Jump to content

Talk:Edward Rutledge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought he was against reconciliation???

[edit]

I heard from a bunch of books-on google that he was over zealous FOR seperation from England —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salveevery1 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hardly. Rutledge was cautious, and one of the last delegates to agree with declaring independence. He probably no longer favored reconciliation with Great Britain in 1776, but I don't think anyone would call him "over zealous" for separation. —Kevin Myers 07:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always heard the opposite the he was always misportrayed in movies once you look in random books on google! Salveevery1 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of June 29, 1776 he was opposed to Independence. This article has gone from being overly critical of Rutledge to now looking like it is being edited by his descendents.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/south-carolinas-edward-rutledge-opposes-independence Elemming (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Views

[edit]

Since their are conflicting views on what Rutledge's real views on slavery were---I suggest we put both on the article please :) I think there is really no way of know unless we talked to him---which I think would have been awesome hahaha!! ;)

I'm trying to add a controversy box, since I know lots of people disagree on this, I can't seem to figure out how to add it though. If any of you know please do! :) This is not intended as vandalism, i'm just trying to make sure that all points are in here :) and I can't seem to get a box/tag on it :P Salveevery1 (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there seems to be no controversy about his views on slavery. Remember, we can only add information to articles that comes from reliable sources, which in this case would be something written by a professional historian, not random web sites. —Kevin Myers 03:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I got one :)

Lives of the Signers of The Declaration of Independence by Charles A. Goodrich; I think the article focus's too much on the negative parts. I heard from many people he did release his slaves, but I think the whole issue shouldn't be emphasized as much as it is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.66.72 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the owner of 50 slaves Edward opposed the idea that African-Americans should be allowed to serve in the Continental Army. It is highly likely he was one of the major factors in censoring the slave trade clause in the Declaration of Independence. Elemming (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not correct. There was no Republicans in the 1700's. The Republicans did not begin until the early 1800's. Read you history please before placing bad info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.248.98 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neg. tone??

[edit]

Is it just me or does this article have a bad tone to Rutledge?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions


I've been noticing a negative tone also.... This doesn't even look like an encyclopedia article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.205.233 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TONE????

[edit]

I agree the tone here seems biased! can we please change it to make it neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salveevery1 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the bias section still up?

[edit]

Please remove the negative tone in this article :)

ty :) (I used to have an account, but haven't used it in a long time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.235.10 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outright lie concerning the draft Declaration

[edit]

Whatever Rutledge’s position may have been, the characterization of the deleted slavery passage in the draft Declaration that is given more than once in this article is an outright lie. The passage ends, it is true, with a complaint of slaves being set upon the colonists, but the bulk of it is expressly and unambiguously aimed at the slave trade per se. I do not claim to be a historian, but I can read 18th-century English just fine, thank you.

I might add that, in 1776, Rutledge does not so much defend slavery, as protest against the hypocrisy of New Englanders who complained of slavery while profiting from it. John W. Kennedy (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual anti-slavery passage from Thomas Jefferson's rough draft is below. The comments made in this section are PATENTLY FALSE. Read the original text, it is decidedly against slavery - "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.106.2 (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove that section regarding historical authenticity? The questions about the historical accuracy of his portrayal in a movie is best dealt with in the section about the movie. 69.120.85.11 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:
Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that he opposed the anti-slavery clause in the Declaration.
Is there a source that states this or is this statement original research? He was a plantation investor (owner?) and slave owner, after all. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law partner

[edit]

When Rutledge returned to Charleston after his law education in England, the law firm where he became partner was that of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who became his brother-in-law.
Town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina: Our history: Founding Fathers: Edward Rutledge /& Charles Coatsworth Pinkney
http://sc-mountpleasant.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=291
http://sc-mountpleasant.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=289
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney is indeed mentioned in this article. I must have skipped right over that sentence. Blushingly, Wordreader (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Rutledge, John Rutledge, and Charles Coatesworth Pinkney are also mentioned in this article: Middleton-Rutledge-Pinckney family. Overkill? I think the way that article is formatted misrepresents some of the relationships. Wordreader (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Inn of Court?

[edit]

This source states that Rutledge attended the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple instead of the Middle Temple. (Both still exist.) Is there a citation for that Middle Temple statement in the article?
"Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence"
http://www.dsdi1776.com/signers-by-state/edward-rutledge/
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 72.225.42.161 vandalized my above two comments. I tried to adjust them so they are again readable. I emboldened the vandalism as some of it is already in Italics. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Rutledge. 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:

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) 02:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Rutledge&oldid=1263410850"