Talk:Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV

"The abolition of slavery must rank as one of the greatest achievements of recorded history." What the hell, that's the least encyclopedic thing I have ever read on Wikipedia, including several cases of vandalism. I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.31.191 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Slavery, Slave trading, Indenture, Onerous apprenticeship systems etc.

I think it is important to preserve the type of slavery under discussion. It is also important to preserve the relationship between imperial/"great" powers and states to understand the nature of the problems confronting abolitionists. Robinhw 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Russia

Add dates to when Alexander II abolished serfdom in Russia? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed already added. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed

there is an urgent need to define exactly what is meant by 'slavery', and the note about how some countries may have issued proclamations but not followed through for many years afterward. Russia still had a system of Serfdom as of the early 20th century, and Portugal was among the last European nations to let go of its huge colonial empire in Africa..... so it's very ironic that Russia and Portugal should be shown as among the first to abolish slavery. This topic already seems to be one deserving a lot of review and discussion before conclusions are made, and isolated historical proclamations and events need to be put in context. Uranian Institute (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Gold Coast

The article states (unsourced) that the Brits abolished slavery in Ghana/Gold Coast in 1874. Marika Sherwood claims in "After Abolition - Britain and the Slave Trade Since 1807" that "The last Act of Abolition in the British Empire was in 1928, in the Gold Coast". Is there any source for the 1874 date?--Kiffahh (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Greece?

According to the article, Greece abolished slavery in 1822, but in 1822 there was no Greece, the country was part of the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.73.27 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1870

I removed the sentence "U.S. abolishes slavery among Indians in Alaska after purchasing it from Russia in 1867" as it is unsupported and seems to me likely to be false. In In re Sah Quah, 31 F. 327 (D. Alaska 1886), it was held that the Thirteenth Amendment applied ex proprie vigore to Alaska; the case is mentioned in passing in, e.g., Sidney J. Strong, "Federal District Court Has No Jurisdiction over a Lease of Tribal Land to a Non-Indian", 27 Mont. L. Rev. 198 (1965-1966). I left the sentence "1866: Slavery abolished in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma)." as it has a source, although it also seems dubious to me. Someone more expert than I on Native American law should look closely at the justification for these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A e blaine cavanaugh (talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

End of Slavery in the US

Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a sort of sub-article titled "End of slavery in the United States", or something to that effect? In particular, this article would get into the nitty-gritty of who was freed, where & when, how, and to what degree. This page would include items like the Maryland Constitution of 1864 as well as the chaotic but practical liberation that came to the South with advancing Union armies. groupuscule (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

yes, good idea.. It's a long & complex story that gets lost in this current article. Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Spain

How did spain outlaw slavery in 1542 and again in 1811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.210.18 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Article name: add "and serfdom"

This article discusses not only the abolition of slavery, but also of serfdom. I think this should be reflected in the article's name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancient times - the Torah

5th century BC: Chattel slavery is banned in the Torah. Exodus 21:16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."

is deeply misleading. Reviewing a few different translations of 21:16, I interpret this verse as a law against kidnapping, not slavery. Reading the rest of Exodus 21 does not help either, viz. Exodus 21:20-21 "When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property." (NRSV). Cf. Leviticus 25:45-46, which forbids the enslavement of Israelites but allows for the chattel slavery of anybody else. See also: The Bible and slavery. I don't think is it possible to argue seriously that the Torah forbade chattel slavery in any meaningful way; as such I am removing the above entry.-Ich (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps mention should be made of William the Conquerors outlawing of the exportation of slaves in 1102.

William the Conqueror and the abolition of slavery in England

After his victory against Harold, William the Conqueror outlawed slavery within England. The penalty for slave ownership was a fine payable to the new King of England. Subsequent legal cases (in the 1700s for instance) established that given these laws introduced in the mid to late 1000s, any slave that entered England would be freed.

Perhaps we should add this to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell, Grant (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abolition of slavery timeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abolition of slavery timeline. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ancient times

Nothing significant happenned outside asian word? I dont know much but as far as i remember there was atleast Spartacus rebelion, Cristianism, and severe Greek philosophers observations, so it could be something else. --Neurorebel (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Spartacus rebelion" was actually the Third Servile War (73-71 BC), a slave rebellion against the Roman Republic. The rebels apparently attempted to flee to areas of Europe not controlled by the Romans. They were prevented from doing so and eventually defeated in battle by a series of Roman generals. Many died in battle, but about 11,000 of them were captured alive and then crucified for their "crimes".

The war did not end slavery, but is thought to have changed Roman attitudes towards slavery. "The effects of the Third Servile War on Roman attitudes towards slavery, and on the institution of slavery in Rome, are harder to determine. Certainly the revolt had shaken the Roman people, who "out of sheer fear seem to have begun to treat their slaves less harshly than before." The wealthy owners of the latifundia began to reduce the number of agricultural slaves, opting to employ the large pool of formerly dispossessed freemen in sharecropping arrangements. With the end of Augustus' reign (27 BC - 14 AD), the major Roman wars of conquest ceased until the reign of Emperor Trajan (reigned 98–117 AD), and with them ended the supply of plentiful and inexpensive slaves through military conquest. This era of peace further promoted the use of freedmen as laborers in agricultural estates."

Christianism did not end slavery and did not campaign to do so. There is a famous instance of early Christians towards slavery. Onesimus was a runaway slave who escaped a Christian slave-master called Philemon of Colossae. Onesimus sought the protection of Paul the Apostle, who converted the runaway to Christianity. Paul then send Onesimus back to Philemon, asking the master to treat the slave as his brother. That is the subject of the Epistle to Philemon, one of the books of the New Testament.

In comments on the Epistle: "When it comes to Onesimus and his circumstance as a slave, Paul felt that Onesimus should return to Philemon but not as a slave, but under a bond of familial love. Paul also was not suggesting that Onesimus be punished, but Roman law allowed the owner of a runaway slave nearly unlimited privileges of punishment, even execution. This is a concern of Paul and a reason he is writing to Philemon, asking that Philemon accept Onesimus back in a bond of friendship, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Paul is trying to break through the social barriers dividing people."

Christians actually used the Epistle to defend the institution of slavery. "Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his A History of Christianity, described the epistle as "a Christian foundation document in the justification of slavery". "

Greek philosophers typically supported slavery, though there were a few exceptions to the rule. We have a detailed article on Slavery in ancient Greece. Among its descriptions:

"Very few authors of antiquity call slavery into question. To Homer and the pre-classical authors, slavery was an inevitable consequence of war. Heraclitus states that "War is the father of all, the king of all ... he turns some into slaves and sets others free". Aristotle also felt this way, stating "the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors." He does also state that it might have a few issues though,”For what if the cause of war be unjust?” If the war was because of an unfair or incorrect reason, should the victors of that war be allowed to take the losers as slaves?"

"During the classical period, the main justification for slavery was economic. From a philosophical point of view, the idea of "natural" slavery emerged at the same time; thus, as Aeschylus states in The Persians, the Greeks "[o]f no man are they called the slaves or vassals", while the Persians, as Euripides states in Helen, "are all slaves, except one" — the Great King. Hippocrates theorizes about this latent idea at the end of the 5th century BC. According to him, the temperate climate of Anatolia produced a placid and submissive people. This explanation is reprised by Plato, then Aristotle in Politics, where he develops the concept of "natural slavery": "for he that can foresee with his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master, and he that can do these things with his body is subject and naturally a slave." As opposed to an animal, a slave can comprehend reason but "…has not got the deliberative part at all." "

"Alcidamas, at the same time as Aristotle, took the opposite view, saying: "nature has made nobody a slave". "

Alcidamas was a bit of an oddball. He advocated that the Messenians, enslaved by the Spartans for several centuries, had to regain their freedom. : "Of other works only fragments and the titles have survived: Messeniakos, advocating the freedom of the Messenians and containing the sentiment that "God has left all men free; nature has made no man a slave" " Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Dimadick You are amn open... "Wikipedia", I already browsed at the Greek part and also the supposed omission on Jesus Christ preaches but I did not reached to Alcidamas, also there are several observations about your comment that I will resume in "such a democracy" and also "such a dogma".

Wikipedia is crowded with miscellaneous data but may be such an author as Alsidamas should be mentioned on this chronology; what I dont know is weather it should contain or talk about revolutions, not only the servile wars as you well described above but another one relatively more modern that is Haiti and that I can't remember reading about on this article.

This time-line smells like it has one or two inherited biases. Just remember that ancient world was bigger than ancient believed and that though separately they lived people on other three more continents not mentioned on the main article.

Unfortunately i'm being banned from redacting and even writing on the main name-space because of my "very poor English", so there is not much that i can do for now.--Neurorebel (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move

Given its content, I propose to move this article to Abolition of slavery and serfdom timeline. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alfie Gandon: Done, through I chose to reword the title a bit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Slavery in Japan

I was surprised to find the claim that Japan abolished slavery ahead of the rest of the world, with the possible exception of Iceland. Checking the source, that source mentions slavery as a punishment continuing.

I'm going to check the overall position at Quora, where you get good answers.--GwydionM (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It actually says that slavery 'virtually disappears' not that it is abolished. If you look further down the page it says that slavery was banned in 1590 by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, but still continued as a legal punishment. I don't really know the facts, but it looks like the first date might not be that important (it's also obviously a very approximate date)130.216.234.127 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
What about the Imperial Japanese regime's enslavement of Koreans, Chinese, and Allied POWs in World War II? Shouldn't that get a mention? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

LBJ, 1966

It says LBJ abolished involuntary servitude in 1966. What is this referring to? There's no cite. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

smells like sulphur, it seems like a blink to the Church of Satan.--Neurorebel (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Iceland 1117

The article currently says "1117 Iceland Slavery abolished"

The only reference for this is an aside in "Network for Living Abroad newsletter, June 2002". This is also used as the only reference in Timeline of Icelandic history.

As this suggests that Iceland was the first country to do this, I searched around a bit, and cannot find anything to back this up. In fact, early Iceland's laws (the Gray Goose Laws), which WERE first written down in 1117: "In 1117 the Alþingi decided that all the laws should be written down and this was accomplished at Hafliði Másson’s farm over that winter and published the following year.". But checking through [Foote's book] on the same thing: "when codification was begun in 1117, Slavery was virtually non-existent in Iceland, but slaves still figure in a number of articles in the thirteenth century texts we have." K112 says "With slaves, it is prescribed that the man who has money owed him by them is to maintain them.". It even includes a definition of Slave: "A slave was his master's property..."

Slaves clearly had some rights in these laws, but "1117 Slavery abolished" is incorrect.

Can anyone help find a real date for Iceland banning slavery?

verbatim (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

​ Answer from an Icelandic historian (in Icelandic): "Slavery was never abolished in Iceland. The Gray Goose Laws (in place to at least 1270 A.D.) seem to make the assumption that people keep slaves. [...] One part that was written in 1122–33 specifically mentions slaves in relation to the laws regarding how to kill polar bears. [...] Nobody knows how common slavery was in Iceland." – Þjarkur (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The international Abolition of Forced Labour Convention was ratified in 1959. Forced labour and deprivation of liberty are forbidden by law, but slavery is not specifically mentioned.[1] Iceland had its own version of serfdom until 1894. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What is slavery?

The timeline is all very well, but without a definition of the word, it isn't as useful as it might be. I dare say that in some of the countries where 'slavery' had been abolished, the practice, as understood by others, actually continued. Some might argue that people trafficking isn't slavery. Is an indentured worker a slave; was a serf who owned a mill a slave; some might say so. If so, what aspect of their life made them slaves.

I think it would be a good idea if someone who has given the subject some very serious thought opened the article with such a definition, sufficiently rigorous to pin the subject down. Just my thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point when the nature of serfdom in Russia, Poland etc. is considered. "The term "serf", in the sense of an unfree peasant of the Russian Empire, is the usual translation of krepostnoi krestyanin (крепостной крестьянин) which meant an unfree person who, unlike a slave, could be sold only with the land he or she was "attached" to. Historic legal documents of the epoch, such as Russkaya Pravda (12th century onwards), distinguished several degrees of feudal dependency of peasants." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.49.134 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline Correction

Could someone with experience please perform an update if it is agreed necessary?

Under '1935' on the timeline, it mentions the death of the last survivor of the Clotilda.

Apparently this occurred in 1940 and the survivor's name was Matilda. If not the work of sophisticated trolls, at least this will be easy to remember. Backing information and relevant sources can be found on the Clotilda Wiki page.

Please perform the needful, thank you. NotPedanticReally (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Achaemenid Persia

I came across this in the Achaemenid Persia article:

"The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned, although there is evidence that conquered and/or rebellious armies were sold into captivity. Zoroastrianism, the de facto religion of the empire, explicitly forbids slavery, and the kings of Achaemenid Persia, especially the founder Cyrus the Great, followed this ban to varying degrees, as evidenced by the freeing of the Jews at Babylon, and the construction of Persepolis by paid workers."

This is a significant occurrence for the history of the abolition of slavery. It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.146.175 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC) 


         That article is inaccurate, slavery was a legal practice in Achaemenid Persia, we have documents in Achaemenid Babylon or Achaemenid Egypt regarding   regulations of slave ownership.GollumTreasure 11:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs)
This floats around in the less well sourced parts of the Internet, but in the field of ancient slavery is well known to be false. I will remove the Achaemenid entry on this page and will also revise the Achaemenid Empire page.
There is no evidence anywhere in the ancient record that slavery was banned by Cyrus or any other Achaemenid.
There is incontrovertible evidence that slavery was practiced in the empire and that Achaemenid officials were aware of and facilitated (and probably taxed) the trade in slaves (in the form of high Achaemenid officials personally owning slaves; slave sale contracts listing government officials as witnesses or bearing the authenticating stamps of Achaemenid bureaucrats; references to a royal office in Achaemenid Babylonia tasked with registering and, probably, taxing slave sales; there are also references from outside the empire, i.e., Greece, to Persians enslaving people and owning slaves).
There is some evidence that slavery may have decreased in economic importance in Achaemenid times compared to earlier Neo-Babylonian times - without ever actually disappearing - but it is impossible to be confident about whether this is a real decline or an illusion produced by gaps in the historical record.
Aithiopika (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Removed a recently added reference to the Cyrus Cylinder possibly abolishing slavery. The statements that the Cylinder may have abolished slavery and that modern historians disagree about the interpretation are not correct. It is widely known in the field that the translations of the Cylinder that purport to abolish slavery are modern fakes (as stated in the Cyrus Cylinder article) and that the genuine text makes no mention of abolitionism. There is zero doubt that Near Eastern slavery continued during the Achaemenid era.
(Frankly, there are a number of other entries on this list that really don't belong on a timeline of abolitionism at all, such as the Council of Nablus, and a number of other entries that need to be qualified a lot more heavily than they currently are to specify that they may have abolished certain nonslave but coercive institutions while leaving outright chattel slavery perfectly intact, such as the Greek and Roman laws. But that's a project for another day...).

Aithiopika (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The abolition of slavery in all of the portuguese colonies in africa,was declared in 25th of february of 1869 and not in 1961 as the timeline claims.This should be corrected.XPTO 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:D926:98E0:72B9:DBFB (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Austrian Bukovina

Bukovina was never part of the Holy Roman Empire. It was part of the Habsburg territories. The Habsburg empire was in fact roughly half inside the borders of the Holy Roman Empire (Lower and upper Austria, Bohemia etc) and half outside (Hungary, Croatia, Bukovina and so on). So you can't use the flag of the Holy Roman Empire for Bukovina as it was outside its borders. Use the Austrian flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.150.166 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Serfdom vs. corvée in the Austrian Empire

I understand that the terminology and legal conditions are difficult to be compared, however the traditional interpretation is that serfdom in the Austrian Empire was abolished in 1781 by Serfdom Patent (1781), and corvée in 1848. The article doesn't mention 1781, and claims 1848 as "serfdom abolished" year. --ŠJů (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Abolition vs. regulation? Abolition vs. manumission? Abolition vs. switch in slave supply?

A number of the entries in the ancient and medieval sections aren't about abolition of slavery, but rather fall into one of several categories:

  • Regulations laying out the rules of who can own who or how the slaves can or can't be treated. An example of this is the Council of Nablus entry, in which absolutely nothing is relevant to abolishing slavery, and the only relevance to slavery at all is that when any of sort of interfaith sexual relationships are outlawed and punished with mutilation (i.e., effectively anti-miscegenation laws based on religion rather than race), slaves are included along with free people. Rules about what type of slaves Jews are allowed to own also fall here.
  • Manumissions, in which some particular slaves are freed but slavery is not abolished, e.g., the Pope buying and freeing some slaves in the City of Rome.
  • A change in the accepted source for the supply of slaves, particularly when a new rule amounts to "you can keep enslaving people as long as it isn't us." (Athenian and Roman entries, the entry about Venice and the Carolingians, and some others).

Not many of these things seriously amount to abolition and some of them aren't even in the same ballpark. Does anyone want to make a case that a lot of these types of entries shouldn't be deleted and any remainder very heavily qualified?

Aithiopika (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted some entries in the medieval section. Council of Nablus for the reasons given above. Treaty of Alcaçovas because giving Portugal a de facto monopoly on the sub-Saharan slave trade isn't abolition of slavery and doesn't even resemble it. The entry for early medieval Ireland because, even though it is sourced from How the Irish Saved Civilization, the sourced claim, that slavery or the slave trade was abolished by Saint Patrick or shortly after his death, is false. HtISC is a biased source interested in pop-historical puffing up of Ireland and presents a sometimes ridiculously heroic and spotless image of the medieval Irish.
Since it is a sourced claim, even if a poor source, I'm providing some sources for why it should be removed (from more rigorous academic history):
  • "According to the eighth-century law tract Uraicecht Becc (Breatnach 2005, 316), foreign slaves were worth more than native Irish slaves because they were less likely to run away (CIH 1617.29-32; and AL, vol. 5, 110)." Direct quote is from Eska, Women and Slavery in the Early Irish Laws, Studia Celtica Fennica VIII (2011), p. 32, and see also the sources she cites. So we have an eighth-century source attesting to slavery when this article claims it was abolished from 500 A.D. to the ninth century, and also specifically attests to a slave trade (because foreign slaves).
  • "Recurring mention of the sale of children in hunger years attests to the existence of "debt-slavery" as an institution throughout the early Middle Ages." Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia," ed. Sean Duffy, 2016 edition, p. 430 (entry on Slaves).
  • "However, it is clear that slavery continued to be of considerable economic importance in Irish society during our period." [7th - 8th century CE Ireland]. Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law, 1988.
  • "Although there is no evidence that either Brigit or Patrick were prepared to condemn the institution of slavery, in line with the attitude of the Church, they shared the view that the free-born and Christians were not to be sold into slavery and women in particular should not be used as sexual objects, as this would have undermined church teaching on marriage." Smith, Early Christian Ireland - A Slave Society?, undated: https://www.academia.edu/33588482/EARLY_CHRISTIAN_IRELAND_A_SLAVE_SOCIETY
  • "There were three broad categories of layman in Ireland in the seventh and eighth centuries: the aristocrat, the base client and the slave [...] The deepest divide was between the aristocrat and client, on the one side, and the slave on the other. The slave class was recruited by birth, judicial penalty and, most importantly, force..." Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, 2000, p. 68.
More sources could easily be added, but this seems like enough to establish that the claim in HtISC is false.
Started with these three, but more edits and probably more removals forthcoming. Aithiopika (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Data on Map

The data portrayed in the map is not factually correct. The United Kingdom did not ban slavery until 1833 (and allowed slavery to continue in the East India Company even after it was outlawed elsewhere in the Empire). Denmark banned slavery in 1792 and it is not even included on the map. Additionally, the data for the US States is inaccurate. Here is a correct list of when each US State ended slavery:

  • Vermont - 1777
  • Pennsylvania - 1780
  • New Hampshire and Massachusetts (including Maine) - 1783
  • Connecticut and Rhode Island - 1784
  • New York - 1799
  • Ohio - 1802
  • New Jersey - 1804

All of the Northern U.S. States had banned slavery by 1804. Additionally, Minnesota never legalized slavery, even as a territory - it was banned in 1787 by the Northwest Ordinance, again in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, and again in 1858 when Minnesota was admitted as a state. 021120x (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A map would be very useful resource for people who come to this article and not want to sift through a lot of varying degrees of entries. Could you or someone else provide an updated, accurate map? LutherVinci (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Congress of Vienna

The congress did not "declare its opposition to slavery", but to the slave trade. Kipala (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not Credible.

This entire article is full of inaccuracies. The percentage of error is around 97%. 2601:444:380:C220:10F7:DBF6:7EB9:76CB (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

curious, how did you come up with the error rate? on a side note, the article does need a ton of sources/citations because it is filled with statements with no references. DiztractedAnalcyst (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom/Archive_1&oldid=1155202119"