Talk:Slave breeding in the United States

edit suggestions
The section in Historical Context called "End of the american slave trade" could be improved by removing much of the discussion at the end regarding the commoditization and management of slaves. These just don't seem very relevant to this particular topic and thus confuse the transition from "End of the american slave trade" to "Breeding in response to end of slave imports." Information is also repeated in multiple sections regarding the invention of the cotton gin and the treatment of slaves as chattel--these should be removed from at least one and potentially all of the sections in which they occur. The section in Dynamics called "Natural increase vs. systematic breeding" is also pretty biased because it only gives the opinion by two individuals who conform to the natural increase theory. Adding in information about support for the systematic breeding theory would greatly improve this section. I think the topic order is very effective but weight needs to be shifted away from the topics talking about slavery generally and more towards the sections specifically about slave breeding. Documentation and citation is strong overall but can be improved in some areas (as said below). --Cbshier (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is well structured, though it could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the methodology and effects of the practice itself, as well as supplemental examples of the slave experience. An additional concern is that many statements are simply direct quotations from books and other publications (see ‘Slave Accounts’ and ‘Natural Increase vs. Systematic Breeding’). Excellent documentation throughout the section “End of the American Slave Trade”. However, the connections between the end of the Atlantic slave trade and the beginning of the slave breeding process are drawn without reference to any supporting documentation. The only supported point is the introduction of the terminology “breeding slaves”, “child-bearing women”, etc. This seems to be an example of “original research”. The “Slave Accounts” and “Personhood to Thinghood” sections are especially lacking of documentation, as has been noted already. Austenpark (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The article should probably begin with a brief overview of slavery in the United States for background and the economic benefits. Management of slaves was essentially asset management. The books that discuss the economics of slavery also include discussions about breeding, and how the families of slaves were routinely broken up in servicing the assets. Also, I noticed in the lede it says that this is debatable, but I haven't found any source that debates/denies whether or not slaves were breed for genetic traits and to increase number in general. It seems to be commonly accepted as fact since a number of works point to newspaper ads and bills of sale that specifically refer to 'breeding stock.' Malke 2010 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To me this article seems to have very little actual information about slave breeding, rather it primarily consists of general information about slavery that could (IMHO) better be contained in an introductory section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.97.133.244 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. I got very little out of this article for my research. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The "external links" section contains two links of extremely dubious value. I suggest deletion of the entire section. There is no information about Eddie Donoghue anywhere I can find - he has self-published several books with a similar theme; they share a lack of good sourcing and an extremely tendentious position on this issue. The other link is to a genealogy site with a few lines on slave breeding and also no sources or data. I would say that this entire article is an example of "original research" except for the short description of the current consensus view among historians of the subject, explained in Time on the Cross, that slave breeding as described was extremely rare or unknown in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart king (talk • contribs) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrasting scholarly views - "Time on the Cross" vs. "Slavery and the Numbers Game"
I have several issues with this section. First, it seems to be WP:UNDUE if not even borderline WP:FRINGE - it is one 40 year old book which has been mostly negatively reviewed and debunked several times. Secondly, since the citation is placed on the top of the paragraph, it is unclear if all of the content is sourced to the book or if there is some WP:OR in the section. The claim that 'The reports from witnesses are apocryphal in that they never specify any particular place in which breeding practices were alleged to have taken place" is, on the one hand, very much in conflict to current results on the reliability of oral history, and secondly, is contradicted by more modern sources, e.g. . And finally, Fogel and Engerman don't talk of breeding in general, but about "systematic breeding for the market", with a definition that requires particular methods (and weird ones indeed) for reproduction, and also requires the intend of the sale (not just the use) of slaves. I would tend to remove this section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, this weak article might be made truly encyclopedic if the section "Contrasting scholarly views" lived up to its name, with, perhaps, scholarly reviews of "Time on the Cross" cited to establish what the scholarly controversies actually are. See JSTOR reviews of Time On the Cross.  Let's look at these easily verifiable and reliable sources and present summaries with a NPOV and avoid what plagues the rest of this stub,  synthesis and original research. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the major critique is Slavery and the Numbers Game by Herbert Gutman. I've also posted some additional sources on the general topic here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is the book. This Talk section title updated: I would very interested in accurate summaries of the particular claims, evidence and arguments, from both books and subsequent reviews or extensions of controversy. To supplement my link above, see also JSTOR reviews of Slavery and the Numbers Game If you need anything relevant on JSTOR to flesh out this article, please let me know. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Cited source does not support assertion. Suggestion: cite a more authoritative source or provide the correct page number.
As of 15 Jan 2021, the opening two sentences of this Wikipedia article entitled "Breeding of enslaved people in the United States" asserts:

"The breeding of enslaved people in the United States was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of enslaved people to increase their profits.[1] It included coerced sexual relations between enslaved men and women, forced pregnancies of enslaved people, and favoring women who could produce a relatively large number of children.[1]"

Reference #1 is page 72 of ''Marable, Manning (2000). How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society. Boston: South End Press,''

Page 72 does not document the breeding of enslaved people in the United states. Page 72 does not document coerced sexual relations between enslaved men and women.

Perhaps such documentation exists in other parts of Manning Marable's book, "How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society".

If that is the case, this Wikipedia article would be strengthened by pointing the reader to the page that supports the opening sentences of the Wikipedia article.

Billcorr (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. References 1 has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion made by the article's author and reference 2 is a gross speculation applying unrelateed antidotal stories, myths, and or claims. Lebenlernen (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of enslaved people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Poorly sourced article, badly articulated
The entire article is based on the assertion that slave breeding in some systematic manner occurred in the United States and then gives no evidence of its occurrence. The text is devoted to largely tangential issues such as the importation of slaves and the strange aside about "thinghood". This article should be rewritten in a manner that contemplates whether the practice existed at all, and if so, in what form In doing so, it could take inspiration from Kenneth Stampp’s The Peculiar Institution, where he acknowledges the scarcity of sources as to the systematic breeding of slaves but gives background as to how the internal slave trade worked. Otherwise, this article just supports the critics who dub this entire place "Wokepedia" by its tendency toward politically biased articles and ones that stoke the social justice crowd. Sychonic (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank god you're here then. I think you're the only one equipped to make these changes. One of our number one rules around here is "be bold." Go for it! jengod (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Demographics section
"Greater" should be "less". 2:1 is 100 per cent more. 300 per thousand is only 30 per cent more. Moorespoint (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)