Fact check: Dominik Nagl, The Governmentality of Slavery in Colonial Boston, 1690-1760, Amerikastudien Vol. 58, No. 1 (2013), pp

1. Why the claim is plausible but currently unverified: what’s missing and why it matters

The supplied dossier links Amerikastudien/American Studies as a venue for interdisciplinary work on American history, making it a plausible outlet for an article on colonial slavery; the journal’s scope and editorial practices are described in the background materials ^{[3] [4]}. However, the packet contains no direct bibliographic entry or reproduction of Nagl’s article, nor a DOI, page range, or archival link that would confirm Vol. 58, No. 1 ^[1] as the publication venue. Without that bibliographic proof, the statement remains an unverified bibliographic claim rather than an established fact ^{[2] [4]}.

2. What the contextual sources say about slavery in colonial Boston—relevance to Nagl’s purported focus

Contemporary coverage and scholarship emphasize Boston’s entanglement with slavery, including local memorialization efforts and historiographical treatments of slavery’s economic and social structures; a Boston church’s monument to enslaved people and a chapter on slavery and race in early America illustrate how local, institutional, and transatlantic threads converge in New England studies ^{[5] [6]}. These sources show the intellectual terrain in which a study of the “governmentality” of slavery—focused on governance, regulation, and institutional practices—would sit, but they do not substitute for the primary article text needed to evaluate Nagl’s arguments or evidence ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Discrepancies and gaps in the provided evidence: where the packet falls short

Several entries in the packet are tangential, including news updates and unrelated crime reporting, which underscores the absence of a concentrated bibliographic trail for Nagl’s article ^{[7] [8]}. The analyses acknowledge thematic connections—taxation, political economy, and Atlantic slavery—but these are secondary contextual sources rather than direct corroboration. The dossier’s highest-value items for verification are the journal descriptions ^{[3] [4]} and topical histories ^{[9] [10]}, none of which present the specific citation details required to confirm the original statement.

4. How different sources frame the study of colonial slavery—and what that suggests about Nagl’s likely approach

The provided academic sources approach colonial slavery through varied lenses—taxation and fiscal policy, Marxist political-economy analyses, and institutional histories—indicating that a work titled “The Governmentality of Slavery” would likely engage governance, legal regimes, and administrative practices alongside economic structures ^{[9] [10] [6]}. These perspectives collectively imply that Nagl’s presumed article would fit into a broader historiographical move toward analyzing how power and bureaucratic practices shaped slavery in urban colonial settings. Still, this remains inferential because the primary article is not supplied ^{[10] [6]}.

5. Dates and publication signals: what the dossier’s timestamps reveal about recency and relevance

The dates in the packet range from 2020–2026 for contextual materials, with some entries explicitly postdating the claimed 2013 article; this indicates active continued interest in colonial Boston slavery and suggests that later scholarship and public history projects engage with themes likely discussed by Nagl ^{[2] [5] [6]}. The presence of contemporary pieces (2024–2026) provides updated contextual framing but does not constitute retroactive confirmation of a 2013 publication. Absence of a 2013 bibliographic record in the packet remains the key gap ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Potential agendas and why they matter for verification and interpretation

The packet contains journal promotional material and topical overviews which naturally present institutional perspectives favorable to their scope; news stories and public-history pieces emphasize remembrance and local reparative initiatives, reflecting civic and activist aims ^{[3] [5]}. Academic overviews with Marxist or political-economic framings carry theoretical agendas that shape interpretations of slavery’s drivers ^[10]. These differing priorities matter because they affect the kinds of evidence and questions a researcher like Nagl might foreground—we cannot ascertain which agenda Nagl pursued without the article itself ^{[10] [5]}.

7. Bottom line and recommended next steps for definitive confirmation

Based on the supplied materials, the claim is plausible but unverified: the dossier offers relevant contextual scholarship and journal descriptions but no direct bibliographic confirmation that Dominik Nagl’s article appears in Amerikastudien Vol. 58, No. 1 ^[1]. To conclusively verify the citation, consult the Amerikastudien Vol. 58, No. 1 table of contents, library databases (JSTOR, Project MUSE), or the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Amerikastudien archives; once a page range or DOI is located, the article’s arguments can be assessed against the contextual sources cited here ^{[3] [4] [9]}.