Talk:Slavery in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents


Nat Turner & Anti Literacy[edit]

Seperated the sections on Nat Turner and his rebellion and Anti Literacy. This sections are not cohesive and do not compliment each other at all. Nat Turner's revolt did not result in or was not a result of literacy laws in America, before of after his revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmtoure (talkcontribs) 15:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


White slaves[edit]

For there was a small number of white slaves as well.[citation needed] the cite can be found in Mr Jefferson's Women ISBN 9781400078578. Unfortunately I don't have access to this book at present. Sally Hemming's six children were legally white (because more than 75% white) and slaves (because mother was a slave). The laws are documented and the facts are clear. Nitpyck (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The 75% rule was not universal since states independently made such determinations. Generally it was either a black grandparent (such as Virginia) or a black great grandparent (such as in Alabama) that determined, legally, whether a person would be treated as white or black (usually classified as mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon). The enslaved whites may have been legally white, but their enslavement was still based on black ancestry -- it is misleading to discuss white slaves without pointing out this very important fact. See Kenneth Stampp "The Peculiar Institution" pp. 194-196. I am going to add the requested cite with an expanatory footnote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Although there were enslaved whites in british north america, by 1776 this practice had been all but extinguished. Throughout the history of the united states as a political body, generally the only whites that were held as slaves were held by Native Americans along the frontier, and these were relatively small in number.XavierGreen (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please remember my name here on WP is nitpick, but the law was based on status of parents not their color. In most of US if the mother was a slave the child was also. The reality that the mother was black doesn't change the law which did not, as far as I know, make that distinction. Slavery was not automatic for the children of free black women. Nitpyck (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Hemings children were legally white under VA law at the time, but they were slaves because of being born to a slave mother (who had African ancestry). 18th c. visitors to Virginia remarked on the "white slaves" (as quoted in a biography on Jefferson) because of their appearance, not because they knew their ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the first enslaved Europeans in colonial Virginia were Polish.Harrypotter (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't consider enslavement for life different than indentured for a period of time, then there were proportionally huge numbers of White slaves in the English colonies. But most people do consider them to be different.Nitpyck (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the U.S. - not England's colonies. Rklawton (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
And indentured servants could be free if they survived indenture, usually six years to pay off passage to the colonies.Parkwells (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Other words you Sources does not conform to the Pushing of POV that it was blacks in slaved by mean whitey and we know Wiki will never allow such a thing no matter if what you are saying is the truth - And the Spin goes on - Good Job wiki Editors - - --Kimmy (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Rklarton - The article just mentions Spanish colonies for laughs and giggles --Kimmy (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your article states there were no white slaves. There were. After the battle of dunbar (1650) the british forced several thousand scotts to be convict labourers in America. This is also supported by "Cameos from English History - the rebellion and restoration (1642-1678)" written by The Heir of Redclyffe, seventh series, London MacMillan and Co. and New York, 1890, which states on page 161 "...And then they rushed on the pursuit, which continued for eight miles. Two hundred colours, 15,000 matchlocks, thirty cannon, all the baggae and stores, and 10,000 prisoners were taken. Half of these being wounded were allowed to return to their homes; and the other half were "driven like turkies" into England, many dying of a pestilent disease, and the rest being sent off to be sold as slaves in the American colonies. The battle of Dunbar took place on the 3rd of September 1650........." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.140.214 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Black slave masters[edit]

Some slaveholders were black. This was due in large part to the fact that it became illegal to free slaves, and former slaves who purchased family members were technically their owners. However, in more than a few cases, blacks and even former slaves owned and worked a hundred or more of their own slaves as field labor. The book "Black Slave Masters" would be a good source. Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

From what i read theis was most common in louisiana.XavierGreen (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

n 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 - Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64. --Kimmy (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are other examples. Would this topic be worth bringing up? It's an interesting bit of history, but it's relatively minor by comparison. It certainly doesn't fit with the schoolbook version of slavery. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no point in bringing stuff up, if it is not put in context. The management of slavery was carried out in different ways under different regimes. In French Louisiana there developed a strata of Creoles who elsewhwere would have been classified as "Black". Some of these people became sufficiently wealthy to become slave owners - indeed some of them may have inherited slaves. Not sure where I can get refs on this though.Harrypotter (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No point in bring it up ? If it is not mentioned ? Well the Census is Mentioned and funny how blacks owned the most black slaves but it is not mentioned - sources - Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128. " According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with more 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.

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 " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talkcontribs) 02:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

12,000 slaves owned by free blacks compared to 3,000,000 slaves owned by free whites (also: Not slaved whites)? Notable, I think not. But I do give you respect for twisting that statistic the way you did. 28% of blacks owned slaved compared to 1.4% of whites. You should be in politic. But that 28% for blacks = 12,000 (Slaves) and that 1.4% percent for white = 3,000,000 (Slaves). 250X more.

And yes most slaves of Free Black were Family or like Family, not on a plantations actually being (Slaved). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

People are getting confused here, comparing apples to oranges: The % of free coloured HOUSEHOLDs in one city that owned slaves vs the % of white PEOPLE in the country. According to the author 28% of free black New Orleans Households owned slaves. For Louisiana in 1860, 72,000 households, 22,000 slaveholders or 30% of all free households owned slaves, which is typical for the confederate states. Found that data HERE: http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860 Bubalis (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to change all of these references to "f.p.c. slaveholders" rather than black, because many identified as "brown" "mullato" or "octaroon."

Bubalis (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary Servitude in Prison[edit]

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)

Some statistics[edit]

Just FYI: I've removed these figures, giving slave populations by state in 1776, from Slavery as being excessively detailed; however, it occurred to me they might be useful here. Shimgray | talk | 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This resource (http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/index.faces) says that of the 10 million or so slaves that survived the crossing, 388,000 came to North America while the rest went to South American and Carribean. My inquiries found that this resource is the most accurate available. Consider changing the text in the article from 600,000.Brightrabbit (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the "disembarked" table at this web site. The total of slaves disembarked in the Americas, including the Caribbean, was over 10 million but the number disembarked in the U.S. was 252,653. I didn't see the 388,000 number but maybe it is on a different page. The point about the 600,000 number being inaccurate obviously still would hold. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I am seeing what you are seeing. The differences between the current table (~600,000), and any that might be constructed with this dataset are huge. Might want to consider ranges or such. I don't have much feel for the relative accuracy of the methods/data from the two. The smaller value for the total is bothersome to me as it requires a rather large birth rate per generation at times, but that is just back of the envelope using decadal figures from the database vs. decadal census. (The following site addresses some of the fertility issues and infant mortality: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery ) I can't tell how much estimating vs. counting is being done in the slavevoyages site summary that gives 252,653. However, I found the 388,000 figure on a different site that claims to be using the same slavevoyages database: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/how_many_slaves_came_to_america_fact_vs_fiction.html That is dated Jan. 6, 2014 so I wonder if there has been a change to the data handling since then? Red Harvest (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Should be re-written[edit]

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)

Economics[edit]

Isn't this article lacking an explanation of the formative role that slavery played in the development of the U.S. economy? I'm not qualified to write it, but want to see it put in. Once started, that section should be connected to the U.S. American understanding of individual determinism. Experiencelearning (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Idea. That actually what I initially came here for98.203.36.3 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This section of the article needs rewriting and updating. Although like the people above, I don't have time to do the research, I noticed it relied on passive constructions and one paper by Waples that's nearly two decades old. I edited some but don't see the result so I don't know if my edit will be accepted. IMHO the section needs at least wikilinks to the controversial 1974 Time on the Cross book (whose citation style I found pretty aggressive when I researched it decades ago), as well as to its authors, Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman and mention of the 1989 book. Frankly, I don't understand the above-suggested link to individual determinism, unless it means that the slaves didn't have suchJweaver28 (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Genovese Stampp collector[edit]

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)

Polish Slaves?[edit]

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)

improving economic conditions in England[edit]

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)

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

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Black slave owners[edit]

Black owned more slaves than white people did ? Why no mention ?

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin

According to 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.

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.http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm--Kimmy (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of what you added to the lead might be appropriate in the section Slavery in the United States#Distribution of slaveholders if you strip it of WP:POV language (e.g. "certainly impressive", "propaganda") and can source it to a WP:RS reliable source rather than a commercial website. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The properly documented sections "Free black people" and "Distribution of slaveholders" already discusses this subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be useful to also know whether the majority of slaves were owned in small establishments or on massive plantations. Of course the intimacy between the slave owner and the slave has been well established - often they slept in the same beds - and even substantial figures like Thomas Jefferson impregnated at least one of his slaves. I am not quite sure, however, whether such intimacy existed between enslaved African men and the women of the slave owning class, or how any resulting pregnancies were welcomed in the somewhat fraternal communities Editor Kimmy likes to encourage us to imagine.Harrypotter (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


If you look at the start of the Article it starts of with a census - According to 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. Witch I added to this page - Hardly Kimmy Pushing any POV - Just relying on the nations leading Historian of that period , I know it does not fit into the POV of the Article it was the mean white man that had slaves - Why leave out the natives owning slaves ? Just another example of Wiki becoming a Joke - --Kimmy (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)



Abby - The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72 "The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves" Abby - " Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64."

Abby - " Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64. - "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"

Abby - " Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85. = " 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 $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop" Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280. - . Black Masters, p. 62. - As I stated no matter the Top Historians I list - no matter how many books I list - Wiki Efitors will not listen - It distracts from the Pushing of POV that this page is full of - And the the POV being pushed it was all the mean white men that owned slaves although History could be further from the truth --Kimmy (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC) On other thing it does not have to be a Main Stream Media source , Website - Per Wiki rules - I was Solid - --Kimmy (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Wiki is also not a Democracy - --Kimmy (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love it if someone could tell me where the John Hope Franklin statistic comes from. When I see the claim that "so and so said such and such" dozens of times and its never accompanied by an actual citation, it smells funny. I've googled for it a bunch, and I just keep on seeing the claim, not the historian actually making it. Bubalis (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundant slavery articles[edit]

Why do we have so many slavery articles with overlapping and repetitive content? Slavery in the US and Slavery in the Colonial US.....what's the difference? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I was involved in the creation of either article but I expect that someone thought this article was too long or that the discussion of the colonial period was too long within it and following WP:CFORK split off a sub-article: "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually the two items are quite different: one is about how the peculiar institution existed under the colonial regime of British North America, and the other is about how slavery persisted after the United States was established as a political entity. It is not so much an issue of spinout or spinoff, but of differing substance. The problem historically, was of course, why do we have so much slavery!Harrypotter (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Then please explain the duplication of images and content. Thank you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The explanation is quite simple. The querent may find satisfaction upon perusing just one page, and not trouble themselves with the other. Some overlap is quite acceptable, but should not be excessive.Harrypotter (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure the page-title 'Slavery in the colonial United States is correct? In colonial times, they weren't called the United States. If you think it includes Canada, should it not be called 'Slavery in British North America'? Valetude (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Black slave masters to section Free black men[edit]

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 - [[1]]
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Published sources on topic of black slaveowners[edit]

  • 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)

Slave breeding in the United States[edit]

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)

International influences on abolitionism in the US?[edit]

The British Empire.png

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[edit]

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)

Animated GIF[edit]

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)

Indentured servants in 17th c.[edit]

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. [1] Scottish,[2]. 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)

Thomas Jefferson not a "founding father"?[edit]

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs)

Content fork: "Treatment" section[edit]

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)

Move "distribution" subsections out from 1783-1850 section?[edit]

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)

"Women's rights" section[edit]

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 "Historiography" section into Historiography_of_the_United_States?[edit]

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)

Constitution of the United States[edit]

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.[3] 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.[4]

  1. ^ Nini Rodgers, "The Irish in the Caribbean 1641–1837: An Overview", Irish Migration Studies in Latin America, accessed 7 Jul 2010
  2. ^ Kelly D. Whittaker, "White Slavery, what the Scots already know", Electric Scotland, accessed 7 Jul 2010
  3. ^ Maier, Pauline. Op. Cit., p.201
  4. ^ Maier, Pauline. Op. Cit., p.284

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)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy[edit]

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)

Typos and editing[edit]

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)

Combine repeated passages[edit]

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)

european slave traders with outposts in africa shipping 12 million slaves to North america?[edit]

This sounds very preoccupied by the believe that europeans assaulted African territory during the Colonial period to enslave blacks... and in fact, sounds like some of Achmad "I will sell Iran's Radioctive Garbage, as soon as we have some, to my Hamas friends" Ahmadinedschad theses.

Here are some important things to know:

  1. Slavery was part of the African culture and the social system itself, like Polygamie.[2]
  2. The name "Slave" also has the meaning of "worker"[3]
This interpretation is erroneous and not included in the source. Parkwells (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not, slave comes from the word slaw, the slawic people... the slaws where mainly used as workers in medieval europe, how else has the word slave have become its current definition? slawic people = worker - slawic = slave
  1. We have to seperate slaves or "workers", in Africa, who wanted to work to make money somewhere, from "real" forced slaves[4]
The source does not suggest that Africans went to the New World to "make money somewhere," but were conveyed as forced laborers.Parkwells (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They even signed work treaties and received regular payment for the work they had done.[5][6]
    • The first article is about Indentured servants, which is something else. The second article is a calculation how much the slaves should have been paid in wages. Did you even read any of these before you linked them? Yoenit (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. The European Countries did not found colonies in Africa for trading slaves, the Colonialism was an agenda for founding new colonies and acquiring or trading new material resources like gold or spices[7]
In the 15th century, Portugal started trading for gold, but as demand for slave labor increased, emphasized trading for slaves. Colonialism in Africa was a later, generally 19th-century development.[8]Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well the dutch founded colonies in Africa in the 17 century and even tought the Afrikaans language. Colonialism has nothing to do with slavery, occupation or other offensive mechanics. The term colonialism comes from the word Colony, Colonies are settlements not part of the countries border.
    • Tought the Afrikaans language? What is that supposed to mean? Yoenit (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Slavery has not even been present in medieval europe, this thinking is mixed up with a system of different classes of citizens... the poor, the rich, the royals... etc.[9]
The article does not discuss medieval Europe.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah but persons love to call everything slavery and start to compare every form of their definition of slavery with each other and make no difference at all.
    • And how is that relevant here? Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. This christian social structure of different classes and also the worker class, is often and easily used on a disproportional level to compare it with the Arab- Muslim and inter- African Slavery[10]
Not the topic of this article.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I also said i did not wrote this stuff to express rassistic views, iam not a rassist. i want to improve the article, and a sentence for example "slavery was practiced by christianity, islam and africans" would be wrong.
  1. Some of the inter African slaves searched for better lives themself, what we call the "African Slavery in America" was more like freedom for these Africans related to treatment and conditions within their inter - African Slavery
No source is cited for this, because the major sources on slavery contradict it. African slavery was generally not one of permanent status - a slave's children or grandchildren might attain freedom, which was generally not a possibility in the US after 1662, which defined children of a slave mother as born into slavery. Secondly, the conditions of forced labor in slavery in the Americas: on commodity plantations and in mines, for instance, were much more harsh, contributing to the high mortality among slaves in the Americas.Parkwells (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can`t argue with that, i believe i was reffering to that slavery within africa would have been automaticly harder because of the other cultural practices to which they would have been forced in africa, but ok, got your point
  1. Another reason why many Africans wanted to leave Africa by choice were inter African conflicts and wars, like we know them nowadays.[11]
  2. To say that Africans were abducted from Africa and sold into slavery to work in the United States is simply wrong. The term "migration" would be the correct term, due to they either have already been inter African slaves or workers- by choice who started to work in the United States to receive money, rights and wealth.[12]
Again, you have misinterpreted the source, which clearly distinguishes between African slavery and the organization of mobilizing labor for the slave trade. They were generally not "already" slaves nor were they workers seeking to go abroad for work.Parkwells (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree there, the African culture itself was based on slavery, the rich Africans who enslaved the poor Africans, which were sold to the ones who shipped them over to America where they ... signed contracts and started to work, earned money, received freedom.
    • They did not receive money or signed contracts, see my comments above. Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. We also may not forget the difference of meaning of slavery in the so called "American slavery" and inter African Slavery. From an american perspective there has never been an interesst in the status for a slave, but as a workforce. In the United States they were able to live and do what ever they wanted, they were only bound to their work, and even within this they had more or less a choice if they work on a field, in a household, as worker who builds houses etc.. One perverse negative but still a good example for these liberties is that they were even able to go to towns and steal, there are a lot of examples and reports of blacks stealing and robbing in cities.
Slaves in the Americas did not have the choice of where they worked, but were assigned by masters and overseers. In some cases they were hired out or leased to do work for others. The lack of choice is part of what defined slave labor in the United States. Slavery became a permanent racial caste and was very much related to status. Parkwells (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? have you ever seen other pictures of wealthy slaves? you cant tell me that all of them were unable to choose which work they prefer.


The picture of the so called abducted black African enslaved, enchained and tortured is wrong. One good reflection of history of altantic slavery is this source [13] Even if i sound a bit rassistic in some passages, it has more to do with getting provoced when i imagine how many persons dont know real facts about the history of the so called "american slavery" which is even believed to be the reason for the american civil war... but that is another matter.

Your source does not support your views and needs to be read more carefully. In terms of the reasons for the Civil War, read What This Cruel War Was Over (2007) by Chandra Manning, and you will understand that the soldiers on both sides of the Civil War very much thought the war was about slavery; conclusions are based on the evidence of soldiers' letters.Parkwells (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC):::: I used this source not for backing up my agumentations, i used this source because it is part of a school book which gives the reality back better than the article.
This is not a forum on the topic of slavery in the United States but is supposed to be used to discuss how to improve the article.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all, thank you, you have been one of the first ones who actually wanted to hear what i have to say. The articles about slavery need in my point of view some important changes. I will make some suggestions tomorrow. But this entire picture of European slave traders, abducting Africans and force them to work in America is simply wrong.
  • I will not engange any discussion with the User Yoenit here, he uses reversed amplifing to compromise the logic of my already given comments and their content, uses rethorical speech as argumentation and combines both with accusations that lead a third viewer to the conclusion he presented in his comments. This has nothing to do with participating in a correct discussion, but with influencing persons on an intelligent sociological level. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.44.249 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


  • I would like to remind everyone that this is not a forum for general discussion about the topic of slavery in the US but only for discussion of how to improve the article. Any suggestions of how to improve the article should be accompanied by references to reliable scholarly sources. The suggestions of the IP contradict almost all mainstream scholarship on the topic and it is therefore futile to engage in discussion with him as long as he does not provide arguments based on wikipedia policy for why his ideas should be included (WP:UNDUE, [[WP:RS] and WP:FRINGE are particularly applicable). To do this he or she will have to show that there are reliable sources who share his viewpoint and that these sources should be allotted more weight in the article than they already have. Further simple statements of opinion from the IP should be disregarded as unproductive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that the moralic assignment of the brutality of slavery is projected on the american culture. Africa shares a culture which until today practices several human rights violation as traditional practices, this was not different 1000 years before or during the time first european settlers arrived in Africa. And with the style in which this article and other articles about slavery are written, the practice of slavery receives a higher focus on european slave traders rather than the mentioning that this practice was and is part of the african culture. I agree that we need work of scholars to present elligible and believable sources, but logic is also part of the human brain, like correct moralic assignments of several meanings. We now have the knowledge that, i quote

"Slavery existed in some of Africa's earliest organized societies"[14].

The Slavery in the United States stands in absolut contrast to this, i quote:

"The migratory history of Afircan slaves, once they landed in the Americas, continued through several further stages. The initial period of seasoning can be considered as migration through a change in status"[15]

The responsibility for the enslavement is not to seek in the Americas but in the african slave traders and the situation within Africa, like this quote expresses

"The most obvious "push" factors sending African slaves across the Atlantic were war and famine".[16].

Such major knowledge is missing, the article only focuses on the exploitation of Africans and creates a false picture for responsibility of the american social system, culture and morality. I will continue with this in the next days, i will cite further quotations and make explicite suggestions for the rewritting of the article. Thank you for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.44.249 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, because you're making a synthesis of isolated facts to reach a conclusion that is not supported or directly stated by those sources. Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that a voracious demand existed for exploitative labor in the western hemisphere, to be obtained by any means from any source: it appears to me that you seek to advance a position that slavery in America wasn't a bad thing, which is most decidedly a fringe position. If you continue to use this (or any other page) to advance fringe positions through your own personal analysis or synthesis in violation of talkpage guidelines, your edits may be removed or archived. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, feel free to investigate these "isolated facts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.44.249 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, read Wikipedia policy on synthesis and original research. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Proposal - Human Trafficking in Houston, Texas[edit]

I propose creating a new section within this article, with a substantial amount of information on contemporary slavery in the United States, specifically in Houston, Texas. I plan to inform the public on the types of slavery found in Houston at the present time as well as the conditions in Houston, politically, geographically, and culturally, that make it a large hub in the United States. Currently the page only gives information on slavery in colonial America up until the Civil War; it is important to continue coverage of slavery still going on today. Please advise me on the best way to integrate this new information into this article; I realize it is very different information than what is already there and hope to make the transition smooth. Amacune (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about legal slavery in the United States which did end after the Civil War. The continuing story is picked up in the article Human trafficking in the United States. An example (possibly the only example in wikipedia) of what you may be thinking of is Human trafficking in Michigan. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with North Shoreman: Human trafficking in Texas or Human trafficking in Houston, Texas would be more appropriate for the modern-day phenomenon. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree that contemporary human trafficking should be dealt with in a different article - a main one on Houston, TX, and a summary from that to be used as a section within Human trafficking in the United States. Good luck!Parkwells (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that this article is about 'legal slavery in the United States'; otherwise it would be titled as such. I believe that it is important to show that slavery is still being practised, both in the USA and by its trading partners, by people of all races. A small para at the end should point this out. 109.154.9.232 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Abolitionist movement(messy link)[edit]

Under the subtopic of "Abolitionist movement", there is a link that looks like this "Abolitionist#United States", can we get this fixed to say something less messy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.156.101 (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no "prettier" way to direct readers to the "United States" section of Wikipedia's article about Abolitionism than Abolitionism#United States. One alternative might be to direct to the whole Abolitionism article, rather than a specific section, and trust readers will find what they're looking for. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No such section exists. Fixed this to redirect to Abolitionism. ʝunglejill 20:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of slaves in the United States[edit]

I am in the process of copyediting Treatment of slaves in the United States, which was content-forked from this article. It doesn't seem that anyone is involved with it, so I'm reproducing my concerns with it here. There is a sharp contrast between the effort that went into creating it on the one hand, and the low level of prose and lack of wikilinks on the other. I have also requested some citations. The article relies mainly on written publications; perhaps online sources are also available. Does anyone want to tackle this? I assume that this is not copyrighted material, because of the level of prose. Can anyone confirm this? If the original author is around, could I kindly suggest that they review the wp:Manual of style? ʝunglejill 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Animation[edit]

I noticed the map that shows the animation of slavery progressively from the colonial period through the 1860s is innacurate. The Louisiana territory was never owned by Spain, but by France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.6.98 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Distribution of slave owners - Confederate soldiers[edit]

After recently reading through this article, I read the section about slave owners who were soldiers of the Confederate Army. While thinking that then numbers seemed a bit inflated, I followed the citation to this cited source. My first impression was that the source is not a reliable scholarly work. Such credible works generally do not use the word "Bullshit" in them, as this source does. The source appears to be a blog masquerading as a piece of journalism. Someone may have a different view than me, but that's my impression.

Despite its shortcomings, the article did state several pieces of statistical information that did seem legitimate, but it failed to directly answer the question that I think we are all looking for, which is how many soldiers in the Confederate Army came from slave holding households. The article states statistics in a way that is misleading and forces one to add numbers and such on their own to draw the conclusion that we are looking for. In other words you have to do your own "original research" to get to that number.

Being frustrated by this, I then linked to the book "General Lee's Army" which the article cites as the source for the numbers it gives. The book states that it is about the Army of Northern Virginia only, and not about the Confederate military as a whole. It does state that there were members of the Army of Northern Virginia from every Confederate State used to make the statistical sample, but this still only makes the numbers valid for that command only. There were two other Armies on the Confederacy, so these statistics are valid for approximately one-third of the Confederate Army at best. These other two Armies may have had factors that make the numbers higher or lower for them. The book showed in a table that based on their statistical estimates that the number of soldiers from slave owning households was 31.6% on the low end and 47.7% on the high end.

This is the information that I placed in the slave owners section, because it seemed to state the information most accurately, and in the least biased way (in my opinion). If we could come up with some reliable statistics showing the number for entire Confederate military that would be ideal. Although I'm fairly confident that it would be much lower, I'd also like to see something showing the same numbers for the Union Army as a whole to contrast with that information. Sf46 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You're reading the table wrong by mixing up two different measures. The 31.6% number comes from a line reading "Own slaves? (personal and family)." The variance in this category goes from 31.6& to 42.1%. The 47.7% figure comes from a line reading "Own slaves? (including nonfamily)" and these numbers vary from 36.4% to 47.7%. The second set of numbers INCLUDES all the estimates from the first set and adds an additional category to it -- persons who live in a slaveholding household headed by someone other than a family member. In the body of the book (the table is included in an Appendix) Glatthaar explains this more clearly and writes (and this is the part quoted by the Atlantic article) on page 20:
Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders.Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.
The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders.
Without ANY ORIGINAL RESEARCH at all, we have Glatthaar concluding that "almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders". As Glatthaar notes elsewhere (for example fn 4 on page 482) the persons included as living in non-family related households included overseers as well as persons with different last names than the head of household that he could not confirm, through census records, were related to the head of household. I have therefore rewritten the section to use Glatthaar's own words. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
PS I considered just changing the range from your figures to the accurate figures of 36.4% to 47.7%. I didn't do this because the different numbers relate to statistical analysis terms such as clustering and stratification, design effects, and confidence intervals. Glatthaar drew a conclusion taking all these things into consideration and this, rather than the statistical analysis methodology variations of the raw data, is what is relevant to our article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Tom, I think I like what you've done there with this edit. It appears to be more of an accurate less misleading presentation of what the source is saying. I'd like to (if I or we) could finf the information, put something contrasting this with the number of Confederate soldiers that actually owned slaves themselves. In other words a statement along the lines of "While X number (or percentage) of Confederate soldiers (or members of the ANV if that's the stat) were themselves slave owners, a larger number were members of slave owning households" and then lead into what we already have. I can't remember if the source states that info. I think the artile had a number along those lines, but now appears to not have it. Sf46 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Starting on page 19, Glatthaar writes, "Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

More balanced focus, encompassing American war for independence, slavery in the US North[edit]

This is such a hot topic. there seem to be lots of emotional views such as those held by the Lost Causers ( lessen the role of slavery in the US Civil war, trying to portray it as benevolent ), and what I call the Nobler Causers ( minimizing the British offers of freedom for rebel-held slaves in the American war of Independence, disproportionate focus on slavery in the South and the US Civil War, minimizing discussion of slavery in the US North prior and during the US Civil war, and minimizing the US North's repeated offers to allow slavery to stand where it existed if the rebels laid down arms ). I am a newbie in Wikipedia, so I don't feel comfortable doing this, but can someone, (preferably not American?) in an unbiased manner, address in the article the Philipsburg Proclamation, the Lord Dunmore Proclamation, the truth about the horrors of slavery throughout the US, the 1834? emancipation of slaves in the British Empire prior to the start of the US Civil war, the implications for slaves in territories controlled by the British during the American war of independence? Also, the surprisingly little knowledge of slavery in New England, and its long history in the north of the US? Thanks! Sengbe7 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengbe7 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As you are new, it is important to remember that information needs to be WP:Verifiable, which means reliable sources must be identified that directly support statements to put in the article. They must then be presented from a neutral point of view and given due weight in the context of the article. Thus, to advance editing of this article, it would first be useful for you to identify reliable sources, which directly discuss the things, you believe need to be discussed, and bring them here so other editors and you can talk about them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Here are some samples: Philipsburg Proclamation (another website)[17] New Englands Hidden history of slavery (Boston globe article) [18] text of Corwin US Constitutional amendment passed, awaiting ratification, guaranteeing slavery, from Tufts University website[19]
I am not a historian, so I do not know which, if any, of these are considered reliable. I appreciate your patience and guidance to the newbie - thanks in advance!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengbe7 (talkcontribs) 22:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. First, it appears the focus of this article is post-independence (so about 80 years) and also slavery laws and politics. (Note: The American Revolution, does seem to have had a deep effect on the ideology of slavery, which set the conflict in the nation in higher gear). There is room for some treatment of historical background (the prior 180 years), and economics (slave trade), and perhaps also the treatment of slaves, across the nation. As for historical background, there is another linked article about the English colonies (Slavery in the colonial United States but it would appear to need to be supplemented by information on the French North American slave system in the Mississippi valley). So, perhaps that article should be improved first. For both economics and treatment, those are large subjects which cover broadly different times and places and would seem to need broad literature overview. There is already a section on Lord Dunmore, and, as for the penultimate political amendments toward the end of this period to avoid the Civil War, those also already have some mention. So what more would you propose to add, on these topics. (Finally, note that preferred sources are (secondary) academic articles and books, and not primary sources.) (See WP:RS) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Very much appreciated. I liked the preferred source link, and will go through that, over the holidays, and respond. I realized I raised several issues - I'll try, starting out, to focus on one. Thanks for taking the time - this is a cool project and I'll bet authors get a lot of 'this is wrong' as opposed to 'thanks for contributing'. Looks like you, and many people on this page alone, have contributed a lot - thanks!! Sengbe7 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I also note there are requests to improve this 'daughter' article: Treatment of slaves in the United States. In theory, at least, daughter articles are suppose to contain the details and the main article is suppose to summarize the relevant parts of the daughter article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Shortened lede 15/5/13[edit]

In response to your request of December 2012, I have shortened the lede by about two thirds. If this seems a lot, I feel that the main article is too long, and actually rather long-winded. Possibly it needs to be divided into two - the social history, and the political history. 109.154.9.232 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Spartan + Athenian = all Greek to me[edit]

I'm replacing the word "black" with African American. I'm not from the US so if I do something wrong just revert. Today the Spartans and Athenians are referred to as Greeks and they themselves referred to themselves as Greeks (actually Hellenes is the word they used); though they did spend 400 or so years fighting about "who was the best Greek". Also the Ionians who lived on the coast of Turkey were also Greek. So the story of Troy is not a bunch of Turkish people fighting with a bunch of Greek people but actually Greeks fighting Greeks. I digress. My point is that the differentiating names of Spartan, Athenian and Ionian would fail in purpose if reduced to common adjective terms like "black" and "white".

Articles are not limited by the past. Many words have been created post-event: Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, the Dark Continent (at no time did anyone in the Dark Ages say "I wish I hadn't been born in the Dark Ages" - language evolves and editors should use words and sentences that make sense to modern readers.

Sluffs (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate link[edit]

I must disagree with the new link from this article to 'Penal labor in the United States'. This is off-topic, and sounds like someone with their own political agenda. Not encyclopedic. Valetude (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Valetude: This link appears to be relevant, since 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery, explicitly allows "slavery or involuntary servitude" as punishment for a crime:
Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Jarble (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

The first sentence of "1790 to 1850" (changes are highlighted in Bold text)

While the Constitution protected the slave trade, in the first two decades of the postwar era, state legislatures in both the North and South made decisions to free many slaves, resulting in a dramatic rise in the number and of free blacks and their proportion in the United States by 1810.

should probably be:

While the Constitution protected the slave trade, in the first two decades of the postwar era, state legislatures in both the North and South made decisions to free many slaves, resulting in a dramatic rise in the number and proportion of free blacks in the United States by 1810. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.warnes (talkcontribs) 00:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you for pointing it out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Pacific slave trade[edit]

I keep looking for something about the Pacific slave trade, Asians brought to the "new world" as slaves with the same conditions in transportation etc. Is it here & if I missed it, I'm sorry. Hillmon7500 (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC) -

Slavery still exists in USA[edit]

You might want to see this: http://oneworld01.com/2012/04/14/the-blood-fields-of-mississippi-how-could-modern-day-slavery-still-exist/ & http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_7151.shtml Hillmon7500 (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what is best, but given the recent report on human trafficking, there could be some reference with a link to the human trafficking article at the top and/or the bottom of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcs70 (talkcontribs) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename Education during the Slave Period ?[edit]

I think the "Slave Period" phrase needs to go. I'd like to invite interested editors to start a proper WP:RM at the linked page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Slavery in the United States[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slavery in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wil":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 12:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request 16 June 14[edit]

Text now reads: "The United States was polarized by slavery into slave and free states along the Mason-Dixon Line, which separated Maryland (slave) and Pennsylvania (free)." It ignores Delaware, a slave state that was north (actually east) of the Mason-Dixon line. There were also still a handful (~30, IIRC) slaves remaining in New Jersey upon passage of the 13th Amendment, due to gradual emancipation. The sentence should be deleted (best) or amended (second best) to be correct.

By the way, overall I'm very impressed with this article on a subject that is still touchy for most, if not all, Americans. Good job, all. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Mason-Dixon line is commonly used as a separation between the north and the south, and slave states and slave free states. So characterizing it in such a way is consistent with the understanding of the Mason-Dixon line, though there may have been exceptions on both sides. The article for the Mason-Dixon line does mention Delaware as still being a slave state when Pennsylvania abolished slavery, but this is amount of information is a bit too specific to include into the lead section about slavery in the United States. This would be perfectly suitable for a mention on the Mason-Dixon line article and it does mention it in the lead, but such specifics don't merit this much attention every time the Mason-Dixon line is used to generally describe the geography of slavery. Just my opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reparations[edit]

Should the link to Reparations for slavery debate in the United States be included in the "See also" section of the article? The McCarthy, Thomas. "Coming to Terms with Our Past, Part II: On the Morality and Politics of Reparations for Slavery" Political Theory , Vol. 32, No. 6 (Dec., 2004) , pp. 750-772 is already listed in the further reading list... --Nabak (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Be bold — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure! :) But we also encourage deliberation and collaboration, don't we? Regards, --Nabak (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Economics[edit]

  • "Therefore, the use of human beings in bondage would not have ended in 1860 without the Civil War"
  • The above is one major conclusion to draw. Either provide a better conclusion, better citations or preferably both. Otherwise, I'll have to rewrite this. Added a [citation needed]. 10stone5 (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2014[edit]

Slaveholders, primarily in the South, had considerable "loss of property" as tens of thousands of slaves[citation needed] escaped to British lines or ships for freedom, despite the difficulties. The planters' complacency about slave "contentment" was shocked by seeing that slaves would risk so much to be free.[87] The needed citation can be found on this website http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=YTXuW0zptegC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Slaveholders,+primarily+in+the+South,+had+considerable+%22loss+of+property%22+as+tens+of+thousands+of+slaves&source=bl&ots=WtAvr7H-8D&sig=qylGdq2KBSiKLqusxVb9cL3LNYk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9ocxVN6iDoPj8gXJ54D4CQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Slaveholders%2C%20primarily%20in%20the%20South%2C%20had%20considerable%20%22loss%20of%20property%22%20as%20tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20slaves&f=false or in the book Slavery By Richard Oluseyi Asaolu Jadax (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't believe this is a reliable source. It's published by pediapress, and I think they pretty much just print Wikipedia stuff into books. That entire paragraph is identical from the article and the book. Heck most of the book is identical to the article. If the author was notable I would be inclined to believe that Wikipedia editors had done some plagiarizing, but this person does not seem to be such, so I'm leaning toward him plagiarizing Wikipedia. Thanks for looking for a source though Cannolis (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Effects of slavery in Southern development[edit]

In contribution to the first sentence of this section I have useful information.

On the topic of slavery effects of present culture of African Americans is low life expectancy and higher risk for health diseases. “Compared to whites, African Americans have lower life expectancy and higher death rates from chronic diseases like coronary disease, breast cancer, and diabetes.” Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). </ref> EddieCal22 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The end of slavery[edit]

To touch more on the sub-topic of The End of Slavery I believe I have interesting information to include:

"Slavery ending in the year of 1865 is a myth." Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). </ref> Slavery ending in 1865 wasn't the actually ending, it was the date in which the government finally acted on the institution making it illegal. The ideas and system was still around and it opened the doors for other discriminations. The choice of keeping it around as an punishment was just another way of keeping it relevant. However, once it was made an punishment; most activities held lots of restrictions and was unequally decided. Forcing such similar actions towards African Americans. EddieCal22 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014[edit]

"The war effectively ended slavery, before the Thirteenth Amendment (December 1865) formally outlawed the institution throughout the United States" is not technically correct. The Thirteenth Amendment reads, "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." The qualifier: "except as a punishment for crime" must be mentioned when we discuss slavery in the United States because it was with this loophole that convict leasing was legally validated ("Slavery By Another Name," Blackmon). Furthermore, our current Industrial Prison Complex has distinct parallels with convict leasing following Reconstruction. It would be incorrect and dangerous to imply that with the Emancipation Proclamation slavery ended in the United States. Morgan Powell (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

White Slavery in Colonial America[edit]

[1] American history always refer to our African American slaves, interestingly there were many more Irish slaves than Blacks in the early colonies. Often referred to an indentured servants--but most were not. They were every much slaves for life as their black counterparts. 30,000 Irish came as slaves; first sent by King James II in 1625. These enemies of Britain were human cargo transported via British ships bound for the Americas. Men, women, and even children. Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways like the the atrocities of the African slave trade, or a lot of the time even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.37.227 (talkcontribs) 06:03, 20 December 2014

Indentured servitude is mentioned in the article. It is not normally called "white slavery", which has a different meaning. TFD (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of first slavery[edit]

The Colonial America section states:

The first 19 or so Africans arrived ashore near the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, brought by Dutch traders ...

This cannot be correct. Documented in San_Miguel de Gualdape, is the 1526 San Miguel de Gualdape slave rebellion. That article states:

Ayllón had brought a group of Africans to labor at the mission, to clear ground and erect the buildings. This was the first time that Spanish colonists had used African slaves on the North American continent. During a period of internal political disputes among the settlers, the slaves rebelled and fled to the interior. They presumably settled with Native Americans if they survived.[2] This 1526 incident is the first documented slave rebellion in North America.

This is a serious disagreement of almost a century, and we might reasonably expect other undocumented incidents between those two dates. This should be corrected.

Also, given the date of the first slavery, the title should be corrected to read "Slavery in North America." "United States" did not exist in 1619 and certainly not in 1526. Slade Farney (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A few things to note. The source you reference isn't as strong of a reliable source as others used in the article that have gone through the peer review process of a university press or a scholarly journal. Taking a quick look at the source, it didn't make any claims about there being "documented" examples of slavery or any claims that this was the first example of slavery. "Documented" or "Document" only appear 3 times in the book, and none of them refer to a claim about the earliest slaves. So it seems the Wikipedia entry you've mentioned consists of a fair bit of WP:OR. That being said, I have seen other more reliable journals mention that the earliest believed slavery in North America and what would eventually become the U.S. occurred in the Spanish colonies in the mid 1500s. So which sentence in this article are you contending? The ones I read about "first" slaves clearly indicate they are talking about english colonies, but it's possible I might have missed something. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Scoobydunk Thank you for your comment. I believe that this statement imparts false information:

The first 19 or so Africans arrived ashore near the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, brought by Dutch traders ...

It is a statement about the first African slaves, not the first English slave owners, though that would be implicit if these were the first slaves in North America. It comes with no qualifiers, such as "documented ... though there are some records of earlier instances ..." or some such. It simply and boldly puts forth a statement in direct contradiction to San_Miguel de Gualdape. Slade Farney (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
A couple of things. First, the article intro states that this is about the territory that would become the U.S., not North America. Second, the current wording is vague rather than "boldly puts forth." However, the current article does lack information about the Spanish settlements' introductions of slaves and could be improved by addition of properly sourced material. Some of this is covered in Slavery in the colonial United States. This brings us to the third point. Unfortunately the wording of the San Miguel de Gualdape sections about the slaves in various articles doesn't seem to agree with the lone cite (which doesn't appear to state what became of them as the current wording suggests.) It is also worth noting that this was a temporary (~3 month) colony. From that event there is no continuity of slavery into what would become the U.S. so its impact is zero--essentially a footnote. The use of slaves in permanent Spanish settlements that eventually became part of the U.S. as mentioned in the intro of the article would be more relevant, but some reliable sources are needed to put it in the context of this article. Red Harvest (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with your assertions. The statement you've quoted is from a section titled Colonial America and the section starts by directly talking about Chesapeake Bay settlements. Furthermore, the sentence you've quoted talks about 19 "Africans" not "slaves" because historians disagree about the status of said Negroes upon their arrival to the English Colonies. As the section continues, it clearly explains the transition of the status of the Negro from indentured servant into slavery. I don't think it's at "ends" with the San Miguel article and, even if it was, the San Miguel article is the one in need of changes since it appears its statement about the first slaves is original research. I'm not opposed to including a brief caveat about Spanish settlements, but the line and information you've taken issue with doesn't need to be changed and is supported by multiple peer reviewed reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

typo?[edit]

In a sentence or two following the 26th footnote, it appears to say "port dcities."

  1. ^ http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
  2. ^ Margaret F. Pickett; Dwayne W. Pickett (15 February 2011). The European Struggle to Settle North America: Colonizing Attempts by England, France and Spain, 1521-1608. McFarland. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-7864-5932-2. Retrieved 28 May 2012.