Talk:Solomon Northup

Notes

I've been corresponding with a decendent of Solomon Northup. This gentleman has researched Northup throughly. He advises that Northup disappeared in 1863 in Boston while lecturing. I have requested a source for this as I have not seen this claim raised before despite a certain amount of research myself. Once I have some confirmation I will update the article to reflect this new information. Robert Brockway

I have researched Northup's life after his return to the north. If there is any source for the "best available evidence" that he disappeared in Boston, I would like to see it cited. I'm familiar with Mr. Linzy, and don't have high confidence in his research. Contact me for background if you like. dfiske@sprynet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.10.144.154 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My name is Northup and I have seen a Solomon Northup in some of my family history. My Family owned him I think (they owned a slave), his name was Solomon, they freed him and there is actually an account that they gave him an inheridance and property in Kingston Rhode Island...he may even be buried there. Considering what my family was apart of and where we migrated to in relationship to the time element. I would say he was very much a part of the underground railroad.

Hi. I recommend reading Solomon Northup's book, 12 Years a Slave. IIRC Solomon was freed by the Northup family after he saved the life of one of the children in the family. If you have any info on a grave in Rhode Island that would be a discovery - no one knows where or how Solomon Northup died. Robert Brockway 07:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston link

The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It points to the city of Boston. This seems right to me. Robertbrockway 00:28 May 12 2005 (UTC)

Solomon vs. Northup

Why does most of the article use his first name, and not his last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.181.237 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Additions on January 1, 2007

The substantial changes on 1/1/2007 by 72.251.13.79 to this article seem to be completely unsourced and represent a radical shift from the former state of the article. I have some limited knowledge of Northup, but I can't deny any of the claims explicitly. Can someone with more knowledge of Northup take a look at this and revert what is needed? 24.208.27.108 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a disputed tag to draw attention to this. The material added in this revision is unsourced and It just doesn't seem to meet wikipedia's standards. 24.208.27.108 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been noticed and corrected. It appears that someone was intent on presenting a positive POV of slavery, and not really focusing on what Solomon said. In addition, the article was poorly written, lacking any sort of coherent structure. I should point out that above someone mentioned Solomon was freed by his master after saving someone's life; Solomon was born free, and kidnapped; he was only freed by a legal process, not his master, who was adament about not releasing him. The person must have been confused with Solomon's father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebanony (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Racist Slurs & Vandalism

On February 8, 2010 there was a racist comment added to this page by "Petiatil". The comments were as follows " He was born in Minerva, Essex County, New York. He disappeared in 1863, and he was a nigger."

"Shoessss" noted this racial slur under the description of Solomon Northup and and corrected it to read "He was born in Minerva, Essex County, New York. He disappeared in 1863."

Racial slurs violate Wikipedia's policy and have no place in an article that proports to be non-biased. Overt racist remarks towards African Americans do not belong in this article.Ebanony (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok 71.178.124.86 made a revision to the article. Thanks for the contributions. However, under "Freedom" you changed "travelling" to "traveling". The first spelling is not incorrect, and did not need to be changed. The double L is written in British English, and one should be aware of this fact. Further, there is no reason to insist that all must follow an American way of writing. Otherwise, excellent work.Ebanony (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The guideline on Wikipedia is that articles which have a strong connection with a country that uses American English should use American spelling. And those that have a strong connection with a country that uses British English should use British spelling. Thus American spelling is a reasonable choice on this article. Invertzoo (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I have made necessary and important copy editing changes to this article, including adding a number of useful links but most of them have disappeared. I would very much appreciate it if whoever is doing this come forward with his or her reasons for the changes. Please remember Wikipedia is a group project where we exchange ideas to make entries the best they can be. Risssa (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave an explanation in the edit summary. Common words, such as kidnap, are not linked. See WP:OVERLINK. The section you tagged in the lead does not need a cite, as it is given in the body of the article. Anna (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you have written here. I suggest we take this to arbitration. Risssa (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The changes I made

This is the message I want to send to Mediation. I thought Anna (or anyone else) might want to read it first and that perhaps we can work out our disagreements here.

I started reading this entry only to discover that the introduction needed a bit of copy editing, the addition of five or six links and more citations. I changed the wording in a few places and added links. I went away for 10 minutes and then I went back to the entry intending to read the rest of it when I discovered that my changes had been deleted. I put a message in Talk to which Anna replied saying that common words don't need links (the intro has at least two links that fall into the category -- not counting "kidnapping" which I added but which she may have deleted by now) and that the intro doesn't need citations (it has three) because that information is covered in the main body of the article.

I realize Anna has a great deal of experience in writing and editing Wikipedia entries and that she has demonstrated a profound and very admirable dedication to Wikipedia, its standards and its goals. But nobody here is infallible.

There are a lot of people (weasel words!), myself included, who don't read anything but the introduction so it seems to me that excluding important links and citations in that area does a disservice to the reader. The absence of these vital elements from the opening paragraphs always makes me wonder just how accurate and thorough the rest of the entry is and whether reading it is worth my time.

To the matter of copy editing -- the article is clunky in places and the wording needs to be changed. I have two examples, this is the first: Northup is said to own "a property" but what kind of property isn't specified. Anything I own is "a property," from my desk to my car to my stockpot. I think that needs to be defined plus the change to "real estate" emphasizes that Northrup was a land-owner (something most men and women from that time weren't) and a citizen of New York.

Secondly, the entry reads:

"Northup sued the slave traders in Washington, DC, but lost in the local court. District of Columbia law prohibited him as a black man from testifying against whites and, without his testimony, he was unable to sue for civil damages."

I changed this to (note: I don't have my edited text here before me):

"Northup sued the slave traders in Washington, DC, but lost in local court because the law didn't allow black men to testify against whites."

I know I said something about damages because I linked to that word. Since Northup sued in DC, then it isn't necessary to say that DC law applied. I was bothered by the term "local court" and thought about deleting it entirely, but I don't know enough about the DC court system from that period to change it and I figured it could wait until someone with more legal expertise came along and supplied the correct word.

Thank you.

Risssa (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No doubt everyone has different ideas about copy editing (I've also made changes). While I understand your interest in having cites in the Lead, the WP MOS does not require it but does require that the Lead facts be supported by cites in the body of the article. It seems that cites in the Lead are getting more popular despite the guidelines, perhaps for the reasons you give. I added some because of different sources having opinions as to Northup's last years. As to the DC court issue, I do know that the District was managed by an administrative committee of Congress at this time but am not sure exactly what that meant for the court. The District's status as a slave society led to the prohibition in law of blacks testifying against whites in court, probably derived from similar laws in VA and MD. Slave states had tightened restrictions on free blacks after the 1831 Nat Turner revolt.Parkwells (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that that both versions could both use some editing. This is because Northup didn't sue the slave traders--that would imply a civil case. Rather, he entered a complaint with the police magistrate and the DC slave trader (James Birch) was arrested and tried on criminal charges. Birch was found not guilty in part because Northup could not testify in DC. So the only testimony to be delivered in court about the actual abduction was from Birch plus his friends and slave-trading confederate who hadn't been there, but could say they were and had no risk of being contradicted. They claimed Northup had approached them in Washington and told them he was a slave from Georgia and was for sale, and so they bought him. With no one to refute this appalling lie, Birch was found not guilty. Plus the paperwork used to back up Birch's story was either found to not exist or seemed fabricated, but that was disregarded by the court. The prosecution consisted only of people from New York professing that they had known Solomon Northup for many years and he was always a free man. No one but Northup could testify for the prosecution about what happened to Northup in DC. Using that lack of admissible testimony by Northup to their advantage, the just-acquitted Birch then had charges brought against Northup for fraud--for trying to defraud him of the $625 of his purchase price by lying to him by telling him he was a slave from Georgia and for sale. Northup responded by basically calling his bluff--by insisting that such a trial against him proceed. Birch's lawyer then consulted with him and they decided to drop their complaint against Northup. Northup objected to that, which made Birch et al look bad because had Northup actually lied about being a slave from Georgia, then first of all why, having just gotten his freedom back, would he immediately seek out Birch for arrest, which would put Northup at risk of being sent to jail via exposure of his crime. And second, if Northup were guilty, why would he insist upon proceeding with criminal charges against himself being heard in court, rather than having the charges dropped? Northup makes no mention of any civil lawsuit against Birch that he may have wanted to file, but it's clear that he couldn't have won, since he couldn't speak in court. The only record we have of these proceedings is from Northup, because the court documents have been lost.

Another part of the lede that I would question is the sentence: "He was held in the Red River region of Louisiana by several different owners for 12 years, mostly in Avoyelles Parish, during which time his family and friends had no knowledge of him." In the book, Northup mentions two occasions when his family had news of him: 1) during his trip down south, he was able to get a letter out to them via a British sailor on the ship. And one of the men he met on the ship, who had a similar story to his, was able to get back to freedom, and he went to Saratoga Springs and met with Northup's family and told them about him. After that, though, there was no news for almost 12 years. Here is how I would change the lede:

"Solomon Northup (July 1808 – 1863?) was a free-born African American from New York, the son of a freed slave and a free woman of color. A farmer and violinist, Northup owned land in Hebron, New York. In 1841 he was kidnapped by slave-traders, having been enticed to Washington, D.C. (where slavery was legal) with a job offer as a violinist with traveling entertainers. Shortly after he and his employers arrived in DC, they drugged him and sold him as a slave. He was shipped to New Orleans, where he was sold to a planter in Louisiana. He was held in the Red River region of Louisiana by several different owners for 12 years, mostly in Avoyelles Parish. Aside from a brief communication when he was first kidnapped, his family and friends had no knowledge of him. He made repeated attempts to get messages to his friends and family, but the systems guarding slaves were too pervasive to allow it. Eventually, he was able to find a visiting Canadian to whom he could confide, and who was willing to risk contacting Northup's family and friends. They then enlisted the help of the Governor of New York, Washington Hunt, to his cause, since state law provided for aid to free New York citizens kidnapped into slavery. Northup regained his freedom in January 1853 and returned to his family in New York.

"Northup had the slave trader in Washington, DC (James H. Birch) arrested and tried, but he was acquitted because District of Columbia law prohibited him as a black man from testifying against white people. Later, in New York State, Northup's northern kidnappers were located and charged, but the case was tied up in court for two years due to jurisdictional challenges and finally dropped by the State of New York when DC was found to have jurisdiction. Washington DC did not pursue the case. Those who had kidnapped and enslaved Northup received no punishment.QuizzicalBee (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the lead being changed, I would say changing "no knowledge" to "little knowledge" should be sufficient, with further explanation lower down in the article. Also, "He made repeated attempts to escape and get messages out of the plantation." is too strong. He made one attempt to escape and one abortive attempt at getting a letter out, if I recall correctly. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note that various strong sources give various versions and a lot of myth surrounds his life. In such cases I think it best to give footnote detail on which sources say what. The WP article uses Northup's memoir as a source which isn't a good idea as it is a primary source. I'm not suggesting we pull on current memoir cites, but replacing refs with more objective sources, where possible, would be best in the long run. Britannica seems to suggest that Northup's family were only alerted to his situation towards the end of his enslavement, ie that they had had no word at all. Citing sources on this talk page would also be useful. Cheers. Anna (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Anna, I think you devalue Northup's memoir too much for being a primary source. It has been used by several scholars (Phillips - very interesting if true, but whom I can't vouch for Life and Labor, p. 219, excludes Northup's memoir from the general disparagement of slave narratives as abolitionist tracts - Stampp, and Elkins are mentioned in the article; and Blassingame - whom I can vouch for, and may add his use of the memoir to the article). In addition are the scholarly editions of the text (by Eakin - whose name I see misspelled - and Logsdon, Osofsky, etc.). Add to that the fact that Northup's case, with all the fact-based-ness that implies, was pursued in the courts of the time. This is one well-vetted primary source, I think. On the other hand, the Britannica article you cite provides no bibliography to support its claims and its authors are not the Britannica notables of yore. With reference to when Northup's family first learned of his kidnapping, the Britannica article says:

It was not until an abolitionist carpenter from Canada named Samuel Bass visited Epps’s farm in June 1852 that Northup was able to arrange to have letters delivered to friends in New York to alert them of his situation and set in motion his rescue.

That seems to refute that the Northup family had prior knowledge, unless you emphasize "...to have letters delivered ...to alert them of his situation [i.e. his then current location, on Epp's farm, not told of in previous correspondence and very necessary to secure his release] ...and set in motion his rescue." [which the previous letters and Clem Ray's verbal communication - for which no exact date is given, but assumed to happen shortly after Clem met Solomon in Washington - did not or could not do.Dhtwiki (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

lead

The lede currently says "Aside from a brief communication when he was first kidnapped, his family and friends had no knowledge of him." This makes it sound as though Northup's family certainly had word of him shortly after his kidnap. This is too definitively put - as if it is indisputably the case. Anna (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Northrup states his wife and family knew early on he was in bondage from the secret letter written for him by an English sailor on the slave ship that transported him to New Orleans (and from an escaped slave he had met in Richmond). This letter was, according Northrup, brought to the attention of then New York Governor William H. Seward by Henry Northrup but the family had no idea of Solomon's exact whereabouts, so it was decided at that time that nothing more could be pursued. These facts can be added to the article, if you think it needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We work by sourcing. Are you referring to the memoir? Anna (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC) This information is also supported in the 1852 legal documents published with the memoir in 1968 (appendix B). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary sourcing

There is still a horrible amount of primary sourcing used in the article. I would encourage editors to stop with the "tracing your family past" websites and memoir refs and start with some decent biographical secondary sources. Anna (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about the memoir seems a bit overblown. In 1968, the memoir was republished by two historian editors and a university press, editors who annotated/commented on it extensively. It is also the source for his life. Now, yes one biography appears to have been recently written but one biography is just that, one biography, and undoubtedly relies extensively on the scholarly edition of the memoir. If one actually wants other sources in this article, it would be helpful to identify them with citations (instead of just saying: use other sources) Why? For What? etc. If you want a source removed, remove it and then whovever is using it can discuss with you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you challenge the source before removing (you'd also have to remove the material it supports if it's that awful). I think of the memoir as a thoroughly vetted primary source, and I don't think Wikipedia policy differentiates enough between vetted and unvetted primary sources. Secondary sources themselves can be dishonestly biased, so their use isn't a virtue just because they are secondary.

BTW, I haven't seen "tracing your family past" websites being referenced. What are we talking about here?Dhtwiki (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Replying to various messages above relating to primary sourcing: I have nothing against the memoir as a memoir. Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources, period. It's how WP works. I am not suggesting we pull all references to it today, I am saying that most of the article relies on one primary source and that isn't good practice. We don't use court records, publicly available legal documents, birth or death certs or wills. WP:PSTS says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". That is what this article does. Family Search is currently used as a ref. Anna (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:PSTS says Wikipedia does rely on primary sources for straight facts, as does WP:SPS. If there is something you can point to that's not straight facts but rather interpretation of the memoir in this article that is cited to the memoir, please do. Moreover, whether this article overuses primary sources, is something that people will likely not agree upon, unless the objector comes forward, as requested, with what sources they wish to use instead and for what. For example, your suggestion above that the WP:Tertiary source Encyclopedia Britannica, may contradict this article and the memoir is not borne out by a careful reading of Britannica - Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The WP:PSTS Talk page message "Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)" under Wikipedia talk:No original research#What do cautions about primary sources mean? says that, "For purposes of the notability policy, there certainly is; that is the most direct reason for not basing an entire article on primary sources." So, the prohibition against all primary sources is, in large part, based on establishing notability; and the notability of Northup and his memoir are beyond dispute. As far as being "cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]", I think editors have done just that reasonably well. Familysearch.org, is, of course, based on the LDS genealogical treasure trove and is a valuable resource, especially if online.Dhtwiki (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the general problem with primary source use extends beyond Notability to WP:NOR and WP:Undue but we need examples of such, here, if we are to correct anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What problems specifically, and which Wikipedia policies impact, other than the ones mentioned? For example, I see that the article gives undue lack of weight to Northup's time on Epp's plantation, but so does the memoir, in terms of textual space. That is covered by a policy you've already mentioned. So -- in the interests of prophylaxis -- beyond undue weight, notability, and problems with original research (i.e. interpretation), what are the problems?Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I have not identified any but then I am not the one who raised the complaint above. In general, more high quality sources would likely lead to improvement and the fullest exploration of the subject, but as I have mentioned from the start, they would need to be specifically identified and proposed for a particular use. Nonetheless, it might well be beneficial to use something from the recent biography ISBN 978-1440829741(or check it against what we have), or something from the last book of Eakin, and anything else someone identifies that is of quality, but editors who complain should say what they want to use from such sources, or identify how such sources should specifically change this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"He disappeared in 1857" is highly ambiguous

Is there documentation that he disappeared (it should be cited) or is this to be read as "he disappears from the historical record", i.e. we don't have information as to his whereabouts at the time? It's an important distinction in the case of a person who had previously disappeared through kidnapping and enslavement. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solomon Northup. 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/20131231201444/http://www.archives.nysed.gov/education/showcase/201011afamvoting/trans_1821.shtml to http://www.archives.nysed.gov/education/showcase/201011afamvoting/trans_1821.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304145948/http://acadianahistorical.org/tour-builder/tours/show/id/4 to http://acadianahistorical.org/tour-builder/tours/show/id/4

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) 08:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The citation of Henry Bliss Northup saying Solomon Northup was sent back North - formerly note 44

While this is based on the report of a newspaper in Georgia, the report cites a newspaper in New York that did not exist. If one looks at the records provided in New York State newspapers - the NY Times, Herald, Tribune, or any of the newspapers available here: http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/, or consult the microfilmed newspapers held by the state library in Albany - a report of this is not found. Further, Henry Bliss Northup was in the UK for several months in 1858. Thus, he would not have known the fate of his friend, Solomon. 140.233.186.185 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Middlebury College history student140.233.186.185 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Death and gravesite

I have heard that the date of his death and location of his grave is unknown. However, I found this searching on the FindAGrave website. Of course it might not be him, but the dates and location are a close match. This link also has a photo of a headstone. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/201431383/solomon-northup

Solomon Northup BIRTH 31 Dec 1803 New York, USA DEATH 9 Aug 1890 (aged 86) BURIAL Schuyler Cemetery Monterey, Schuyler County, New York, USA Dan Bollinger (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In 1855 in NY there was a Solomon Northup, age 49, mulatto, born in Essex Co., and living in Queensbury, Warren Co., NY, married to Ann, and with son Alonso, who is the subject of this article, and also a Solomon Northup in Orange, Schuyler Co., NY, aged 51, [not black or mulatto] born in Delaware County, with wife Sarah and children Myron, John A. and George, matching the details of the Find-a-Grave man. Agricolae (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Uncited content

There was a lot of uncited content that appears to have been there for some time. {{Cn}} tags date back to 2018. So I removed the uncited content, none of which seems critical. Here's a diff of the changes [1]–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I have picked up:

• What happened to the first letter sent to Henry B. Northup, with a source and more detail here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Added back and edited content about his work at Pine Woods for Ford here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• The info about Tibeats appears to be a duplicate of a paragraph where Northup was hung, the details are a bit different, but what's in the article gets to the implications, so I am just leaving it as-is now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• The abuse by Epps and his wife is well covered in the article, some of which I recently added, so leaving that as-is, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Added the part about taking the sheriff here.

That leaves the last two items about prosecution and the trials, if someone is interested.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Dhtwiki, I reverted an edit for a change from "corruption" to "criminal" because corruption is more specific. Criminal could be a wide range of crimes.

I keep forgetting how to revert and get an edit summary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Someone changed it from criminal to corruption without a citation. I will leave it as-is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone changed it from "criminal" to "corruption", but there is no such charge in the memoirs, that I could see. In any case, the charge of kidnapping and selling into slavery should be the more serious crimes. Merely describing the charges as "criminal" is enough to distinguish such charges from a civil lawsuit.

When you revert there should be a window where you can place an edit summary. If it's an "undo", the window is partially filled in; but you can, and I think should, add to it. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)