Talk:Johns Hopkins

Abolitionist?

Should the word abolitionist be removed from this page given the recent revelation that he owned slaves? See new addition and citation at end of Abolition section. Megan3532 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead and relevant section will need to be reworked in light of the new research definitely. I would put forward though that it might have been possible to have been both a slaver and an abolitionist over time, so the term might not to be fully expunged. I think we need to wait for the second literature to start to update to get a good consensus picture on that. For now, this writeup from JHU looks like a great place to start: https://hardhistory.jhu.edu/assets/uploads/sites/8/2020/12/Hard.Histories.12.8.20.pdf Sauzer (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, on review of that very source, the authors assert (pg. 8): "Hopkins and abolitionism. There is no evidence that Hopkins was an abolitionist or supported the abolitionist cause" so it does seem that at the very least the assertion should be qualified as being disputed, if not outright removed. Sauzer (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Would need higher scrutiny to re-add for sure. ɱ (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources in that section at the very least need improvement - there's quite a few dead links, an archived JHU project, not too much else... ɱ (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; thank you both. After reading the new research, it seems much of the page will need to be rewritten since the veracity of the "biography" cited has been called into question. Megan3532 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this an absurdity? Where does the false notion come from of exclusivity between slave owning (former) and then being an abolitionist? Several abolitionists became so by seeing the horrors of slavery first hand. If I have seen one I've seen a dozen headlines today about the "noted abolitionist" Johns Hopkins and these revelations, and even moreso according to this[1] he specifically purchased at least one slave with the goal of later freeing them. That really isn't all too different than Oskar Schindler if only on a smaller scale. Progressingamerica (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree it could be possible to have been both (and wrote as much above), but the most recent scholarship is finding that there is not much evidence from during his lifetime that he was an active abolitionist. There are assertions that he was so, all after his death, but they don't yet seem to follow back to any concrete primary sources. It could be that such primary evidence exists, but it doesn't appear to have been found yet. The situation NPR mentions is sourced from the above-linked PDF, which describes it in some more detail "As for Johns Hopkins himself, an editorial column titled “Death of a Useful Man” dubbed him an “honored citizen” who had been “an anti-slavery man all his life.” As evidence, the commentator reported how “many years ago” Hopkins had purchased an enslaved man whom he “emancipated.” This man, the story concluded, had remained “in service” until Hopkins death and was “provided for … handsomely in his will.”4 As the article goes on to point out, these sorts of manumissions, often with terms of lifetime or otherwise lengthy service, were very common in Maryland at the time, since the benefactor got the moral succor of technically freeing someone, eventually, without losing their productive labor during their lifetime. Sauzer (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)