Talk:James Armistead Lafayette

Middle and Surname

According to the article itself and the sites referenced in this article this mans adopted surname was LaFayette and Armistead his middlename, yet the article is titled "James Armistead". Shouldn't it be renamed to James LaFayette with a forwarder from "James Armistead" for current articles linking to this entry? 62.108.17.179 (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote keep "James Armistead" as the article's title, as this is how he is most widely known. Apparently, historians primarily have written about him as "James Armistead", which naming protocol was fairly common for a slave. Commonly, the slave had only his/her first name - a European not African name - to those acquainted with him/her. People less acquainted, or complete strangers, would refer to the slave perhaps as, "John Doe Armistead's slave, James," or very often just use "James Armistead" because it was shorter and less cumbersome, and the context in which this was said would indicate that the person is a slave "owned" by someone named Armistead. It was only years after James Armistead LaFayette's historic exploits that he added the "LaFayette". Part of me would like to respect the man by following the name he himself chose when he finally had the opportunity, but I think that for an historical figure 200+ years ago, we should follow the name that has been primarily used by historians for many years. I just have to add, as a European-American Southerner, that each time I have to type the word "slave" I can feel disgust, anger, and resentment. Just from typing the word. As for modern writers saying that so-and-so the slave was "owned" by such-and-such other person, my outrage goes through the roof. Nobody can "own" a person, regardless of whether the law says they do, it is not possible. The truth is that the "owned" person is imprisoned, enslaved, and otherwise having his/her human rights violated, and if it wasn't illegal in that time and place, well it should have been. They can imprison and mistreat the body, but the person can never be owned. I know I'm ranting, but this is just the Talk page, not the article itself, and in the many years I have been using and contributing to Wikipedia, I mostly limited myself to copy edits and occasional small factual contributions or corrections and not once before have I ranted. (I've made contributions from other IP addresses, also.) If I knew the appropriate discussion forum for broaching this "owned" issue as a style guide thing, that's where I'd post this micro-rant. Thanks for listening.  :-> 69.17.65.107 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree --23:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedailyplanet1938 (talk • contribs)

DOB?

If most sources put his DOB in 1748 why are we using 1760? Seems to contradict what the article says.02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 (talk)

Weird stuff is happening

I am very sorry, but something weird was happening when i was editing where it would morph words together. I hope this problem will go away. I am sure you could remove my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesarmistead25 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been done. Incidentally, we do not refer to the subjects of our articles by their first names, but by their surnames (unless their is some specific need to do so, say to differentiate between 32 people with the same family name). BMK (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Slave owner?

The statement regarding his ownership of three slaves are sourced to two pages that do not mention his ownership of slaves. I understand the 1830 census lists three slaves in his household, but were they also family members?70.226.196.26 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)JM Richards