acknowledged to have been the catalyst for the 1776 Declaration of Independence."
To an American, this is an astonishing statement, since Americans think of the Intolerable acts and other actions of King George III and Parliament, and not of this case. I have added a fact template for this statement. Perhaps I will find other ways to question it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added  to call attention to this article and its astonishing statement about the US Declaration of Independence.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Aside from Virginia, loyalist sentiment was stronger in colonies where slavery remained the law of the land past the end of the 18th century (in fact the french canadians sent almost as many volunteers to the continental army as the Carolinas and Georgia put together). Comparatively the most patriotic colonies were north of the Mason Dixon line. The original draft of the DOI even included slavery and the slave trade as a grievance against the king, which was dropped due to fears of losing the southern three. 69.159.163.192 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The catalyst for the 1776 Declaration of Independence?. 

message: I've just edited this article for internal consistency as to the source of the quoted version given in the "Judgment" section. On second thoughts, however, I wonder if we should be relying so heavily on a newspaper report based largely on memory. Might a restoration of material from the official record of the case be appropriate? David Trochos (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "official record", which is a large part of the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough! I've edited the ref. to make the main sources a bit easier to find. David Trochos (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for quote of Lord Mansfield's ruling 

message: I suspect this painting is meant to depict the case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/granville-sharp-the-abolitionist-rescuing-a-slave-from-the31087
©Geni 21:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Case in art

message: It seems that the wikipedia title for this article is perpetuating an error. Some old documents contain James' name written incorrectly (Somersett), but the real spelling is with a single T. Take for example Steven Wise's recent book: _Though the Heavens May Fall: The Landmark Trial that Led to the End of Human Slavery_  
I suggest we change the title. Any thoughts?Historian 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely right. The case report is Somerset v Stewart, so that is simply the correct name. The name usage can be compared favourably in scholar.google.com (many more than Somersett's case). Wikidea 11:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, wrong. One of either of Somersett's case or Somerset's case is the WP:COMMONNAME for this poorly-reported case, which is of far more interest to historians than lawyers, and very well known by the traditional informal name. It should not have been moved without following procedure. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case's title 

message: Comparing the texts below:
"James Somersett, an enslaved American, was purchased by Charles Stewart or Steuart, a Customs officer when he was in Boston, Province of Massachusetts Bay, a British crown colony in North America. Stewart brought Somersett with him when he returned to England in 1769, but in 1771 the man escaped. After Somersett was recaptured in November, (...)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Somersett (this article)
"James Somersett was a slave owned by Charles Stewart, an American customs officer who sailed to Britain for business, landing on 10 November 1769. A few days later Somersett attempted to escape. He was recaptured in November and (...)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield
There are two contradictions:
1) Did James Somersett attempt to escape after two years or a few days later after 10 November 1769?
2) Was Charles Stewart English or American?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.85.6.120 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: The International section of the article lacks any reference to the Quock Walker case in Massachusetts. Hence, I have added info on it. Also, I have provided some added context for anti-slavery activity during the period. Alcazar77 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quock Waker

message: The article currently states that "Lord Mansfield described the system of slavery as "odious", at a time [...]". But in the actual judgement, he is describing the [i]state of being enslaved[/i] as odious - I do not think that this translates to finding the [i]system of slavery[/i] to be odious. An analogy: in modern times, a judge might argue that the state of being imprisoned is 'odious' - and therefore requires a solid basis on law to imprison any particular person - without looking at the the system of imprisonment itself as odious.
I am considering removing the sentence from the article, since to me it seems to be an unsourced inference based on a misreading of the quote, and will do so unless anyone objects.
Toanoopie (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I agree. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Odious'

message: I've removed the paragraph in the lede about Somerset v. Stewart being a catalyst for the American Revolution, as this is a fringe position among historians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about that. See https://aaregistry.org/story/somerset-v-stewart-ruled/ or https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ignoring-an-important-part-of-the-american-revolution/2018/07/08/34b4a430-814a-11e8-b3b5-b61896f90919_story.html or http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/m0149 or https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/james-somerset-the-boston-runaway-who-ended-slavery-in-england/ or https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED245272.pdf or https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/nothing-but-liberty-somersets-case-and-the-british-empire/134DADC1E5DBEF28D87B92DC47EACDF5 or https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/path/article/view/1485 or https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc804870/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf or https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dirty-little-secret-115579444/ or https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/92/4/1415/742761. I could go on. Seems quite a widespread idea, quite familiar and academically respectable since at least the 1960s and fairly strongly held among black Americans. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fringe position among historians of the United States. the theme was pushed by Alfred Blumrosen, a who had no reputation in colonial history. [see https://www.rutgers.edu/news/alfred-w-blumrosen-eminent-rutgers-expert-discrimination-law-dies-86  For a good review of the issue see Sean Wilentz, "The Paradox of the American Revolution" The New York Review of Books 1/13/2022; 69 (1): 26-28 online  Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

text: That's not a standard Wikipedia procedure, and would be technically quite difficult in any case.  However, you could complain at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  You might want to set up a Wikipedia account first, because I'm not sure that anonymous IP's will always be taken seriously. AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe opinion 

message: I was trying to fulfill the "page needed" template for the source: "WHY THE FUSE BLEW: THE REASONS FOR COLONIAL AMERICA’S TRANSFORMATION FROM PROTO-NATIONALISTS TO REVOLUTIONARY PATRIOTS: 1772 – 1775" by Camille Marie Davis.
I found that this source does not support the wording found in the lede of "... seen as major cause for the American Revolution particularly in southern colonies as it was feared the judgement would lead to abolition".  
Davis' statement is more conservative and goes as such: 
Davis also asserts:
Davis asserts that the decision probably had a role in the revolution beginnings through misinformation that all slaves had been freed by the decision, by inflammatory newspaper articles that manipulated opinions, and also by changing British tactics once the fighting started through a "Somersett effect"
What historians need to uncover are the complete correspondences of grievances started with the call from the Virginia House of Burgess as mentioned by Davis:
Davis addendum hypothesizes difficulty finding primary sources:
It's a good article and well worth the entire read as it covers the entire case in detail.  
I am only removing the source from the lede as it does not support the statement it is attached to. 
If the lede is changed to "possible cause" or just "cause" instead of "major cause" then this article could be a source for that sentence. 47.233.68.102 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: the Davis paper is well done--but it does not qualify as a "reliable secondary source" by Wikipedia criteria It is an unpublished MA thesis paper--not a PhD thesis. see WP:SCHOLARSHIP Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I was wondering about the point if thesis was reliable sourcing and didn't notice if it was masters or doctorate level. Since it's not gone through a publishing or peer review process; then I'd guess it wasn't.  I was not the editor that originally included this source.  47.233.68.102 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 1 source from the lede final sentence.