Talk:History of slavery in New Jersey

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joewesty, Junetitus, Goud96, Christian.CBC, Cnester, Ryanmoor7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Numbers and percentage of slaves in 1790
I'm glad someone has started this article. It is really needed. When I looked at the article on NJ history, I thought material on slavery and African Americans was lacking, as well as a general sense of immigration and population movement. It would be useful to provide context for the number of slaves in 1790 - what proportion of the population was enslaved? Where were they concentrated? It's my understanding (don't have a source right now) that most of the slaves were in south Jersey, in the chief agricultural areas. That would make sense. --Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1881 history
In terms of sources, the 1881 county history would likely not be considered as reliable as later works by peer-reviewed historians.--Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear Contradiction
There is a clear contradiction in this article; the date of abolition. It is widely accepted that New Jersey did not legally abolish slavery until 1866, with ratification of the 13th Amendment. While slave numbers had dwindled extensively (down, at last count in 1850, to a mere 226) they still, in fact and in a legal sense, existed in New Jersey until ratification. 24.88.79.249 (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth Certificates of Children of Slaves in Burlington County
This reference shows "birth certificate" records for 15 children of slaves born in Burlington County after enactment of the 1804 law dictating freedom of such children following servitude until the age of 21 (females) or 25 (males). The Wiki article might benefit from inclusion of one of these "birth certificates" as an example.

http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/cbucl001.html

70.193.196.71 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)1712NJfamily

External link
Unfortunately, one of the external links no longer exists as a website. Therefore, I am going to remove it.74.102.216.186 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Done.74.102.216.186 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of slavery in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2ODc3MDcz
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk0MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5MjY1MTUmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxNA%3D%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203182055/http://warrenlib.com/warrenlib/local_history/apollovol2.pdf to http://www.warrenlib.com/warrenlib/local_history/apollovol2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of slavery in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823115712/http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/digidocs/h673/h6732002.pdf to http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/digidocs/h673/h6732002.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20031017072606/http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_jersey.htm to http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_jersey.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20031017072606/http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_jersey.htm to http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_jersey.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616164203/http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Afro-Americans/AFAMC.pdf to http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Afro-Americans/AFAMC.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213091604/http://www.preservationnj.org/site/ExpEng/index.php?%2Ften_most_11%2Findex_detail%2FZabriskie_Tenant_House to http://www.preservationnj.org/site/ExpEng/index.php?%2Ften_most_11%2Findex_detail%2FZabriskie_Tenant_House
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008205048/http://njsuttonfamily.org/Newspaper/jan1875.htm to http://njsuttonfamily.org/Newspaper/jan1875.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged copyvio with no backup to support claim
In this edit, reverts back to a version fron December 9, 2007, claiming a copyvio. Per WP:COPYVIO there needs to be discussion of the suspected source but there was nothing from Rusf10 in the edit summary or talk page; Earwig and other tools don't detect copying or close paraphrasing. Without a purported source, it's almost impossible to determine if the material was copied *from* Wikipedia (rather than the reverse).WP:COPYVIO is clear on the procedure: "If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Copyright problems." However, there was no discussion on the talk page, no tagging with the copypaste template, no suspected URL was provided and there was no notice at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Without following procedures, there is no way for any editor to address the allegations of copyright violation. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - If you actually bothered to read the notice I placed on the page, you would see the link I cited (and that page has a copyright notice at the bottom, it is not copied from wikipedia) and if you used the Earwig tool like you claim you would have came up with a 91% match  When there is a copyvio, we don't have a discussion, it gets tagged and then an admin reviews it. In fact the notice I put on the page (which you could not possibly have read) says "Note to others: Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it.", so you are 100% wrong here. I will replace the notice, do NOT remove it again.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I did read the article, but unfortunately your past track record with misunderstanding and misrepresenting policy in general, and in particular regarding copyvio, simply cannot give anyone comfort that you understand what's involved. Just take a look at Rudolph Valentino as a cardinal example. What exactly was the copyvio for which you argue that the article should be deleted in its entirety? Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So basically you decided I was wrong before even looking at the evidence. As for Rudolph Valentino, I am not sure I agree with DGG's assessment that it is a reverse copyvio, but that's a separate issue. This article clearly is a copyvio.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree with DGG *and* you have no track record of properly applying copyvio. Zero. Looking over the Valentino article, the claim of CSD:G12 appears dead wrong and appears to constitute a clear misrepresentation of deletion policy. The claimed earliest date for this article doesn't match the content of the source, and that's just the start. Let's allow the article to take it's course. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As usual your huge ego is getting in the way of you admitting that this is a legit copyvio, regardless of events elsewhere. I may not be right 100% of time the, but at least I don't create copyvio problems like your best friend. But we're obviously not going to solve this here, so I agree with you on one point only, let's just sit back and the copyvio issue can take it's course.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not think wikipedia is copying the thomaslegion.net page. The waybackmachine version of the thomaslegion.net page, https://web.archive.org/web/20130501000000*/http://www.thomaslegion.net/americancivilwar/newjerseycivilwarhistory.html, goes back only to March 2013. Looking at the state of this page at that date, there is certainly a close match between the two. However, the wikipedia page is sourced inline and was created by numerous editors over a long period and it seems very unlikely that a grand conspiracy of those editors would miraculously have copied the thomaslegion page while citing other pages. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you address the specific above claim about http://www.thomaslegion.net/americancivilwar/newjerseycivilwarhistory.html and address the issue by making the necessary corrections that would satisfy what are in your opinion the violations? Thank you. Djflem (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

wholesale blanking of vast ref'd material is vandalism
A cursory check of sources reveal the claim of Copyright violations to be false. The wholesale blanking of vast amounts of material is Vandalism, which has been reverted. See below examples:


 * The Dutch West India Company introduced slavery in 1625 with the importation of eleven black slaves to New Amsterdam, capital of the nascent province of New Netherland. They worked as farmers, fur traders, and builders.


 * The Underground Railroad had several routes crossing the state, four of which ended in Jersey City, where fugitive slaves could cross the Hudson River.


 * in part because many slaves were used as laborers in its ports and cities. After the Revolutionary War, many northern states rapidly passed laws to abolish slavery, but New Jersey did not abolish it until 1804, and then in a process of gradual emancipation similar to that of New York. But, in New Jersey, some slaves were held as late as 1865. (In New York, they were all freed by 1827.) The law made African Americans free at birth, but it required children (born to slave mothers), to serve lengthy apprenticeships as a type of indentured servant until early adulthood for the masters of their slave mothers. New Jersey was the last of the Northern states to abolish slavery completely. The last 16 slaves in New Jersey were freed in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment.

https://www.google.nl/search?q=James+Oliver+Horton%3A+Exhibit+Reveals+History+of+Slavery+in+New+York+City%22%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=Wql6WsiIN-WA8Qe6w5HwDg


 * In 1875, "Jack" Jackson, who was described as the last slave in New Jersey, died at the age of 87 on the Smith family farm at Secaucus. In 1820, Abel Smith had manumitted his slaves, but Jackson refused freedom and remained on the family estate until his death. By the will of the late Abel Smith, Jackson was interred in the family burial ground.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101203182055/http://warrenlib.com/warrenlib/local_history/apollovol2.pdf


 * In 2008, the New Jersey Legislature acknowledged the state's role in the history of slavery in the United States.

The Legislature of the State of New Jersey expresses its profound regret for the State’s role in slavery and apologizes for the wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States of America; expresses its deepest sympathies and solemn regrets to those who were enslaved and the descendants of those slaves, who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and we encourage all citizens to remember and teach their children about the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and modern day slavery, to ensure that these tragedies will neither be forgotten nor repeated.

Djflem (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you address the specific claim about above and specifc claims you may have and address the issue by making the necessary corrections that would satisfy what are in your opinion the violations? Thank you. Djflem (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

How come the first three paragraphs of this page do not have any citations? Citations should be added. Joewesty (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely to do with Manual of Style/Lead section, where ref's are not always necessary if info later cited in body.Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A fresh look at the article
The first two sentences in the lede were edited 13 July 2012. They are word-for word the same as footnoted text marked copyright 1997-2013 American Civil War Institute captured by the Wayback Macnhine 3 March 2013. These two captures are not dispositive. ACWI may have copied from the WP article. Alternatively, the WP editor may have lifted this text from ACWI. The following four paragraphs are substantially the same; the sixth is similar in construction. There were only two references in the first six paragraphs.

A review of the prior year's edits to the lede shows that the structure did not change, but individual paragraphs were modified. I draw the conclusion that ACWI copied from Wikipedia without attribution on or soon after 13 July 2012. Rhadow (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable analysis, although it doesn't provide 100% proof since we don't have wayback pages from every date. However, I just gave up on this after two different users remove a copyvio notice in violation of policy and when one of them accused me of vandalism when all I was trying to do was bring what appeared to be a likely copyvio to attention of an admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed bibliography for improving the article
This bibliography was compiled by a student group currently reviewing this article as part of a history course assignment.--JBhistorian (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Source with census data 18th/19th centuries
Page 29 https://books.google.nl/books?id=8VoVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=bonhamtown+camden+and+amboy&source=bl&ots=GuWC6JZjEI&sig=ACfU3U3Osmh8TeTz5nXtLrsIq_lpzc-G4Q&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpo7q_rK7oAhWqM-wKHS72BEo4ChDoATAAegQIChAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * https://books.google.nl/books?id=8VoVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&hl=nl&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

The slave trade was a royal monopoly and had become a lucrative enterprise - vague.
The article states that "The slave trade was a royal monopoly and had become a lucrative enterprise." I tried to check this. It is rather vague about dates. I presume the Royal African Company was meant, which by a charter of 1660 had been granted a monopoly over English trade along the west coast of Africa (later including slaves). However, in 1689, the Company acknowledged that it had lost its monopoly with the end of royal power in the Glorious Revolution. The Trade with Africa Act 1697 (9 Will. 3 c. 26) opened the African trade to all English merchants who paid a ten per cent levy to the Company on all goods exported from Africa. Nevertheless the company became insolvent in 1708, surviving until 1750 in a state of much reduced activity. The Company continued purchasing and transporting slaves until 1731, when it abandoned slaving in favour of ivory and gold dust. (Slave trading was doubtless lucrative for some, but it doesn't sound as though it was lucrative for the Company.) So it seems there was no monopoly during the c18. To call it a 'royal' monopoly before that could be misleading - was it not simply created by Royal Charter, even though it had royal interests? So, in short, is the sentence as it stands so vague as to be misleading? Starple (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)