Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:05, 14 November 2015

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 19, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Law GA‑class Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States GA‑class High‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress GA‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

United States Constitution GA‑class Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution 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.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Human rights GA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Archives GA‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

African diaspora GA‑class Mid‑importance

	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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 18, 2004, December 18, 2005, December 18, 2006, December 18, 2007, December 6, 2008, December 6, 2009, December 6, 2010, December 6, 2012, and December 6, 2014.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

The following phrase is incorrect

"two Democrats, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and James Nesmith of Oregon voted "aye." "

Johnson voted aye but was NOT a Democrat, he was a Unionist.

Should be corrected to:

"two Demcrats, Benjamin F. Harding and James W. Nesmith, both of Oregon, voted "aye."

Do you have a reliable source for what you say? SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The Robertson v. Baldwin citation needs clarification!

This article contains a reference to Robertson v. Baldwin in the section "Other cases of involuntary service." It reads:

In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a sailor challenged federal rules mandating the capture and return of deserters. The Court ruled that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional."

The plain use of the words "sailor" and "deserters" make it seem as though Robertson, et al, had run away from the Navy, and that the case was about the obligations of those in the military. They had not and it was not. They were merchant seamen who fled from the merchant ship Arago in Astoria. They were arrested and held in jail until the ship was ready to sail, then forcibly put into the captain's custody. After they refused to work during the voyage, they were rearrested in San Francisco and charged under federal statutes criminalizing a seaman's refusal to work. I can't edit the article, but I would recommend wording it as:

In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a group of merchant seaman challenged federal statutes which criminalized a seaman's failure to complete their contractual term of service. The Court ruled that seamen's contracts had been considered unique from time immemorial, and that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional."

Here's the text of the opinion to confirm all that shizz: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html

Also, I learned how to make an edit request tonight! Go, me! 81.85.69.212 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]