Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable, historical sources for the Doctrine itself. Quote does not sound contemporaneous at all. No mention in History of slavery in Maryland, which says "the first Africans were brought to Maryland in 1642, as 13 slaves at St. Mary's City, the first English settlement in the Province." Qzd (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited in this article is a broken link. The books where I have found the doctrine quoted appear to be from self-publishing companies, not authoritative sources. The language of the doctrine refers to "Blacks" although that would not have been the term likely used in colonial Maryland. In addition, the doctrine is attributed to the "Colony Council", whereas the legislature of Maryland at the time was known as the General Assembly (see [1]). No doubt many white Marylanders of the 17th century and later would have supported excluding black people from the fruits of white society, but I haven't seen a reliable source to confirm that they enacted that idea into a law in 1638. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If there were not indications that the whole thing is original research or even a HOAX, I would have eben looking for a merge target, rather than delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this site and several others have the exact quote. Does this have a genuine basis? I suspect that primary sources on colonial history are published, so that it should be possible to verify whether this is genuine or a hoax. However, I have to say that the terms "black" and "white" so not sound contemprorary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, have spent some time without finding a reliable source for this doctrine. I also spent some time going through the acts of the Maryland general Assembly in 1638 (which at that time comprised "the governor and council, and a general assembly of all freemen" [2]). I did not find any such act. I did find two acts which dealt with liberties of free Christians, indentured servants and slaves but neither contain language as in the article. An Act for the liberties of the people and An Act Limiting the times of Servants. I'm leaning towards failing WP:V or hoax. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am pretty sure the "Act for the liberties of the people" is what is being referred to in this article. Here is a study guide which emphasizes the exclusion of slaves in the bill. George Washington Williams, in 1882, makes a related argument alse here. To add to the results found by IP, I would add the 1664 "An Act Concerning Negroes & other Slaves" which ensures slavery for the children of slave fathers (I didn't find an act to ensure slavery for the children of slave mothers, but if I looked harder, perhaps I would find it) and is considered the act that legalized slavery in Maryland. Any one of these existing laws could make for suitable wikipedia articles, I'm not sure. The proceedings of the colonial Maryland Assembly and a lot of other documents are searchable at the Maryland State Archives, if anyone wants to search further. Oddly, the History of Slavery in Maryland "starts" with the first record of slave arrivals from Africa in 1642, four years after the acts listed by IP. This start date is the date Maryland sources give as well. Perhaps mention of the 1638 acts should be made at History of Slavery in Maryland as the 1664 one already is. In any case, this title is OR and treating this as primarily a bill excluding rights rather than primarily a bill of rights is POV, so on both counts, I think the article should be deleted. I could see the article being renamed and rehabilitated as the article on the 1638 Act for liberties of the people, but my preference would be for a new article on that act. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.