Talk:List of abolitionists

ordering lists more

I think these lists should be divided by date.

I think this could use a reformat.

In order for this to be useful, instead of just a list of items, it could explain who the people/groups were, (and for people date of birth, nationality, occupation) instead of just listing the names of the groups/individuals. Also for individuals it may be useful to have them categorised either by era, or by occupation (philosopher, politician, freed slave, military figure, etc).--HeniousMacaw (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article will be better if someone convert the list into a table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8xh256 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Umm...i just saw sarah palin on the list...why?????? i think someone should maybe go over the list to make sure its not being tampered or something, id change it myself but usually my reverts get reverted back, so i will let someone in charge handle this...whoever those people are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.186.250 (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose changing title

This is completely Anglo-American centric, so why not re-title the article List of Anglo-American opponents of slavery? Harburg (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Because we'd then have to remove about a dozen or so names to fit that title. Why not just add more names that are not Anglo-American? freshacconci talktalk 06:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Opposition

Popes had written against slavery, they could be listed. Pope Gregory XVI's "In Supremo Apostolatus" is a good example.75.39.122.233 (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Scope

The list ought to be trimmed down to include only people who are notable for their opposition to slavery. As it stands now, virtually anyone who claims to be opposed to it can be included. If Lindsay Lohan were to say that slavery is wrong, she too would be a candidate for the list. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Now renamed, to be focused on abolitionists - e.g. those who have actively campaigned or worked to end slavery.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna (talk · contribs). That's why I removed e.g. Karl Marx, who is very notable for many things, but not specifically for his opposition to slavery. I also removed the Unitarian church, which was founded with the intention to be a church, not to abolish slavery. But I think the Quakers should be retained, although they weren't founded with the intention to abolish slavery, either. Still, in the early 19th century in the US, their contribution to abolitionism was very notable. A special case are European explorers or colonialists who fought slavery in Africa, sometimes using the fight against slavery only as a pretext for their nations' expansionist goals. I'd like to exclude those explorers. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You are saying some persons/groups should or shouldn’t be in the list based on your personal interrests and a vague gestalt of if or when the beliefs of notable person/group matter.Rich (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard L. Peterson: According to the lede, this is a list of notable abolitionists. Since I gave my reasons above why I think that neither Marx nor the Unitarians belong here, I'd like to ask you why you think they are notable as abolitionists. I'd also like to know what my personal interest might be. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1. They are notable as abolitionists. 2.But I do not concede that only those who are notable as abolitionists should be on the list. If you think about it a little, I bet you will agree with me on that. 3.) You deleted them, it seems to me, for reasons base on your personal estimate impactand how much impact their abolitionism made. That's not the best way to do history. 144.35.45.72 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, in between errands-the unitarian church was quite a big wheel in 1800s New England, highly influential-i won’t go into details unless you’re interested- But even if it hadn’t been an influential church,(supposing it was influenced to support abolition rather than influential), it would be notable, since it had many adherents. That’s an example of why i think it’s that the general notability rather than the notability as an abolitionist is important.(Another example is Sarah Palin, mentioned somewhere here-yes, her being abolitionist now isn’t worth mentioning, but if Palin had lived in 1840 and were as famous as she is now, then, even if she mentioned support of abolition once in passing, then that should go in the article, because that could have influenced the abolition movement for good or ill(possibly for ill, since many think she’s silly). But if her hypothetical statement in 1840 hadn’t been influential, how would we determine that lack of influence for certain now? And if she hadn’t been influential, if she were notable, it gives a datum on abolitionist opinion among the notables of 1840.Rich (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Karl Marx, I have a book on my shelf consisting of news articlse about the U.S. Civil War that Marx wrote for a German newspaper from London. Marx had been appointed to report on the war for that newspaper. Also included are several letters between Marx and Engels(Engels was in U.S at the time). Marx made it clear that he supported abolition. Also in the book is a record of Marx’s telegram to Lincoln congratulating him for the Emancipation Proclamation, in the name of the International. But regardless of how much influence Marx had on the Abolitionist cause, I consider it important that he be in the list, for a number of reasons I would be willing to go over if you request. Please realize that of the string of edits and removals you made in May 2020, I agrred with most of them, thought they were excellent.Rich (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

An IP wants to have Thomas Jefferson on this list. I removed Jefferson on 14 Sept. 2014. On 6 Nov. 2015, the IP restored him without an edit summary; I promptly reverted him/her with the edit summary, "Please take it to talk. Don't know how TJ, a major slaveowner, could be an abolitionist." On 14 Nov. s/he added TJ back to the list with the edit summary, "Jefferson was a slaveowner but an opponent of slavery. Should slaveowners be removed from this list? Hamilton and Franklin are present too." I just now reverted with the summary, "You need a source that calls TJ an abolitionist."
I do not want to engage in a slow edit war. How does the community see this? No individual on the list is sourced as being an abolitionist, though many of the groups are. In this case, since I say he's not and the IP says he is, it seems the IP should provide a RS that gives evidence TJ was an abolitionist. The IP compares TJ's slaveowning to Hamilton's and Franklin's, which is apples to oranges. YoPienso (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this debate is still going on, but you could argue that Jefferson was not notable primarily for being an abolitionist, but for his other accomplishments. Same with comparisons between Robert E. Lee and George Washington; Lee was known primarily for upholding slavery, while Washington, although a slaveholder, was famous for other things. Just my 2c. --MopTop (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Historical v Contemporary?

What is the basis for splitting groups into historical and contemporary? Many of the groups listed in the "Historical" list still exist today, and are still opposed to slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.131.84 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of abolitionists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019135541/http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/14/human-trafficking-a-problem-%E2%80%98in-our-own-backyard%E2%80%99-rcmp/ to http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/14/human-trafficking-a-problem-%E2%80%98in-our-own-backyard%E2%80%99-rcmp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524113909/http://home.nps.gov/ugrr/TEMPLATE/FrontEnd/Site3.CFM?SiteTerritoryID=129&ElementID=314& to http://home.nps.gov/ugrr/TEMPLATE/FrontEnd/Site3.CFM?SiteTerritoryID=129&ElementID=314&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305055102/http://home.nps.gov/ugrr/TEMPLATE/FrontEnd/Site3.CFM?SiteTerritoryID=129&ElementID=316 to http://home.nps.gov/ugrr/TEMPLATE/FrontEnd/Site3.CFM?SiteTerritoryID=129&ElementID=316

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of abolitionists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604043622/http://calledtorescue.org/about-us/ to http://www.calledtorescue.org/about-us/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404040409/http://humantrafficking.org/organizations/414 to http://www.humantrafficking.org/organizations/414
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928075246/http://www.hola-arkansas.com/news/935/arkansas-to-stop-human-trafficking to http://www.hola-arkansas.com/news/935/arkansas-to-stop-human-trafficking

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton and Jefferson

Recently I broke my general rule of not getting involved in wiki drama to edit this page. In my view, it makes no sense to have Alexander Hamilton on this page. Hamilton gave his name to the New York Society and associated with abolitionists, but otherwise never lifted a finger on the issue. He has no accomplishments nor efforts to his name, only vague association with those who did. The idea these days that Hamilton was some sort of ardent abolitionist is a gross exaggeration meant to appeal to modern sensibilities.

User Rsk6400 has, nonetheless, repeatedly removed my edit. He claims that since Hamilton was in the New York society, he therefore should be counted. I countered that by this logic, Thomas Jefferson should also be counted on this list. Jefferson, unlike Hamilton, actually fought slavery. His initial draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned it, he was involved in the legalization of emancipation in Virginia, he tried to ban slavery in all western territories and helped to ban it in the Northwest Ordinance, and as President he ended American involvement in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Rsk6400 just said "nonsense" and removed this as well.

In short, I don't believe either Hamilton or Jefferson should be on this page, but if we're going to have Hamilton here. We should reserve this page for people who actively pushed for an immediate end to slavery, not just anyone who expressed any sort of loose support. But if loose support is the standard, it's a double-standard to not have Jefferson when Jefferson substantively did far more to limit/end slavery than Hamilton ever did.

2601:18D:67F:A550:5CA1:E504:D1E3:A240 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't believe that Jefferson belongs here, it is "nonsense" to add him. But I was calling the idea that a slaveholder (when he died, his slaves were sold to cover his debts, families were separated) should be an abolitionist "nonsense". As I already stated in a previous edit summary, if the article on Hamilton is not correct, please work on it. This list can only rely on what the linked articles say. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If what I personally think is what we're going by then Hamilton should be removed too. That's a dodge.

Either we should only have people who were active abolitionists on this list, in which case neither Hamilton nor Jefferson should be there, or we're using the standard that anyone with any abolitionist sentiment counts, in which case it doesn't matter what Jefferson or Hamilton actually did, so both should be counted. Also, Jefferson didn't personally free his slaves because he legally couldn't. He was in debt, the slaves were collateral, just to scratch the surface of the legal problems he would have faced. But again, it's a double standard.

And if you actually care about what the original article says, then you should edit it to fix it. I have no idea what specifically in the original article you are referring to that apparently needs to be changed.2601:18D:67F:A550:317B:65F:877C:A063 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson didn't personally free his slaves because he legally couldn't. He was in debt - That's not nonsense, that's cynical. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)