Talk:Slavery in the United States/Archive 6

Slavery
Slavery did not begin in 1776. That would mean that slavery lasted only 86 years, which it did not. Just under that the fact that the first enslaved people are coming from the 1500s the statement, in summary, "slavery began in 1776 and ended with the 13th amendment" is invalid. 20 of the first African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. That's still far after the 1500s. Slavery did not begin in the 1700s. There should be no articles that say slavery began at that time. For hundreds of years before 1776, many people were being taken away from their homes and sold into slavery.
 * The article says clearly that there was slavery before 1776. But there were no U.S. before that year. And since the article is not about slavery in general, but about Slavery in the United States, the article is correct. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Slave era" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Slave era. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Style in "Revolutionary era" section
The entire section is written in an essay-like style. This is problematic für NPOV, in my opinion, and also clashes with the style of the rest of the entry. It should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. Taurik (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no comments about white slaves in America (English and Irish), which were estimated at between 300,000 and 500,000 in the 17th and 18th centuries. - 94.26.10.24 (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, they were Indentured servants, and not enslaved people. To call them slaves, we'd need a WP:RS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021
Less of a change and more of a suggestion to add.

Include the practice of illegal slavery in the deep south post 13th ammendment as it is an important aspect of slavery as to how it relates to the modern day with people that have still been under the practice alive today

source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/437573/blacks-were-enslaved-well-into-the-1960s TurkuhTurk (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ TurkuhTurk "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Could you type the exact text you want to add (along with citations), and give the name of the section where you think that should be, so an editor can review it then copy-and-paste your addition? Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Black" and "White"
MOS:PEOPLANG now says that "Black" and "White" should be written with consistent capitalization throughout each article: that is, they should be either consistently both capitalized or consistently not capitalized throughout. Currently, the capitalization in this article is inconsistent: it looks to me like most instances of "Black" are capitalized but some are not, and "White" is mostly not capitalized. We should go through this article and change it to one of the two styles, but which one? Qzekrom (she/her &bull; talk) 04:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I personally prefer "Black" and "White", since it refers to an ethnicity, not to the actual colour of the skin. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like you didn't see this discussion before changing "Black" to "black".
 * Let me add one more point: I think a sentence containing "Irish Americans and Black Americans" looks better than "Irish Americans and black Americans". --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I changed to lowercase the instances in which "black" was capitalized (about half the mentions) in order to make it consistent; "white" already was in lowercase. Of course, when "black" is part of a term that is traditionally written in uppercase (such as "Black Seminoles" and "the Black Church"), I didn't change those to lowercase, since I do not believe that the consistency rule would apply there.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, I totally agree that capitalization has to be consistent and that "Black Seminoles" / "the Black Church" are proper names in their own right. But my suggestion is to achieve consistency by capitalizing both "Black" and "White". --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
In the section under 1850 it says slaves took the underground railway to Canada. Canada came into existence in 1867. If the area in question is modern day Ontario, that would be the British Colony of Upper Canada. Links on Canada, and upper Canada are in Wikipedia.


 * ❌ Even if not official, the term "Canada" was in daily use many years before 1867. "Canada" is used in many contemporary books (e.g. slave narratives). --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Just saw that somebody else did it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I apologize for having jumped the gun and changing the reference from "Canada" to "Upper Canada" without waiting to see if anyone would comment to the request and before delving further into the subject. I subsequently realized that the area north of the U.S. border to which some slaves escaped ceased being known as "Upper Canada" in 1841, when Upper and Lower Canada were combined to form the Province of Canada, and that the article specifically referred to Underground Railroad journeys after 1850. I have made the appropriate corrections to the article.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sokoto Caliphate
From Sokoto Caliphate:
 * The jihad had created "a new slaving frontier on the basis of rejuvenated Islam." By 1900 the Sokoto state had "at least 1 million and perhaps as many as 2.5 million slaves", second only to the United States (which had 4 million in 1860) in size among all modern slave societies. However, there was far less of a distinction between slaves and their masters in the Sokoto state.

Should this page mention the slavery in Sokoto for comparison? --Error (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP follows mainstream scholarship. This means: If academic historians of U.S. slavery mention it, then we should follow them. Otherwise, we shouldn't. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Maryland; edit comment
Maryland is listed among the states where slavery lasted until the 13th Amendment. This is an error. Slavery was abolished in the 1864 Constitution, ratified in November of that year. This WP article should confirm that. The wording of the Constitution is "That hereafter, in this State, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; and all persons held to service or labor as slaves, are hereby declared free."

Removing Maryland should be enough. That the involuntary servitude in NJ was no longer called slavery is perhaps beyond the scope of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see this has been improved. But the 200 unfree persons in New Jersey should also be mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Article seems to long
According to WP:SIZESPLIT, an article with more than 100,000 characters of readable prose is definitely too long. This article has nearly 144,000 (see the page statistics).

I personally would not like to split the article, but I think a lot of sections might be pruned. Any thoughts ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Indentured Servitude 1619
The source provided comes off the Hampton Virginia website. I don’t understand why one person continues to undo my sourced edits without proper sourcing to dispute my edits. A neutral eye on the subject is needed Robjwev (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I talked to the Hampton Virginia museum and all information about the 1619 landing is “fair use” material. She will ensure that a copyright use notice will be added to that particular page to satisfy everyone’s concerns. Robjwev (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Found more information about the indentured Servitude Contracts for this area of Virginia and will correct the record with references. Robjwev (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted you once again because of the numerous errors you made (grammar, spelling, style - for the style see WP:TONE). But after reading the source you provided (thanks for that !), I agree with you that there are a lot of problems in this part of the article. Another problem is the statement in the hatnote: This article is about slavery from the founding of the United States in 1776. For the colonial period, see Slavery in the colonial history of the United States. meaning the whole problem should be discussed not here, but in the other article. The more so, because this article is too long. Any thoughts ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that some parts of this page should be moved to colonial history of the United States. I believe that a lengthy discussion should be had before moving anything to ensure other editors voices are heard. Robjwev (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That was never a problem before I started my edits. If that's the case everything during the colonial period needs to be erased. I will reverse your undo. If there are errors address the errors undoing others' work over something you could have worked to improve is not in the spirit of for collaborative work we are supposed to be doing.Robjwev (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the following sentence: Colonists did not make indenture contracts with any of the Africans arriving in British privateer ships, all remained enslaved for life. Is this actually firmly established? I think the current scholarly view is that the first Africans in Virginia were probably treated essentially as slaves, but that there is poor documentation about what happened to individual people, and that some Africans did become free (and even own indentured servants and slaves). The source used for the sentence in question is not a scholarly work, and it appears to be a document drawn up by a small museum. While the document does cite various scholarly articles, it also speaks positively of the fringe view that Africans traveled to Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times and influenced the Olmec civilization (see p.21 of the source). We need better sources here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough thanks for your input I will find other sources to back up my edit. This museum is the museum from the subject area some of the information used is from local records only available in that location. I think we should not dismiss their work as “a document drawn up by a small museum” they have invested interest to get this information right. Robjwev (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

1) I agree that this article should do a better job of summarizing the colonial period and move detail to the colonial article. (See WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT) 2) Having read the source article, I think it's a useful survey by a historian. It is published for a museum exhibition, and although not an academic journal, it is a general survey article of scholarship, and thus a decent and recent largely tertiary source (now of course, it may be wrong but that would need an examination it's sources and other scholarship.) I do not read it as positively giving credence to the Olmec issue, rather it sets it up and debunks it saying it is unsupported (Also, that end section is, in the way of such a magazine, cursory on 'other theories' and I would not use that cursory section for much of anything, although it can point to better, in-depth sources for that cursory information).--Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It calls some of the evidence for the Olmec theory "compelling", which is what set my warning sirens off. I think we should find better sources, preferably in academic journals or monographs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The complete sentence is "Although there is no genetic or archaeological evidence to support this theory, the most compelling support comes from masks and sculptures of heads that seem to show African features." I'd prefer a better source (peer-reviewed), but for the time being, the Hampton source looks quite reliable. Does anybody know what Ira Berlin says ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's no collaboration taking place in improving this section despite sources being provided. I understand that better sourcing is the goal but this source meets sourcing guidelines. Compromise is the goal but this section has been systematically edited back to its original form. Why is this small section being guarded so heavily? Compromise is necessary content and sourcing is key what can be done to improve this? I'm going to revert it back to User:Thucydides411 edit any objections? I will wait around for input to avoid any perceived edit war accusations. Robjwev (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

More information to back up my sourcing and my version of this section...not scholarly in the way some might want it to be but it meets WP:Source standards. https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/08/11/what-are-we-commemorating-much-of-what-weve-been-told-about-virginias-1619-first-africans-is-wrong/ Robjwev (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * For my objections please see my edit summaries. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Lee's letter on slavery
Looking for clarification -- on Robert E. Lee's wikipedia page, it contains an excerpt of a letter. That page states it was addressed to his wife. On the wikipedia page 'Slavery in the United States', the same excerpt is included, however this page states that his letter was addressed to President Franklin Pierce.

I am ignorant as to the source of the letter and its addressee, so I am looking to clarify so that the two pages have the facts straight and do not contradict one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.228.181 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Lee's letter was to his wife, but was in response to a speech by President Pierce.  I will clarify that point in the article.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The addressee of the letter and the circumstances which gave rise to it do not seem to be clear from the cited source. Presumably AuH2ORepublican has an additional source which should be cited in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on Robert E. Lee cites two reliable sources to the assertion that the 1856 letter was addressed to Lee's wife. One of them is to a prominent biography of Lee, which text is not available online (at least not for free), while the second is to a Los Angeles Times article that may be read here:  https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-washington-and-lee-20170817-htmlstory.html. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't doubt that there was a reference to deal with this point, but it should be in the article, not the talk page. Taking a strict view on referencing, I would never add a citation without the source available for me to read and check, so if anyone has access to the biography (which appears to be a better source - the other verges on mentioning the circumstances of the letter in passing), it would be helpful if this could be added to the article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an excerpt from Emory Thomas's 1997 biography of Lee that makes crystal clear that the passage is from a letter to his wife Mary: https://books.google.com/books?id=jJWR80JZ_hsC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=%22emory+m.+thomas%22+%22In+this+enlightened+age%22&source=bl&ots=SUgGpZFvsp&sig=ACfU3U3af0mVclJ4AnJQzfBjLDXN5iYGgA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5yfLmsoTyAhVLVTABHRzwBXYQ6AEwA3oECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=%22emory%20m.%20thomas%22%20%22In%20this%20enlightened%20age%22&f=false I've added a citation to Thomas to the quotation in the Slavery article.  Thanks for your attention to detail.  Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Esteban 1528
I recently added content about the first African slave in North America, which was actually just two years after the San Miguel colony mentioned in the intro of the history section on this article. Two different users have removed the content without explanation, merely asserting that it belongs in an article about the history of slavery in the colonial United States—which obviously makes no sense, as there was no colony at the time of Esteban's arrival (and it is exactly the same kind of content as that with sandwiched it in the intro to the history section). Can anyone explain why this information doesn't belong here? natemup (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the page became enormous and broken up by periods. So it does not take away from the content, but the move makes sense, in my opinion. Adding reference would also help; it will keep people from reverting to your addition. Robjwev (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this to talk. The hatnote of this article says, "This article is about slavery from the founding of the United States in 1776", while Slavery in the colonial history of the United States starts with the words "Slavery in the colonial history of the United States, from 1526 to 1776 ...". At the time of Esteban's arrival there may have been no colony, but it surely belongs in the history of the founding of the Spanish colony. You are right that this article mentions other details from the (pre-)colonial period. In my view, those details should not be here, either. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should definitely move some of that detail to the other article (see, SPLIT and Summary style).  The idea is, we really summarize some of the pre-1776 article for context, and leave fuller treatment to the dedicated pre-1776 article (the Main article for that).  That way, we reduce the risk of two out-of-control pages saying multiple things, and have one logical sequence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mwhelan28. Peer reviewers: Mwhelan28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Great Britain introduced slavery into the colonies
Many Scots were treated poorly in the early years of the colonies, as well - and thousands were indentured servants. It is for this reason that we ask you to remove the image of an auction block in Campbell County, VA but specifically name the city/town within Campbell County, VA that held the auctions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:3601:E33A:84E7:CC4B:77CB:4C93 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * this is a garbled comment --the main issue is unclear. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can see the details here, "Photograph of the slave auction block at Green Hill Plantation, Pannill family plantation, located on State Route 728, Long Island vicinity, Campbell County, Virginia. Photograph from the Historic American Building Survey, The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C." JaXon.Bailey (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
Prior to my edit, the entry stated: "Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and said that a final proclamation would be issued if his gradual plan, based on compensated emancipation and voluntary colonization, was rejected. Only the District of Columbia accepted Lincoln's gradual plan, and Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863."

Lincoln's plan of gradual compensated emancipation (not "gradual plan"; the plan would not have been gradual) was aimed at the Border states — Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri — which had not seceded and so were not in rebellion. The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation provided that Lincoln would free the slaves in the states in rebellion on January 1, 1863. Therefore, the plan of gradual compensated emancipation had nothing to do with the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

The District of Columbia was not (and is not) a state, let alone a Border state, and it did not "accept" Lincoln's plan of compensated emancipation. Rather Congress, which has power over the District of Columbia that it does not have over the states, enacted a statute that freed the slaves in the District of Columbia.

Here is a bonus fact, which does not directly relate to the above. Some enslaved people in D.C. earned money on the side and used it to purchase their own their freedom. Then they purchased the freedom of their wives and children. Under the D.C. compensated emancipation law, they claimed that they were slave owners — that they "owned" their wives and children — and they applied for compensation. They got it.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad sentence in lede
This sentence is erroneous and should be changed: “Due to Union measures such as the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the war effectively ended chattel slavery in most places.”

These actions didn’t free slaves in areas not controlled by Union forces “effectively”. Since most of the south was still unoccupied, they had nominal substantive effect even if symbolically important. Sych (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right. I took care of it, distinguishing between freeing slaves and ending slavery. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What? The entire south was occupied by the the end of the war.  Every military command district enforced the Emancipation Proclamation the last was Juneteenth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alanscottwalker. The sentence is fine it says "the war effectively ended" slavery and it means winning the war meant spreading the Emancipation Proclamation to every part of the Confederacy ending in Juneteenth in Texas. Rjensen (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You explained one of your edits with "restore chronology." In fact, the states that abolished slavery during the war did so after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. See End of slavery in the United States of America. But this does not require an edit, because your edit itself does not mention chronology. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * States abolish slavery in 1864 and early 1865, during the War. The Union troops continue the advance and under martial law continue to effectuate the Emancipation Proclamation through to mid-June. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Infographic map POV
There is a map shown in extra large size near the top of the article that claims to show the current legality status of slavery in the United States. It is way bigger than the map that shows which states were slave states before the American Civil War.

This big map has some areas labeled as "Slavery and involuntary servitude banned unless a person consents to being a slave or an involuntary servant or the person is under 21 years of age or ...". I can't help but feel like some clarification is missing here, or to be more blunt, that this is mischaracterizing what it is claiming to illustrate.
 * How is the servitude "involuntary" if "a person consents" to it? This seems like patent nonsense.
 * How can a person consent to "being a slave"? Doesn't the whole idea of slavery involve a lack of consent?
 * So this is saying it is legal to enslave someone if they are under 21 years of age? This also seems like patent nonsense.

There are also some areas labeled as "Slavery and involuntary servitude by the jurisdiction legal under the jurisdictions' constitution". These areas are colored in bright red, which seems to portray them as particularly alarming (or perhaps Republican, since the color code somewhat corresponds to the red states and blue states color coding).

I personally doubt that slavery is actually legal in most of New England and in Idaho and Washington, and even in Alaska, Florida and Texas.

I have the impression that this infographic is POV, designed to promote the idea that the federal prohibition of slavery is not sufficient and that some of the state constitutions need to be changed. I think it fundamentally mischaracterizes, or at least presents a very POV interpretation of the current status of slavery in the United States.

I think it also trivializes the concept of slavery. The ordinary definition of slavery involves treating someone as mere property without any civil rights. This seems to use some other definition of slavery.

I suggest removing this map. I think it is unhelpful junk.

After making the comments above, I notice that this map was just added to the article yesterday! I have removed it.

—&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The map's file, which is user generated, cites a website, but even that website does not actually support the contentions made in the user generated map. So, yes it's POV or just plain wrong. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All the map does is highlight what that constitution of each state says. Even the website references those relevant sections of the constitutions and you can search up those sections of the constitutions that were cited so I don’t under stand where “but even that website does not actually support the contentions made in the user generated map” is derived from. I can understand why it was removed but that it sparked a discussion which is good. What is ridiculous is the allegation that the coloring refers to red state and blue state political coloring. The coloring is based on the File:Death penalty in the United States with hiatuses.svg map and last time I checked Nebraska, Kansas, and Alabama, among other states, are heavy red states whilst New York, New Jersey, and Washington, among other states, are heavily blue. Maybe do not state something as ridiculous as that in an attempt to discredit the map. Quite appalling that a Wikipedian would just attribute something like that when there is no reason as to why to do that. Fluffy89502 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @BarrelProof Also state constitutions and laws can state things that are less restrictive than federal law. Yes, Vermonts constitution states that somebody under 21 can be enslaved, but federally that is unlawful so it will never happen. Also, just because the state constitution permits it does not mean that state law does. Vermont has a false imprisonment criminal statute. I don’t know if you are familiar with law but different laws can be contradictory and there is nothing stopping a state legislature or constitutional convention from enacting a statute that carries the full force of state law stating that slavery is unlawful unless the person consents to it. Fluffy89502 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @BarrelProof and no, I am not trying to “promote the idea that the federal prohibition of slavery is not sufficient and that some of the state constitutions need to be changed”. What I do on Commons is make maps reflecting election results and laws by jurisdiction. Also the map is only a map that highlights what the constituion of each state prohibits and permits, not what their state law that can easily be amended by the state legislature states Fluffy89502 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the map is very accurate at highlighting the current legality penal labor in the United States. So maybe it should not be at the top of the slavery page and in the depths of the same. Either way I would like to know what others think about it instead of hiding the file somewhere. Fluffy89502 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @BarrelProof It seems that you don’t know much about law (I may be wrong, but that’s what it seems like). 90% of my work on this site revolves around law, including this map. I was just trying to make a map that does a good job at highlighting the penal labor laws in the United States in a similar manner that there is a map that highlights the legal status around the death penalty in the United States. So stating that creating a map like this “junk” and that it “trivializes the concept of slavery” and that it’s a POV is quite shocking to me. The only point of the map is the reflect what the laws state, not to highlight the horrors of slavery. Laws can be contradictory and there can be other laws which define the terms used. It just leaves me speechless and implies that you are absolutely clueless when it comes to law. Hopefully you can learn from this that law is a unique world on how it functions. I guess I am just trivializing the death penalty by updating the death penalty map. Wow. Wtf is that though process? Fluffy89502 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have struck a couple of my more over-the-top emotional comments above. However, looking up the source, it appears that the cited source is an advocacy organization, and that the organization basically produced this characterization for the POV purpose that I had guessed – i.e., it is tracking the success of efforts to change state constitutions. The title of the page is "EFFORTS BY STATES TO ELIMINATE THE EXCEPTION ALLOWING SLAVERY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME". I don't really see a reason for us on Wikipedia to highlight what each state constitution says on the matter –  e.g., since a state constitution is only one component of the legal framework in effect. In addition to state constitutions, there is a federal constitution and there are state laws and federal laws (and common law, I suppose, and international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Although the map may be based on fact, it seems WP:UNDUE and designed for a POV purpose. Also, some people equate penal labor with slavery while some do not. The map also mixes in the concept of "involuntary servitude" with the concept of slavery, and those are not necessarily the same thing –  e.g., various prominent people in American history served for some period of time as indentured servants –  is that equated with "involuntary servitude" in this chart? Is it still practiced anywhere? Apparently some people also argue that military conscription and even compulsory schooling are involuntary servitude, according to the article on that subject. Basically, I still don't think the map should be in this article. If a map is going to be included in the penal labor article, I think it should only cover data about penal labor, and rather than being about what state constitutions say, it should simply cover where penal labor is actually practiced and where it is not (e.g., if unlawful under state law outside of the state constitution, or if it is hypothetically allowed but not currently being used somewhere). —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging from your statements I think it is inappropriate to display this map on the slavery page. However, I do think that the map should be used on the penal labor page. The map highlights the legal status of penal labor on each jurisdiction even though each jurisdiction has false-imprisonment laws, for example. I do need to find a source that highlights the actual use of penal labor and not the legal status though. What do you think? Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The map is a misrepresentation of the source, for example for the state of Illinois, the source does not say, "Slavery and involuntary servitude by the jurisdiction legal under the jurisdictions' constitution" (sic), rather the source says Illinois's "constitution is without mention of slavery". This is a 'so what' because what the Illinois constitution says in the first article of its bill of rights is: "All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  Being "free and independent" and having an inalienable right of liberty is the opposite of slavery. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalkerthat could be true, but there can also be a clause somewhere else in the constitution which states that the language is not to be construed to prohibit penal labor. For example, see 1972 California Proposition 17. Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your speculation is useless. What's true is the map is a made-up fabrication, unsupported even by its own source. It belongs nowhere in the encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Dower slavery
I think there should be a section on this. Not sure where it should go. Was very important to George Washington. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 22:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022
The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865, predominantly in the South. X Kingdom of Dahomey as a major power on the Atlantic coast of modern-day Benin until French conquest. The kingdom became a major regional power in the 1720s when it conquered the coastal kingdoms of Allada and Whydah. With control over these key coastal cities, Dahomey became a major center in the Atlantic Slave Trade until 1852 when the British imposed a naval blockade to stop the trade. X Slavery was established throughout European colonization in the Americas. From 1526, during early colonial days, it was practiced in what became Britain's colonies, including the Thirteen Colonies that formed the United States. Under the law, an enslaved person was treated as property that could be bought, sold, or given away. Slavery lasted in about half of U.S. states until abolition. In the decades after the end of Reconstruction, many of slavery's economic and social functions were continued through segregation, sharecropping, and convict leasing. Brandonbenson6 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Legal slavery today in the US
Would it not be relevant to add a blurb in the modern section on how slavery is still constitutional in the U.S? It’s only indirectly stated in the article, but the 13th amendment only banned it for people who aren’t imprisoned 2601:89:C600:2156:F5BF:E9E3:70DC:AF1 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Today, nobody calls a prisoner "slave". --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is already covered in a hatnote which links to an article about that topic. pburka (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Category: Black slave owners in the United States
The category was deleted with no explanation. From what I can see in the present form of this article, it is wide-ranging and this category would add to the topic. Editors complains that Wikipedia is becoming a hostile place to edit. I want to counter that trend. On the question of retaining or deleting this category, I look to the community of editors for wisdom. Pete unseth (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I deleted it. The article has no particular content relative to the category. Without it, the category is inappropriate. deisenbe (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Editors complains that Wikipedia is becoming a hostile place to edit." Considering decades-worth of heated arguments and mutual resentment, it has been less-than-friendly for quite a while. Anyway, how many articles were included in this deleted category? Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dimadick, the category still exists, see Category:Black_slave_owners_in_the_United_States. deisenbe was completely correct in removing this article from the category, see WP:DEFINING. Also, the other articles in the category are about individuals. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Domestic slave trade which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Civil War did not end slavery
I request that we change the sentence "the war effectively ended slavery in most places", as it did not end slavery. Slavery is still technically allowed under the Thirteenth Amendment, the war simply ended the right to own slaves privately. 174.88.140.22 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Census slave population by state, 1790-1860
I've been unable to verify the Distribution of Slaves table in the Distribution section. The original source, though supposedly archived, can no longer be accessed. Meanwhile, I checked this table's stats against a reliable source, Historical Statistics of the United States, that's based on U.S. Census figures. In all, I found 20 slight differences for individual census year/state combinations out of a total of about 300 entries. The one major difference is that the new source gives a total for Virginia without providing a separate listing for West Virginia, which did not exist in 1860.

Since the original table is no longer available and I can't find other similar tables for verification, would it be alright to replace the figures that vary and use the above as the source? Allreet (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good idea to me. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Padrone act of 1874?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padrone_Act_of_1874

Padrone Act of 1874 (18 Stat. 251) was authorized by the 43rd United States Congress and enacted into law in the United States on June 23, 1874. The Act of Congress was a response to the exploitation of immigrant children dependent on forced begging which criminalized the practice of [B]enslaving[/B], buying, selling, or holding any person in involuntary servitude. 74.88.45.25 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How a Grad Student Uncovered the Largest Known Slave Auction in the U.S.
From ProPublica:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-grad-student-discovered-largest-us-slave-auction

"Until Davila’s discovery, the largest known slave auction in the U.S. was one that was held over two days in 1859 just outside Savannah, Georgia, roughly 100 miles down the Atlantic coast ... The horrors of that auction have been chronicled in books and articles, including The New York Times’ 1619 Project ... A ProPublica reporter found the original ad for the sale, which ran more than two weeks before the one Davila spotted. Published on Feb. 6, 1835, it revealed that the sale of 600 people was part of the estate auction for John Ball Jr., scion of a slave-owning planter regime. Ball had died the previous year, and now five of his plantations were listed for sale — along with the people enslaved on them. The Ball family might not be a household name outside of South Carolina, but it is widely known within the state thanks to a descendant named Edward Ball who wrote a bestselling book in 1998 that bared the family’s skeletons — and, with them, those of other Southern slave owners."

Many good details in this story, would be nice to include info about the largest known slave auction in US history, here on this Wikipedia article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC).


 * This information has been included in this new page: list of largest slave sales in the United States. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. jengod (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Photos of enslaved people
What are people's thoughts on illustrating this article? Hello @Alanscottwalker et al. I personally think it's important to show that actual living human people were enslaved but there's a *very* limited quantity of photographs and most photos are *after* emancipation. Photos provide concrete visual context for slavery that text alone or photos of objects or paintings of enslavers or philosophers or politicians doesn't entirely provide, IMHO. But also I don't want to convey the impression that the *most important aspect of any person's life was that they were enslaved. jengod (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As I suggested in my edit summary, whatever image is used, as the 'first' image used, it should not be that one that is after slavery. It is too jarring as a matter of substance and chronology.  Being out of slavery - after all slavery is over, even - is 'wrong' on several levels.  (Also, that picture because of distance, perhaps quality, also, shows those depicted as an undifferentiated mass, not persons as individuals). Let me further note, for historical articles, contemporaneous illustrations are often used, if there are really no good photographs. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have also objected to the montage, as I said . . .although in some ways better, it is still objectionable as it places the emphasis on life after slavery, life after slavery was not the experience of most slaves, and is a rather more hopeful image, than the reality allows (especially given the images chosen), also it suggests that narrative that is current, that slavery prepared them for something better. Perhaps it helps going forward, to realize we are illustrating an institution, a grievous institution no doubt, but that is what this article is about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)