Talk:Slavery in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reverted edits 1-01-2010

I reverted a series of what may have been good faith efforts by a new IP editor. The edits are unsourced and appear to be in part Original Research. My specific problems with the edits are:

1. the allegation that transportation costs were a significant reason why there was more slavery in the South than in the North.
2. the allegation that the protest over the molasses tax was related to the desire to maintain the slave trade.
3. two unsourced edits to the "Second Middle Passage" section attempting to dispute the sourced material and added in a manner that suggests they were supported by existing footnotes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The End of Slavery

User:XavierGreen has twice attempted to add material to the first sentence of the article suggesting that slavery contnues to exist in the United States based on his reading of the language in the 13th Amendment. In fact, however, there are not now, nor were there in 1866, any state or federal laws that allowed felons to be made slaves. The only legal slaves in the Unted States prior to the 13th Amendment were the ones everybody knows about.

Rather than edit waring over this, I invite XavierGreen to bring the discussion here and produce (from reliable sources rather than his OR) evidence that legalized slavery continues in the United States. This topic is not about what might have been but what has actually been. The number reliable sources that contain langage that says exactly what the article says now are legion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The growing demand of cotton"

{{editsemiprotected}} In the 1776 to 1850, Second Middle Passage section, please change "The growing demand of cotton..." to "The growing demand for cotton...". Blakeelias (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 309° 19' 15" NET 20:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern Slavery

I think everyone forgot about the prisoners of today in USA. There are 1% of the population of US in prisons [1]. They have to work. They do not get a proper wage. If they do not work they get solitary confinement. They are the legal(?) slaves of today. I think we need to argue this point.

Alwaysshariff (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Involuntary Servitude was allowed as a legal punishment for crime in the 13th A't. The difference between punishment for a crime and just because you were born a slave is vast. And the Supreme Court decisions also allowed involuntary servitude in time of national emergence by drawing a distinction between it and conscription (the draft). Nitpyck (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is implied here that sexual slavery in the United States takes place only involving women trafficked from other countries into America. However, there is a huge market of American girls kidnapped within the United States by traffickers and sold within the United States. I think this fact also needs to be included. Also I think the amount of human trafficking sites that exist in the United States needs to be made clear. There are cities within the United States that have up to 15 or 16 trafficking locations within four street blocks. This is also an important detail that I think needs to be included to adequately define modern slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bries91 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1776 to 1850

Shouldn't this be 1788 to 1850 since it is about Slavery in the United States and so we should distinguish between before and after the Constitution. Certainly until 1782 parts of the colonies were still under English control and that effected slave policy. We didn't have a president, supreme court or congress until 1789 nor did we have any national position on slavery before the constitution was established. If there is no opposition I'll change this. Nitpyck (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a table of when each of the states ratified the 13th Amendment would be in order for that. The last one was Mississippi in 1995, so I guess this should be 1776 to 1995? ;)

External Link

I have added an external link: Kidnapping: An Underreported Aspect of African Agency During the Slave Trade Era. You may place it where you feel it best. I find it important to add persective to the historical minimization of the Africans role in kidnapping Africans as "prisoners of war", ro due to ethnic hatred, or merely for profit; and selling them to the Europeans. If we are to ever gain some balance in this tragic event in American/world history, Africa too must be held accountable for the major role they played in the slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhs (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Colonial America

Perhaps it was unwise for the person who deleted the Colonial America section without discussion, but it is clearly outside the scope of the article. The section also does not deal with phenomenon of Black loyalism. I believe the bilk of this material should be moved to another page and a short section explaining how the United States came into being, particularly relating it to the question of slavery. What do other people think?Harrypotter (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps" it was unwise to delete an entire section w/o either discussion or an edit summary? I disagree that the material is beyond the scope of this article -- American History does begin well before the Revolution. However there is an article already on slavery in colonial America, so based on Wikipedia:Summary style the section certainly should be condensed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the article were to be retitled Slavery in America, then I would agree with you, but while it is entitled Slavery in the United States, I feel my argument holds water.Harrypotter (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an article about the history of slavery in the United States. That history did not begin in 1776. When the title of the article was changed (see [2]) it was not intended to change the scope of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I find your viewpoint rather odd. The change in the title of the article does not effect the somewhat stark fact that the United States did not exist before July 4, 1776, which I understand is a date still celebrated to this day. If you have evidence that the US existed before this date, then perhaps you should share your remarkable discovery. However in the absence of such evidence, it is hard to see why the scope of the article should extend outside this period of time, except by way of detailing the situation as regards slavery at the time the US was formed. This should probably include the views put forward in Slave nation: how slavery united the colonies & sparked the American Revolution by Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen alongside any critical views of their work.Harrypotter (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that the United States did not exist before 1776. Read any book on the history of the United States, and you will find extensive coverage of the colonial period. Any discussion of American history without discussion of the colonial period is seriously hamstrung. There's an article called Colonial history of the United States, do you object to that?--RLent (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

With statements like "If you have evidence that the US existed before this date, then perhaps you should share your remarkable discovery" it seems like you're getting a little too bitchy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you agree that the United States did not exist before July 4, 1776, it would seem a straightforward syllogism that there can be no slavery (or anything else for that matter) in something which is yet to exist, which is something you seem to deny?Harrypotter (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody else has a problem understanding that the scope of the article is slavery within the borders of the present-day United States. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should retitle the article Slavery within the borders of the present-day United States?Harrypotter (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have considered it a bit further and perhaps the phrase should be Slavery within the territory of the present-day United States. Does that sound like a useful retitling?Harrypotter (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of your suggestions serves any purpose. As has been said, nobody else seems to have a problem understanding what the article is about. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, both suggestions serve a very clear purpose - to indicate what the subject of the article is about. At the moment the subject is confused by the use of a terminology which appears to be particular to the inhabitants of the United States, but is unclear to others such as myself, and Nitpyck and probably a whole load of other people who are not used to editing wikipedia. Having looked at the side bar there would seem to be a basis for developing an article on Slavery in the British New World colonies, which would include the British possessions in the Caribbean as well as continental America, in that these formed a legal and social whole, which only changed when continental americans broke away -to form the United States, largely because the land mass was sufficient to limit the power of the Royal Navy. In this case it would be sensible to maintain an article about Slavery in the United States dealing with the situation following the war of independence. But, as things stand the article is a nonsense - it even includes a passage about enslaved European Americans in North Africa. Of course it might be also suitable to include articles about slavery in specific states. e.g. Virginia, Georgia which each had a very distinct history. It is quite clear that the United States constituted a new polity, and with each individual state amongst the Thirteen States there was a break in continuity, eg through the Virginia Conventions, or the constitution adopted in Georgia in February 5, 1777. As enslavement is as much a legal condition as anything else - particularly bearing in mind the role of lawyers like Thomas Jefferson - it is hard to see the value of considering it as existing distinct from the polity to which it is related . . . except, of course, from the point of view of the slave owners who wished to maintain what they perceived as they property interest in another human being through the tumult of the struggle for so-called "liberty". (This irony is of course not restricted to the US, as can be seen in the case of William Beckford). I hope you know better understand the importance of finding a way to correct this misnomer.Harrypotter (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem? WP:DGF! Harrypotter (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually not all Americans are clear on the terminology, Abraham Lincoln (Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation...) and I have some problem with the date of 1776 as the founding date of the USA. Although picking that date rather than the one when the Constitution was ratified doesn't seem to be a real problem for this article.Nitpyck (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The States weren't united until they ratified the constitution. However, if we start with 1776, then we can show what effect the ratification had on slavery. Rklawton (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Genovese's positions

I made some changes because I thought the article misrepresented Genovese. They were reverted. Why was this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelofsky (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Slavery Still Legal as punishment for convicts

Why has my addition to the end of the intro that slavery is still legal as punishment for persons convicted of a crime been reverted. It is the only exception to the thirteenth amendment that is still allowable under law. It is specifically mentioned as such within the very first sentence of the amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist..."XavierGreen (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See #The End of Slavery above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit i had made that that editor was concerned with stated that slavery still existed, it currently does not but is allowable legally as a punishment under the form mentioned specifically within the thirteenth amendment. My arguement is not original research, it is specifically stated within the thirteenth amendment itself section one first sentance as quoted above. Constitutional law trumps state and federal law.XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the language and significance of the thirteenth amendment is what constitutes OR. If there are reliable secondary sources that feel your interpretation is accurate and significant, then produce them. As it stands w/o such sources, there is no reason to discuss this in the article. At best, even with sourcing, it does not belong in the article lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating! I think this is really worth finding some good secondary sources. Involuntary servitude I understand, but slavery? Obviously, though, these sources should be constitutional lawyers and the courts. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick constitutional law search doesn't turn up much for the 13th except as it relates to "badge of slavery" public/private issues. At any rate, "cruel & unusual" would also apply, and so there's not much risk of someone today being sentenced to slavery. Rklawton (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I do find it odd that nowhere in this article is the 13th Amendment actually quoted (it's short, so why not?) - likewise in the Convict leasing article. Given its pivotal role in the subject, I find this omission striking - and easily remedied. Quoting it specifically in the convict leasing section would seem especially appropriate, though I think it really belongs toward the end of the lead. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not interperate the amendment i merely state what it says, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". As for a source, it is the amendment itself. It should be at the end of the lead where the abolition of slavery is mentioned, as it is the only legally allowable form of slavery and involitariy servitude permitted under constitutional law, and is specifically mentioned as such within the text of the argument. I have made no interpretation whatsoever, i have merely stated exactly what the amendment says. I agree that it might be a good idea to include some mention of it in the convict leasing section as well.XavierGreen (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the history of slavery in the United States, not the history of involuntary labor. Absent some showing that either in the past or in the present slavery was or is imposed as a "punishment for crime", it is not of enough significance to discuss in the article lead. The implication of including it is that in fact such slavery has been imposed or can be imposed. The place to make the fine points concerning the 13th amendment is the article on that subject, not the lead of this article.

Virtually all reliable sources that I am aware of treat the 13th amendment as the end of legalized slavery in the United States. Absent any reliable sources that take a different position, Wikipedia should not suggest otherwise. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The one change I would like to see, then, would be the inclusion of the full text of the amendment, which is short, since it's highly relevant to the subject. Rklawton (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the thirteenth amendment not a reliable source? I wouldnt mind including the entire text of the amendment. The problem with the introduction is that the last sentence as it currently stands states that the 13th amendment abolished slavery within the untied states, when in fact it abolished all but one form of slavery. For an example of such slavery in practice the text of the article itself states that convict leasing was a legal form of slavery a statement that is sourced within the text. So this form of slavery has already been used in the past. XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the section you refer to quotes a single writer who makes a very clear and significant distinction between slavery as it existed before 1865 and the convict labor system. He calls it slavery, but only in a hyperbolic manner and, from what I remember of the book (I wrote the "convict labor" section of the wiki article), he was not making an argument that this abuse was justified by the 13th Amendment. Instead of arguing that the implementation of convict labor (as practiced in the South) was legal, he argues that it was an illegal abuse by state governments. Note that he says that the convicts were "guilty of no crimes and entitled by law to freedom."

I suggest you go back around 9-12-2009 and review the back and forth (including the deleted material from the IP that initiated the dispute) in both the DIFFS for the article and the above discussion page before claiming it supports your position. Or better yet, point out where in the book the author supports your claim.

The language of the 13th Amendment certainly can be quoted in the body of the article when mentioned. It's significance, however, needs to come from reliable secondary sources -- sources that say that the amendment ended slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Convict leasing isn't the same as slavery where there's ownership and title. However, I would agree that we could amend the lead to read: "effectively abolished slavery..." as that was its effect. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would work. By changing the wording of the last sentence to effectively or virtually would alleviate the problem. Though since the article relies heavily on the thirteenth amendment i think it would be wise to incoporate at least the clause banning slavery into the article somewhere.XavierGreen (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the article lead is repetitions on this subject. In addition to the sentence in question in the fourth paragraph, the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph says:

Slavery in the United States was a form of forced labor which existed as a legal institution on American soil before the founding of the United States in 1776, and remained a legal feature of American society until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.

and the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph says:

From 1654 until 1865, slavery for life was legal within the boundaries of much of the present United States.

I suggest we eliminate the disputed sentence entirely and also eliminate the 2nd paragraph reference and rely entirely on the first paragraph which represents the dominant interpretation of this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'd still like to see the text of the 13th Amendment within the body of the article. Rklawton (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds good to me as well, though i would add to first sentence something to show that the slavery in question was heriditery and i also support the inclusion of the text of the 13th amendment within the body.XavierGreen (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You still press your agenda (whatever it is) without making any attempt to rely on reliable secondary sources. So you now claim, apparently, that NON-HEREDITARY SLAVERY was not prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Please provide sources that claim this is a fact. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is necessary to distinguish chattel slavery from other forms of slavery, such as Penal labour, wage slavery, which are still very much in evidence in the USA and elsewhere.Harrypotter (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. You basically implemented a slightly different version of the XavierGreen proposals which have yet to reach any type of consensus. I have reverted your edits until such a consensus is reached. This article is NOT about PENAL SLAVERY or WAGE SLAVERY and most reliable sources on the subject of the history of American slavery do not treat these subjects as related to the larger picture. The article lead is intended to summarize the important parts of the article as it exists and as it is intended -- your edits appear to be a deliberate attempt to change the entire focus of the article without either obtaining consensus or doing the work of showing that this is a significant issue among historians of American slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do think it would be good to make the article about what it says at the top of the page. And the changes I brought in were quite different and provided links to the relevant pages. Please look at the page wage slavery and that should help you get a clearer idea of what is at issue here. Of course if you feel much of the material should be moved to a page with a different title, more fitting with what you would like to see, then perhaps that could be discussed and this page could refer to that page.Harrypotter (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this article is indeed not focused on any other type of slavery but chattle slavery, as such the first sentence of the article should reflect that.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to be focused on only chattle slavery it should be renamed to chattle slavery in the united states rather than merely slavery, since there are and have been in the past many different forms of slavery present in the united states beyond the chattle slavery of africans.XavierGreen (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When people look up "Slavery in the U.S." it's obvious their intent is to learn about chattel slavery. Anything else is COATRACK. Rklawton (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider to this debate, I just want to note that the article itself deals with convict leasing and briefly with post-1865 slavery of Native Americans. I'm not sure what the big deal is about summarizing these in the lead. (Maybe it's some kind of implication that all contemporary convict labor will end up being dumped into the article, but I doubt that will happen.)--Carwil (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The major part of the problem is that the lead already omits too many important items which are discussed in the article. There are over twenty separate sections in the article that are not mentioned at all in the lead which are of more significance than the two items you suggested. Adding more of the least significant items (items that could very easily be eliminated) to the lead does not improve the article. Among the numerous omissions from the lead already are the end of the slave trade, the abolition movement, the defense of slavery as a positive good,the end of slavery in the North, the second middle passage, black codes, Nat Turner and other slave rebellions, the effect of the Mexican War and the Wilmot Proviso, Dred Scott, the Missouri Compromise, the rise of the Republican Party and the 1860 elections, and so on and so on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I too just saw this, but here's what I understand. "Convict leasing isn't the same as slavery where there's ownership and title."

True there is a difference with chattel slavery and forced prison slave labour. One ended w/ the 13th amendment, and the other was legalised under the 13th amendment (not the Corwin Amendment of 1861). In other words, what would be the legal justification for the prison labour in California, Oregon and other states that practise this form of human rights abuse without the "involuntary servitude" clause? What do you think they were referring to w/ "involuntary servitude", especially in this context?

Futhermore, I don't see a problem including this in the article, so long as it is a small reference, and not the focus of the article. As to scholarship, there is reputable work on this, and there is no doubt that starting in 1866 the prison chain gangs were leased to private business, plantations, mines etc. This was big. Yes they were mostly black. The mortality rate was higher than chattel slavery because they were leased and not owned. Virtual life sentences on absurd charges directed against black people & poor whites w/ forced labour is slavery, though not chattel. This was systematic and went on until WW2, though today's version is slightly different. Now, some of you asked for refrences and rightly so. Slavery by Another Name by Douglas Blackmon, who is a respected writer & journalist and received the Pulitzer Prize for this book, which is on this very topic. That's the point. This is FAR from original research, and there are other scholars who've written about it. Now I haven't edited the article nor will I unless there is some agreement w/ others editors here, but I'd like to know the issue as it is now. How do other editors feel? His book is here

One other thing, American historians do not always agree on things, and I have noticed at least one conspicious neo-Confederate argument in the article (unsourced), though on a different part of the article. So yes it's important to look at historians, but on some topics there's a whole lot of rubbish, particularly w/ slavery issues, so a consensus by historians may never happen, and sadly ideological/racist agendas do exist, and I understand what you blokes mean about good sources. I'd say that keeping this article from vandalism is far more important.Ebanony (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another major change to the article lead w/o discussion or consensus

Wikipedia:Lead section spells out the guidelines for an article's lede. The second sentence of the first paragraph read:

It had its origins with the first English colonization of North America in Virginia in 1607, although African slaves were brought to Spanish Florida as early as the 1560s.

This was changed without discussion by Harrypotter with an edit that removed the actual dates of settlement and replaced it with information not included in the body of the article. An intended or unintended result of the change was to minimize the role of the introduction of slavery by Great Britain and the fact that the most signficant establishment of slavery occured in the British colonies.

References to of the the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas or Richard Hakluyt's "Discourse Concerning Western Planting" are too detailed to be featured prominently in the article lead. These details may need to be included in the section "colonial America" -- a section that Harrypotter recetly started a separate discussion on. Both Potter and I agreed that the section could be reduced (although we disagreed on the extent) so it seems strange that he now wants to add more pre-1776 material.

I suggest that changes to the lead be discussed here first before being unilaterally changed. I have als suggested that material be trimmed from the lead in the discussion above which is still ongoing. I have restored the status quo pending further discussion and consensus on this discussion page.

The existing lead is seriously unbalanced. Most of the material in the article, which is the period AFTER the American Revolution, is barely metioned at all in the lead. In the article itself, in addition to making the colonial era more concise, there is a serious need to address slavery in the early republic. It seems like the most recent debates are not addressing the most significant problems with the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to be limited to slavery within the united states it should either focus solely on 1776 onward, or all areas that are currently part of the united states including ex-spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, and French areas not merely the 13 colonies.XavierGreen (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, the pre-1776 era has its own article so this article should only include a few paragraphs summarizing the content of that article. The impact of any slavery in the U.S. from any country other than Great Britain prior to 1776 is minimal. I am interested in what you feel is missing from this article with respect to the other nations you mention. Do you disagree that the current section on the colonial era in this article needs to be made more concise? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. No need for redundancy, and it fits well with the title. Rklawton (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the point, though it could be argued that the dutch slavery in New Netherlands had a lasting impact on the long survival of slavery in New Jersey and Delaware. Beyond that point the only major element missing is that native americans held slaves in the area long before Europeans ever arrived. I would suggest changing, "It had its origins with the first English colonization of North America in Virginia in 1607, although African slaves were brought to Spanish Florida as early as the 1560s." to "It had its origins with the first English colonization of North America in Virginia in 1607, although African slaves were brought to Spanish Florida as early as the 1560s and Native Americans held slaves since prehistorical times."XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple summary of the status of slavery at the time when the U.S. Constitution was ratified would suffice. To wit: where was it legal, which states had reciprocal agreements, etc., and then take it from there. People who want information about the many related subjects can find related article links in the "See also" section. Rklawton (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think to understand the history of slavery since 1776, one must understand the history of slavery in the British colonies before that. There needs to be a comprehensive article which deals with this full topic & a title such as "History of slavery in America" would raise objections about what "America" meant at that time too. "Slavery in the USA" has a direct lineage to "slavery in the British colonies" - and a "history of slavery in the USA" needs to cover the colonial period. Topic is not "History-of-slavery in the USA" but "History of slavery-in-the-USA". British Columbia, eg, might be understood to have not existed before 1871, or 1866, or 1858 - but its history does not begin with any of those dates. --JimWae (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but as noted (way) above, there is another article: Slavery in Colonial United States. Not sure what is going on here (looks like several different controversies at once) but I agree that there is something to be said for having the pre-constitution history housed at that article, with some brief background here. Steveozone (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the background provided on european slavery is sufficent,though there should be some inclusion of the fact that native americans held slaves in the area long before europeans ever arrived, as this was the only other large institution of slavery that existed in the country at the time of independence.XavierGreen (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the existence of separate articles on Native American slavery, there is no need to add anything further to this article. Their form of slavery was considerably different from the European introduced brand and had no impact that I am aware of on the practice of slavery in the American colonies or states. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that slavery existed in the united states and since this article is titled Slavery in the United States it should be mentioned .XavierGreen (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is discussed. A wikilink to the appropriate article (see below) is enough; the concept is to convey an understanding of the history of slavery as it affected the development of the USA; hence the focus on the institution that arose in and during the colonial era and therefore affected the establishment and development of the present nation. The history of conflict with indigeneous peoples during that process had to do with much more than any reaction to the fact that Native American societies engaged in slavery. Steveozone (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It does rate a link in the See also section. Rklawton (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need consider the length of the article, and how it relates to other related and overlapping articles so that the reader can navigate through the articles bearing in mind readability issues. The Christianity and slavery article has significant omissions and a somewhat odd order - abolitionism comes before slavery in the americas. Maafa doesn't appear in the slavery box, and also related phenomena such as wage slavery, penal labour, encomienda, repartimiento and mita are also omitted. Perhaps it needs a wikiproject here so that we can have pages which support one another. Then we can have Slavery in the United States dealing with precisely just that. As for Slavery in the colonial United States, that is not a very good article and Indian slavery does not deal with Slavery in India. I have already started a page on Slavery on the Barbary Coast with the material which was erroneously included on this page until recently. I think the only way we are likely to realise a significant improvement in this page, and the other pages I have mentioned is by getting a wiki project going and organising carefully titled pages with suitable links so that we will end up with a comprehensive body of knowledge which can be navigated according to a wide range of interests. (It is perhaps a sad commentary on humankind that the topic is so extensive).Harrypotter (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the project idea to aid in overall topic organization. Rklawton (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Indian slavery we also have Slavery in Indian Territory and Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. It seems like merging the three of them should not be controversial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging those articles sounds fine by me.XavierGreen (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wage Slavery

Check the wage slavery page - it's a lot more than marxists who think this!Harrypotter (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish America

What do people think about including this map of the Spanish Empire?Harrypotter (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfect... for an article about the Spanish Empire. Why in the world would we add it to this article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack. Rklawton (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some people want to have a page that covers all the territory covered by the contemporary USA. This image shows that much of that territory was part of New Spain is part of that territory - in fact more territory than is covered by the Thirteen colonies. So if people wan to make such a page, then this would be a very useful graphic to illustrate that fact. My own view is that the page should focus on what it says in the title: Slavery in the United States. Perhaps you are coming round to that point of view?Harrypotter (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is applicable to this proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Some people feel comfortable to remove improvements to the article, complaining that there has been no discussion . . . but then they do not make any contribution to such a discussion. So please explain what is the problem with the material below:

It had its origins in the Romanus Pontifex of 1455 which allowed for the enslavement of non-Christians during the Spanish colonization of the Americas which developed after the Treaty of Tordesillas. In response to the development of New Spain, Richard Hakluyt wrote Discourse Concerning Western Planting (1584) in which he advocated the English colonization of North America citing enslavement as a justification for disputing the Spanish Catholic claims to the territory.. However, Haklyut was later a promoter of the Virginia Company, a joint-stock company chartered by James I on April 10 1606 with the purposes of establishing settlements on the coast of North America. However in 1606 Edward Coke ajudicated at Calvin's case which facilitated the enslavement of non-Christians under English Law..

It's off topic. Rklawton (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And despite Harrypotter's claim, a discussion was initiated above in the subsection Talk:Slavery in the United States#Another major change to the article lead w/o discussion or consensus. Perhaps Mr. Potter would like to participate? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

copied from above "I disagree that the material is beyond the scope of this article -- American History does begin well before the Revolution. However there is an article already on slavery in colonial America, so based on Wikipedia:Summary style the section certainly should be condensed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)"Harrypotter (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Involuntary Servitude in Prison

The article presently says: "the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically exempts the judiciary, allows enslavement of prisoners within the growing prison industry "as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted"."

The 13th amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

In the slavery article, slavery is defined as "a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others". The Involuntary servitude article defines involuntary servitude as "a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion".

While it is clear from the 13th amendment that there is an exemption for involuntary servitude, it is not clear there is ANY exemption for slavery. There is NO mention in the amendment of any "growing prison industry". To state that the 13th amendment specifies an exemption for slavery is POV argument. --JimWae (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and in fact those incarcerated enjoy constitutional and other legal rights as individuals and are not owned as property; to equate incarceration with slavery is OR and synthesis--the inference or "deduction" is simply rhetoric. Steveozone (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To state that it does not is also a pov arguement, it could be argued that convicts are stripped of their civil rights and as such are merely wards/property of the state. They are not subject to voting law, minimum wage law,or several of the various other civil rights that are afforded to normal persons.XavierGreen (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has advocated stating that the 13th Amndmnt does not exempt the judiciary from slavery. We state what is clear if we say it exempts involuntary servitude. Putting an "and/or slavery" is saying that it might exempt both - which is neither clear nor sourced. --JimWae (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also a significant problem with stating that the U.S. Constitution "exempts" or "allows" anything based simply on the simple text itself. Typically, the meaning of constitutional provisions is subject to further interpretation by the courts, and before that judicial interpretation has occurred, similar interpretation by others, even legal scholars, is considered somewhat speculative (as is typically noted in scholarly articles). There's little doubt that in fact convicted inmates, while stripped of some civil rights, nevertheless enjoy rights (including 8th amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" rights) that were not extended to slaves. There's an important distinction between "wards" and "property" of the state. Steveozone (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the 13th amendment addresses slavery directly, we should include the full text in this article. Beyond that, I entirely agree that we should leave any commentary to Supreme Court decisions and their scholarly analysis. On a related note, we might want to mention that slavery has been outlawed in most states - properly sourced, of course. Rklawton (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Should be re-written

After 1857, only the Democratic Party was a national institution, although it split in the 1860 election. Clearly that is not true,George Bush was elected by a national Republican party after 1857. The fact that Republicans did not win in the South does not mean there were no Republicans party members south of the Mason Dixon line. Nitpyck (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Genovese Stampp collector

The following sentence, from the "Treatment" section, appears to be a bit of a non sequitur: "Stampp, without contesting Genovese's assertions concerning the violence and sexual exploitation faced by slaves, does question the appropriateness of a Marxian approach in analyzing the owner-slave relationship." -- JALatimer (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's my recollection that several years ago there was an attempt to eliminate all material from Genovese and also an attempt, when that failed, to actually trash him in the article text. The sentence you refer to was probably part of a compromise. I have no problem if it's eliminated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

improving economic conditions in England

The article states "In addition, improving economic conditions in England meant that fewer laborers wanted to migrate to the colonies as indentured servants, so the planters needed to find new sources of labor". Firstly it is hard to understand which period is being discussed here. Also, the English were not adverse to packing Irish people off as slaves (eg Cromwell after Drogheda packed whole heap off to Barbados. Certainly, the term "spirited away" related to coercive transportation as did the tendency to go through the prisons in search particularly of women to send to the New World. Where is the evidence for this point and to what period does it relate? Or was it perhaps the economics of the triangular trade, and the way in which religion and later race could be used to justify perpetual servitude as first planned by the board of the London Virginia Company?Harrypotter (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Polish Slaves?

I have removed thefollowing from the article lede:

Although the first slaves introduced to Virginia were Polish ... [referenced to Sir Thomas Smith's Misgovernment of the Virginia Company by Nicholas Ferrar: A Manuscript from the Devonshire Papers at Chatsworth House, edited with an introduction by D. R Ransome, Roxburghe Club, 1990, unpublished, presented to the members by the Duke of Devonshire].

In the first place, I'm not sure that an unpublished paper from 1990 represents a reliable source. Surely if this claim had any traction it would have appeared somewhere in a published, reliable source.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the most widely believed "first slaves" are the 20 Angolans who are described, with sourcing, in the body of the article. There can be no justification for having the dubious Polish claim elevated to the lede while ignoring the widely accepted account. Indeed, unless there is some other verification of the Polish claim, then it is simply an unverifiable fringe theory that doesn't belong anywhere in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PS Actually it appears that the Ferrar piece is from the 1600's and it was published in 1990. I have corrected the above, but the major objection stands. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the Ferrar piece is a contemporaneous, and indeed, Ferrar was involved in the London Virginia Company, and so was in a position to give an informed opinion. Of course, I am prepared to bow to User:North Shoreman when it comes to fringe theory as this is an area where he he has spent a lot of time. But I am afraid this does not affect the situation. The fact that something has been widely believed is besides the point, particularly as this text was not widely available until the last twenty years. Editor Shoreman may find this information "dubious", but perhaps he should read the text (there's a copy in the British Library). Also [User:North Shoreman|Editor Shoreman]] should consider the matter in the light of the history of slavery rather than according to a more parochial viewpoint. Of course Poland had abolished slavery by this period, and Lithuania followed suit in 1588, but slavery continued in Russia until 1723. As a major source of such slaves were military captives, and as the Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618) was at this time, and as there are records of Russian slaves being sold in London, for someone with a bit of knowledge about this, there is nothing dubious about this.Harrypotter (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The lede is intended to be a summary of the article; it isn't the place to insert a novel interpretation of history based on a single source. Please see WP:REDFLAG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These laws were often defied by individuals, among whom was noted future Confederate General Stonewall Jackson[citation needed].

I can provide a good source for this statement, but do not know how to do or number a proper Wiki footnote.

Robertson,Jr., James I. (1997).Stonewall Jackson.Macmillan Publishing USA. pp 183-184.ISBN 0-02-864685-1. (An account of an argument Jackson got into with two men on the streets of Lexington, VA, over a black Sunday school that Jackson had started,which was said to be in violation of Virginia law as an unlawful assembly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Try:

<ref>{{cite book
|title=Stonewall Jackson
|last=Robertson Jr.
|first=James I.
|year=1997
|publisher=Macmillan Publishing USA
|pp=183-184
|isbn=0-02-864685-1
}} An account of an argument Jackson got into with two men on the streets of Lexington, VA,
 over a black Sunday school that Jackson had started, which was said to be in violation of
 Virginia law as an unlawful assembly.
</ref>

Jojalozzo 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with southernspaces.org?

There have been repeated attempts to add external links to articles at southernspaces.org, each time removed as "spam links". From what I can see with a cursory review, this site appears to be that of an peer-reviewed academic journal and the authors appear to be academic historians and artists. I am not familiar with this site or the journal and wonder why those who are deleting these links consider them to be commercial and promotional? Jojalozzo 15:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They are being added by an editor from an IP at Emory, which publishes Southern Spaces. While it looks like an actually good journal, it is self-promotion and the IP does nothing to improve articles themselves, but spams many pages with links to southernspaces.org. I regard it as a COI/self-promo problem. Moreover, there is already something of a link-farm on this page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is a COI issue then we should describe it as such, not as spam.

If we have a link farm, that's not a reason to revert the most recent links to be added.

• Develop a policy for what makes a good external link here.
• Do some clean up to ensure every link conforms with policy.
• Consider each new addition's conformance with the policy.

Jojalozzo 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy for external links

What should be the selection criteria for this article's external links? Jojalozzo 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have good criteria other than WP:EL. I've boldly made changes in the ELs and will explain them here.

• Removed the second PBS link, as it is a more specific page of one already included.
• Changed sonofthesouth link to the homepage, so that the reader is immediately taken to the top level and can choose to see the pix or something else.
• Removed blackhistory4schools as it covers the slave trade as a whole, not just in the US (and thus is out of this article's scope).
• Removed dinsdoc; no longer is relevant/active.
• Removed blog.oup.com; good in and of itself, but we have too many links and blogs are normally to be avoided.
• Removed georgiaencyclopedia; too specific for this article's scope.
• Removed one docsouth.unc.edu link; made second to the homepage, per sonofthesouth reasoning.
• Removed UNCPress, no longer relevant/active.
• Removed Islamica Magazine, dead link.
• Removed Stace England; plain old spam.
• Removed first southernspaces link; I can't discern it's relation to Slavery in the United States.
• Removed second southernspaces link; too specific for this article's scope. Should be at History of slavery in Georgia (U.S. state)

carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! I'm fine with the WP:EL criteria, especially looking for relevant, unique contributions that don't fit well into the article proper. Jojalozzo 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Black slave masters to section Free black men

According to Robert M. Grooms "federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters."link

According to Robert M. Grooms "The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates. In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,97 "link

According to Robert M. Grooms "In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more" link B4 you go and vandalise the page talk about the Reverting first - --Kimmy (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have reverted the material you added, but someone else beat me to it. All you have done is repeat your POV edit previously reverted while changing the sources. The Groom website that is your actual source is not a reliable source and it is improper to disguise your actual source by using Groom's footnotes. You need to obtain consensus before trying to add back this material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Tom (North Shoreman stop being paranoid "Groom's same work that I use can be found on another " Wiki page link --Kimmy (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This prose has a big chip on its shoulder. When you come to an article with an agenda other than making Wikipedia a great encyclopedia, you must work hard to avoid having it bias your work here. Find the germs of truth and leave the sermons in the bit bucket. We also must avoid original research; we editors don't get to express our own ideas and especially our own judgments. All deductions, conclusions and judgments require verifiable sources. Even logical deductions need to be sourced. Jojalozzo 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I read the book - Details below
• I thought I followed all of WIKI rules in giving Credit to the original Author  ?
• example : Author X shows up on book Review Y And YOU are using X as a source!!!!!! you list the orginal Author not the website !!!!!!!!!!!!
• Unless The website is pushing a POV , Like THE KKK something like that !!! - -
• deleting someones work that follows all WIKI guidelines IS RUDE!!!! -
• no one had a chip - I was just trying to be matter of fact - Witch is another "Wiki rule" -

Applying Wiki Rules - Witch I have Read all the Below Books mentioned -

• What does it take to edit the section ?
• Per Wiki rules "consensous" does not apply -
• What does apply is "vandalism" done to my work.
• Editors ignoring Wiki rules Of "vandalism" Deleting my work .

'*I would like to add The above mentioned Information that I started this thread with -

• In fact another Wiki page uses the Exact Source and Format I used - [[3]]
• Robert M. Grooms was good enough to use on this other Wiki page link ,Why in this case is there a problem using his work  ? ? --Kimmy (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Now going back and reading the Article It covers all the above I mention - It uses better words than Negro - Case closed - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does apply -- see Wikipedia:Consensus. Groom's website is a self-published work not subject to peer review -- see WP:SPS. I also noticed that the material you added is not paraphrased but is copied word for word from Groom. This is both plagiarism and a copyright violation since Groom did copyright his work -- see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I used the same format and sources  As this Wki  page link  ? 

• The Exact same source -
• is there a problem with the footnote? That can be fixed

- --Kimmy (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• "block quotations" Added - plagiarism per wiki rules Taken care of -

--Kimmy (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Census does not apply Grooms is a living person - This is why I used the words "According too" -

Per WIki rules Census - Exceptions Policy shortcut: primarily because of the risk of real harm inherent in them. I --Kimmy (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is not a Self-published sources - The website is linked to a Book Review Website -
• I used the Exact format Style as this Wiki page that uses "Groom" as a "source" off the same "Website" I used for my Edit link Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Googling, I was only able to find material by this author published on far-right and white supremacist websites (some claiming to be publishing with permission, although maybe this should not be taken at face value). The author seems to have written for the Barnes Review, which you can see from the wikilink is not a neutral source for articles connected to race or history in general. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Thank you Formerip - For helping in the situation - Case closed as far as I see it , except all the Wiki pages that does use him and the Barnes Review - - --Kimmy (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Yes you were Right TOm I am sorry for being a B**** I get a little hard headed at times - Thank you for teaching me some things here - you have Long Patients - --Kimmy (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Slave breeding in the United States

Interested editors are encouraged to help at Slave breeding in the United States, which is virtually unreferenced and hasn't been edited constructively in a long time. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I happen to be reading a book about slavery so I'd be happy to work on it. I found several more books that could address the topic just with an online search at my local library so it should be easy to fix.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Animated GIF

Any reason it's on there twice - one at the top (on the right) and once nearer the bottom (on the left)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.3.106 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson not a "founding father"?

The reference to Jefferson as one of the founding fathers of the US has been tagged as "dubious". Does that reflect a consensus of the editors working on this article? Jojalozzo 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You were correct to remove the "dubious" tag. Of course TJ was a Founding Father. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Regardless of the points made in the edit summary, Jefferson has always been considered by wide consensus as one of the Founding Fathers. He had substantial impact on the thinking of the American Revolution and the early American government. So in a sense it doesn't matter how true those points are; they aren't what determine Jefferson's status. — ¾-10 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

International influences on abolitionism in the US?

Did the UK's Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which outlawed slavery in practically all of the British Empire (which at the time covered a massive area and wielded massive influence) have any effect on abolitionism in the US? 81.129.134.7 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly encouraged abolitionist activity, but slavery flourished in the South because it supported the economy and the creation of private wealth.Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and slavery

This section has only one source, but much more has been written on this topic, and other sources should be used. At the First Great Awakening, there was a difference between Anglicans and the Baptist and Methodist revivalists. By the early nineteenth century, however, even the Baptists and Methodists had made some peace with slavery in the South, urging benevolent treatment rather than manumission, as they had in the 18th century.Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It can't make it as article content, but we're pasting it to talk

An anon, IP 71.77.194.210, recently vented some frustration about wage slavery in the article namespace at the article on slavery in the United States. Of course it had to be removed. I decided to copy and paste it to the talk namespace, on the principle that humans stay healthier mentally when they discuss openly with each other what you can't say. Even if it is nothing more than pressure venting and sketchy brainstorming, it's still much healthier than the double bind default alternative. Thus pasted below. — ¾-10 16:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What was known as slavery, was abolished only because it was cheaper to enslave the whole population. Working five to six to even seven days a week just making enough to own a poorly built house being forced to drive poorly built cars is not freedom. Having the mainstream of life being a same size fits all conformity type civilization makes people work for something that isn't even real or a real expression. The schools keep you dumb and let you think you're smart by filling up your head with false history and things that you wouldn't be able to survive on if the society as you know it collapses. We, the people who are not wealthy, are slaves to those who live out their dream, that stand in the way of your dreams, and give you this hell to live in only so they can feel alive after losing all morals from living the gifted life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.194.210 (talk • contribs)

"Women's rights" section

There was a small section entitle "Women's rights". It covered some early feminists who were abolitionists, and were prompted to start a women's rights organization due to their treatment at an anti-slavery meeting. Since this article is so large, and that section is only tangentially related to the topic of slavery, I deleted the section. The material is certainly valid, but is probably better in the article History of women in the United States. --Noleander (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Move "distribution" subsections out from 1783-1850 section?

The article, as most history articles are, is organized chronologically, which is a good thing. The two "distribution" subsections inside the 1783-1850 section are a bit out of place: their statistics cover a very broad time range. I'm wondering if it would be better to move those out of that section? The counterargument is that that may lead to a hybrid table of contents, where half is chronological, and half is a potpourri of topics. On the other hand, there are already a few non-chronological sections at the bottom. --Noleander (talk)

I moved this section to the bottom of the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Constitution of the United States

I agree with the inclusion of this new section in the article and feel it should probably be expanded. However I removed the following:

The precursor Articles of Confederation did not allow for the abolition of slavery, but the Constitution would provide for its regulation and eventual extinction. On the other hand, the cost of keeping Georgia and South Carolina agreeable to the Constitution eventually required that the Constitution contain four provisions tacitly allowing slavery to continue for the next 20 years.

because:

1. It was improperly cited. In the first place it used op. cit. which is not proper in wikipedia and, secondly, the title of the actual work (or any work by Maier) is not listed anywhere in the article.

2.I found the actual work "Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" and the page numbers listed DO NOT support the claims made. The references refer primarily to the international slave trade, not slavery. As far as ending slavery under the Constitution, this was merely a prediction by one delegate that "slavery itself was fated to die out" under the Constitution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I lifted that material from another article and inserted it here, but I did not take the time to scrutinize the sources. On hindsight, I probably should have. Thanks for fixing it up. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Move "Historiography" section into Historiography_of_the_United_States?

I propose to move the "Historiography" section into Historiography of the United States article. That article is rather small, and already has a small section on civil-war related material, so it seems appropriate to expand it to include slavery-related historiography. I propose to leave a small historiography section in this article, with a Main link to Historiography of the United States. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented this change. --Noleander (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I added back, as you proposed, a two paragraph historiography section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Content fork: "Treatment" section

In light of the fact that the article is so large, I was contemplating breaking the Treatment section out as its own article, following the WP:Content fork guideline. I'll try to add some citations/sources as I do it. Naturally, the new article would be divided into topical sections. I"m aware of quite a few sources that focus on the treatment of female slaves by white masters, which are not yet represented in the article, and I can incorporate some of that material. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started a draft subarticle at Treatment of slaves in the United States. Assistance is welcome, of course. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. You're correct that this article is long enough that WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUMMARY could be used to advantage here. I agree that coverage should be built about the degree to which female slaves were often expected to provide sexual services to their owners, usually in a hushed-up manner. In most cases it was basically "legal" sexual assault. It would also be interesting to mention Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. — ¾-10 19:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few sources that discuss the concept of sexual relations, and sources often conclude that coercion and rape were involved in the context of slavery. Several of the sources also discuss the Jefferson relationship as a prominent example. --Noleander (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've completed a decent version of Treatment of slaves in the United States .... there is still a lot of work to be done, but it is in okay condition. Based on that, I reduced the "Treatment" section in this article to a small section, with a Main link pointing to the new article. --Noleander (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most historians consider the Jefferson-Hemings relationship to embody the inequalities of power which were basic to the slave society. In that situation, Hemings was at least able to secure freedom for her children born into slavery (as all children born to enslaved mothers were, per partus sequitur ventrem, adopted into VA law in 1662. In English common law, children took the status of their father, but the colonists changed that for slaves. Jefferson-Hemings is useful also for studying the many interracial families that developed in the Upper South: Sally Hemings was the last child of Jefferson's father-in-law John Wayles; the girl was born after Jefferson's marriage to Martha Wayles Skelton, and one of six children by J. Wayles born to his slave Betty Hemings. They were all half-siblings of Martha Jefferson, and were inherited by her in 1773 with Betty Hemings after her father's death.Parkwells (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Indentured servants in 17th c.

These two sources were misused in supporting an assertion that most indentured servants in the early colonies were Irish and Scots, which is not a consensus among historians of the period. Scottish,. The first article clearly addresses Irish who went to the Caribbean as indentured servants, not to the North American colonies. It provides little justification for its estimates of numbers. It does not compare the number of Irish indentured servants in the Chesapeake Bay Colony to English indentured servants. The second is a free-form article whose author picks data out of sources with little regard for context. Just because people referred to themselves as "white slaves" does not mean they were legally enslaved. As the historian David Hackett Fischer showed in Albion's Seed (1988), most Scots-Irish went to the Thirteen Colonies in the mid to late 18th century as free immigrants and became yeomen farmers in the backcountry of PA, VA, and down the Appalachians.Parkwells (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion of Fisher's observation on 19th century immigration is irrelevant to the subject of 17th century indentured servitude. What historical documents do support is that the majority of royalists captured by Cromwell, as well as their Scott supporters taken as such places as the Battle of Dunbar were pressed into indentured servitude. One example here was Richard of Bruce whom was transported to the Carolinas in 1641. About 25% of the Scott and Irish POWs pressed into indentured servitude ended up in colonies south of Pennsylvania. The balance ended up in the Massachusetts Bay colony with the majority of those ending up as foundry slaves with a very short life expectancy.

Insert: You are welcome to provide full citations for this material. An anecdote about Richard of Bruce cannot be taken to supply sufficient basis to add content to the article on this issue. Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here I also need to point out offense at the unsubstantiated assertion under the Colonial America section (Main Article: Slavery in the colonial United States) that indentured servitude was not slavery. These people were held as property, may not have entered into that state willingly, and that status could be extended indefinitely by the owner including the passing on of the indenture to children for 'unresolved debt'. The prime example of this is that of Anthony Johnson, the father of what would become 'American slavery' when he used the courts to mandate his Indentured Servant status be changed to 'slave.' The tentative promise of future freedom to the servant was irrelevant. More often than not, that promise went forgotten, as it often did to those whom held the formal title of 'slave'. Instead of disregarding this with a simple 'it wasn't slavery' it should be recognized as a type of slavery which fits every condition that the UN council on human rights uses to define that term today. User:Vitki1963 (User talk:Vitki1963) 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was attempting to differentiate between the two institutions, where indenture at least had the possibility of freedom if a subject survived the indenture years. Yes, there were people who went to court because they had been unlawfully held beyond the term of indenture. Again, if you want to add content, please provide full citations and data for the material.Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies a common problem with modern historians - applying contemporary standards to judge history. I have no doubt that in 17th century American "indentured servant" and "slave" were two entirely separate classes both within society and under the law. Merging the two due to a UN Council on Human Rights' definition is entirely inappropriate. Rklawton (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Any additions to the article in relation to 17th c. indentured servants need to have full sources and citations, per Wiki guidelines.Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Typos and editing

This page needs at least a minimum of editing. Even aside from the many excluded points on the talk page, it has at least one major misspelling--in the first paragraph, which has the effect of undermining the veracity of the author throughout the balance of the article.

Specifically in the sentence, "In 1662 the colony of Virginia passed a law adopting the principle of partus sequitur ventrum, by which children of slave others inherited her status," the word others is written instead of the word mothers.

I would have fixed this myself but the page seems to be 'semi-protected.'

please fix this.

Fixed; there are multiple editor/authors over time. If you register and get established as a user, you can edit pages like this article, so sign up and join in! Parkwells (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Sally Hemmings' children's parentage is still very much in question since Thomas Jefferson's DNA was unavailable. The article states it as an established fact when there is no way to determine whether Jefferson himself or one of his close relatives were the father of Hemmings' children. "The author of the Minority Report of the DNA Study Committee would like to conclude with a statement: If the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the DNA Study Committee majority had been seeking the truth and had used accurate legal and historical information rather than politically correct motivation, their statement should have been something like this: "After almost two hundred years of study including recent DNA information, it is still impossible to prove with absolute certainty whether Thomas Jefferson did or did not father any of Sally Hemings five children." 74.178.47.116 (talk)Molly74.178.47.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

I added a subject header to show where your discussion belonged. Not sure what you are writing about, as this article does not refer to the issue of Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, for which there has been consensus for about a decade. Contemporaries described her children as "looking white"; after two sons were freed, a census taker in Charlottesville classified them as white; three of her four surviving children entered the white community, by appearance. Following RS and the academic consensus on Jefferson's paternity (which is not mentioned in the article yet), Sally Hemings' children were 7/8 white by ancestry (Hemings was 3/4 white by ancestry, with three white grandparents) and thus legally white by VA law at the time. To say the issue of Hemings' children is still "very much in question" is your opinion, not widely accepted within the RS of the academic community, which we are supposed to follow. Yes, some historians disagree, and that has been acknowledged in the main article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. That is the appropriate place to discuss this topic or ask for additions such as you suggest. Such lengthy and POV additions are inappropriate for this article. History is interpretation, and major Jefferson biographers, such as Joseph Ellis, have accepted Jefferson's paternity; they do not base their work on the "absolute certainty", which you demand. This is also reflected in the National Park Service's biography of Jefferson online, which discusses the paternity issue. Exhibits at Monticello, the major public history site for Jefferson, as well as online content, refer to his paternity of Hemings' children, as do books of the last decade by top-ranking historians about Jefferson and his era.Parkwells (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The widespread acceptance of Jefferson's paternity has been added in a note, together with data on the generations of white fathers in the Hemings family - two before Jefferson. Parkwells (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Published sources on topic of black slaveowners

• Larry Koger, Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860, University of South Carolina Press, 1985
• Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak, Black Masters. A Family of Color in the Old South, New York: Norton, 1984
• Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen, The American Negro, New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970
• Gary Mills, The Forgotten People, Baton Rouge: University of Louisiana, 1977

Editors need to be careful about how they use data. Although the majority of slaveholders held fewer than 10 slaves, especially in the Upper South, by the Civil War, two-thirds of the number of all slaves were held in the Deep South. The experience of those slaves was mostly being held in high numbers on large plantations devoted to cotton and sugar. The 1% of elite planters held a very high number of slaves. In the decades immediately following the Revolutionary War, the historian Peter Kolchin noted dramatic differences in patterns of slaveholding between the Upper South and Lower South - these deepened as the Deep South was developed for cotton as a commodity crop.Parkwells (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Combine repeated passages

The post-Revolutionary War section has circular structure, with Northern abolition and Southern manumissions noted at least twice and sometimes three times; the forced migration of the internal slave trade written about twice; and other overlap. Am editing to combine these sections and eliminate repetition.Parkwells (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)